Gail Lindenberg, a long-time friend and Facebook friend, recently posted this as her status:
"It's not what you say, it's not how you say it either, it's what you believe and what you do about it."
Gail's status resulted in a discussion about what posts appear on Facebook. I immediately thought about comments made by five of my FB friends in the last month about hating all the political posts they see. Hmmm ... I certainly must be in that hated group because many of my posts are political in nature - and I mentioned that in my reply to Gail's status, including the fact that I would probably be dropped by some FB friends. Then Gail said this:
"... Much of
what I post politically fulfills my need to speak my mind. I know there
are some who have blocked my posts because they are entrenched in their
own views. As for me, I like to know what others think. It informs my
own opinion. When I watch a debate, I want to see both sides. When I
taught debate, my students were trained to research pro and con so that
they could point out fallacies and support strong logic. Our public
debates are, all too often, a series of pundit points parroted. ... We do change the world with our views. We
sustain ignorance with silence."
So, why do I post political messages ... and political information? Because I'm doing something about my beliefs. I'm trying to change the world even though many people don't think that can happen - especially on Facebook. But I'm a history teacher. I KNOW people can change the world because I teach that very thing every single day. Ordinary people who voiced opinions, ordinary people who got involved in whatever way they could. Ordinary people like you and me who made a difference - and changed the world. Maybe I can be one of them.
I just went through my Facebook newsfeed covering several months. Here are the topics my Facebook friends tend to post most often:
Football Photos Recipes
God & Jesus Quotes Dogs
Rescue dogs Gardening Politics
Arts & crafts Basketball Jokes
Cats Music FB games
Military Fashion Children
Grandchildren Movies Books
Hockey Hiking Education
Memes Sex Partying
Travel Work College stuff
Lost pets Shopping Baseball
Celebrities Love life Science
Health info Horses Community events
Soccer Weather History
I'm not interested - at all - in 26 of those 42 topics. However, there's only one that would cause me to hide someone from my newsfeed (and that's only if the posts became oppressive or rude). The other topics I just ignore and move on.
When my five Facebook friends mentioned their disgust with political comments, I immediately thought I should pull back ... ration my status posts that are political in nature. But, wait just a darn minute ... that would be putting my own interests on a shelf, thereby letting others determine what's important to me!
We come from different backgrounds and have different experiences. We have different opinions and are in different stages of life. We are individuals, therefore our Facebook involvement will be as unique as we are.
So ... party on, Facebook friends! Do your thing! If I'm not interested in certain topics, I'll move to the next post. I'll celebrate our differences - and I will enjoy your Facebook friendship.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Monday, November 19, 2012
Taxes are good!
For what seems like forever, the Republicans have put the word "taxes" in an extremely negative frame. The Tea Party took it even farther. And most recent Republican candidates signed Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes or implement new ones. The GOP has, for decades, been associated with the anti-tax agenda.
Do I love paying taxes? No ... but I'm putting myself in the same box as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who wrote in the 1927 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue:
"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society …"
Ah ... just what does that mean? Let's take a look ...
Many government programs or activities work very effectively to solve society's problems. And let's face it ... the government is the only way to make sure this country promotes our values such as justice. So, the taxes needed to support those programs should be seen as a positive. To put it another way, you can’t support the things the government does – like caring for the elderly, establishing justice, providing public education, fighting terrorism, and protecting the environment – and still maintain that the taxes that support those things are bad!
To be specific, here are just a few of the things our taxes support:
Roads
Bridges
National security
National defense
Libraries
Public education
Parks
Court system
Jails/prisons
Police
Firefighters
Purification of air and water
Natural disasters
Okay ... just which of those do you want to give up? Huh? Do you want all of those programs - or even some of them - privatized? Then be prepared to pay a LOT more for your individual subscription!
As linguist George Lakoff explains in “Progressive Frame for Taxes” (Rockridge Institute, August 25, 2006): "Taxes are our dues — we pay our dues to be Americans and enjoy the benefits of American society. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society that is democratic, offers opportunity, and has a huge infrastructure available to all citizens. This incredible infrastructure has been paid for by previous taxpayers. Roads and highways, the Internet, the broadcast airwaves, our public education system, our power grid — every day we all use this vast infrastructure. Our dues maintain it."
So ... quit your bitching! Everyone needs to pay their fair share and that includes the wealthy and corporations. American citizens pay less taxes than many people in other industrialized nations. And we get more bang for our buck, too.
The next time a Republican calls "taxes" a dirty word, ask him what he wants to give up. Then watch him squirm.
Do I love paying taxes? No ... but I'm putting myself in the same box as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who wrote in the 1927 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue:
"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society …"
Ah ... just what does that mean? Let's take a look ...
Many government programs or activities work very effectively to solve society's problems. And let's face it ... the government is the only way to make sure this country promotes our values such as justice. So, the taxes needed to support those programs should be seen as a positive. To put it another way, you can’t support the things the government does – like caring for the elderly, establishing justice, providing public education, fighting terrorism, and protecting the environment – and still maintain that the taxes that support those things are bad!
To be specific, here are just a few of the things our taxes support:
Roads
Bridges
National security
National defense
Libraries
Public education
Parks
Court system
Jails/prisons
Police
Firefighters
Purification of air and water
Natural disasters
Okay ... just which of those do you want to give up? Huh? Do you want all of those programs - or even some of them - privatized? Then be prepared to pay a LOT more for your individual subscription!
As linguist George Lakoff explains in “Progressive Frame for Taxes” (Rockridge Institute, August 25, 2006): "Taxes are our dues — we pay our dues to be Americans and enjoy the benefits of American society. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society that is democratic, offers opportunity, and has a huge infrastructure available to all citizens. This incredible infrastructure has been paid for by previous taxpayers. Roads and highways, the Internet, the broadcast airwaves, our public education system, our power grid — every day we all use this vast infrastructure. Our dues maintain it."
So ... quit your bitching! Everyone needs to pay their fair share and that includes the wealthy and corporations. American citizens pay less taxes than many people in other industrialized nations. And we get more bang for our buck, too.
The next time a Republican calls "taxes" a dirty word, ask him what he wants to give up. Then watch him squirm.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Ryan - help or hinder?
Mitt Romney named Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) as his vice-presidential running mate. So ... just what does that mean to Romney? And to the voters? This is MY take on the situation and I want to make this clear: I speak for no one else. I will NOT be sharing my opinions with my students; my job is to help them develop the tools they need in order to arrive at their own opinions.
Economics: The Romney-Ryan ticket finally has something to tell voters. Up until now, Romney ran as the "if you want to get rid of Obama, I'm the alternative whether you like me or not" candidate. He had no talking points, no plans, and couldn't even follow his own script. Now the Republicans have an economy script - and it was written by Ryan in the form of the Ryan Budget (approved twice by the GP-controlled Congress and endorsed wholeheartedly by Romney).
Ryan's budget gives additional, substantial tax cuts to the wealthy - at the expense of everyone else. The theory is this: the wealthy will then invest, create jobs, and the wealth will - magically - find its way down to the rest of us. Problem: the wealthy don't invest and create jobs. They send jobs overseas to save money and hike profits; they put money in offshore accounts in order to avoid taxes. Uh ... does that sound familiar, Mr. Romney? We already experienced eight years of those economic policies with George Bush. Add deregulation of a corrupt banking industry and two wars, and we ended up in the worst economic situation since the Great Depression!
So ... the Romney-Ryan ticket DOES give voters a VERY clear choice regarding the economy: go back to what has already failed or be bold and push forward with a plan that hasn't been given the time (or cooperation) needed to make it work. Warning to Obama-Biden: we want to see your plans, too!
Ryan is a darling of the Tea Party folks ... but Romney already had them. The GOP ticket will have to persuade independent and moderate Republicans that this is the way to go.
That brings us to social issues. Ryan's budget changes the way this nation treats our elderly, our ill, our women, and our poor. If you're over 55, you don't need to worry about Medicare being disemboweled but if you're under 55, you need to pay attention. Instead of getting actual health care when you are at the right age, you will get a voucher so you can purchase your own health insurance - if you can afford it. Ryan says competition will result in lower premiums but that's debatable. If you can't find health insurance that your voucher will pay for ... sorry, you're on your own.
I think that's going to be a tough sell to seniors - and those nearing the so-called "senior" years.
Ryan (therefore, Romney) wants to change Medicaid - the poor's access to health care. His plan would give block grants to states and give the states more freedom to determine who gets help - and how much. But the money is much less than states get now. So ... who's going to be left out?
This tact will, of course, be very popular with the Tea Party and the rich Republicans. Again, it may not play well with voters who have actually experienced some hard times and had to ask for assistance. They vote, too, you know. (Okay, they'll vote unless they are prohibited from doing so by the current rash of Voter ID regulations that are designed to engineer a Romney win - hey, a top Republican admitted that - I didn't make it up!).
Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I don't know enough about his plan so if someone can give me some details, I'm listening! But I will say this ... Social Security is NOT an "entitlement." That money was yanked from my paycheck by my government and when it's time, I want some of it back!
As for women ... I see nothing about Ryan that should interest women who want to live in 2012 instead of going back to the 1950s. Romney, at one time, believed women should make their own reproductive choices; Ryan has never believed that. He has voted for every anti-choice measure, including a couple that ban some forms of contraception. Ryan says he will not fund Planned Parenthood, thus throwing thousands and thousands of women under the bus when it comes to health screenings, prevention treatment, and contraception. Ryan voted against re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a measure that's had bipartisan support since the very beginning ... until the current crop of Republicans took control of the House.
Romney won't get any female converts with Ryan on the ticket. He will have the extreme right - but he had them all along.
Education: College students can't be too thrilled with Ryan because he plans to slash Pell Grants. For thousands of young people, those grants are the only way they'll ever be able to enroll in a college course, let alone get the education they will need to compete in a global economy and help THIS economy grow.
Bottom line?
The good news for Republicans: Ryan actually gives the GOP ticket something to talk about. It gives the campaign direction.
The bad news for Republicans: Ryan actually gives the GOP ticket something to talk about. But the direction may be too extreme and too restrictive to be popular with the average American who doesn't have enough money for an offshore account.
The good new for voters: We now have a VERY clear choice. We return to the Bush policies - and get what we got before. Or we push forward ... put statesmen in office instead of pledge-signing ideologues ... and work together to solve problems and improve the future.
I actually believe the 2012 election is the most important one in my lifetime. Unfortunately, many voters don't read anything other than the TV Guide or the mall sales promotions. They'll vote based on 1) their political party or 2) a 60-second TV commercial. Or they'll say politics doesn't affect them and they'll stay home.
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." ~Dante
Economics: The Romney-Ryan ticket finally has something to tell voters. Up until now, Romney ran as the "if you want to get rid of Obama, I'm the alternative whether you like me or not" candidate. He had no talking points, no plans, and couldn't even follow his own script. Now the Republicans have an economy script - and it was written by Ryan in the form of the Ryan Budget (approved twice by the GP-controlled Congress and endorsed wholeheartedly by Romney).
Ryan's budget gives additional, substantial tax cuts to the wealthy - at the expense of everyone else. The theory is this: the wealthy will then invest, create jobs, and the wealth will - magically - find its way down to the rest of us. Problem: the wealthy don't invest and create jobs. They send jobs overseas to save money and hike profits; they put money in offshore accounts in order to avoid taxes. Uh ... does that sound familiar, Mr. Romney? We already experienced eight years of those economic policies with George Bush. Add deregulation of a corrupt banking industry and two wars, and we ended up in the worst economic situation since the Great Depression!
So ... the Romney-Ryan ticket DOES give voters a VERY clear choice regarding the economy: go back to what has already failed or be bold and push forward with a plan that hasn't been given the time (or cooperation) needed to make it work. Warning to Obama-Biden: we want to see your plans, too!
Ryan is a darling of the Tea Party folks ... but Romney already had them. The GOP ticket will have to persuade independent and moderate Republicans that this is the way to go.
That brings us to social issues. Ryan's budget changes the way this nation treats our elderly, our ill, our women, and our poor. If you're over 55, you don't need to worry about Medicare being disemboweled but if you're under 55, you need to pay attention. Instead of getting actual health care when you are at the right age, you will get a voucher so you can purchase your own health insurance - if you can afford it. Ryan says competition will result in lower premiums but that's debatable. If you can't find health insurance that your voucher will pay for ... sorry, you're on your own.
I think that's going to be a tough sell to seniors - and those nearing the so-called "senior" years.
Ryan (therefore, Romney) wants to change Medicaid - the poor's access to health care. His plan would give block grants to states and give the states more freedom to determine who gets help - and how much. But the money is much less than states get now. So ... who's going to be left out?
This tact will, of course, be very popular with the Tea Party and the rich Republicans. Again, it may not play well with voters who have actually experienced some hard times and had to ask for assistance. They vote, too, you know. (Okay, they'll vote unless they are prohibited from doing so by the current rash of Voter ID regulations that are designed to engineer a Romney win - hey, a top Republican admitted that - I didn't make it up!).
Ryan wants to privatize Social Security. I don't know enough about his plan so if someone can give me some details, I'm listening! But I will say this ... Social Security is NOT an "entitlement." That money was yanked from my paycheck by my government and when it's time, I want some of it back!
As for women ... I see nothing about Ryan that should interest women who want to live in 2012 instead of going back to the 1950s. Romney, at one time, believed women should make their own reproductive choices; Ryan has never believed that. He has voted for every anti-choice measure, including a couple that ban some forms of contraception. Ryan says he will not fund Planned Parenthood, thus throwing thousands and thousands of women under the bus when it comes to health screenings, prevention treatment, and contraception. Ryan voted against re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a measure that's had bipartisan support since the very beginning ... until the current crop of Republicans took control of the House.
Romney won't get any female converts with Ryan on the ticket. He will have the extreme right - but he had them all along.
Education: College students can't be too thrilled with Ryan because he plans to slash Pell Grants. For thousands of young people, those grants are the only way they'll ever be able to enroll in a college course, let alone get the education they will need to compete in a global economy and help THIS economy grow.
Bottom line?
The good news for Republicans: Ryan actually gives the GOP ticket something to talk about. It gives the campaign direction.
The bad news for Republicans: Ryan actually gives the GOP ticket something to talk about. But the direction may be too extreme and too restrictive to be popular with the average American who doesn't have enough money for an offshore account.
The good new for voters: We now have a VERY clear choice. We return to the Bush policies - and get what we got before. Or we push forward ... put statesmen in office instead of pledge-signing ideologues ... and work together to solve problems and improve the future.
I actually believe the 2012 election is the most important one in my lifetime. Unfortunately, many voters don't read anything other than the TV Guide or the mall sales promotions. They'll vote based on 1) their political party or 2) a 60-second TV commercial. Or they'll say politics doesn't affect them and they'll stay home.
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." ~Dante
Friday, July 27, 2012
How about some parent/student accountability?
Maine Governor Paul LePage says school districts should pay for any remedial courses their graduates have to take in college. Evidently, a recent study placed Maine 40th out of 41 states for improvements in student test
scores between 1992 and 2011 for fourth- and eighth-graders in math,
reading and science.
The governor is, understandably, unhappy with the numbers. He's also unhappy that, according to his information, 54 percent of those entering Maine's community colleges have to take remedial courses to re-learn basic tools. The same goes for 20 to 25 percent of the state's four-year university students.
I understand why LePage is concerned ... I really do. What I don't understand is his plan to make school districts pay for the remedial courses of their graduates. The governor, a Republican, should know very well that GOP-controlled legislatures around the country have cut education funding. Teachers have been laid off and many, many school districts have frozen salaries and dropped programs such as tutoring.
I have a different plan for Maine: make students and parents responsible and accountable! Hell, I'm evauated every year! This past year, it took FIVE hours for me to prepare the required documents just for the pre-evaluation conference! And it took me another FOUR hours to prepare the post-evaluation documents! That's NINE hours I could have spent planning creative lessons, grading papers, calling parents, etc. So ... why not include two more components in the accountability picture: students and parents?
Let's just look at some student/parent responsibility, shall we? The names have been changed to protect the not-so-innocent but these were students (or parents) in my classes last year:
Pauline: She made it to class on time just one or two times a week. Sometimes she wandered in during the last fifteen minutes of class. Her explanation? "I just don't like to get up early." For every minute she was late, she missed instruction.
Jose: Never turned in a homework assignment ... not one. He squeaked by the class with a D - 60.6% - (decent work in class and barely passing on tests) so he got credit toward high school graduation. He's one of hundreds of students in my school who are quite comfortable with squeaking by. Should Jose go to a community college, he'll get in - no doubt - but he most certainly will need some remedial classes because HE refused to get the basics in high school.
Ronnie: During a test, I was walking around the room and glanced at his bubble sheet. Hmmm ... his dark circles were in the shape of a car. He wasn't even reading the questions! His test score: 61% ... all through luck.
Mrs. Smith: Her daughter had a hit-and-miss attendance ... just enough to prevent her from being dropped from the class. I called home several times. She told me each and every time: "Johana is old enough to make her own decisions about coming to school." I wanted to scream in the phone: "Your daughter is 15 years old! YOU are the parent! DO your job!" But I didn't because that would have ended up with a complaint being filed against me. How dare I ask parents to do their job so I can do mine?
You have NO idea how many students and parents mirror the ones outlined above.
I work hard at my job and I work doubly hard trying to reach students who simply want to squeak by ... or don't care at all. I'm a good teacher. But I'm not a miracle worker.
So, Governor LePage, state legislators, and the public at large: Why not come up with some ideas that include student/parent accountability? How about a mandatory study hall if a student earns less than a C at the first progress report? How about mandatory summer school (with tuition paid by the parents, not the school district)? How about mandatory parent attendance at conferences? I will bet my next paycheck that when parents are inconvenienced, or have to shell out money from THEIR checkbook, the situation will improve.
Yes, I imagine there are some ineffective teachers ... just like there are some ineffective businessmen, politicians, doctors, and car mechanics. But don't always blame the teachers and schools when two-thirds of the triumverate manage to escape their responsibility in the educational process!
The governor is, understandably, unhappy with the numbers. He's also unhappy that, according to his information, 54 percent of those entering Maine's community colleges have to take remedial courses to re-learn basic tools. The same goes for 20 to 25 percent of the state's four-year university students.
I understand why LePage is concerned ... I really do. What I don't understand is his plan to make school districts pay for the remedial courses of their graduates. The governor, a Republican, should know very well that GOP-controlled legislatures around the country have cut education funding. Teachers have been laid off and many, many school districts have frozen salaries and dropped programs such as tutoring.
I have a different plan for Maine: make students and parents responsible and accountable! Hell, I'm evauated every year! This past year, it took FIVE hours for me to prepare the required documents just for the pre-evaluation conference! And it took me another FOUR hours to prepare the post-evaluation documents! That's NINE hours I could have spent planning creative lessons, grading papers, calling parents, etc. So ... why not include two more components in the accountability picture: students and parents?
Let's just look at some student/parent responsibility, shall we? The names have been changed to protect the not-so-innocent but these were students (or parents) in my classes last year:
Pauline: She made it to class on time just one or two times a week. Sometimes she wandered in during the last fifteen minutes of class. Her explanation? "I just don't like to get up early." For every minute she was late, she missed instruction.
Jose: Never turned in a homework assignment ... not one. He squeaked by the class with a D - 60.6% - (decent work in class and barely passing on tests) so he got credit toward high school graduation. He's one of hundreds of students in my school who are quite comfortable with squeaking by. Should Jose go to a community college, he'll get in - no doubt - but he most certainly will need some remedial classes because HE refused to get the basics in high school.
Ronnie: During a test, I was walking around the room and glanced at his bubble sheet. Hmmm ... his dark circles were in the shape of a car. He wasn't even reading the questions! His test score: 61% ... all through luck.
Mrs. Smith: Her daughter had a hit-and-miss attendance ... just enough to prevent her from being dropped from the class. I called home several times. She told me each and every time: "Johana is old enough to make her own decisions about coming to school." I wanted to scream in the phone: "Your daughter is 15 years old! YOU are the parent! DO your job!" But I didn't because that would have ended up with a complaint being filed against me. How dare I ask parents to do their job so I can do mine?
You have NO idea how many students and parents mirror the ones outlined above.
I work hard at my job and I work doubly hard trying to reach students who simply want to squeak by ... or don't care at all. I'm a good teacher. But I'm not a miracle worker.
So, Governor LePage, state legislators, and the public at large: Why not come up with some ideas that include student/parent accountability? How about a mandatory study hall if a student earns less than a C at the first progress report? How about mandatory summer school (with tuition paid by the parents, not the school district)? How about mandatory parent attendance at conferences? I will bet my next paycheck that when parents are inconvenienced, or have to shell out money from THEIR checkbook, the situation will improve.
Last year at Open House, just NINE people showed up in my classroom. Only SIX of them were parents. That's out of 169 students!
Yes, I imagine there are some ineffective teachers ... just like there are some ineffective businessmen, politicians, doctors, and car mechanics. But don't always blame the teachers and schools when two-thirds of the triumverate manage to escape their responsibility in the educational process!
Saturday, July 14, 2012
YOUR opinions ... should I take them seriously?
A new Obama TV ad brings to the public a series of statements made by Mitt Romney - statements that are clearly FALSE. The ad cites sources, making sure the viewing public knows where the Obama campaign folks got the information to back up the "Romney didn't tell the truth" assertion.
I love reading the comments section. One of the comments was written by LaVaughn Moyer Jennings of Clyde, Ohio. Since this woman put her comment on a public forum, I most assuredly can use it here. The quote:
I love reading the comments section. One of the comments was written by LaVaughn Moyer Jennings of Clyde, Ohio. Since this woman put her comment on a public forum, I most assuredly can use it here. The quote:
"Need to tell about all the crooked
stuff the idiot in the W.H. has done.. I think you need to clean up your own
act before you degrade other people...."
Yes, that is Jennings' opinion. But how in the world can I take it seriously? Really ... how can anyone take it seriously?
Jennings doesn't give one example of "crooked" ... she doesn't give specifics, information, details. She makes claims she did not back up with any support, any evidence, any sign of rational thought process. She doesn't give us a reason to take her opinion seriously.
Even my high school students know better than that!
From the dictionary: o-pin-ion n. 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof
It happens every year. A student voices an opinion and that's when things change in my classroom. Example ... I gave a simple essay assignment due the next day. Here is the classroom exchange:
Student: "That sucks!"
Me: "Why does it suck?"
Student: "What do you mean?"
Me: "That is an opinion and I can't take your opinion seriously if you don't explain the rationale behind that opinion. What facts did you use to determine that the assignment sucks?"
Student: "I don't know what you mean."
I told him to think about it, that I wouldn't respect his opinion until he answered my questions. Fast forward a half hour:
Student: "I know why the assignment sucks! I have to work tonight and I'll be tired when I get home from my shift at 8pm. It'll be harder for me to write."
Me: "NOW I understand and respect your opinon! I disagree with you - this essay is only three simple paragraphs - but you've given me reason to take you seriously. If you don't want to write the essay tonight, then come in at lunch and do it today."
After an exchange like that (one that I make sure happens every year), my students will begin to SUPPORT their opinions. In fact, when a student utters a free-for-all opinion, another student will call out, "Where's your support?"
I try to make sure I support my opinions so people know what reasoning, what facts, what information pointed me in that direction. And I don't mind someone asking me if I neglected to do so.
So ... LaVaughn Moyer Jennings ... you have every right to say what you want. Now, if you want any credibility at all, if you want to be taken seriously, if you want anyone to give a rat's patoot about your opinions ... take a lesson from my students.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Romney: freeloader playing the game
A Republican friend of mine has this statement in her email signature:
"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what barack obama does with mine."
Let me make this clear right up front: Romney's multiple offshore accounts are legal! They are absolutely legal, no doubt about it.
So, just why are people like me concerned about all his offshore accounts? There are two reasons:
1) Romney wants tax cuts for the wealthy. He says those folks - because of their money - create jobs, thus grow the economy. He says this all the time when explaining his opposition to increasing taxes on on the wealthy. Well ... please tell me ... how does his offshore money help grow the economy? That money isn't HERE so it's not doing a damn thing for the American economy, now is it? Hmmm ... it appears that other wealthy people can grow the economy, but he's exempt from that.
2) While legal, his offshore accounts set him apart from most other Americans. I have to account for every dime of my teacher's salary, so why doesn't he? I have to pay taxes on all my money, so why doesn't he? I realize that our tax code allows this, but there's something wrong with this picture ... it's inherently unfair. And it makes him a freeloader - the kind of person he recently denigated at a Republican rally.
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) defends Romney: “It’s really American to avoid paying taxes, legally." He even explained that it's a "game" we all play.
I don't see this as a "game" at all! I see taxes as a way to pay for the services we want and need. If we want schools, we pay for them. If we want protection from the military, we pay for it. If we want garbage collection or libraries or decent roads or safe bridges ... we pay for it!
So, to my friend with the political statement in her email signature: I'm not angry about Romney's money. I AM disgusted that he is a freeloader who certainly doesn't need to be. I AM disgusted that he expects everyone else to grow the economy but he won't.
And I believe that truly speaks to his character ... or lack thereof.
"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what barack obama does with mine."
Let me make this clear right up front: Romney's multiple offshore accounts are legal! They are absolutely legal, no doubt about it.
So, just why are people like me concerned about all his offshore accounts? There are two reasons:
1) Romney wants tax cuts for the wealthy. He says those folks - because of their money - create jobs, thus grow the economy. He says this all the time when explaining his opposition to increasing taxes on on the wealthy. Well ... please tell me ... how does his offshore money help grow the economy? That money isn't HERE so it's not doing a damn thing for the American economy, now is it? Hmmm ... it appears that other wealthy people can grow the economy, but he's exempt from that.
2) While legal, his offshore accounts set him apart from most other Americans. I have to account for every dime of my teacher's salary, so why doesn't he? I have to pay taxes on all my money, so why doesn't he? I realize that our tax code allows this, but there's something wrong with this picture ... it's inherently unfair. And it makes him a freeloader - the kind of person he recently denigated at a Republican rally.
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) defends Romney: “It’s really American to avoid paying taxes, legally." He even explained that it's a "game" we all play.
I don't see this as a "game" at all! I see taxes as a way to pay for the services we want and need. If we want schools, we pay for them. If we want protection from the military, we pay for it. If we want garbage collection or libraries or decent roads or safe bridges ... we pay for it!
So, to my friend with the political statement in her email signature: I'm not angry about Romney's money. I AM disgusted that he is a freeloader who certainly doesn't need to be. I AM disgusted that he expects everyone else to grow the economy but he won't.
And I believe that truly speaks to his character ... or lack thereof.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Scare tactics ... they WORK!
This past week on Fox News Sunday , Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said that
Mitt Romney must be elected in November in order to "save America."
He also said that if President Barack Obama gets re-elected, "our way of life"
is at stake. WHAT?
Oh, but Priebus wasn't finished: "Mitt Romney has to win for the sake of the very idea of America. Mitt Romney has to win for liberty and freedom."
Omigawd ... grab the kids and dogs ... and head to Costa Rica with Limbaugh!
Keep in mind that the Fox News "journalists" didn't question Priebus; they didn't ask for specifics or explanations. No big surprise there, right? In other words, those "journalists" didn't do their job!
People who hear a frightening statistic or an alarming fact often take that information at face value ... and then act out of fear. That is the purpose of using scare tactics: create a sense of fear or shock in the recipients. These fears, rational or irrational as they may be, are often enough to force people into making uninformed decisions or taking rash actions.
So, how effective was Priebus' statements on Sunday? That afternoon I took my dogs to a fun match and heard two women talking about it:
Woman #1: "You HAVE to vote for Romney because if Obama gets back in there, we're going to lose our freedoms and our liberty!"
Woman #2: "What makes you think that?"
Woman #1: "A very important man said it on TV this morning!"
It's clear that Woman #1 doesn't question what she heard - and she won't, either, because now she sees her liberty and freedom being yanked from her. Why? Because some man said it on TV. Her vote in November will be cast out of a fear that has no factual basis whatsoever.
Karl Rove is the master when it comes to scare tactics. He guided George W. Bush through all his campaigns, starting with the one for governor against Ann Richards. One TV ad showed a woman being grabbed at gunpoint in a parking garage and then police draping a sheet over a young boy's body. Bush, in a voice over, declared that Texas was the third most dangerous state in the nation and that HE would take action to change that.
Factual? No. The crime rate had actually declined during Richards' term in office.
Effective? Yes. People didn't check the crime stats ... they acted out of fear because they didn't want to be grabbed at gunpoint in a parking garage.
Rove used scare tactics in both Bush presidential campaigns, too. And, it appears, the current GOP presidential campaign will continue the practice with Rove's guidance.
Now, before you get your knickers in a bunch, BOTH political parties have used scare tactics. A great example is a TV ad that ran only once during the Johnson-Goldwater campaign in 1964 ... but it sure got attention - and it resulted in a lot of Johnson votes. It is STILL being referenced as one of the most effective TV campaign ads ever. Watch it!
Lyndon Johnson campaign ad
Scare tactic? You bet! The message was clear: if you vote for Barry Goldwater, we'll end up in a huge war with a giant mushroom cloud and there won't be any daisies left to pick. That ad scared the livin' daylights out of people! It's rather ironic, then, that Johnson proceeded to escalate the war in Vietnam after he was elected.
You can either become a victim of the scare tactic ... or you can make your voting decisions based on facts and evidence. By the way, there is NO evidence that President Obama's re-election will result in a tyrannical government with no freedom or liberty for Americans. None. Remember ... we still have the U.S. Constitution in place and the three branches of government serve as a check and balance system to make sure that doesn't happen.
Why not be a responsible voter? Why not ask questions and take a bit of time to check the facts before you vote out of fear? Think about it: decisions made out of fear aren't usually the best.
Oh, but Priebus wasn't finished: "Mitt Romney has to win for the sake of the very idea of America. Mitt Romney has to win for liberty and freedom."
Omigawd ... grab the kids and dogs ... and head to Costa Rica with Limbaugh!
Keep in mind that the Fox News "journalists" didn't question Priebus; they didn't ask for specifics or explanations. No big surprise there, right? In other words, those "journalists" didn't do their job!
Priebus is very good at using the campaign scare tactic. He uses this tactic because he knows that many times straight facts simply aren't enough to motivate the masses to take a certain action. It's much more effective to scare the crap out of them!
People who hear a frightening statistic or an alarming fact often take that information at face value ... and then act out of fear. That is the purpose of using scare tactics: create a sense of fear or shock in the recipients. These fears, rational or irrational as they may be, are often enough to force people into making uninformed decisions or taking rash actions.
So, how effective was Priebus' statements on Sunday? That afternoon I took my dogs to a fun match and heard two women talking about it:
Woman #1: "You HAVE to vote for Romney because if Obama gets back in there, we're going to lose our freedoms and our liberty!"
Woman #2: "What makes you think that?"
Woman #1: "A very important man said it on TV this morning!"
It's clear that Woman #1 doesn't question what she heard - and she won't, either, because now she sees her liberty and freedom being yanked from her. Why? Because some man said it on TV. Her vote in November will be cast out of a fear that has no factual basis whatsoever.
Karl Rove is the master when it comes to scare tactics. He guided George W. Bush through all his campaigns, starting with the one for governor against Ann Richards. One TV ad showed a woman being grabbed at gunpoint in a parking garage and then police draping a sheet over a young boy's body. Bush, in a voice over, declared that Texas was the third most dangerous state in the nation and that HE would take action to change that.
Factual? No. The crime rate had actually declined during Richards' term in office.
Effective? Yes. People didn't check the crime stats ... they acted out of fear because they didn't want to be grabbed at gunpoint in a parking garage.
Rove used scare tactics in both Bush presidential campaigns, too. And, it appears, the current GOP presidential campaign will continue the practice with Rove's guidance.
Now, before you get your knickers in a bunch, BOTH political parties have used scare tactics. A great example is a TV ad that ran only once during the Johnson-Goldwater campaign in 1964 ... but it sure got attention - and it resulted in a lot of Johnson votes. It is STILL being referenced as one of the most effective TV campaign ads ever. Watch it!
Lyndon Johnson campaign ad
Scare tactic? You bet! The message was clear: if you vote for Barry Goldwater, we'll end up in a huge war with a giant mushroom cloud and there won't be any daisies left to pick. That ad scared the livin' daylights out of people! It's rather ironic, then, that Johnson proceeded to escalate the war in Vietnam after he was elected.
You can either become a victim of the scare tactic ... or you can make your voting decisions based on facts and evidence. By the way, there is NO evidence that President Obama's re-election will result in a tyrannical government with no freedom or liberty for Americans. None. Remember ... we still have the U.S. Constitution in place and the three branches of government serve as a check and balance system to make sure that doesn't happen.
Why not be a responsible voter? Why not ask questions and take a bit of time to check the facts before you vote out of fear? Think about it: decisions made out of fear aren't usually the best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)