So What?

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at conservatives or the Tea Party’s platforms for the mid-term elections. They seem to have a respectable following, which only seems to be growing. They consist of anti-intellectuals who denounce facts and evidence. They are quick to demonize Democratic policies, and yet are reluctant to propose solid solutions.

It is important to point out that American students are internationally ranked at 33 for reading, 27 for math, and 22 for science in 2009, according to www.geographic.org. In other words, our comprehension, logic, and reasoning skills are lacking in comparison to other nations. Yet, we rank ahead in confidence. Confidence is only substantiated with an intellectual knowledge to back it up. Short of that, it is called arrogance.

Conservatives are calling for a return to the previous Bush-era economic strategies. Republicans have asserted that tax cuts do not need to be offset by lower spending (2010, Republicans Boehner, Kyl, and McConnell). They have been very concerned over the National Deficit Rate, yet they did not show this same concern when these temporary tax cuts were enacted through deficit financing. After all, they were designed to only be a temporary solution to our 1991 recession. Although that was not actually the case. This bill was drafted in 1999, in response to the budget surplus, returning it back to the people. Yet the 2001 tax cut was put into place “to avert the economic recession“, was based upon the “Trickle Down” model, and many aspects of this bill were not to be phased in until up to 9 years later. Though the recession officially ended by the end of 2001, many labor market indicators continued to worsen into mid 2003. So a second tax cut was made into law, based upon the previous one, to not only hasten the aspects of the first bill which were not affected yet, but to also further cut tax rates and capital gains. And yet again, this tax cut was still financed through the deficit spending. The second tax cut’s main body’s centerpiece consisted of $364 billion, the elimination of the tax on corporate dividends. When critics pointed out that these tax cuts primarily benefited the affluent, the response was that in a time of imminent war, the bill can not be expanded any larger and pass through congress. So, what?

The Republican leadership entered us into a war in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, again financed through deficit spending. This was a response to the attack on 9/11, despite the fact that the pilots involved with the attack were from Saudi Arabia. Out of the eleven reasons for us going to war in Iraq, the only one reason to hold true was, “To fight terrorists there, so we don’t have to fight them here.” Al Qaeda did not have a foothold in Iraq, until after our occupation, capture of Saddam Hussein, and his execution by the hands of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein admitted that he did not have weapons of mass destruction since 1991, yet 22% of Americans still believe the weapons are there. When President George W. Bush was being interviewed by Martha Raddatz on ABC, he acknowledged that Al Qaeda did not have a foothold in Iraq before our invasion, his response was, “Yeah, that’s right. So, what?”

After Barack Obama was elected to the Presidency, both the Conservatives and the Tea Party Movement are crying to “take our country back!” They have claimed that America was founded by Christians and on Christian beliefs, despite the fact that most of our Founding Fathers were Deists. The Tea Party Movement based their objections over taxation, citing “taxation without representation,” as based in the original Tea Party in Massachusetts in 1773. Though today’s Tea Party fail to realize that they are represented in our federal government and we were not founded by Christians or Christian ideal, so what?

So should it really come as a surprise that Fox News has been discredited as an unbiased news organization after their owner, Newsmax donated $1 million to the RNC, yet many Americans still believe in Fox News’ tagline, “Fair and Balanced.”? Are we to be surprised over Fox News hiring Conservative and Tea Party politicians as “exclusive” correspondents? Are we to be surprised that the Republican Party claim to want to lower the national deficit and make Bush’s tax cuts permanent, without being able to detail which spending they propose to cut? Are we to be surprised to hear a call for a return to Bush’s economic model, despite the fact that these economic policies filled with self-regulation spurned on the crash of the housing bubble? Are we to be surprised that Republicans are upset over correcting a discrepancy in taxes over the affluent? And worst of all, with American students comparatively lacking comprehension, logic, and reasoning faculties, So what?

-Silence Dogood

Hypocrisy of the Tea Party Movement and Constitutionalists

Throughout modern history, many governments have attempted to best serve their citizens. So far, the longest surviving government structure has been Democracy. This comes as little surprise as Democracy experiments with policies to best serve it’s citizenry. It is a trial and error approach, or a scientific experiment, if you will.

The US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights are founded upon the principle of “living documents”, allowing policies to change in order to meet the greater good of the people. Yet the framework of our government remains intact. Amendments are designed as legal and legitimate alterations of our founding papers, promoting a growth of governmental understanding of ever changing needs. This would not be the case if our Democracy was not built upon this scientific theory.

Even with the founding principles of “all men are created equal”, our founding papers were not suited well enough to promote that notion. Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, our founding papers were interpreted as only granting freedom to Caucasian males. Blacks and women were not accorded with the same equality of freedoms as that of a Caucasian male. As science has not proven Caucasian males to have a superiority, thus it has proven that other ethnicities or gender are equal in all respects to Caucasian males. Thus our Constitution was amended to preclude the exceptions, reinforcing the notion that “all men (mankind) are created equal”.

The 18th Amendment is another experiment, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. This experiment was to be a solution to the nation’s poverty, crime, violence, and other ills and was embraced by tens of millions of Americans. Unfortunately, Prohibition not only failed in its promises but actually created additional serious and disturbing social problems throughout society. With the failure of the prohibition experiment, the 21st Amendment corrected this wrong.

Our founding papers are founded upon the belief that human reasoning is enough to govern its citizenry, and we have been experimenting with this notion ever since. Our Democracy is based on laws to protect the well being of its citizenry, not to promote religious or monarchial doctrines. Our government is based upon scientific experimentation to best serve the people, not to subjugate non-Caucasian males.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, States alone determined the qualifications of Citizenry, prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without due process, and requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people. In 1833, though many State’s Constitutions, are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. Thus after determining the experiment of States Rule failed, the 14th Amendment was ratified to provide equal freedoms to all American citizenry, regardless of which state one resides in.

Yet the Constitutionalists of today and the Tea Party Movement want to take us back to only the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. They choose to ignore the progress made of the other Amendments, which have proven to be beneficial to the American populace. They deny that our Democracy is based on what George Washington termed the “Great Experiment”. They denounce the notion of a “Living Document” and scientific experimentation of governorship. They rely on their interpretation of the intention of the founding fathers, not based upon fact or evidence, but rather out of beliefs. This is an anti-intellectual argument thrust upon the intellectual experiment that human reasoning is the best basis for any government. They deny that our Democracy is based on the “greatest experimentation of government”. Their claims to the original intent of our Founding Fathers is not founded in the same intellectual ideals of our Founding Fathers, and thus are hypocritical at best.

What is happening to our society?

What has happened to today’s society? We seem to be separated into two groups of thought, those who believe they are right and those who intellectually look at the issues and form opinions based upon facts and evidence. Truth has become a rare commodity.

Those who believe they are right cling to this notion with a religious zeal. They know they are right and nobody can tell them anything to the contrary. Facts and evidence are “liberal ideals” which are ignored to prove their righteousness. Anyone who believes anything different from them are “living in a fantasy” or are “misinformed”.

Those who form their opinions upon facts and evidence are not quite as quick to assert they are right. They keep an open mind and their opinions are not set in stone. When proven wrong through logic or reason, they alter their viewpoint. They are not righteous, but are open to civil discourse in their discussions.

But why are those who believe they are right know they are right? Is it because they are surrounding themselves with people who believe the same thing? Are they only listening to messages whom they agree with? And why the devotion to being right? Is this a result of immediate gratification? Does money equate into being right, the more material objects they own mean they are more right than anyone else?

Those who believe they are right ignore historical facts, scientific facts, and evidence, nor can they substantiate their beliefs with reason or evidence. Yet they cling to their beliefs without just cause. Many claim that all Muslims are evil, that President Obama is a socialist, or that only Capitalism benefits society. Many believe that the recession and TARP bailouts were enacted by President Obama, that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction since they haven’t been found yet, or that tax cuts only for the rich create jobs. Facts, evidence, or reason are not required to make these assertions, yet these are the beliefs they cling to.

Facts and evidence show us that many of their assertions are incorrect. The recession began under the Bush Presidency, the TARP bailout was signed into law by President Bush, Saddam Hussein admitted that he did not have weapons of mass destruction after Dessert Storm (but how could he publicly acknowledge that under Iran’s threat of invasion?), and tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs (or at least not permanent jobs). Yet those who form their opinions on facts and evidence are shunned. They are called liberal thinkers or sometimes socialists, but are always condemned for going against popular beliefs of the righteousness.

Remarkably, the stance against intellectuals are propagandist beliefs at best, and ignorance of truth at least. The righteous take opinions as facts, view compromise as turning the other to their way of thinking only, and refuse to engage in honest discussion to uncover truth. They claim that we, as Americans, must be united, yet they are the ones dividing the country with their “with us or against us” mentality. They claim that we must take our country back, but they fail to realize that no one took their country away from them. How can we have a civil discussion over today’s issues, or vote for elected officials among those with such righteous views? How can we unite as a society with such an extreme of a belief? What has happened to today’s society?

-Silence Dogood

Can We Tolerate Intolerance?

Is there such a thing as tolerance for intolerance? Can such a thing exist? Intolerance, by definition cannot tolerate diversity. Intolerance leads to a sense of superiority, fed by fear and hatred of differences. The intolerant group will suppress the rights and freedoms of others. How does one tolerate such extreme views? When does a tolerant opposition become intolerant of the intolerance?

Tolerating intolerance is a great philosophical exercise, but nothing more. Intolerant groups demanding tolerance for their oppressive views do not show tolerance for others. This will not lead to a peaceful coexistence in the face of diversity. Intolerance is a lack of respect to anyone else’s ideas or beliefs. Intolerance will not unite a community, but rather drive them apart.

Tolerance holds respect for those with other ideas and beliefs. But to break this down to the logical outcomes, intolerance will only lead to fear, hatred and oppression, where tolerance will only lead to accepting the subjugation of the intolerance. These are two opposing ideals, which can not coexist. Our nation is based upon mutual tolerance, not mutual intolerance. So the real question is how can we truly be tolerant of intolerant views?

Freedom of speech defines that even the most vulgar hate speech must be protected under the law. But just because we can not legally quiet that voice, we must speak out against intolerant views. We must fight tooth and nail against intolerance people, not through tolerance, but through sensible reasoning. If we can not get them to understand the folly of their ways, we must poke holes at their argument, discrediting their intolerant messages and beliefs, allowing reason and sensibilities to shine through.

-Silence Dogood

Beyond Right vs. Left

Former President Bush’s TAARP program and the economic crisis brought forth a protest movement, who did not coalesce until after President Obama was elected into office. Through references to the Boston Tea Party in 1774, protesting taxation among other things, the Tea Party Movement was established. They rallied for a flat tax, smaller federal government, and a larger state government. After the election, the Conservatives also rallied in protest over losing control in both the Executive and Legislation branches, denouncing President Obama’s policies. Conservative media personalities were very vocal over their dissention of the Obama administration.

But it wasn’t long before the protest lines were blurred. Former Vice President nominee Sarah Palin spoke at Tea Party rallies, conservative rallies, and on conservative television programs. The Tea Party movement no longer stood apart from other conservative Republican protestors. One protest became analogous with the other, all feeding off of fear and frustration.

Before President Obama signed his first bill into law, doubts were cast over his country of origin. Debates over the crisis in the American automotive industry were met with accusations of a Socialist movement. The Health Care Debate brought forth rumors of “Death Panels” and a calling to “take out the opponent” and “lock and load”. Arizona’s Immigration Bill brought forth xenophobia, more fear and hatred by conservatives, and reactionary measures which included a call to repeal the 14th Amendment. California’s Gay Marriage bill brought forth homophobia and a debate over the sanctity of marriage. The false accusation of a Mosque on Ground Zero brought forth more xenophobia and a desire for isolationism.

Fear and hate proved to be a powerful motivator, more so than logic or reason. Protestors depicted President Obama as a witch doctor, a tyrant, and other racial slurs. Talks of Obama’s country of origin, his Socialistic movement, and death panels were prevalent at these rallies. Republican politicians decried over being “shut out” of policy discussions, while refusing to attend or contribute.

Though the Tea Party Movement was based upon a protest over taxation, Conservative protestors was based upon smaller government and less taxes, and Conservative media based their arguments against any non-conservative movements, what they left us with is much uglier. We are left with fear, frustration, and hatred towards anyone who is not conservative enough for this Right Wing agenda. With a lack of viable leadership, all they have to offer is lies, fear mongering, and war mongering. But society does not allow it to stop there. Society has been divided into two groups of thoughts, the ultra Conservative ideals and those against them. There is no compromise, there is no respect for anyone else’s opinions, and there is a break from reality. Their hypocrisy is staggering. But even worse than that, the Tea Party Movement, Conservative protests, and Conservative media are bringing the American society to the brink of a civil war and/or a holy war against Islam.

What we are left with is no longer a Right vs. Left debate. Politics have replaced religion in our society. And we well know that religion does not follow logic or reason, only fear and blind faith. When logic and reason fails the conservative voice, they turn to colorful metaphors, lies, and fear. This is only propels the “With us or against us” mentality. Fears over a Black Democratic President, losing control of the Executive and Legislation branches, and losing viable leadership only brought us only a devotion to take back what was once ours, but this has not been defined. Conservatives lost control of government because of their extremist views. Extremism has no place in our society. They may scream the loudest, but we are still Americans. And as Americans, we must protect the freedoms for all citizens. We must not only tolerate differences, but we also must respect them, just as we expect toleration and respect for our beliefs. As Americans, we can not allow the Conservative movement bring us to a civil war or a holy war based upon fear, hatred, and their false sense of superiority. We must turn our backs on those who wish to deny rights and freedoms to our citizens, regardless of race, creed, or gender. We must turn our backs to those who take extremist measures to propel their agenda. Logic and reason must supersede fear and hatred.