This is the sermon Pastor Stephen Anderson gave the day before the President came to Arizona:
Highlights:
“God wants me to hate Barack Obama. God hates Barack Obama”,
“I’d like to see Barack Obama melt like a snail tonight. Because he needs to recompense, he needs to reap what he’s sown.”
“He has voted on legislation to not only kill the unborn but to kill the new born”
“any Christian will tell you that someone who commits murder should get the death penalty…And when Barack Obama is gonna push his partial birth abortion, his salty saline solution abortion, hey, he deserves to be punished for what he’s done”
“God is a god of wrath and vengeance. And that is the message that ought to be thundering from every pulpit in America”
“I’m supposed to pray for the socialist devil, murderer, infanticide, who wants to see young children, and he wants to see babies killed through abortion and partial birth — and all these other things — you’re gonna tell me I’m supposed to pray for god to give him a good lunch tomorrow, while he’s in Phoenix, Arizona. Nope. I’m not going to pray for his good. I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that’s how I’m going to pray”
The next day a man named Christopher Broughton brought a loaded AR-15 Assault Rifle to the event Obama went to speak at. He was allowed in. It was, apparently perfectly legal to do so in Phoenix Arizona. The secret service chose not to do anything.
Christopher Broughton attended the Church of Pastor Stephen Anderson. Not only did he attend it but he speaks proudly of it and called it “the best church in the world”.
The language we use, matters. It has a decided predictable impact. And when you use your words to incite violence you are as culpable as the people who commit the violence.
We need to tone down these debates, get a grip and start looking at things with a little detached rationality. We need to find a better way to express ourselves and our disagreements than simply raising the ante in this ever ascending rhetoric arms race. We should answer disagreements with facts and principles not vile hatred and calls for assassinations.
Like the fact that the nation isn’t substantially different than it was six months ago. That alone should be a sign that the predictions of the apocalypse are VASTLY over stated. Yet why all this fear? Why all this terror? Why all this anger? How exactly is Health Care reform sooo much more terrifying than the Patriot Act or the War in Iraq or the Bailouts?
One incident does not a pattern make and it can be difficult to prove that anyone is a racist or carries any racial prejudices because of a particular outburst at a particular time. Nevertheless events have context. And it is not really so hard to imagine that in the context of the events of this past summer that some of and perhaps a great deal of the anger being directed at this President has a racial component.
This is what former President Jimmy Carter stressed here:
He clarified his beliefs further here:
Now this produced a firestorm of controversy. In the media out of all that President Carter stated the only thing they heard was “Jimmy Carter is calling Joe Wilson a racist because he shouted ‘You Lie’” And they reacted in shock and abhorrence. But if you listen to his words, and I mean really listen, that isn’t the bulk of what he is saying. It isn’t even the important part of what he’s saying. The former President is suggesting, and speaking from his own personal experience, that there are a great many people in this country who will not ever accept a Black Man as President. He is saying critiques of the President, like Joe Wilson’s comments are fueled by Racism. That’s very different. That’s a much stronger statement.
This is not a unique perspective. I can tell you from experience that most of Black America was shocked and awed that Obama won the election. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve spoken to people and had them tell me how amazed they were.
Hint. It’s not because they didn’t think a black man was capable of being President.
They never thought that a black man could be accepted enough to be elected President. They knew, from experience, from encounters, from their own lives that there were people out there who have racists thoughts and inclinations. That they can be loud and they can be dangerous and that they have an influence on the debate in the society. And they thought, that because of that, because these people would put voice to irrational fears and stoke the fires of hatred and they would be listened to, that it would prevent any black man from collecting enough of the vote to become the President of the United States. Not this soon after the civil rights movement, they thought. Not this fast.
They were wrong. And they were ecstatic to be wrong. Many did have tears in their eyes when President Obama was elected. That emotion was not feigned. They hoped against hope that this was a sign and a symbol of a better future yet to come.
But many of those same people who were shocked to see a Black Man win the Presidency are not so shocked to see what’s happening now. Oh no. Of that they are not surprised at all. It conforms with and connects with the very fears that made them doubt in the first place. The fear that America is not ready. The fear that race and the color of your skin still matters way too much. The fear that, as President Carter suggests, many will never accept black people as their equals.
President Obama made it a point to disagree with the former President through a spokesman:
I think he’s wrong. And I think it’s sad that, it took a former President, a white man to give voice to what many black people across the country are feeling every day, the sense that they are being attacked, made into outcasts and scapegoats. Treated as if they are the enemy. As dangerous as “Al quaeda”. As scary as “Hitler”. For daring to have the audacity to want a better life for themselves.
So we turn on the TV and watch the news and again and again we are appalled at the things that are said and suggested about Obama. We’re shocked that anyone can say these things about anyone, let alone a sitting President. As one of my family members said to me the other day “I just don’t understand. How can people just stand up there and make up all these lies day after day? Why doesn’t anyone stop them?”
And there’s that confusion and doubt. Why isn’t anyone stopping them? Why IS it not only acceptable to make these proclamations suggesting that Obama is part of some secret Kenyan conspiracy to implement a racist nazi regime, but they’ll be repeated again and again and again. Reported as if it were all “he said, she said” and the character or content of the words don’t have meaning. The false and fake “reporting” perpetrated by Fox News and others makes the most vile whack job racist’s opinion seem as meaningful and as worthy of reporting as that of the President.
We hear it all the time. See it all the time. Words and phrases and language and insinuations. It seems motivated by race to us. Very much so. This is how we feel. And it is not just a figment of our imaginations.
And when we hear and see all this, one of our own, denigrated for promoting policies not substantially different from what previously presidents have done before, is it any surprise that it promotes fear and anger especially in the very young and idealistic?
And that anger when acted upon of course fuels even more racism. It creates an even more racially charged environment. It feeds on itself.
And in an environment where, often forgotten Black people are suffering to a vastly disproportionate extent from the economic collapse than white people, I often wonder how it is that things haven’t boiled over into chaos.
Many people don’t understand that. They don’t see how extreme the difference is. They think “we’re all suffering” in this recession but they’ve never really looked at the statistics.
The Black Unemployment rate sits at 15.1% in contrast to that of whites which sits at 8.9%, Hispanics at 13%. Asians 7.5%. Remember unemployment rates don’t count people who have given up looking or people who for whatever reason can’t work. And it also excludes people who are working way below their old salary at reduces hours or only for parts of the year. Economists estimate the underemployed or unemployed rate for blacks is as high as 27%. So nearly three in every ten Black people you meet is struggling to find work to support themselves. link1link2
This is on top of the continuing incarceration problem. 3% of black males are in prison compared to just 0.5% of white males. The probability of a black male spending time in prison during their life time was put at 16% versus 2% for white males and 9% for Hispanics. One in every four black males you meet has or will be in prison during some time in their life time.
On top of that there’s the black foreclosure rate which is decimating what remains of the black middle class. A disproportionate number of black home owners have subprime mortgages. And that’s not by accident. Many companies deliberately targeted Black neighborhoods and black families for these known to be dangerous loans. They even used Black Churches, a trusted institution amongst most black communities to push these ideas.
This is on top of pre-existing wealth gap. In 2007, that’s before the recession. For every one dollar a white family had in overall wealth, an African American family only had 10 cents. That’s not insignificant. When you have a few paychecks saved and lose your job it’s bad but not the end of the world. When you’re living from paycheck to paycheck it can be devastating. Given this it doesn’t seem so unreasonable to assert as some writers have asserted that Black America has moved beyond recession. Now we’re facing a full blown depression.
But you don’t hear discussion of these facts when it comes to race very often. We’re supposed to talk about economics as if it is neither impacted nor impacts racial attitudes. Just like we’re supposed to talk about politics as if it never EVER has anything to do with race. Oh no. Not in this so called “post racial” America.
It must have taken enormous courage for the ex President to stand up there and say what he said. And look how quickly and how rapidly he is being vilified for it. Crazy President Carter the Right Wing media immediately proclaimed. At first they called him an Anti-semite for daring to suggest that it might be a good idea to try to give the Palestinians a degree of peace and security. Now he’s denounced as a self hating Racist. And we see call after call for President Carter to just “shut up” and stop talking about Race.
IS it any wonder that Eric Holder proclaimed Americans to be a nation of cowards?
I think he’s right. He tells us we have to talk with each other frankly about Race. No surprise, he was also crucified for this comment.
Jimmy Carter dared to try and open up a discussion about race. Eric Holder tried to open up a discussion about race. Might it not be the case that this is important?
Yet again and again we are told race is not an issue. None of the criticisms are based on race. Not even a tiny bit. It’s all principled opposition. It’s suggesting that we’re only bringing up race as an attempt to distract from the issues, or to avoid answering claims we supposedly “can’t” answer. We just ought not talk about it. And by bringing it up. By daring to discuss it. It is twisted around and suggested that we, and only we, the black population and the liberals, are the ones that have the real race problem. How DARE we play the RACE Card! All the rest of America has supposedly moved beyond it.
So when Racial Profiling comes to the fore in the Henry Louis Gates incident we are told “eh, it was just a little misunderstanding”. All those other incidents of racial profiling people have reported must just be overreactions or misunderstandings or delusions too. (Nevermind the implicit suggestion there that the higher black incarceration rate must then be because black people are just more criminally inclined than others) When Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh call President Obama a Racist or heavily suggest it and imply it on a nearly daily basis we are told they are just aberrations and don’t reflect anything, never mind their massive audiences.
And of course, none of THIS matters at all:
As Keith Olbermann shows in his amazing piece, the history of racially charged opposition to President Obama is not new. It’s not small. It’s not insignificant. And it’s certainly not so trivial as to make anyone who suggests it an outcast.
Race is a deep and overriding component of the events that have been happening in this country over the last few months and longer. It’s insinuated its way into virtually every news story, from the trivial to the most profound.
It’s not just about Black vs White too. There was definitely a negative racial under current sitting beneath the criticisms of Sonia Sotomayor. The primary critiques of her, indeed the only real critiques of her, were an innocuous statement about race, and a single decision having to do with an alleged case of “reverse discrimination”. All the rest of her many years of distinguished service were invalidated in the eyes of many because of those two events.
There’s certainly a persistent and perpetual racial undercurrent in the critiques of illegal aliens. People accuse those “others” of stealing their jobs and their livelihoods. How dare they get treated in emergency rooms! How dare they be given jobs so they can buy food! That’s coming both from black and white America, especially the poorest amongst both communities looking for someone to blame for the hardships they are facing. And much of it too is fueled by racism. The deep seeded fear of a nation on the verge of being overwhelmed by a Hispanic invasion.
It cuts to even more trivial events too. How racial were the discussions of Michael Jackson’s death? The questions of whether or not he deserved praise past his Death and whether his Death was accidental? How racial is the discussion of the recent Serena Williams incident during the US Open or that of Kanye West’s experiences during the Video Music Awards? It’s no surprise that District 9 and Star Trek both have racial elements. Race is everywhere.
For a society striving to move “beyond race” as now President then candidate Obama suggested we seem AWFULLY preoccupied with race. It keeps coming up again and again and again. The country is virtually boiling over with race concerns. You can even see it around Xanga. Post after post after post devoted to race especially in the last few weeks. This too isn’t sheer chance. It’s a symptom of a deeper phenomenon.
For those conservatives amongst you, please don’t get me wrong. Although a lot of us, myself included, do perceive that there are racial elements to the attacks upon the President, that does not mean I am calling all conservatives, all republicans, or all white people racist. Far from it. I’m not even saying that all of the criticisms are inherently racial. I’m not saying they all count as racial slurs, though some of them clearly do.
What I am saying is that there is race behind them. I’m saying that there are racists amongst you. And they have a disproportionate amount of sway and influence on the direction and the tone of the debate. They are preying on fears and insecurities and deep seated emotional biases to serve their own interests and they are in the position to have the power to do so. They shouldn’t.
And until you cast them out, discredit them, or stop listening to them, you should not be surprised at all if much of Black America begins to perceive what you are calling peaceful grassroots protests as racists attacks on them and their society and their way of life personally. They are as much entitled to righteous anger at their predicament as you are. Don’t be surprised if you begin to see them act accordingly.
This absolutely is a dangerous environment. Nancy Pelosi was right to suggest it. Things have a feel of spiraling out of control. The administrations tendency to pretend the problem isn’t there doesn’t help.
But it could be worse. We should all be glad that most of the people who lived through the civil rights movements and the dark times that preceded them are now older. Because the idea of mobs holding signs denigrating their race even if it is targeted toward but one high powered representative of that race would for many be very reminiscent of signs held aloft during KKK rally’s and indeed, during lynchings.
Perhaps my favorite response to Jimmy Carter’s words and President Obama’s response was made by Grace Lee Boggs this morning. She’s an asian woman who married a black man, a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Bryn Mawr College, and who fought for civil rights and democracy for most of her 94 year life. And she’s one of my favorite people.
She praised President Carter’s courage. And of the Obama administration’s response? She called it pitiful.
I would not be surprised if I too will be singled out for writing this as someone who is “playing the race card” an expression which itself inherently suggests that references to race and discussion are disingenuous attempts to obtain advantage. That is obviously not my intent. Undoubtedly it would be more in my interest to play along and pretend that there aren’t any racial fears or racial biases in me or that race doesn’t matter to me at all or to anybody I know or care about. It is certainly a lot EASIER to just counter the content literal content of these critiques since they are so often so very easily shown to be false and just pretend there’s no race question here.
But that would be a lie.
I don’t think everything is based on race. I don’t think everybody is a racist or everyone from any particular race is racist. I don’t think every racist statement or racially charged comment ought to make someone into an enemy or cause them to be dismissed or drummed out of public discourse. I don’t even think being a racist disqualifies you from your opinion or discredits you from the society. There were generations of very racist people who did a lot of Good for this country.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
THAT was said by none other than Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was unquestionably a racist. Does the fact that he had these clearly racist beliefs make him a monster? Does it mean we should hate an despise his memory? No! Of course not. There is a tendency to think that if someone calls something you said racist that it is an indictment on your whole being and that it invalidates all that you’ve done or ever will do. It doesn’t. But by the same token it’s still vitally important that we TALK about how very RACIST such statements are. We can’t just ignore them lest people think that it’s okay to hold such beliefs.
But I do think there’s too much unchallenged and unremarked racism about right here and right now in this society. I think that in the drive to fight against excessive “political correctness” we’ve gone too far the other way and excused and tolerated and accepted obviously racially charged attacks without calling them out, without denouncing them loudly and forcefully enough for what they are.
I only wish you had done it ON the record and on national live television.
And while you’re at it I can think of a long list of jackasses that probably could use some calling out. In fact that’s how you should respond next time a Congressman interrupt one of your speeches to call you a liar on prime time national television.
“YOU LIE!”
“Jackass. Now as I was saying about Health Care reform…”
I think that might be a better long term strategy for you.
Good luck with your Presidency. Please be more liberal.
Your friend,
Kellen
XDDDDDD
I’m only being a little tongue and cheek. Honestly this news, if it’s true, does give me more respect for the President.
So this year my desk chair broke. My bookshelf broke. My dining table broke. My Futon broke. And today… my comfy chair broke. They all died glorious deaths of smashing shattering destruction. Sigh…
And my foot stool and television stand are looking pretty shaky too.
It seems that all my initial furniture was built to last around exactly 3 years. For 6 months of that time though most of it was in storage. They’ve moved with me 5 times in that period so I guess that put a lot of strain on them.
Time to buy new furniture I guess.
Or maybe not. Maybe I’ll just grab some beanbags. Books can stay in boxes. I got a desk chair for dirt cheap at the goodwill store so no problem there. I’m not even sure there’s a purpose to a dining room table. Silly archaic anachronism. Plates work perfectly fine in laps.
Furniture is expensive. And they just break in the end anyways. Who needs them.
Honestly there was a lot I did not like about President Obama’s address to Congress last night. There’s much that I disagree with him about. And I’ll write about those parts soon too. But the end of Obama’s speech was pure genius and should be praised.
He made the case for something more fundamental and more important than the outcome of this particular health care debate. He argued that skepticism of government is needed and has a place in our history, but so is our use of that government to improve our state, to make the lives of ourselves and others better. He called it our “large-heartedness”. He said it’s a part of the “American character”:
“It, too, is part of the American character — our ability to stand in other people’s shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand; a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise. “
He also spoke of the political motive. The desire to kick the can down the line. The fact that minimal changes are always politically expedient, easier and safer. Yet he rejected the concept and argued that doing nothing is to give in to fear and the lose faith in ourselves.
“Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true. “
“I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road — to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.
But that is not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe — I still believe that we can act when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.”
“We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. “
Remember that line. It should be etched onto the walls of every congressman and government official’s office.
The President also gave a history lesson, albeit a short one, that we should all listen to and learn from, about the triumphs of government intervention. About the times when, in spite of all our much deserved skepticism it was thanks to our government that good was done. Changes were made and “we are better for it”.
“In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism, but the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans — did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind. “
Lastly and most importantly, the President denounced the idea that government is simply inherently incompetent and scorn worthy. He attacked the idea of throwing fact and reason out the window simply the denounce everyone who struggles to do good as “un-American”, arguing that that line of thinking ultimately enfeebles us. He argues that previous leaders in our governments knew this, but somehow today we’ve lost our way.
“And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves. “
Whatever and however this debate turns out, I’m glad the President said these things. I’m glad he made the case that Government CAN do good. That Government CAN help people. That our legislators and leaders aren’t simply twiddling their thumbs or worse engaged in a secret plot to screw everyone.
But in there lies also what I feel is the deepest disappointment of the speech. He was speaking to Congress. But he should have been speaking more to the American people.
It is important to know that government is not inherently naturally impotent or evil. But it’s also equally important to know that it can be both. And that the only thing standing in the way of it becoming both is US. It’s you and me.
I wish the President had called upon us to force Congress and his administration to do what’s best. I wish he had argued that in so far as he and Congress are able to do what administrations have done in the past and make lives for everyone better, it depends on the people to fight for it, and to demand of them that they be their best possible selves.
In any case the end of the speech was very good. It’s just rhetoric sure. But words do matter. They do change minds and capture hearts. It remains to be seen what impact this rhetoric will have.
Here is the end part of the President’s speech reproduced for those who didn’t get a chance to catch it:
“But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. I won’t stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not — and I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.
That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed — the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.
I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.
In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight. And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform — “that great unfinished business of our society,” he called it — would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that “it concerns more than material things.” “What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”
I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days — the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. That’s our history.
For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.
But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here — people of both parties — know that what drove him was something more. His friend Orrin Hatch — he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient’s Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.
On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.
That large-heartedness — that concern and regard for the plight of others — is not a partisan feeling. It’s not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character — our ability to stand in other people’s shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand; a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.
This has always been the history of our progress. In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism, but the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans — did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
That was true then. It remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road — to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.
But that is not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe — I still believe that we can act when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.
Because that’s who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
These are some interesting thoughts too. Not sure if it’s true or not but makes some sense. Read more similar stuff here.
“What we learned in August is something we’ve long known but keep forgetting: The most important difference between America’s Democratic left and Republican right is that the left has ideas and the right has discipline. Obama and progressive supporters of health care were outmaneuvered in August — not because the right had any better idea for solving the health care mess but because the rights’ attack on the Democrats’ idea was far more disciplined than was the Democrats’ ability to sell it.
I say the Democrats’ “idea” but in fact there was no single idea. Obama never sent any detailed plan to Congress. Meanwhile, congressional Dems were so creative and undisciplined before the August recess they came up with a kaleidoscope of health-care plans. The resulting incoherence served as an open invitation to the Republican right to focus with great precision on convincing the public of their own demonic version of what the Democrats were up to — that it would take away their Medicare, require “death panels,” raise their taxes, and lead to a government takeover of medicine, and so on. The Obama White House — a veritable idea factory brimming with ingenuity — thereafter proved unable to come up with a single, convincing narrative to counteract this right-wing hokum. Whatever discipline Obama had mustered during the campaign somehow disappeared.
[....]
You want to know why the left has ideas and the right has discipline? Because people who like ideas and dislike authority tend to identify with the Democratic left, while people who feel threatened by new ideas and more comfortable in a disciplined and ordered world tend to identify with the Republican right. Democrats and progressives let a thousand flowers bloom. Republicans and the right issue directives. This has been the yin and yang of American politics and culture. But it means that the Democratic left’s new ideas often fall victim to its own notorious lack of organization and to the right’s highly-organized fear mongering.”
“They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it’s really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There’s a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters.”
- Glenn Greenwald
Read more genius writing like this here. I highly recommend.
Sometimes, very often in fact, both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals feel like they are talking to brick walls. They feel as if the other side doesn’t hear them. Like they refuse to listen and that communication is wholly a waste of time.
The town halls were supposed to bridge that gap and open up a productive two-way dialogue. Obviously. For the most part, they failed. They became a media circus.
But they didn’t HAVE to fail. Believe it or not it IS possible for reasonable people on both sides to communicate rationally on important issues like Health Care. How do I know that? Because it’s been done. Lots of times. Here’s one example of a video where Al Franken does exactly that.
To be fair I should note the person who put this video on youtube labeled it in what I consider an unjust way. The people in the video in no way seem like “an angry mob”. To describe them as such without actual evidence is unfair. It’s possible that prior to the point where this video begins filming they were acting like an angry mob, but without actual video evidence we can’t support that claim. For all we know they were wholly polite the entire time. So the video should not have been labeled thusly.
Even so I think it’s an important video to watch both because you can learn a lot from the content of what is said here and because you can learn even more from the way in which this dialogue takes place. It’s respectful. It’s honest. And it makes progress in bridging the gap of hatred that divides the parties.
Too bad Al Franken is a prime target for regular vilification on conservative talk radio.
I am curious about your opinions as to what one’s obligations are to a roommate and what constitutes ethical behavior when leaving an apartment or house you share with a roommate.
I’ve seen a lot of conflicting opinions on this. I’ve seen conflicts where the roommate left behind felt devastated and betrayed and other times when the circumstances seemed almost identical when the roommate considered it a perfectly reasonable decision and didn’t feel upset about it at all.
There are certain important characteristics about roommate living arrangements and I was wondering to what extent each characteristic influences the moral standing of the roommates, both the one leaving and the one staying behind.
1. Who is on the Lease? If one person’s name is on the lease and the other person pays them, is it wrong for the person on the lease to choose to move into an apartment and force the other out to find their own place? Is it wrong for the other person to leave?
I’ve seen people say the other person leaving basically screws the lease holder since they are responsible for the entirety of the rent. On the other hand I’ve heard people argue that the person who left did nothing wrong because the lease holder was foolish not to have put the first person’s name on the lease.
2. How much notice is given? These days most formal leasing offices where both roommate’s names are on the lease require both roommates to be equally financially responsible provided the person leaving gives 60 days notice prior to leaving. In that sense the person left behind would always have sixty days to find a roommate before having to pay the entirety of the rent. Is this enough time?
In addition a lot of leasing offices allow existing residents to downgrade to a smaller apartment mid-lease if it is available. Does that change the equation?
If it’s an informal leasing arrangement how much notice ought to be given? Obviously announcing you are moving today and then moving out and failing to pay any more of the rent thereafter would be too soon, but is two weeks enough? A month? Two months? Or three?
Should the roommate who is leaving be required to stick around until the roommate who is staying finds another roommate or downgrades to a smaller apartment? That can be tricky to manage financially precisely because of the sixty day notice requirement most complexes require.
3. Lease Renewal Time: Is it any less or more ethically questionable if a person leaves a lease around when the lease comes up for renewal? On the one hand doing so leaves the person left behind more options since they don’t have to find another roommate, they can simply choose not to renew their lease and choose to find another apartment complex or other living arrangement.
On the other hand it might put more pressure on the person being left behind if the person leaves around lease renewal time because that person will have to make a decision immediately (or within two months, or however much notice was given) about whether or not to renew the lease. And if they do renew they will be stuck in the apartment for another 12 months or more, unless they shell out more for a smaller lease term.
4. Outside of Lease Assistance Is the person leaving the lease ethically required to assist the person staying behind? To what extent and for how long does that obligation last?
I’ve seen people go out of their way to help their roommates after leaving them, offering not only to help them find a new roommate, or find another cheaper place to live, but also to continue to help paying part or all of their share of the rent effectively indefinitely or until they find another roommate or downgrade to a smaller apartment or move out. I’ve also seen people offer no assistance and just leave considering fulfilling their legal financial obligations to be the full extent of their ethical responsibility. Is either of these proper or fair? If not what is?
5. Connection to your Roommate To what extent does your connection to your roommate determine what your ethical obligations ought to be? That is, if you and your roommate are basically strangers that just happen to live together, maybe you should feel no obligation to consult with or obtain the consent of your roommate when making a living arrangement decision that is best for you.
However, if you two are friends, is it wrong for one person to make such a decision without consulting with the other? OK what if the two are friends and one does consult with the other and the other orders them or demands that they stay? Are they then ethically required to stay? What if they can’t afford to stay? Or what if it’s much more financially in their favor to leave? What if the person left behind can’t afford the apartment if his or her roommate leaves?
Does it make a difference if you’ve been friends for many years versus if you’ve been friends only for a few months? What if you’ve treated each other effectively like family before or if you weren’t very close but more like just amiable friends?
Does it change the equation if you are family? Does it change the equation if you are or were in a relationship?
Would a friend leaving a shared apartment in a manner you did not feel was ethically appropriate cause you to discontinue that friendship? Would it cause you to disown a family member? Breakup with a boyfriend/girlfriend? Or not consider entering into a relationship/friendship with someone who was otherwise a potential partner/friend?
6. Problems with your Room Mate
How much does problems you may or may not be having with your room mate change the equation? If your room mate you feel has been being very bad to you or being a very bad roommate does that lessen your obligation? IF your room mate is a slob or is really loud or or inconsiderate or your room mate has been late on rent or has been really irresponsible or not sharing the burden on stocking up and supplying the apartment does that matter?
Does it matter whether or not you knew about those traits about your roommate BEFORE you moved in with them? Does it matter if the person didn’t exhibit those traits before but became more that way the longer you lived with them? If the person you moved in with is not the person you currently live with does that make you more justified in choosing to leave? Does it make you more justified in not being as considerate with the mechanism you use in leaving?
What is your obligation to try and work out your differences with your roommate? How long is a reasonable amount of time to try? A month? Two? If it’s a friend do you owe it to that friend to work as long and as hard as possible to work things out? If it’s family? What if you feel your friendship would have a better chance of healing if you weren’t roommates? That is maybe the close proximity is precisely the problem. Would that mean moving out is more justified or that trying to work things out would be a waste of time? Or would that just be a cop out, an excuse for not trying to resolve complex difficult relationship issues?
7. Reasons for Leaving - How much does a person’s reasons for leaving determine their ethical standing? If a person is leaving just because they found a new place that is cheaper is that more ethically questionable? What if someone took on more financial burdens and needs a cheaper place? What if someone lost a job and can no longer afford the shared dwelling?
What if a person is leaving because of another good opportunity? Like a job further away that pays more or that they think they will be happier in? Or to take classes somewhere? Or if it’s a once in a life time opportunity?
What if a person leaves because they just don’t LIKE the apartment very much? It’s too small or he or she doesn’t like the community or where it’s located or it has cockroaches?
What if the person leaves, to move in with a person they are in a relationship with? Would you feel snubbed because of that? Does it matter how long they were in that relationship or how serious the relationship was? If it were like after a month would you be outraged? If it were after dating for two years would you be resigned and have considered it inevitable?
What if they aren’t leaving to live with someone they are in a relationship with but to live with a different friend that they get along with better? That would probably sting a lot right? Especially if that was their main reason.
What if a person leaves in order to increase their chances of finding a mate? That they consider their existing roommate to be “cramping their style”? Or even just because the person they are currently in a relationship with doesn’t like their roommate or because their roommate doesn’t like that person they are in a relationship with? Or flip it around. What if you don’t like the person the person who is remaining behind is in a relationship with? Or that person clearly doesn’t like you?
Or what if you are just having generic problems with your roommate? Is that reason enough to leave? See 6 above.
Or what if you are just completely miserable where you are and don’t KNOW why, but know you need to do some kind of change in order to become happy so you try moving in order to enact SOME kind of change that might make you happier? What if it is a way of coping with depression?
And if fact are you even ethically required to even EXPLAIN your reasons? Can you just leave “because I said so”? Can you leave on a whim? I mean it’s your life isn’t it? Your roommate isn’t your parent or your boss. But is it certainly more polite to explain? Is it unreasonable and rude not to? This certainly connects to #5 above too right? Maybe if you hardly know your roommate at all you shouldn’t have to explain but if you are close friends it’s more immoral to leave without explanation? What if you are leaving to engage in some clandestine operations that you aren’t allowed to tell your roommate or don’t want to tell them in order to keep them safe?
8. Legal Obligations? A lot above has to do with financial obligations and moral obligations but what about legal obligations? What if the roommate leaving refuses to sign a renewal of their lease? Is that moral? Is it legal? What if the roommate leaving tries to get a lease transfer or a lease exodus and follows all the reasonable required financial obligations but it requires their roommate’s signature letting them out of the lease? What if the roommate staying behind refuses to let them out of their lease? Is that moral? Is it legal? Can you sue a roommate who is leaving for the remainder of the terms of their lease if they leave in the middle of the year? Can you get a court order to require a roommate to let you out of a lease? Is getting the law involved moral? Under what circumstances would it be? What if there are some sneaky clauses inside the lease that one or the other roommates weren’t aware of that makes it harder to leave a lease when you having a roommate or that makes it easier?
9. Other considerations?
Have I missed anything? Any important category of concerns that goes into determining the ethics of roommates leaving a living arrangement?
What else goes into account when trying to determine the morality of leaving or staying with a roommate? How do you balance your own happiness, your financial concerns, and that of your roommate, with your ethical obligations?
——————-
In my experience I’ve noticed certain truths: 1. being roommates almost always seems to degrade friendships 2. in situations where one roommate leaves and the other is left behind, hard feelings are very common, regardless of the circumstances, especially in the person left behind, whereas if both leave at the same time hard feelings are less common 3. friends or family of each party tend to side with the party they are friends or family with independent of the facts 4. society, generally, tends to be more critical of the person leaving a living arrangement so the onus of the ethical obligation tends to be on them. also the person leaving, generally feels more guilty over leaving and is expected to. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair in all or even most circumstances. 5. however, that social critique is natural consequent of a lot of circumstances where one roommate has left another effectively “stuck with the bill” especially prior to apartment complexes creating strict and reasonable rules for giving notice and mutual agreement for getting out of a lease. 6. Informal living arrangements with no contract or lease far too often end in disaster. they only seem to work out when they are short lived or when the roommates really are extremely extremely close. Also informal living arrangements tend to be those most likely to result in one person screwing another directly, sometimes deliberately and knowingly.
So as for my own personal opinions based on these observations they are as follows:
If a person is a friend and I was the only name on the lease and it was originally that way I would not care if or when they left or if they stopped contributing to the finances. In effect I would feel as if I was just letting the person, a friend, stay at my place and that person has a right to leave at any time at a moment’s notice. I would not hold it against them.
I would simply never enter into a informal living arrangement with someone who is not a friend unless I had no other choice. And if I did, I would expect near inevitable disaster.
If both names are equally on the lease as co-responsible, and are co-contributing, I would say if they are strangers or don’t know each other very well then sixty days is probably a reasonable amount of time to give notice and the strangers don’t owe anything to one another. Both should be completely willing to end the mutual living arrangement at a moment’s notice. That’s just the risk you take when you take on a roommate.
However if it’s a friend, especially a close friend. Then I think your ethical obligations are somewhat stronger.
Probably the sooner you inform your friend that you are considering moving out the better. If you decide at a moment’s notice you should tell your friend immediately. The sixty day notice is the minimum.
If you are moving out you should be willing to help your friend search for a roommate if they desire your help. I wouldn’t say you have to find that roommate before moving out but I would say you should exert reasonable effort to help at least for the duration of the 60 day period you are moving out if that is at all possible. Alternatively you should try to help them find a cheaper place if they can’t afford the existing apartment or find some other living arrangement or even help them find another job that pays more. Again all that is conditional on the friend wanting your help which they might not.
I think beyond that you don’t have any other obligations provided you are meeting your legal financial obligations and giving that 60 day period. However, if you do want to offer more assistance, including financial assistance while your roommate continues to look that’s even better. Though not necessary, it’s definitely a nice thing to do. I would almost certainly do so if I am able, but for no more than two months beyond the sixty days of notice and unless I was really rich, probably not more than half what my financial obligation would have been had I continued to live there. However, if I moved out at the end of the lease I would be much less inclined to do that since I wouldn’t feel as if I were sticking the person in an expensive apartment for the remainder of the year.
As a general rule for friendship I think there’s an obligation to try and work out substantive differences through communication if you desire to continue the friendship or continue the friendship at the same level of closeness. But that I think is independent of the decision to leave or not to leave an apartment. If possible it should start before but if it hasn’t then it’s never too late to start trying to work things out whether living separately or together.
Anyway, what are your thoughts? Do you have your own personal experiences? How did you resolve your differences with your roommate(s)? Or did it all go down in flames?
The full video is here. Here is a youtube clip of an important segment of it. I couldn’t find the whole thing in an embeddable format:
When I first saw this video it gave me the chills. It’s an extroardinary thing to have four heroes (one in spirit) in one room at one time. These are extraordinary people who have fought their whole lives to unearth and spread the truth and hence make the world a better place.
When I see moments like this I am reminded that there is hope.
