Hi Everyone,
Did any of you see the press conference President Obama gave last night? I heard parts of it on the radio. He answered questions from various news outlets. One woman even challenged him, and he answered in a straightforward way. That part was well done, in my view.
Some are calling the conference a disappointment, perhaps because they were expecting him to go into more detail. It would have been nice if he'd went into more detail about the plan, but seeing how it is incomplete, it is perhaps forgivable that specifics were lacking.
At the end, the President even answered a question about the Harvard professor who was arrested trying to get into his own home in Cambridge after returning from China. This was most likely because the Professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was black, and they were curious to hear Obama's take on it. I'll tell you, Obama has approached race from an interesting angle. But that incident, and the side of our culture it reflects, is another topic for another day.
Anyway, I'll say a few words on healthcare, because it is such an important issue here. In most of the other countries, there is some sort of public apparatus for providing health care. It varies between, like, England, France, Germany, and Canada. Each country approaches it differently. However, in all those countries, health care is seen as an important right to be provided, rather than something to be exploited.
You'll hear those who oppose reform complain about a "government takeover." You're likely to hear this term a lot over the next week. What about the insurance companies, who routinely look for reasons not to cover you? If you have a preexisting condition, you're automatically out. Even those in good health find themselves paying more and more, and people are being driven into bankruptcy by the costs.
The number currently without health insurance (and try getting any kind of quality care without it) is currently 47 million or so, about 1 in 6 Americans. There are many more who get health care, but it isn't any good. The President is attempting to attack this issue and get, as he stated, "everyone insured." So what do opponents try to do? Look at the issue seriously and come back with a different approach?
No, no, no. These guys instead oppose any sort of option that would really keep insurance companies honest. They instead want to "kill" reform, as Bill Kristol stated. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) made their intentions clear when he said he wanted to stop Obama on this so that it would be "his waterloo." He hopes to derail health care reform so that he could "break him." Nothing about addressing all the people that are hurting, nothing about giving genuine care to those who need it. Just "break him" so we can get into power.
Sure, these guys offer platitudes about "freedom solutions," and other things. The Cato Institute released an ad that "supports reform without a government takeover." But really these guys only want to kill this plan so that they can "break" their opponent, the President. This hatred of anything to do with government, which goes far beyond a healthy skepticism, has really gone too far, and it needs to be addressed.
There needs to be a way for these insurance companies to be held responsible for the influence they've exerted, often at the expense of the rest of us. It seems that the question facing lawmakers now, is not liberal or conservative, it's whether you want all of us, the people, to have our needs addressed, and to hold the powerful responsible, or whether you want the few powerful to gain still more wealth and power, even as the rest of us languish and suffer. Rarely is this question truly addressed, but it is about to be addressed now.
This is just my view on the issue. If you have any view, story about health care experience, or something else you want to tell me about, leave a comment for me below. I'll have more for you soon. See ya guys!
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
A Good Reed for EVERYONE
Hi Everyone,
Well, I'm not Oprah and I'm not about to start a book club, but I've got a good read here that I thought you would like to hear about. It was one of those books that, you know, it comes along, you read it, and you feel like it's talking to you. This was one of those books for me, and I felt I had to share it with you. It has to do with politics, social matters, and religion (three things very close to my heart). The book is called God's Politics: Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it. You might have heard of the author. His name is Jim Wallis. He founded Sojourners, a publication and network for religious-minded folk who care about justice and peace, both personally and globally. This is how I feel, and if you're reading this, I hope you do too.
This appeals to what I think religion should be about. One reason I have been skeptical of religion recently is political. The idea of religious politics I came of age with was the dominance of the Religious Right. I came to believe that most christianity and religion at large was ruled by anti-gay people who were opposed to abortion in any and all circumstances, but who are deafeningly silent on the growing disenfranchisement of the poor, degradation of the environment, our most valuable resource, and think nothing of starting senseless wars. This perception, along with the rise of fundamentalism, soured me on organized religion. I came to view religion in politics as being a problem, a pathway to widespread violence and authoritarianism. I came to view religion more as deadening, dehumanizing dogma rather than revitalizing, empowering spirit.
God's Politics was published in 2005, when George W. Bush and the Religious Right had a firm hold on the US Government. It is sort of dated, but its message still rings true. Wallis has written since, and I caught a little bit of his new book, which debuted since the election of Obama and the change in the power structure in DC. Power can corrupt anyone, even those with high-minded and noble motives. So this is just as important now as it was four years ago, and will continue to be important four years from now, and four years after that.
Wallis contends that the most powerful movements for justice and peace have been rooted in religious, spiritual, and moral ideas. A short list: Wallis sites the anti slavery movement of the 19th century and the civil rights movement a century later as the greatest examples. He talks about Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu as examples for what we can accomplish in our country and in the world. Wallis talked, at one point, about the Berrigan brothers, two Catholic priests who campaigned against the Vietnam War, and then continued to campaign against nuclear weapons.
In fact, it turns out Wallis had a plan in mind for how to avoid the Iraq War. He devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 4: Protest is Good; Alternatives are Better) to a strategy to avoid war, and how he attempted to execute it in the run up to the Iraq War in early 2003. It turns out that Wallis and other prominent religious leaders came up with a six-point plan (read the entire plan here) to remove Saddam Hussein from power, eliminate the WMD's and improve the life of the Iraqi people. According to him, he and the others presented the plan to the British government, British Prime Minister Tony Blair himself, and to the State Department. Apparently, it did gain some traction at the time, but I guess we know now who was listening to it and who didn't.
In the book, Wallis also addresses a chief concern of mine when it comes to religion: fundamentalism. In the following chapter, Wallis addresses the rise of the Religious Right in the '80's and '90's. He commented on the fact that the movement, with Jerry Falwell at its helm, gained political power through the Reagan White House. Wallis notes that because the Religious Right's leaders sought political power right away, it became more about keeping their power for them, rather than about bringing to pass whatever beneficial goals it may have had.
He then notes how the Civil Rights movement in the '50's and '60's, with Martin Luther King at its helm, sought to effect change without political power. Eventually, through its appeal to people of lower status, but of sound moral and religious convictions, the movement gained political traction, and the Johnson White House took bold steps in proposing, then signing, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was not corrupted by its political ambitions, and therefore it was able to accomplish good and justice.
Why I stated that this book was for everyone is because it was subtitled Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it. Wallis's message is meant to challenge both the right and left side of the political spectrum. Wallis says that this is the purpose of religion in politics. The premise is that the right, the conservative side, has made a mistake in co opting religion only to impose personal morality on everyone and ignoring, or going against, the larger responsibility we have to each other, that Jesus stressed in His teachings.
The left, the liberal side, has made a mistake in ignoring the fact that the teachings of Jesus are what give movements for justice and peace the most strength, and turn to a purely secular vision which denies any role for religion in the public sphere. Because it is equally supportive and critical of both sides, and it seeks justice and peace for all, it seems to me like it could gain some broad support. If someone delivered a message of unity and peace like this, in a world riddled with division and war, they could find themselves with a broad base of support. Could it be that Barack Obama read this book, too? It seems that Wallis had known Obama even before he debuted on the national scene.
Wallis even talks about a signing he did in Denver, where he was approached by a kid who was an agnostic. The talk that Wallis gave appealed even to the kid who, like me, was uncertain of the premise of God, but was moved by what Mr. Wallis had to say. I have to close by saying that this book has really spoken to me about what religion can and should be in our lives. What Wallis talks about here has begun to make even me feel that maybe there is something to that Christian tradition. Something that makes it real, that makes it worth pursuing. This way of speaking not just to personal responsibility, but responsibility to each other, has tremendous power, power that can repair this country and this world. Great read, Mr. Wallis.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, I'm not Oprah and I'm not about to start a book club, but I've got a good read here that I thought you would like to hear about. It was one of those books that, you know, it comes along, you read it, and you feel like it's talking to you. This was one of those books for me, and I felt I had to share it with you. It has to do with politics, social matters, and religion (three things very close to my heart). The book is called God's Politics: Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it. You might have heard of the author. His name is Jim Wallis. He founded Sojourners, a publication and network for religious-minded folk who care about justice and peace, both personally and globally. This is how I feel, and if you're reading this, I hope you do too.
This appeals to what I think religion should be about. One reason I have been skeptical of religion recently is political. The idea of religious politics I came of age with was the dominance of the Religious Right. I came to believe that most christianity and religion at large was ruled by anti-gay people who were opposed to abortion in any and all circumstances, but who are deafeningly silent on the growing disenfranchisement of the poor, degradation of the environment, our most valuable resource, and think nothing of starting senseless wars. This perception, along with the rise of fundamentalism, soured me on organized religion. I came to view religion in politics as being a problem, a pathway to widespread violence and authoritarianism. I came to view religion more as deadening, dehumanizing dogma rather than revitalizing, empowering spirit.
God's Politics was published in 2005, when George W. Bush and the Religious Right had a firm hold on the US Government. It is sort of dated, but its message still rings true. Wallis has written since, and I caught a little bit of his new book, which debuted since the election of Obama and the change in the power structure in DC. Power can corrupt anyone, even those with high-minded and noble motives. So this is just as important now as it was four years ago, and will continue to be important four years from now, and four years after that.
Wallis contends that the most powerful movements for justice and peace have been rooted in religious, spiritual, and moral ideas. A short list: Wallis sites the anti slavery movement of the 19th century and the civil rights movement a century later as the greatest examples. He talks about Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu as examples for what we can accomplish in our country and in the world. Wallis talked, at one point, about the Berrigan brothers, two Catholic priests who campaigned against the Vietnam War, and then continued to campaign against nuclear weapons.
In fact, it turns out Wallis had a plan in mind for how to avoid the Iraq War. He devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 4: Protest is Good; Alternatives are Better) to a strategy to avoid war, and how he attempted to execute it in the run up to the Iraq War in early 2003. It turns out that Wallis and other prominent religious leaders came up with a six-point plan (read the entire plan here) to remove Saddam Hussein from power, eliminate the WMD's and improve the life of the Iraqi people. According to him, he and the others presented the plan to the British government, British Prime Minister Tony Blair himself, and to the State Department. Apparently, it did gain some traction at the time, but I guess we know now who was listening to it and who didn't.
In the book, Wallis also addresses a chief concern of mine when it comes to religion: fundamentalism. In the following chapter, Wallis addresses the rise of the Religious Right in the '80's and '90's. He commented on the fact that the movement, with Jerry Falwell at its helm, gained political power through the Reagan White House. Wallis notes that because the Religious Right's leaders sought political power right away, it became more about keeping their power for them, rather than about bringing to pass whatever beneficial goals it may have had.
He then notes how the Civil Rights movement in the '50's and '60's, with Martin Luther King at its helm, sought to effect change without political power. Eventually, through its appeal to people of lower status, but of sound moral and religious convictions, the movement gained political traction, and the Johnson White House took bold steps in proposing, then signing, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was not corrupted by its political ambitions, and therefore it was able to accomplish good and justice.
Why I stated that this book was for everyone is because it was subtitled Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it. Wallis's message is meant to challenge both the right and left side of the political spectrum. Wallis says that this is the purpose of religion in politics. The premise is that the right, the conservative side, has made a mistake in co opting religion only to impose personal morality on everyone and ignoring, or going against, the larger responsibility we have to each other, that Jesus stressed in His teachings.
The left, the liberal side, has made a mistake in ignoring the fact that the teachings of Jesus are what give movements for justice and peace the most strength, and turn to a purely secular vision which denies any role for religion in the public sphere. Because it is equally supportive and critical of both sides, and it seeks justice and peace for all, it seems to me like it could gain some broad support. If someone delivered a message of unity and peace like this, in a world riddled with division and war, they could find themselves with a broad base of support. Could it be that Barack Obama read this book, too? It seems that Wallis had known Obama even before he debuted on the national scene.
Wallis even talks about a signing he did in Denver, where he was approached by a kid who was an agnostic. The talk that Wallis gave appealed even to the kid who, like me, was uncertain of the premise of God, but was moved by what Mr. Wallis had to say. I have to close by saying that this book has really spoken to me about what religion can and should be in our lives. What Wallis talks about here has begun to make even me feel that maybe there is something to that Christian tradition. Something that makes it real, that makes it worth pursuing. This way of speaking not just to personal responsibility, but responsibility to each other, has tremendous power, power that can repair this country and this world. Great read, Mr. Wallis.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Nobody cares? Don't think so!
Hi everybody,
Well, that post the other day about Bush got me down, but it's important to realize that thankfully, that's in the past now. And since then, I've read two articles that have warmed my heart and fueled a growing sense of optimism I've been having about our country's direction. One article talks about the nature of activism today, the other dismisses the notion that youth, that is, my peers, are apathetic when it comes to politics.
Alright, on the first article. The fact that the protesters aren't taking to the streets like they were in the '60's means that nobody really cares anymore, right? Not according to what this article finds. The world is different today than it was back in the '60's, so doesn't it make sense that the activism would change, too?
The study finds that instead of focusing on huge national issues, today's youth activists choose to pool their, well, our, efforts in a more productive way to make changes in our communities. The author suggests that today's youth generation is getting into battles they can win, as they put it, "Learning the art of the possible."
Perhaps this methodology of changing things in your own midst is a wise one. If a vast majority of young volunteers change things in a positive way in their own schools or cities, then soon the whole state or country will start to reflect this. As an old saying goes, "If everyone kept their front yard clean, the whole world will be free of garbage." I don't remember the exact words, but the words were to the same effect.
In 1989, 66% of college students reported doing volunteer work during their last year of high school. In 2004, 83% of college students reported doing this. There have been many more institutionalized opportunities to get involved with helping communities. I had to do 40 hours of volunteer work to graduate from high school.
At first I was peeved at the prospect of "having to"do something, because I generally don't like being told what to do. But I grew to like doing the volunteer work that I did with my church, which was taking an hour every week to help young kids get their homework done. I developed such a knack for it that I continued to help out after I completed the 40 hours I needed to graduate. Indeed, I have continued after I graduated.
Additionally, the article notes that in the 2004 election, they say, a new generation of politically-involved youth was created. These articles were written a few years ago, so they say youth voters continued to grow in the 2006 midterms, when the first woman ever to become speaker of the house assumed that role.
But the articles were before the 2008 election, which obviously took the youth involvement to a whole new level. This past election has seen the first African-American elected to the highest office and to recieve the highest calling of all, made higher still by all the crises we face. So along with the rise of youth involvement, we also saw a more diverse makeup of non-white males getting into these offices.
Anyway, onto the next article. The article sets up the myth for us that all youth are largely apathetic on politics, that we are largely self-centered. The author flatly rejects this image, and again, 2004 is pointed to as the beginning of this upsurge. This was also before 2008 or even 2006.
Youth (my generation, currently college-age) sees political involvement in a different way than previous generation. Today's young activists are wearing bracelets and using the internet for political discovery and action.
Even the President of the United States, now, has caught on. Barack Obama owes a large part of his success to having utilized the internet, and thus mobilizing the younger generation, for his campaign. Now, as president, his administration has used the internet to make information more widely accessible to the public, perhaps for his goal of "transparency."
Also, I am pleased to announce that I am not alone in this blog. According to the article, there are 917,999 others like me (young people with politically-themed blogs), and this was in 2006. I wonder what a similar early 2009 study would show.
The article also busts the myth that young people are all democrats. While 66% of the 18-25 demographic voted for Obama in 2008, this doesn't mean they're democrats, it just means they voted for Obama. This article states that while those of what they're calling the "Millenial Generation" want to get involved, we are skeptical of party politics and partisanship.
The article says that this is a positive thing, which it is, because politicians will have to work more on the issues that are important to us. I think it's always a positive thing to keep some critical distance from the whole party thing. Too often one party starts calling the other bad, and vice versa. You know what I'm saying, the conservatives attack the liberals, the liberals attack conservatives, and it becomes more of a pissing match than a way of bringing about change.
As one person noted in the political science class I am now taking, and for which I read these articles, said,"There's too much drama in politics." Everybody chuckled at such a frank assessment, but it was true. It was one of those things that was even more funny because it was true.
Another observation from that class concluded that my generation's consensus was that there was too much partisanship, too much meanness in politics. According to the study, we seek authentic solutions to these issues. This is one of the reasons I created this blog, was to hear some of your ideas on the issues.
Anyway, I hope these stories make you, the reader (or Reeder) as heartwarmed by these findings as I was, and let me know what you think, if you have any stories or experiences on the subject, I'd love to hear them. I should have plenty more ripe blog material from this poli sci course, so stay tuned!
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, that post the other day about Bush got me down, but it's important to realize that thankfully, that's in the past now. And since then, I've read two articles that have warmed my heart and fueled a growing sense of optimism I've been having about our country's direction. One article talks about the nature of activism today, the other dismisses the notion that youth, that is, my peers, are apathetic when it comes to politics.
Alright, on the first article. The fact that the protesters aren't taking to the streets like they were in the '60's means that nobody really cares anymore, right? Not according to what this article finds. The world is different today than it was back in the '60's, so doesn't it make sense that the activism would change, too?
The study finds that instead of focusing on huge national issues, today's youth activists choose to pool their, well, our, efforts in a more productive way to make changes in our communities. The author suggests that today's youth generation is getting into battles they can win, as they put it, "Learning the art of the possible."
Perhaps this methodology of changing things in your own midst is a wise one. If a vast majority of young volunteers change things in a positive way in their own schools or cities, then soon the whole state or country will start to reflect this. As an old saying goes, "If everyone kept their front yard clean, the whole world will be free of garbage." I don't remember the exact words, but the words were to the same effect.
In 1989, 66% of college students reported doing volunteer work during their last year of high school. In 2004, 83% of college students reported doing this. There have been many more institutionalized opportunities to get involved with helping communities. I had to do 40 hours of volunteer work to graduate from high school.
At first I was peeved at the prospect of "having to"do something, because I generally don't like being told what to do. But I grew to like doing the volunteer work that I did with my church, which was taking an hour every week to help young kids get their homework done. I developed such a knack for it that I continued to help out after I completed the 40 hours I needed to graduate. Indeed, I have continued after I graduated.
Additionally, the article notes that in the 2004 election, they say, a new generation of politically-involved youth was created. These articles were written a few years ago, so they say youth voters continued to grow in the 2006 midterms, when the first woman ever to become speaker of the house assumed that role.
But the articles were before the 2008 election, which obviously took the youth involvement to a whole new level. This past election has seen the first African-American elected to the highest office and to recieve the highest calling of all, made higher still by all the crises we face. So along with the rise of youth involvement, we also saw a more diverse makeup of non-white males getting into these offices.
Anyway, onto the next article. The article sets up the myth for us that all youth are largely apathetic on politics, that we are largely self-centered. The author flatly rejects this image, and again, 2004 is pointed to as the beginning of this upsurge. This was also before 2008 or even 2006.
Youth (my generation, currently college-age) sees political involvement in a different way than previous generation. Today's young activists are wearing bracelets and using the internet for political discovery and action.
Even the President of the United States, now, has caught on. Barack Obama owes a large part of his success to having utilized the internet, and thus mobilizing the younger generation, for his campaign. Now, as president, his administration has used the internet to make information more widely accessible to the public, perhaps for his goal of "transparency."
Also, I am pleased to announce that I am not alone in this blog. According to the article, there are 917,999 others like me (young people with politically-themed blogs), and this was in 2006. I wonder what a similar early 2009 study would show.
The article also busts the myth that young people are all democrats. While 66% of the 18-25 demographic voted for Obama in 2008, this doesn't mean they're democrats, it just means they voted for Obama. This article states that while those of what they're calling the "Millenial Generation" want to get involved, we are skeptical of party politics and partisanship.
The article says that this is a positive thing, which it is, because politicians will have to work more on the issues that are important to us. I think it's always a positive thing to keep some critical distance from the whole party thing. Too often one party starts calling the other bad, and vice versa. You know what I'm saying, the conservatives attack the liberals, the liberals attack conservatives, and it becomes more of a pissing match than a way of bringing about change.
As one person noted in the political science class I am now taking, and for which I read these articles, said,"There's too much drama in politics." Everybody chuckled at such a frank assessment, but it was true. It was one of those things that was even more funny because it was true.
Another observation from that class concluded that my generation's consensus was that there was too much partisanship, too much meanness in politics. According to the study, we seek authentic solutions to these issues. This is one of the reasons I created this blog, was to hear some of your ideas on the issues.
Anyway, I hope these stories make you, the reader (or Reeder) as heartwarmed by these findings as I was, and let me know what you think, if you have any stories or experiences on the subject, I'd love to hear them. I should have plenty more ripe blog material from this poli sci course, so stay tuned!
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)