"Numbing the pain for a while will make it worse when you finally feel it."
J. K. Rowling (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)
"Anonymous" responds to F.J. on AWM
Has F.J. actually read what Gary Hubbell wrote? Hubbell needs to wake up and learn the meaning of hypocrisy and fast, before he writes any more of these inane (insane?) articles! His description of a so-called “Angry White Man” sounds more like an adolescent, paranoid, homophobic wet dream Hubbell was having. What he describes can only be defined as an ignorant, unenlightened, male chauvinist, not only racist and elitist but also disturbingly misogynistic.
Listen to this:
“His last name and religion don’t matter… but he considers himself a white American.”
Hmm.
"The Angry White Man's not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race.”
Well I guess this White Man is NOT A RACIST if you, Hubbell, say so, and as long as he doesn’t mention which “certain backgrounds” he’s speaking of. Hello?!
More from Hubbell: "The Angry White Man knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.”
Clearly something only an ignorant, unenlightened male chauvinist would actually “know.” I'll take this to mean, as well, that an Angry White Man runs his family with his head rather than his heart? So, I can just imagine how really loving he is!
When speaking of Hillary Clinton, our former first lady and New York State Senator, Hubbell's AWM says: “He recoils at the mere sight of her…Her very image disgusts him…he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.” These can only be the words of a deeply thoughtful and RATIONAL person, right??!!
Hubbell also points out “…everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush,” while ending with “…just as the great majority of them (AWMs) voted for George Bush.” I guess we can add "good" judgment of character to my earlier list as well!
Lastly, and not least, Hubbell has forgotten one important adjective to describe this Angry White Man and that is LONELY, because surely any fantasy man with all these qualities has no one out there but himself to keep him company.
Whew! Mr. Hubbell needs to wake up and smell the hypocrisy.
Listen to this:
“His last name and religion don’t matter… but he considers himself a white American.”
Hmm.
"The Angry White Man's not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race.”
Well I guess this White Man is NOT A RACIST if you, Hubbell, say so, and as long as he doesn’t mention which “certain backgrounds” he’s speaking of. Hello?!
More from Hubbell: "The Angry White Man knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.”
Clearly something only an ignorant, unenlightened male chauvinist would actually “know.” I'll take this to mean, as well, that an Angry White Man runs his family with his head rather than his heart? So, I can just imagine how really loving he is!
When speaking of Hillary Clinton, our former first lady and New York State Senator, Hubbell's AWM says: “He recoils at the mere sight of her…Her very image disgusts him…he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.” These can only be the words of a deeply thoughtful and RATIONAL person, right??!!
Hubbell also points out “…everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush,” while ending with “…just as the great majority of them (AWMs) voted for George Bush.” I guess we can add "good" judgment of character to my earlier list as well!
Lastly, and not least, Hubbell has forgotten one important adjective to describe this Angry White Man and that is LONELY, because surely any fantasy man with all these qualities has no one out there but himself to keep him company.
Whew! Mr. Hubbell needs to wake up and smell the hypocrisy.
PL's response to F.J.'s AWM article recommendation:
Just a little food for thought, F.J. -
In any given moment, an event or action by another can make us feel appropriate anger. That kind of anger tends to dissipate when one takes appropriate action expressing the anger. What makes one identify oneself as an angry person, however, of any kind, is an internal dissatisfaction with oneself, not an external provocation from another.
PL
In any given moment, an event or action by another can make us feel appropriate anger. That kind of anger tends to dissipate when one takes appropriate action expressing the anger. What makes one identify oneself as an angry person, however, of any kind, is an internal dissatisfaction with oneself, not an external provocation from another.
PL
F.J. on not forgetting the Angry White Man!
F.J., no fan of the Huffington Post you may recall, recommends this article from the Aspen Times: "In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man" by Gary Hubbell (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324).
Okay, F.J., I presume you qualify?
Okay, F.J., I presume you qualify?
This is your brain on jazz
My friend, Barry, a very cool jazz musician in LA, sent me this. I'd say we could all use to learn a little jazz!
Check out the article at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080226213431.htm
Here's a taste:
"A pair of Johns Hopkins and government scientists have discovered that when jazz musicians improvise, their brains turn off areas linked to self-censoring and inhibition, and turn on those that let self-expression flow. It appears, they conclude, that jazz musicians create their unique improvised riffs by turning off inhibition and turning up creativity."
Check out the article at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080226213431.htm
Here's a taste:
"A pair of Johns Hopkins and government scientists have discovered that when jazz musicians improvise, their brains turn off areas linked to self-censoring and inhibition, and turn on those that let self-expression flow. It appears, they conclude, that jazz musicians create their unique improvised riffs by turning off inhibition and turning up creativity."
Think about these ideas, parents, or prospective parents...and feel free to comment
From "Conversations With God," by Neil Donald Walsch:
"The truth is, most humans are not equipped to raise children even in their 30s and 40s – and shouldn’t be expected to. They really haven’t lived enough as adults to pass deep wisdom to their children. Your younger years were never meant to be for truth-teaching, but for truth-gathering. How can you teach children a truth you haven’t yet gathered? You can’t, of course. So, you’ll wind up telling them the only truth you know – the truth of others, your father’s, your mother’s, your cultures’, your religion’s, anything, everything but your own truth. You are still searching for that, searching and experimenting, finding and falling, forming and reforming your truth, your idea about yourself until you are half a century on this planet, or near to it. It is the elders who should raise the offspring – and who were intended to. In any society where producing offspring at a young age is not considered “wrong” because the tribal elders raise them and there is, therefore, no sense of burden, sexual repression is unheard of, and so is rape, deviance and sexual dysfunction. Parents see their children whenever they wish, live with them if they choose, but they are not solely responsible for their care and upbringing. The physical, social, and spiritual needs of the children are met by the entire community, and education and values offered by the elders. If your elders aren’t contributing, its because you have not allowed them to. In parenting, politics, economics, and even religion, you have become a youth-worshipping, elder-dismissing society, and so you have lost much richness and resource."
From Kahlil Gibran:
"“Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts. For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness; For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.”
"The truth is, most humans are not equipped to raise children even in their 30s and 40s – and shouldn’t be expected to. They really haven’t lived enough as adults to pass deep wisdom to their children. Your younger years were never meant to be for truth-teaching, but for truth-gathering. How can you teach children a truth you haven’t yet gathered? You can’t, of course. So, you’ll wind up telling them the only truth you know – the truth of others, your father’s, your mother’s, your cultures’, your religion’s, anything, everything but your own truth. You are still searching for that, searching and experimenting, finding and falling, forming and reforming your truth, your idea about yourself until you are half a century on this planet, or near to it. It is the elders who should raise the offspring – and who were intended to. In any society where producing offspring at a young age is not considered “wrong” because the tribal elders raise them and there is, therefore, no sense of burden, sexual repression is unheard of, and so is rape, deviance and sexual dysfunction. Parents see their children whenever they wish, live with them if they choose, but they are not solely responsible for their care and upbringing. The physical, social, and spiritual needs of the children are met by the entire community, and education and values offered by the elders. If your elders aren’t contributing, its because you have not allowed them to. In parenting, politics, economics, and even religion, you have become a youth-worshipping, elder-dismissing society, and so you have lost much richness and resource."
From Kahlil Gibran:
"“Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts. For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness; For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.”
More on Depression
In my last entry, I talked about how to see depression, and any characterologically caused symptoms and distress, as having an adaptive purpose from the big-picture perspective. Still, depression sucks! Here are a few thoughts by some experts on the human psyche and emotional life on how depending on illusions or focusing on negative outcomes can both lead to depression.
Alexander Lowen (creator of Bioenergetic therapy): “In a situation where one feels helpless to change or evade a threatening reality, recourse to illusion prevents the person from giving way to hopeless despair. As an illusion gains power it demands fulfillment, thereby forcing the individual into conflict with reality which leads to desperate behavior. To pursue the fulfillment of an illusion requires the sacrifice of good feelings in the present. In desperation, the person is willing to forgo pleasure and to hold life in abeyance in the hope that one’s illusion-come-true will remove the despair.”
Eva Broch (author of the Pathwork Guide lectures): “No illusion exists that can bring you harmony, peace and freedom.”
Jane Roberts (author of the Seth material): “Whenever you are trying to rid yourself of a dilemma, make sure that you do not concentrate your attention upon it instead. This acts to cut out other data, and to further intensify your focus upon your difficulty.”
Alexander Lowen (creator of Bioenergetic therapy): “In a situation where one feels helpless to change or evade a threatening reality, recourse to illusion prevents the person from giving way to hopeless despair. As an illusion gains power it demands fulfillment, thereby forcing the individual into conflict with reality which leads to desperate behavior. To pursue the fulfillment of an illusion requires the sacrifice of good feelings in the present. In desperation, the person is willing to forgo pleasure and to hold life in abeyance in the hope that one’s illusion-come-true will remove the despair.”
Eva Broch (author of the Pathwork Guide lectures): “No illusion exists that can bring you harmony, peace and freedom.”
Jane Roberts (author of the Seth material): “Whenever you are trying to rid yourself of a dilemma, make sure that you do not concentrate your attention upon it instead. This acts to cut out other data, and to further intensify your focus upon your difficulty.”
Today's Quote
"Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them."
Aristotle
Aristotle
PL's response to F.J.'s response:
Thanks for the comment, F.J. I'd say you're pretty clear on how you feel about the Huffington Post!
Just for the record, though, the story itself originated on the Associated Press newswire, not with the Huff Post, and the stats themselves on Americans in prison came from the Pew Research Center which is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It does not take positions on policy issues.
Oh, and for whatever it's worth, and I'm not too sure about that, the Huffington's have been divorced for over a decade, and although Congressman Huffington did indeed come out as gay in 1998, I couldn't find anything about him ever being in a closet with a boy. Interested to know your source on that one. I'm always interested in the truth.
PL
Just for the record, though, the story itself originated on the Associated Press newswire, not with the Huff Post, and the stats themselves on Americans in prison came from the Pew Research Center which is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It does not take positions on policy issues.
Oh, and for whatever it's worth, and I'm not too sure about that, the Huffington's have been divorced for over a decade, and although Congressman Huffington did indeed come out as gay in 1998, I couldn't find anything about him ever being in a closet with a boy. Interested to know your source on that one. I'm always interested in the truth.
PL
Here's a comment from "F.J." on my "Home of the Free?" blog entry:
ANYTHING COMING FROM THIS EXTREME FAR LEFT HUFFINGTON POST HATE MONGER SHOULD NOT EVEN BE ADDRESSED. IF SHE HATES THIS COUNTRY SO MUCH SHE SHOULD JUST LEAVE. I BELIEVE HER HUSBAND WAS FOUND IN A CLOSET WITH A LITTLE BOY WITH NO PANTS. LAWS OF ATTRACTION? PLEASE. THESE PEOPLE ARE BELOW YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS, P.L.
SINCERELY, F.J.
SINCERELY, F.J.
Today's Quote (worth repeating!)
"The more laws and order are made prominent,
The more thieves and robbers there will be."
Lao-tzu
The more thieves and robbers there will be."
Lao-tzu
Home of the Free?
Check out this headline today on the Huffington Post: "Record-High Ratio of Americans in Prison" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/28/recordhigh-ratio-of-amer_n_89068.html)
"For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator."
The report said the United States incarcerates more people than any other nation, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which round out the Top 10. Four states _ Vermont, Michigan, Oregon and Connecticut _ now spend more on corrections than they do on higher education, the report said.
"These sad facts reflect a very distorted set of national priorities," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, referring to the full report. "Perhaps, if we adequately invested in our children and in education, kids who now grow up to be criminals could become productive workers and taxpayers."
Wow! What does this mean, and more importantly what does this say about us? Here's a startling fact for all of us about this kind of Bizarro World reality. With all of our extravagant incarceration rates, our crime rates are actually higher than most western countries. In addition, it's a statistical fact that in many major U.S. cities, the crime rate has gone down after a decrease in the size of the police force. AFTER! Think about that for a moment before you tuck it into your "Does Not Compute" file. Here's more: with all of our repressive attitudes and laws against sex, our rates of rape, sexual assault and teenage pregnancy are much higher than in other countries where sexual attitudes and laws are more relaxed. (Do we need to be reminded of the microcosm of the Catholic Church and how the oppressive vows of celibacy coincide with absurd levels of sexual acting out by priests? Or how many "Family Values" Republicans have turned out to be pedophiles or closet queens?)
These are not statistical anomalies folks. This is the Law of Attraction at work. Whatever you deny, repress or keep unconscious is what you attract. That's what Shakespeare understood when he had Queen Gertrude decry: "The lady doth protest too much."
"For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator."
The report said the United States incarcerates more people than any other nation, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which round out the Top 10. Four states _ Vermont, Michigan, Oregon and Connecticut _ now spend more on corrections than they do on higher education, the report said.
"These sad facts reflect a very distorted set of national priorities," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, referring to the full report. "Perhaps, if we adequately invested in our children and in education, kids who now grow up to be criminals could become productive workers and taxpayers."
Wow! What does this mean, and more importantly what does this say about us? Here's a startling fact for all of us about this kind of Bizarro World reality. With all of our extravagant incarceration rates, our crime rates are actually higher than most western countries. In addition, it's a statistical fact that in many major U.S. cities, the crime rate has gone down after a decrease in the size of the police force. AFTER! Think about that for a moment before you tuck it into your "Does Not Compute" file. Here's more: with all of our repressive attitudes and laws against sex, our rates of rape, sexual assault and teenage pregnancy are much higher than in other countries where sexual attitudes and laws are more relaxed. (Do we need to be reminded of the microcosm of the Catholic Church and how the oppressive vows of celibacy coincide with absurd levels of sexual acting out by priests? Or how many "Family Values" Republicans have turned out to be pedophiles or closet queens?)
These are not statistical anomalies folks. This is the Law of Attraction at work. Whatever you deny, repress or keep unconscious is what you attract. That's what Shakespeare understood when he had Queen Gertrude decry: "The lady doth protest too much."
Today's Quote
"You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation."
Plato
Plato
Today's Quote
"The good life, as I conceive it, is a happy life. I do not mean that if you are good you will be happy - I mean that if you are happy you will be good."
Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell
Hot off the press from Reuters: "Do Antidepressants Actually Work? Research Says Probably Not"
Here's a clip:
"British researchers have released a report that claims that antidepressants, for the most part, are ineffective. The researchers found that compared with placebo, these new-generation antidepressant medications did not yield clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially had moderate or even very severe depression."
Check out the story at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/26/do-antidepressants-actual_n_88523.html
"British researchers have released a report that claims that antidepressants, for the most part, are ineffective. The researchers found that compared with placebo, these new-generation antidepressant medications did not yield clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially had moderate or even very severe depression."
Check out the story at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/26/do-antidepressants-actual_n_88523.html
PL's response to Rick's response
Thanks for the comments, Rick, thoughtful and thought-provoking, as usual.
I was mainly poking "fun" at the price the illusory "quick fixes" exact from us in so-called "side-effects."
I actually am totally with you on the need for the labelling and warnings, though I wasn't addressing that issue.
I haven't found any real evidence to support the claims that truly natural remedies when taken in proper doses produce any major side-effects comparable to those caused by synthetic, processed chemicals taken in just the prescribed doses. That being said, in our greed driven economic culture, the same forces - “the machine,” as you put it - do indeed invade the manufacturers of natural, as well as synthetic remedies.
In response to your question to the Wizard - "What should we do when our bodies need fixing?" - the Great andPowerful Oz says: "Have more sex, Tin Man!"
Finally, regarding your comment - "If one must quit, it can be understood if that action has consequences for only you and not others for whom you are responsible" - I can say that my experience tells me that whenever you leave a bad situation for a good reason, no one truly suffers unnecessarily, though they may indeed protest initially. I would add, though, that the quitting process can be done thoughtfully and with a proper process, or it can be done impulsively with a haphazard process, and that certainly makes for very different effects.
Thanks again, Rick!
I was mainly poking "fun" at the price the illusory "quick fixes" exact from us in so-called "side-effects."
I actually am totally with you on the need for the labelling and warnings, though I wasn't addressing that issue.
I haven't found any real evidence to support the claims that truly natural remedies when taken in proper doses produce any major side-effects comparable to those caused by synthetic, processed chemicals taken in just the prescribed doses. That being said, in our greed driven economic culture, the same forces - “the machine,” as you put it - do indeed invade the manufacturers of natural, as well as synthetic remedies.
In response to your question to the Wizard - "What should we do when our bodies need fixing?" - the Great andPowerful Oz says: "Have more sex, Tin Man!"
Finally, regarding your comment - "If one must quit, it can be understood if that action has consequences for only you and not others for whom you are responsible" - I can say that my experience tells me that whenever you leave a bad situation for a good reason, no one truly suffers unnecessarily, though they may indeed protest initially. I would add, though, that the quitting process can be done thoughtfully and with a proper process, or it can be done impulsively with a haphazard process, and that certainly makes for very different effects.
Thanks again, Rick!
Rick responds to PL's drug company riff, with a noogie thrown in on the joy of quitting!
I can’t figure out your point.
(Forgive me but blogs represent a foreign world to me and I am unsure of its culture. Go easy on me.)
Is this a rant against the machine like the ridiculous unfounded “truths” that are fed to us by the Republicans and Democrats? Or, is it a criticism of our dependency on quick fixes in all that we do?
Our litigious society mandates warnings, however mind-boggling, obvious or even unnecessary, from all manufacturers. We have all seen these warnings and realize how small the chances are of being affected by them. The drug companies have to do this.
Have you taken a look at the side of an extension ladder? It actually tells you not to place it on a loose pile of uneven dirt or rocks. For a kitchen mixer, it tells you not to put your hand in the bowl while the mixer is on. What about the “caution hot” writing on the top of a coffee lid? They are all there because people sued the company for not warning the consumer.
The problem lies in people. Instead of recognizing the obvious, act stupidly or are irresponsible, they sue a company for not telling them that if you drive with the lid of your hot coffee cup off, you can spill it causing 3rd degree burns. What about video games, movies and music “causing” fatal behaviors? Millions of dollars are spent trying to defend these ridiculous assertions. The result is that warnings, although some are predictable and dangerous, are oftentimes thin and do not outweigh the benefits.
Now, as with any stimulant, sedative or other medications most side affects are predictable. Look at herbal stimulants such as caffeine, ephedrine, and/or pseudoephedrine and the side affects would be just as alarming.
What about natural sedatives such as Valerian or Ginseng and their “severe” side affects.
How common are the side affects of the drugs mentioned in the original blog? How common are the side affects in the natural “drugs”?
Based on your calculus, people who have an illness or condition should not be “numb” and “dumb” and ignore the side affects, nor should they support “the machine” which by the way includes manufacturers of natural + synthetic remedies.
Oh Wizard of OZ! What should we do when our bodies need fixing?
By the way, if one must quit, it can be understood if that action has consequences for only you and not others for whom you are responsible. Thoughts?
(Forgive me but blogs represent a foreign world to me and I am unsure of its culture. Go easy on me.)
Is this a rant against the machine like the ridiculous unfounded “truths” that are fed to us by the Republicans and Democrats? Or, is it a criticism of our dependency on quick fixes in all that we do?
Our litigious society mandates warnings, however mind-boggling, obvious or even unnecessary, from all manufacturers. We have all seen these warnings and realize how small the chances are of being affected by them. The drug companies have to do this.
Have you taken a look at the side of an extension ladder? It actually tells you not to place it on a loose pile of uneven dirt or rocks. For a kitchen mixer, it tells you not to put your hand in the bowl while the mixer is on. What about the “caution hot” writing on the top of a coffee lid? They are all there because people sued the company for not warning the consumer.
The problem lies in people. Instead of recognizing the obvious, act stupidly or are irresponsible, they sue a company for not telling them that if you drive with the lid of your hot coffee cup off, you can spill it causing 3rd degree burns. What about video games, movies and music “causing” fatal behaviors? Millions of dollars are spent trying to defend these ridiculous assertions. The result is that warnings, although some are predictable and dangerous, are oftentimes thin and do not outweigh the benefits.
Now, as with any stimulant, sedative or other medications most side affects are predictable. Look at herbal stimulants such as caffeine, ephedrine, and/or pseudoephedrine and the side affects would be just as alarming.
What about natural sedatives such as Valerian or Ginseng and their “severe” side affects.
How common are the side affects of the drugs mentioned in the original blog? How common are the side affects in the natural “drugs”?
Based on your calculus, people who have an illness or condition should not be “numb” and “dumb” and ignore the side affects, nor should they support “the machine” which by the way includes manufacturers of natural + synthetic remedies.
Oh Wizard of OZ! What should we do when our bodies need fixing?
By the way, if one must quit, it can be understood if that action has consequences for only you and not others for whom you are responsible. Thoughts?
Today's Quote
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive, for the will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Nader for President? Ain't that America?
Okay, I'm going to do my best now to invite the ire of the left and right of this country down upon me.
First of all, I voted for Barack Obama in the NY primary, and I will vote for him, or Hillary Clinton, in the general election. I am actually excited about a presidential election for the first time in almost three decades. (I basically gave up on national politics with the two elections of Ronald Reagan and the parade of dry-mouthed wimps put up year after year by the Democrats against ever-increasingly evil or moronic Republicans.) Like Michelle Obama, I, too, am proud of our country in a special way this year for the first time in my adult life.
Nonetheless, I welcome the entry of Ralph Nader into the presidential race. Why wouldn't I? As Bob Herbert points out in his otherwise pathetic plea today against Nader running, Raplh Nader is "one of just a handful of people over the past century with a legitimate claim to the designation 'great American.”
(See Herbert's piece in the NY Times at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26herbert.html?ref=opinion)
Mr. Herbert then goes on to list SOME of Nader's contributions to the well being of our citizenry.
According to Herbert, Mr. Nader is: "owed thanks for seat belts and air bags and cars that hold the road better, that don’t flip or crumple up or catch fire as easily as earlier models. As the nation’s premier consumer advocate, he has waged war with remarkable success against tainted meat, air and water pollution and dangerous food additives. He was a major driving force behind the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Freedom of Information Act? Thanks for your help, Ralph. Food-labeling that’s clear and informative? Thanks again. And, oh yes, it was Ralph Nader who fought for and won compensation for airline passengers bumped from overbooked flights.
Mr. Nader, who will turn 74 on Wednesday, either founded or inspired an astonishing array of public-spirited organizations and citizens’ groups, including the public interest research groups know as PIRGs. He’s waged titanic battles against corruption in government and the unchecked power of giant corporations. I could go on for a few more days, but you get the idea."
Yet, somehow, in the same breath, Herbert says Nader shouldn't run for president because it might hurt the Democratic nominee. Well, I'm sorry, but if Nader running for president creates a challenge for the Democratic nominee, how is that Nader's fault? How is it that a true American hero who wants to (again according to Herbert) express "outrage over the ballot-access difficulties of independent candidates, and the iniquities of the Bush administration, which, in Mr. Nader’s view, is 'the most impeachable presidency in modern history,' wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, 'full Medicare for all,' and a national mission to abolish poverty, and the waste, fraud and corruption that has turned the military budget into a world-class destroyer of taxpayer dollars, and corporate crime" should be told not to run for president?
It a very real way, the reason we finally have two strong candidates running historic races this year on the Democratic side is partially because of Ralph Nader. Al Gore ran an insincere, two-faced campaign in 2000, and John Kerry was so undercharged and disconnected, I don't even know how he got out of bed in the morning. That any Democrat could have lost to George W. Bush, the most sophomoric, uninspiring, intellectually limited and emotionally challenged candidate in modern times is somehow Ralph Nader's fault?! No, maybe Nader's "threat" has helped the Democrats wake up, and put up for a change.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are great candidates, with a great purpose, running for president. Ralph Nader is a uniquely great American, also running for president. Hooray!
Ain't that America?
PL
First of all, I voted for Barack Obama in the NY primary, and I will vote for him, or Hillary Clinton, in the general election. I am actually excited about a presidential election for the first time in almost three decades. (I basically gave up on national politics with the two elections of Ronald Reagan and the parade of dry-mouthed wimps put up year after year by the Democrats against ever-increasingly evil or moronic Republicans.) Like Michelle Obama, I, too, am proud of our country in a special way this year for the first time in my adult life.
Nonetheless, I welcome the entry of Ralph Nader into the presidential race. Why wouldn't I? As Bob Herbert points out in his otherwise pathetic plea today against Nader running, Raplh Nader is "one of just a handful of people over the past century with a legitimate claim to the designation 'great American.”
(See Herbert's piece in the NY Times at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26herbert.html?ref=opinion)
Mr. Herbert then goes on to list SOME of Nader's contributions to the well being of our citizenry.
According to Herbert, Mr. Nader is: "owed thanks for seat belts and air bags and cars that hold the road better, that don’t flip or crumple up or catch fire as easily as earlier models. As the nation’s premier consumer advocate, he has waged war with remarkable success against tainted meat, air and water pollution and dangerous food additives. He was a major driving force behind the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Freedom of Information Act? Thanks for your help, Ralph. Food-labeling that’s clear and informative? Thanks again. And, oh yes, it was Ralph Nader who fought for and won compensation for airline passengers bumped from overbooked flights.
Mr. Nader, who will turn 74 on Wednesday, either founded or inspired an astonishing array of public-spirited organizations and citizens’ groups, including the public interest research groups know as PIRGs. He’s waged titanic battles against corruption in government and the unchecked power of giant corporations. I could go on for a few more days, but you get the idea."
Yet, somehow, in the same breath, Herbert says Nader shouldn't run for president because it might hurt the Democratic nominee. Well, I'm sorry, but if Nader running for president creates a challenge for the Democratic nominee, how is that Nader's fault? How is it that a true American hero who wants to (again according to Herbert) express "outrage over the ballot-access difficulties of independent candidates, and the iniquities of the Bush administration, which, in Mr. Nader’s view, is 'the most impeachable presidency in modern history,' wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, 'full Medicare for all,' and a national mission to abolish poverty, and the waste, fraud and corruption that has turned the military budget into a world-class destroyer of taxpayer dollars, and corporate crime" should be told not to run for president?
It a very real way, the reason we finally have two strong candidates running historic races this year on the Democratic side is partially because of Ralph Nader. Al Gore ran an insincere, two-faced campaign in 2000, and John Kerry was so undercharged and disconnected, I don't even know how he got out of bed in the morning. That any Democrat could have lost to George W. Bush, the most sophomoric, uninspiring, intellectually limited and emotionally challenged candidate in modern times is somehow Ralph Nader's fault?! No, maybe Nader's "threat" has helped the Democrats wake up, and put up for a change.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are great candidates, with a great purpose, running for president. Ralph Nader is a uniquely great American, also running for president. Hooray!
Ain't that America?
PL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
