As I have said before, I often feel like I have stumbled into some kind of rabbit hole where the people supposedly the most concerned with morality (and often critical of liberals as having no moral foundation) are on the wrong side of just about every moral question today. They are supportive of torture and torturers and in opposition to extending healthcare coverage.
I am afraid that for many conservatives (and liberals) politics has become just another rabid "fan" experience. Just as they cheer for their favorite football team even when that team is inept and loses, they now cheer for the GOP first and foremost. They are opposed to health care, not because of some deeply felt philosophical issue, but merely because their team is opposed to health care, and the team they hate (Obama's team) is for it. I understand there are thoughtful conservatives like LB out there who have thought about this from a principled perspective, but would argue they are in the minority.
Anyway, Ebert's column is well worth the read.
Update. I just noticed a friend's status update on Facebook.
is thankful that Jesus was wounded for her transgressions, bruised for her iniquities; that the chastisement for her peace was upon Him, and that by His stripes she is healed. (Isaiah 53:5)I like this post, and I like this verse, but can't quite wrap my head around the theology here (not picking on this friend, btw, as I don't know how this particular friend stands on torture). This seems to me to be the conservative Christian disconnect--that their theology is based, in part, on the Christ's torture for them, but they seem to be uncaring about the torture of others.
5 comments:
How to make the world a better place:
1. Free every person who is being held as a terrorist, and give them $1,000,000 as compensation for holding them.
2. Free, unlimited "health care" for anyone who can make their way to the United States.
3. Double the taxes of everyone who pays taxes.
4. Put a fifty percent tax on any earnings over one million dollars, that remain after number three is applied.
5. Raise the "minimum wage" to $10/hr immediately and gradually raise it to $20/hr by 1/1/13.
6. Require all existing businesses to increase their number of employees by ten percent by 12/31/10.
7. Institute the "Fairness Doctrine" in order to make it cost prohibitive for radio stations to carry Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and other right-wing bigots.
8. Require that everyone have a bank account and that they deposit all of their earnings into that account, and pay for everything out of that account.
9. Give the government the authority to remove money from all bank accounts for the payment of taxes. This would insure that all taxes are paid on time.
Implementing those things isn't enough to solve all of the problems, but it's a good start.
Gee, and all I was asking for was a semi-coherent and thoughtful response. Guess that was too much to ask for.
Can you say strawman?
I think the "team" approach is a good way to conceptualize the debate. IMO, this is a difficult issue that is hard to understand (at least in the broad sense). I generally support extending healthcare coverage, but I can understand some of the opposition, especially the concerns regarding cost.
if we were simply talking about the cost, we would be in a good place, I think. We would be talking about real issues and debating real things. Instead, we are in some kind of weird place where otherwise decent republicans are negotiating out aspects of reform policy with no real intention of voting for any reform at all. Just saw that Grassley sent out a fundraiser asking for help in defeating Obama Care. Some think that he is positioning for a leadership role, and the rest of the republicans are letting him know what will happen to him if he helps Obama at all. This is bad politics at its worse.
Republicans should be offering some viable alternative (I think some have) instead of simply bashing Obamacare. Bad politics, indeed.
Post a Comment