tom adam whatever i want to say

A civil conversation

From this past year, I don't know anyone who would say that the conduct of our elected representatives in Washington has inculcated a spirit of serious debate and compromise. Rather we have one party that appears to be giving in and another that is holding the Middle and Working Classes by the throat over the edge of a cliff. (Democrats and Republicans, respectively). But can we really expect better when the people of this country do the same thing (to the limits of their own power, at any rate). We really need to have a conversation about a lot of things in politics: the role of government, whether this country should even continue to exist... There are a lot of serious concerns, but as long as everyone avoids facts and puts words in each others' mouths, there is nothing that can be accomplished.

So today, I was pleased to see an article on the Huffington Post: 15 Things That Even Liberals Should Be Willing To Admit. "at last", I thought, "someone is willing to have a serious conversation and find some places we can start to work together. Perhaps we can talk about tax increases in the wealthy (supported by most Americans) or how bad Congress is (agreen to by most Americans). Instead what I got was the standard press package from the right-wing hatemongers dressed up like a wolf in sheep's clothing. For some reason I was incensed, perhaps by having an expectation in the first place, and felt it needed a response.

I want to preface this by saying this: I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I am an American Citizen capable of determining for myself what things are morally good and just. And before I dissect the arguments, I have one comment for Mr. Hawkins: the comma has rules for its use.

15 ) That the Occupy Movement has broken more laws and been much more violent than the Tea Party Movement.

This may be true. While I lack the specific information necessary to evaluate its truth state, it would have to be argued that the tea party groups received far less invasive media attention and fewer (probable) agent-provocateurs. Also, it would have to be broken down into some measure related to number of people and time, sort of a criminal indictments per capita per hour. It certainly has generated fewer counter-factual statements.

14 ) That if we can ask people to present an ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, or get on an airplane, then it's no great burden to ask people to present an ID if they're doing something as important as voting.

Buying alcohol, driving a car, and air travel are privileges granted to some members of the populace. Voting is a right and a duty for all citizens of the United States of America. Lacking an ID does not remove your rights as a citizen, even if it restricts the privileges extended.

13 ) That increasing taxes, adding expensive regulations, and demonizing businesses hurt economic growth.

This statement would appear to be counter to historical trends. Removing regulations, in fact, was largely responsible for the financial meltdown in 2008 and the continuing erosion of the world financial market. Tax rates, historically, are largely unrelated to economic growth, particularly with regards to the higher tax brackets. [1]

12 ) That for whatever flaws it may have, America has done more good for the world than any other nation in world history.

This is not a factual statement, but a matter of opinion. I can think of four others that I would give mention to before the United States of America.
- Babylon: The most memorable early culture to have a code of laws that dictated societal interaction. Lacking that basis, the complex societies we live in would be impossible.
- Greece: Served as the birthplace of, more or less, modern thought: a premise that we can figure things out by study and discussion and testing.
- Rome: While there were a number of issues related to the spread of the Roman Empire, it brought to most of the regions it touched the rule of law, public works and sanitation, and education.
- China: We would not have the world we have without gunpowder. If the United States of America is doing good by spreading democracy at gunpoint, we have to give a measure of the credit to those who created gunpowder.

And, by the way, there is no "America" - if you're going to be patronizingly nationalistic, use the real name.

11 ) That opponents of abortion are primarily motivated by the fact that they think a child is being killed during an abortion, and thus feel they're morally obligated to speak out.

There is no indication that this blanket statement is true. Were it to be so, it would be entirely hypocritical. Opponents of abortion do not primarily involve themselves in spreading quality health care, food security, and reduction in violence and violence against women, and, you know, nature - who have a much higher count for ending pregnancy than abortion. And they, as a group, do nothing to support children who already have been born from dying to disease, famine, violence, and, you know, nature. So, if they were motivated by concern for children there are less morally ambiguous places they could focus that energy.
However, I would argue that this statement is probably false. While that may be the stated motivation, I would suspect the reality is much darker and would reveal an iron age mentality on the role of women. [2][3]

10 ) That a machine is more likely to accurately count votes than human beings, who have a reason to try to slant the totals because of their political affiliation.

Neither people nor machines are infallible. Human being are capable of integrity and accuracy, and computers are reliant upon input data and programming, both of which can be controlled by those lacking integrity. That being said, I do think an open-source digital + paper system is probably the way to go. That way you can have both efficiency and a safeguard for verification.[4]

9 ) That communism is an evil comparable to, if not worse than, Nazism.

Communism is a political ideal that has never been adopted in any large sense. Some political regimes claiming communism have done terrible things. I think we can all agree that the Nazi party was responsible for a reprehensible crime against humanity. I think we can also find that "democracies" and "kingdoms" and "theocracies" - all methods of political organization - have been responsible for terrible evils. What can be drawn from history is that some people are going to do terrible things and they will find a convenient label for it, regardless of its appropriateness.

8 ) That a lot, if not most, of the charges of "racism" that are thrown around in the political sphere are done so for the sake of politics, not because people actually believe there's any racism occurring.

Unless, of course, we believe that the charges of racism are being accurately leveled. We may not have government sanctioned discrimination, but there are many currents through the society that continue to espouse it, and the first half of the 20th century will have long-lasting effects. The fact is, racism is still around.[5]

7 ) That the life of a human being is more important than the life of an animal.

Human beings are animals. That's rather simple biology. But to address the central argument here, that human life is somehow more "sacred" than that of other creatures is an example of species-imperialism and leads to the slippery slope of eugenics (which has been discredited).

6 ) That Fox leans to the right while ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC lean to the left.

Fox leans to the right. MSNBC leans to the left. CNN waffles between center and center-right, it would appear. The others I don't have the knowledge to judge. But the statement was given as an absolute and with even one portion of it incorrect, the entire statement is evaluated as false.

5 ) That Bush never had any intention of implementing the draft.

I certainly do not, nor does anyone else, know what Reggie Bush intended. Though why we care what he thinks of the draft, I don't know. Oh, wait, we have an ambiguous reference with "Bush" don't we? Which, exactly? Former President George H. W. Bush? Former President George W. Bush? I am certain that there is at one "Bush" that has never intended to implement a draft of any kind, and I am certain that one has. Who and for what will remain mysteries for the time-being.

4 ) That Bush was right about the surge turning the tide in Iraq.

I don't know enough to evaluate this statement. However, which tide is being referred to? The tide of sectarian violence threatening to topple the fledgling Iraqi government appears to be alive and well.

3 ) That conservative policies, mostly opposed by Liberals, led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and American victory in the Cold War.

I think a large number of people would argue that the Soviet Union collapsed due to an inefficient central management system that couldn't feed its own people coupled with an institutional corruption. That outrageous amounts of defense spending in an arms race may have hastened that end is possible, but it is at best a contributing factor, not an ultimate one.[6]

2 ) That the Left's opposition to drilling in ANWR and other places in the U.S. has driven up the cost of gas.

Natural disasters destroying and damaging drilling platforms and refineries has driven up the cost of gas. Continued increase in demand due to low-fuel-efficiency vehicles is driving up the cost of gas. Political and civil unrest in oil-producing nations has driven up the cost of gas. Commodities trading and speculation has driven up the cost of gas. The closes this statement could come to true is if it read: The Left's opposition to drilling in ANWR and other places in the U.S. has not prevented additional gas from coming onto the market which had it been done may have resulted in a lowering of gas prices. But with oil companies raking in record profits and gigantic government subsidies, there is nothing to indicate prices prices will ever go down- we have proven willing to pay the price they ask and they serve to maximize their profits above all else.[7]

1) That, at best, Barack Obama has been ineffective at turning around the economy and at worst, his policies have made it worse.

This is an example of Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest... or worst. Setting aside partisan ideology, President Obama's efforts have resulted in an economy that has turned around and been growing for some time. Unemployment has stopped increasing and has shown signs of turning around. I fail to see how this is either ineffective or making it worse. What made it worse was the repeal of Glass-Steagall and numerous other safeguards that would have limited the possible scope of damage in an economic crisis. But coming back now and playing the "what if" game is a pointless exercise in cherry-picked data and post facto rationalizations.[8][9]