I was looking for the President's speech from last night. Before I found it, I found this op-ed written by Pres. Obama asking for Americans to "regain the sense of common purpose that stirred in our hearts 10 years ago."
In the op-ed, President Obama also notes "that our differences pale beside what unites us and that when we choose to move forward together, as one American family, the United States doesn't just endure, we can emerge from our tests and trials stronger than before."
Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. I promise to work towards the civility that you, and others have asked for. I'd like you to lead and stop blaming Republicans for everything as I saw in your speeches last week. I'd like you to use your leadership influence and ask those around you to stop bashing Tea Partiers, those in other (or the same) wealth class and whoever the target-du-jour happens to be.
I promise to do my part, will you do yours?
Showing posts with label tea party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tea party. Show all posts
Friday, September 09, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
What does Michael Moore have in Common with the Tea Party?
Over the weekend, I watched Michael Moore's documentary "Capitalism: A Love Affair". It was the first Moore film I've ever watched and you're probably saying "Why is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Randy even watching such a film?" Well it wasn't as bad (or as good) as I'd been told about his films and it was interesting to hear his opinions first hand, rather than through someone else's filter.
As expected, the film was very anti-Bush, but also took some shots at several Clinton and current presidential appointees. One had to listen carefully to catch them, but they were there. Senators Dodd and Frank (both with a "D" after their name) were shown in a bad light, so both parties were skewered. There were several anti-Obama ads played that talked about Socialism. To me, the tie-in was weak, but the attempt was to show that Obama is not a socialist.
There were some random, seemingly unconnected portions of the movie, it focused on GM shutdowns, foreclosures, a group called the Low Income Families Fighting Together (see here) and a sit-down strike at Republic Windows and Doors (see here). Moore also had a segment on the low pay for pilots. To me, the main (only?) tie in these stories was that unions were shown in a positive light in each case, standing up for the little man against the big-bad company.
There was a segment on dead-peasant policies. To be honest, this puzzled me. Dead-peasant policies exist when a company, (Wal-Mart was highlighted) takes out a life insurance policy on their workers with the company as a beneficiary. Then if the employee dies, the company makes money. I'm trying to figure out why I should care. Assuming of course, the company doesn't do something to hasten the final event. In my case, I'd like the challenge to show the company that they would lose money on the insurance, I'd outlive their interest.
This makes me wonder about the business model of the life insurance company. Surely they have the actuarial numbers to show that over a large number of people, Wal-Mart can't make money in this game. Otherwise, the insurance companies are charging too little for this policy.
There was praise for FDR and his attempt to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights. The film said that Germany, Italy and Japan have these in their constitution. Frankly for me, that doesn't speak well. I for one, am not interested in emulating any of those countries. (As a side note, the film ends with Moore making the dramatic statement that he's not leaving the US, I'm guessing he's heard the people suggest he move to whatever country he thinks is better).
The movie ended saying that Capitalism is evil and should be replaced by democracy. It showed some companies that are run purely democratically. One was a small engineering firm, the other a bakery. It would be interesting to read more about these companies (sorry, I didn't get their name), to see how they got started, how did they manage their funds. How do they pay their CEO and how do they recruit given their democratic approach. I don't recall the companies names, so that research won't get done by me.
One of the questions I kept asking was about protection of property. Suppose I own a house and decide to sell it to you. After you've been in it for a few years, you find you can't make the payment. Shouldn't I have the right to foreclose? If you can't pay me what you owe me, can't I at least get my property back? Moore's film kept showing reasons that the big banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose (and some were legitimate), but what happens to the bank's property rights? Do we stomp all over those? That question was never answered.
Oh and lest I close without answering the title question - what DO Michael Moore and the Tea Party have in common? Both are solidly opposed to TARP and think the whole fiasco was created by the Treasury Secretary and Wall Street. I wonder, will Moore show up at the next Tea Party Rally?
As expected, the film was very anti-Bush, but also took some shots at several Clinton and current presidential appointees. One had to listen carefully to catch them, but they were there. Senators Dodd and Frank (both with a "D" after their name) were shown in a bad light, so both parties were skewered. There were several anti-Obama ads played that talked about Socialism. To me, the tie-in was weak, but the attempt was to show that Obama is not a socialist.
There were some random, seemingly unconnected portions of the movie, it focused on GM shutdowns, foreclosures, a group called the Low Income Families Fighting Together (see here) and a sit-down strike at Republic Windows and Doors (see here). Moore also had a segment on the low pay for pilots. To me, the main (only?) tie in these stories was that unions were shown in a positive light in each case, standing up for the little man against the big-bad company.
There was a segment on dead-peasant policies. To be honest, this puzzled me. Dead-peasant policies exist when a company, (Wal-Mart was highlighted) takes out a life insurance policy on their workers with the company as a beneficiary. Then if the employee dies, the company makes money. I'm trying to figure out why I should care. Assuming of course, the company doesn't do something to hasten the final event. In my case, I'd like the challenge to show the company that they would lose money on the insurance, I'd outlive their interest.
This makes me wonder about the business model of the life insurance company. Surely they have the actuarial numbers to show that over a large number of people, Wal-Mart can't make money in this game. Otherwise, the insurance companies are charging too little for this policy.
There was praise for FDR and his attempt to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights. The film said that Germany, Italy and Japan have these in their constitution. Frankly for me, that doesn't speak well. I for one, am not interested in emulating any of those countries. (As a side note, the film ends with Moore making the dramatic statement that he's not leaving the US, I'm guessing he's heard the people suggest he move to whatever country he thinks is better).
The movie ended saying that Capitalism is evil and should be replaced by democracy. It showed some companies that are run purely democratically. One was a small engineering firm, the other a bakery. It would be interesting to read more about these companies (sorry, I didn't get their name), to see how they got started, how did they manage their funds. How do they pay their CEO and how do they recruit given their democratic approach. I don't recall the companies names, so that research won't get done by me.
One of the questions I kept asking was about protection of property. Suppose I own a house and decide to sell it to you. After you've been in it for a few years, you find you can't make the payment. Shouldn't I have the right to foreclose? If you can't pay me what you owe me, can't I at least get my property back? Moore's film kept showing reasons that the big banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose (and some were legitimate), but what happens to the bank's property rights? Do we stomp all over those? That question was never answered.
Oh and lest I close without answering the title question - what DO Michael Moore and the Tea Party have in common? Both are solidly opposed to TARP and think the whole fiasco was created by the Treasury Secretary and Wall Street. I wonder, will Moore show up at the next Tea Party Rally?
Monday, April 20, 2009
My second and third TEA party and opposition
Last week I told you about my first TEA party. That was Monday, on Wednesday I went to one at lunch time in Simpsonville (the picture here were before the party started) and then I went to one Friday night that was much larger. And there was some opposition to the Friday night party.
The Simpsonville party was, by nature, small. I estimated around 100, the TV station there estimated about 200. Downtown Simpsonville isn't exactly a metropolis, so this was about what I expected. There was a single protester who had a sign saying "Obama's Will Help" (presumably, it meant his plan). The sign was quickly drawn on a cardboard box top. At the end of the meeting, signs were displayed with the number to call for the White House and for Congress. Everyone was encouraged to call one of the numbers and to let them know we were at a TEA party.
The Friday evening party was much larger. The police estimated 10,000, later estimates from the TV station with helicopter view estimated 6,000. The party was coordinated by the Upstate Young Republicans and there were several Republican speakers, but the crowd was far from died-in-the-wool Republican. When Congressman Gresham Barrett (who voted for TARP) was booed so loudly and longly, that his speech could not be heard.
There was also a counter-rally at the same time, behind the auditorium. I walked down there several times to get a feel for the rally. The meeting got off to a late start. Apparently, Leola Robinson-Simpson (see her webpage here) got tied up in the wrong meeting. My first thought was, if this lady, who is a Trustee for our local school board, was tied up in the wrong meeting, why is she leading our children? Scary.
The counter-rally actually was not so much anti-TEA (which would make it a coke party?), but a "Save Our Schools" (SOS) or anti-Sanford rally. For those outside SC, Mark Sanford is our Republican Governor. Because of term-limits, he's ineligible to run again in 2012 and appears to be positioning for a presidential run. He's spent the last 5 years as one of the new "young" right-wing conservative southern governors. He has, so far, turned down part of the stimulus money. There are many in the state who feel this is stealing from education. (SC has one of the worst education records of any of the 50 states.)
There were some "facts" given out at the SOS rally that I have questions about. To me, it sounded like the speakers were disappointed that the rally was so poorly attended. I did hear on the news that some of the participants moved to the TEA rally and a small ruckus broke out. Apparently, some TEA attenders asked them to leave (the news clip I saw showed SOS attenders yelling). But apparently, this was resolved without major incident.
My final thought for the day is that the TEA movement, while promoted by local radio and republican groups, is a big "grass roots" movement. The people attending are upset at government, but aren't quite sure why. The big test will be to see what happens from here.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
My first tea party - Updated
Last night my daughter was surprised that I was going to a tea party. She probably thought the same as my son, who believed I was at a tea party with my niece (who has probably outgrown those parties). Surprisingly, when I searched on the Internet for details I found out they still have those kinds of tea parties in Laurens County, a southern genteel county about 30 miles from my home.
Instead, this tea party was reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party held in 1773. If you're a Mary Poppins fan, you know the initial event made the tea undrinkable, even for Americans. But more than that, it signaled a rebellion, a rebellion against a government that didn't listen to the people it governed. The current day tea parties, over 2000 scheduled to have occurred by the end of this week, also signal a rebellion -- a rebellion against government spending and a change in the philosophy of this country.
During the meeting that lasted slightly over an hour, I tried to keep myself from becoming engrossed in the speeches and to report the details. My goal was to learn what was really going on and to listen carefully to what was said. A good bit of the meeting was simply political presentations: one man running for congress, another for Lt. Governor, a state senator and a US Congressman. Much of it toed the right wing of the Republican Party line - anti-abortion, defense of marriage and anti-Obama.
But there were also some good points that were brought out that require more research - a call for thinner waste lines on government (pardon the pun), more transparency in government, accusations of overstepped constitutional bounds (discussion on six provisions in the Constitution given to government).
One of the most impressive speakers was Bill Connor, candidate for Lt Governor. Connor spent some time in Afghanistan serving our country in our efforts there. For that alone he garnered my respect. He also gained my attention when he spoke of the difference in English view of taxes and American views (fodder for another post). While I didn't agree with everything he said, I want to follow this man and see what his candidacy will look like.
Another speaker, Bobby Smith, Chairman of the Laurens County Republican Party pointed out that effort started with the individual, that we must not allow the government to be the source of our provisions. In a poor county like Laurens, this is a difficult step for a lot of people. Smith admitted this in his speech, but encouraged everyone to make the step. With the way the government rules over those it helps (see here), we should all heed those words.
The final speaker was Dr. Tony Beam, pastor and local talk radio host. Beam's speech outlined what I believe is the focal point for the tea party - it's not about taxes, it's about tyranny. His notes will be posted on the 'net later this week, once I find them I'll post a link.
To summarize, the tea party was a success. I counted close to 150 people and probably missed some (a local report said 200 - I don't doubt it). I hope to attend another party later in the week, maybe even two. My goal is to understand what is really going on and what all the talk is about. I'll report more of the ideas later.
* Update - Tony Beam's speech can be found here.
Instead, this tea party was reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party held in 1773. If you're a Mary Poppins fan, you know the initial event made the tea undrinkable, even for Americans. But more than that, it signaled a rebellion, a rebellion against a government that didn't listen to the people it governed. The current day tea parties, over 2000 scheduled to have occurred by the end of this week, also signal a rebellion -- a rebellion against government spending and a change in the philosophy of this country.
During the meeting that lasted slightly over an hour, I tried to keep myself from becoming engrossed in the speeches and to report the details. My goal was to learn what was really going on and to listen carefully to what was said. A good bit of the meeting was simply political presentations: one man running for congress, another for Lt. Governor, a state senator and a US Congressman. Much of it toed the right wing of the Republican Party line - anti-abortion, defense of marriage and anti-Obama.
But there were also some good points that were brought out that require more research - a call for thinner waste lines on government (pardon the pun), more transparency in government, accusations of overstepped constitutional bounds (discussion on six provisions in the Constitution given to government).
One of the most impressive speakers was Bill Connor, candidate for Lt Governor. Connor spent some time in Afghanistan serving our country in our efforts there. For that alone he garnered my respect. He also gained my attention when he spoke of the difference in English view of taxes and American views (fodder for another post). While I didn't agree with everything he said, I want to follow this man and see what his candidacy will look like.
Another speaker, Bobby Smith, Chairman of the Laurens County Republican Party pointed out that effort started with the individual, that we must not allow the government to be the source of our provisions. In a poor county like Laurens, this is a difficult step for a lot of people. Smith admitted this in his speech, but encouraged everyone to make the step. With the way the government rules over those it helps (see here), we should all heed those words.
The final speaker was Dr. Tony Beam, pastor and local talk radio host. Beam's speech outlined what I believe is the focal point for the tea party - it's not about taxes, it's about tyranny. His notes will be posted on the 'net later this week, once I find them I'll post a link.
To summarize, the tea party was a success. I counted close to 150 people and probably missed some (a local report said 200 - I don't doubt it). I hope to attend another party later in the week, maybe even two. My goal is to understand what is really going on and what all the talk is about. I'll report more of the ideas later.
* Update - Tony Beam's speech can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)