THE POLITICS OF CRITICISM

Rudy Giuliani mentioned something profound in his blast at president Obama.  He was upset that Obama sometimes criticizes America.  Now this really is a key difference between conservatives and liberals.

For reasons I don't fully understand, conservatives feel that you should only think good about America.  They are serious about this and there was even a move in Colorado to remove all critical things about America from the school history books.  It is a part of the makeup of conservatives and probably stems from their not liking change.  After all, if everything is good, why change?

Liberals, on the other hand, think America can be improved and that it is part of the American makeup to do so, so they tend to have a stream of problems they see in America that ought to be fixed and make a more perfect Union: women should be able to own property, women should have the right to vote, slavery is immoral, Jim Crow is immoral, minorities should be able to vote, schools should be desegregated,  the poor should have livable housing, buying a home should be color blind, hospital emergency rooms should be open to all, prescription drug insurance (Medicare D), low cost health insurance should be open to all (ACA), women should get equal pay as men in the same job, homosexuality shouldn't be a criminal offense, consenting adults should be able to marry the same sex, parents of American children should be able to stay in America.  I've probably forgotten a few.  Note that some of the liberal concepts were done by Republican Presidents, e.g. emergency rooms should be open open to all and Medicare D.

Some liberal benefits have not stuck, for instance, unions which led to the Golden Age Of Labor, but as unions decline, so have the fortunes of labor.

Not all liberal ventures have worked out.  For example: the high rise complexes for the poor bred crime.  When you think about it, if you put a lot of "failed" people together, you won't get success.  Now many of these high rise communities for the poor have been pulled down.

OBAMA'S PRAYER BREAKFAST SPEECH

Last Thursday (February 5th, 2015), President Obama gave a brief speech at the the National Day of Prayer Breakfast,* in which he preached acceptance of religious diversity with love in America.  Though he never mentioned Islam in the speech, his point was that Christians should treat all faiths with a sense of humility because there were Christians too who have committed atrocities in the name of Christ so we American Christians should treat those of other faiths with love (e.g. not specified but he includes the American Muslims).  For Republicans, or perhaps I should say Conservatives with a capital C, humility is not their strong suit, I say trying to express humility myself.  So as might be expected, Conservatives were all over him the next day.  Morning Joe, for example, went apoplectic over Obama's short speech saying how dare he bring up something 700 yrs ago like the Crusades or even something supposedly settled by war around 150 yrs ago with a Civil War in this country.  Lest one not be aware of how much humility is preached to Christians, I include a source quoting humility in the Bible below.**  (Note added February 11, 2015: Three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, NC, were fatally shot by a 46 year old man.  See  http://on.aol.com/playlist/most-popular-159813/videoid=518645763).

As a nation, we Americans are not humble.  Some Conservatives like to talk all the time about American Exceptionalism.  I was taught as a child , however, that I should not brag.  If I am exceptional, I should bare it lightly.  In fact, with all this talk about American Exceptionalism, I wonder if the people bringing it up are doing it to reassure themselves, because they have doubts.  Make no mistake, others see Americans in their land as arrogant.  Remember the Vietnam period and the 1958 book by  Eugene Burdick and William Lederer, "The Ugly American.?" that was also made into a well received 1963 movie.***

Perhaps you get the idea that I thought that the Presidents short speech was very good.

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-speech-at-prayer-breakfast-called-offensive-to-christians/2015/02/05/6a15a240-ad50-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html
** http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-humility-20-scriptures-on-being-humble/
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American.  The hero of the movie was an American engineer who did try to adopt himself to the rural part of an Asian country - Burma and help the locals improve agriculture.

IS THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY LEGAL?

The Republican Party has long been the party of the wealthy people to protect and preferably enrich their fortunes. They full well realize that there are not enough of them to win elections so that they have opened their "tent" to some others. Strangely they have attracted a lot of wage workers, even though it is the Democratic Party that has their best interests at heart and the Republican party only pays them attention at election time.* It seems to me that this started when the Democratic Party opened its "tent" to the disenfranchised, namely Blacks, Hispanics and women, but more recently homosexuals. Republicans have also opened the "tent" to a coalition of religious extremists, notably those that describe themselves as "Evangelicals" who are social conservatives and conservative Roman Catholics .

The inclusion of religious extremists had the advantage of taking advantage of a group of very energetic people with religious fervor, to help protect the wealthy (of course some wealthy could be both), but it was also dangerous as we have seen. In the 2012 election cycle, the growth of the religious conservatives within the Republican Party has been phenomenal to the point where the Republican Party now seems to be a party of conservative Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals. It might more properly be called the Christian Right Party, i.e. a religious party. The question is, is a religious party legal in the United States that prides itself on secular political parties and the separation of church and state?

The answer may not be all that clear. Separation of church and state is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, although Founding Fathers assume it to be in the First Amendment, most notably Thomas Jefferson. And it has been used in Supreme Court decisions: "Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.'"**

If these interpretations are correct the modern Republican Party may be illegal because, as a religious party, it does not separate church and state. If it is claimed they are a religious party, it undoubtedly would go eventually to the Supreme Court that incidentally, is comprised by six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. Not all the Roman Catholics are conservative Roman Catholics, however.

Nonetheless, we have had the politicians in Mississippi propose an initiative that life begins at fertilization of a women's egg, fortunately turned down in the referendum.*** The purpose of the initiative was to attack all abortions. The Mississippi initiative was followed by a bill in Virginia where women having an abortion would be required to have an "ultrasound" transvaginal probe of the fetus which after much outrage, especially by women, the governor threatened a veto.**** Texas, however, does have a law that a sonogram (exterior) must be taken, and the woman must listen to the doctor's description of it and. She must then wait 24 hrs before undergoing the abortion procedure.*****

*The Republican Party to appease wage workers has come out against higher education, especially higher education in Ivy League Universities using terms like "elites" and "not real Americans." See The Dumbing Down Of America:

http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/10/dumbing-down-of-america-if-you-listen.html.

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

***http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/mississippi-personhood-amendment_n_1082546.html

****http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479427-virginia-lawmakers-back-off-requiring-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion

*****http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57382162/is-a-required-ultrasound-a-barrier-to-abortion/