Slurpees for Everyone!

For the longest time, Americans have demanded many things of their government. We have asked for tax cuts, a balanced budget, care for the poor and elderly, among other smaller requests, as if we are at a restaurant ordering a fine dinner of filet mignon and potatoes au gratin.

The problem is that almost every time these demands are made, we seem content when our representatives serve us slurpees full of empty calories: programs that focus entirely on the short-term or bills that only superficially address the original demands. But how do we react? By thanking our politicians for their meaningless offerings by reelecting them with our votes. This has to change.

The slurpee illustration comes from Dana Milbank at the Washington Post who wrote a great article about the disconnect between the public’s demands, what the public is willing to accept and leaders trying to placate Americans’ hunger for change with nutritionless Slurpees. He highlights how Americans think they are asking for a grand meal, aren’t willing to pay for it and are satisfied with a Slurpee.

“The problem with that is Americans are essentially asking for Slurpees: In the abstract, they want a balanced budget, but they reject the hard choices needed to get there. TheNovember Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 70 percent of Americans are uncomfortable with cuts to Medicare, Social Security and defense spending, while 59 percent are uncomfortable with increasing taxes. What Americans need aren’t lawmakers who satisfy their cravings for empty calories but leaders who convince them to eat the roughage.

Such leadership was not in evidence at the Slurpee Summit. On the eve of the meeting, incoming House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), told Politico that Obama should heed a two-word message from the voters: “Stop it.” In case anybody missed that taunt, Cantor’s office distributed the article in an e-mail with the subject line “Stop It.”

The White House, in turn, did its best to make sure the visiting Republican leaders wouldn’t get a chance at the spotlight. Photographers and TV cameras were not admitted to the room for the customary “spray” – a few seconds to shoot photos or roll tape. And the “stakeout” location in the West Wing driveway – the spot where White House visitors address the cameras – was rendered inhospitable by a fleet of backhoes and cement trucks working on a construction project.” (Washington Post 12/1/10)

Politicians have figured out that they don’t need to actually offer us the full menu items we request since they have been able to satisfy our demands with meaningless Slurpee Summits and media stunts.

Don't settle for Slurpees when you need a real meal.

But don’t blame the politicians. They work for us and are only doing what we are reinforcing. We have to stop making demands without being willing to make an effort to see them through. We cannot continue in the same vein as the survey above shows: demanding cuts but being unwilling to make the tough decisions. 70% of Americans don’t want to see cuts to Medicare, Social Security or defense spending when those are precisely the programs that are bloated and holding the budget captive!

We need to change ourselves first and then demand better of our politicians.

We need to stop being satisfied with meaningless summits and speeches.

We must stop sending the mixed messages of demanding change but being unwilling to follow through.

We can no longer be satisfied with the sweet but useless Slurpees that we have so eagerly accepted in the past.

We have to hold our representatives accountable for the promises they made so that together we can face all of these challenges as Americans willing to take the harder path that will actually lead to a beneficial end.

Sometimes Everyone CAN be Right, Sort Of

Too many words have already been written and spoken regarding this controversy, but if we can begin to learn how to disagree and argue well, then we have a real chance of overcoming the challenges that face us locally and nationally.  If you look at this issue specifically and remove the emotions behind many people’s rhetoric, then you can easily see the validity behind many of the arguments.  Let’s take a look:

Pro Mosque at Ground Zero (3 Main Arguments)

1) First Amendment/Freedom of Religion – The main point for these supporters is that the constitutional right to freedom of religion is the most important factor in this debate, trumping all others.  To be sure, this is an important value to uphold.

2) Tolerance – As a freedom-loving, tolerant people, Americans have the responsibility to be tolerant to all walks of life, all religions and all cultures.  It is part of what makes America so great and should be lauded as a virture.

3) Reconciliation – Some 9/11 families fully support this project in order to move towards more reconciliation between moderate Muslims and victims’ families.  This is also one of the stated purposes of the Cordoba House project at Park51.  This is an important argument to keep in mind that should not be lost in the fray.

Anti Mosque at Ground Zero (3 Main Arguments)

1) Respect – Out of respect for those who gave their lives, it is not a good idea to build a mosque or Islamic Center so close to the hallowed ground at WTC 1 and 2.  The same idea prevents the building of Japanese centers near Pearl Harbor or Serbian Churches beside Srebrenica.

2) Decency – Similar to the first argument, but more focused on victims’ families, this point asks the question, “Is it worth the additional pain of victims’ friends and families?” Some 9/11 families are worried that going to the already painful site at Ground Zero will be worse if there is a towering Islamic Center in plain view nearby.  Is it worth dismissing or adding to their pain?

3) History– Why is it important to have battlefield memorials and wartime statues?  Because it is part of our history as Americans and part of the legacy we pass on to our children.  This demands of us the care and upkeep of our national landmarks, treasures and sacred ground.  This is what keeps people from turning Gettysburg into a strip mall or putting an airport a Little Big Horn.

So who is right? Read the main arguments again.  Taken individually, are any of them wrong?  Are any of them outrageous or illogical?  Do any of them show hatred or bigotry?  No.

The fact is that many people in this debate are right, but too many people are unable to see above their own convictions.  So many are completely focused on one argument that they cannot or refuse to see the validity of other points.  Is it worth disrespecting countless people in order to uphold the value of “tolerance”?  Probably not.

The point is that taken individually, each argument is technically right, but the debate requires all of the arguments to be weighed as a whole which means that some of the arguments for this situation are more right than others.

Possible Solution: Have the Cordoba Initiative look for other sites to use and at the same time have the Muslim leaders work with 9/11 families opposed to the project in order to facilitate healthy dialogue and pursue needed reconciliation.

Final Thoughts

The Cordoba House gets its name from the ancient Muslim capital of Cordoba, Spain where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in relative peace and harmony for centuries during the Middle Ages.  This reference to a time of understanding and cultural respect is essential to remember as both sides seek an amicable resolution.

La Mezquita de Córdoba

If you like history, read about the Great Mosque of Cordoba

Common Sense and Decency should Prevail

The debate over building a mosque and Islamic Center next to Ground Zero in New York really should not be as big a to-do as it is.

It is not a debate over freedom of religion or constitutional rights, it is simply a matter of decency and respect.  Columnist Charles Krauthammer writes one of the best articles on why building the mosque so close to revered, sacred ground is such a bad idea.

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there — and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized, or misappropriated.  (Krauthammer)

Read the rest of his article here:  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243668/sacrilege-ground-zero-charles-krauthammer

The opposition towards building the mosque has nothing to do with hatred or bigotry but rather it has to do with Americans’ responsibility to tend to and maintain our sacred grounds (Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg, Ground Zero) in order to honor well our fallen heroes’ sacrifice.

New Game: Guess the Racist!

So you think you’re smart?  Try this game out.  Guess which racist said the following quotes:

Quote#1 – “[He] is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black.”

Quote#2 – “He wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black.”

A) Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

B) Rush Limbaugh, Radio Host

C) Keith Olbermann, MSNBC

D) Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

And the correct answer is……

Quote#1 – D                                           Quote#2–  B

Were you smart enough to guess the right answer?  Did the answer surprise you?  We need to fix this racial problem in the American public forum.  There is too much disinformation, too many wild-accusations and too many unfounded insults that pass as legitimate news and debate.  Let’s take back control of the debate from the race-baiters, the instigators and the mis-informed.

Here’s the problem: The “racist” accusation has been thrown around way too much in recent memory.  If you say something even mildly offensive towards blacks, hispanics, Hawaii-folk or cavemen, the offended group’s Affiliated Association will publicly rebuke you, maybe in a speech or at least online.  Then one media outlet will pick up the story with a bad picture of you and the caption “offensive remarks spoken” followed by other media outlets running the same story in a different way.  By the end of the week, Jay Leno and David Letterman have made jokes about you and your mother and everyone agrees that you are, in fact, an insensitive racist.

Which is why the above quotes are going to be helpful today.  You see, Cynthia Tucker was voicing her opinion about Michael Steele, a Republican, who everyone knows is probably racist and hates black people since he’s Republican.  Except that Michael Steel is black.  But he’s a Republican, too.  So a lot of people are confused.  And they aren’t offended by Cynthia’s comments because they fit people’s preconceived notions about Republicans.

Now Rush Limbaugh picked up the Cynthia Tucker story earlier this week and extended her point to Barack Obama saying that the only reason he’s President is because he is black.  This is the same opinion that many Democrats voiced in the 2008 primaries.  But this sent the media into a tizzy with CNN, MSNBC, Huffingtonpost and others all doing stories on Limbaugh’s racist comment.  No one second guessed the headlines because everyone knows that Republicans and ESPECIALLY Rush Limbaugh are racists and hate blacks. (1)

But read the offensive quotes above again.  What is the difference in the quotes?  There IS no difference!  The only difference is WHO said it and WHO they were talking about.  The quotes fed in to the common misconception that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not.  Isn’t this a problem?

It should be a problem to you for two more reasons:

1) Crying Wolf – The accusation of racism should carry weight behind it.  We are more than 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Act and generations removed from the remnants of segregation.  Americans today are more inclusive, more diverse and more understanding of all types of people.  The younger generations going to school with all colors, playing sports with all colors and graduating with all colors.  Most young adults in their twenties have no idea how racism could have been such a huge part of our society for such a long time.  There has been change and growth and reconciliation in our society which is good.  The problem is that with so many accusations of “racist” flying around in the public forum, no one can really define what “racist” means.  It is used so often, that it has lost meaning: How can David Duke be called a  racist and at the same time a schoolteacher is called a racist by her students for asking them to be quiet?  The term has been watered down so much that no one can really define “racist” anymore, but people still use it and react to the insult as the negative term it is.

2) Dialogue Killer – The quickest way to end a dialogue is to accuse someone of being a racist.  There is no retort.  The accused can only attempt to defend his honor and give examples of why he is not a racist and the discussion descends into a he-said / she-said food fight.  True dialogue and discourse on tough issues is going to be difficult, and it is imperative that the Racist term be removed from the public forum except for factually accurate reporting.  Too many discussions and debates are run off the rails by flippant accusations that derail the entire process.  The term should not be thrown at decent people whose only offense is to disagree with you.

We need to reform this term and keep the media and politicians who misuse it accountable.  Real racism still exists but it’s hard to filter out the noise of baseless insults and useless mud-throwing.

This goes back to what we talked about earlier regarding reading and digesting the news.

Don’t just read a headline and think, “Huh, I guess Rush Limbaugh is a racist pig” without actually looking at context, reading the real quotes and finding the real story.

Don’t watch the news and hear, “Senator XYZ is a racist towards Indians” and think, well Senator XYZ hates Indians.  Find out the truth!  It might surprise you to find out that a quote was taken out of context and Senator XYZ is actually quite fond of Indians.

Don’t casually throw around terms that should carry real weight and therefore delegitimize them.

Don’t be lazy and just read headlines.

Stand up for truth and common sense.  Have respectful political arguments and debates with friends.  Discuss tough issues about race in today’s America.  Talk about ways to improve our culture and our society by continuing the racial reconciliation of the past half-century.  Be a thinker and a leader, not a follower.

(1)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/04/cynthia-tucker-michael-steele-wouldnt-be-rnc-chair-if-he-wasnt-black