Lynnehs,

I am not disputing your claim that [a] “the whole is more than the sum of its parts!”, nor am I disputing your claim that [b] “looking at things from a societal view isn't an easy thing to do.” This is not to say that I understand them as well as I might or should, for I think that I do not (which in itself supports [2] perhaps).

You seem to suggest that one might reject [a] because of difficulties with [b]. I would add that one may -misunderstand- [a] because of difficulties with [b]. Perhaps the -ability- to “[look] at things from a societal view” depends on having a developed concept of “societal view”. And perhaps it doesn't — perhaps even young children are able to look at things “from a societal view” prior to their being able to develop the -concept- of “societal view”.

And perhaps someone who has never learned to look at things from a societal view would benefit from having a clearer concept of “societal view”, even if the “looking” does not normally require the concept. (Adults learning a second language do so in ways much different that how one learns their first language).

Think of me trying to learn how to “[look] at things from a societal view” as trying better to learn or understand a second language. More than children, adults can recognize in themselves conceptual sticking points, and can make progress when these points are addressed. More than children, an adult can be in a position to pursue an enquiry such as: “it seems grammatical to say X in situation Y, but not in situation Z, even though Y and Z seem similar to me: is this true? and does it point to a difference between Y and Z that I have not yet recognized?” Such inquiries, made by a reflective and attentive student, can facilitate progress, without requiring the teacher to provide anything like a “grammatical treatise of X”, as it were.

I don't presume you to be my teacher (ie have teaching obligations to me), but you may consider me, at and on this point, to be your attentive student. You seem to be saying that “looking at the world from a societal view” in some manner gives rise to the belief that “the whole is more than the sum of the parts.”

My question is: is the latter a consequence of the former (looking at the world this way gives you the tools to -conclude- that the whole is more than the sum of the parts?)? Or is the latter an axiom of the former (looking at the the world this way -means-, at least in part, seeing the whole as more than the sum of the parts?)

(This thread is days old I know — but one may ask in hope [-: ).

Also (and not unrelated) — there's a certain political element that's saying “the public option is the ONLY solution”. That is almost never correct, and so I'm even more skeptical. That view, to me, is a rigid line in the sand — every bit as rigid as the Republicans with their resounding “no” to everything.

“Whatever makes you think that the private sector will actually do a thing about controlling costs after decades of failure in doing so?”
Whatever makes you think I believe that?

Jim, the private sector hasn't had a chance. How do you excuse the rising costs of health care in countries with socialized medicine?

IMHO anyone claiming that criticism of Obama is motivated by racism is racist themselves. Racism is defined as “discrimination or prejudice based on race”. When one determines that a 'white' person can not have an honest opinion about a 'black' president one is prejudiced towards 'whites'. Prejudice is defined as – “an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics”. That's right, if a person SUPPOSES that a white person can't have a legitimate criticism of a black president then that person is a racist.

While we're on the issue of correcting someone's use of quotes – why don't you learn to quote Beck correctly? Now I'm not really a fan of Beck nor do I watch him regularly (yes, that is a disclaimer) but I have seen him explain his thinking behind his stating that he feels Obama's healthcare push is motivated by a veiled reparationist agenda. Obama is 'on tape' stating that he is against reparations because they don't go far enough. Beck's extrapolates by saying if reparations aren't enough could it be that the 'public option' healthcare plan is part of an agenda to provide reparations of a sort. Free healthcare would be better than the classically discussed reparations (which have always focused around dollar amounts from my experience) because they'd be a gift that would keep on giving.

Before you get yourself all in a froth over my response let me point out that I am a person that's spent most of my life leaning towards socialism because I felt it was the political system that best reflected my Christian faith. I am beginning to lean libertarian not out of 'right wing' leanings but greater appreciation for the protection The Constitution of the United States of America provides me to have my Christian faith separation of church and state. Obama's latest plea to religious leadership for public option healthcare reform is sweet but it is informed by religious philosophy and not based on a constitutional philosophy. Before we fall all over ourselves to 'be our brother's keeper' we need to remember that the best thing anyone's found to help a brother be a free man is our Constitution.

Let me end by quoting some philosophers you may know by their words – You say you'll change the constitution / Well you know / We all want to change your head / You tell me it's the institution / Well you know / You better free your mind instead.

>If Uncle Sam takes the money from my pocket to give to someone else, that's theft.

No, that's called paying your membership dues. The armed forces pay their dues by sacrificing their lives. All that is asked from the rest of us is that we pay our dues in return for all the services and benefits we get from living in this country instead of an anarchy. Conservatives don't like their tax money going to social safety net programs and liberals don't like so much of their money going to fund wars, some of which we don't approve of. But the government does a lot of things that we do all benefit from and if you don't pay taxes (and you aren't too dirt poor to pay them) then what you are doing is freeloading. So the taxes as theft argument put out by the radical Libertarians is complete nonsense.

CStanley wrote: “Sorry, Steve. but I'm still not getting it. You list a lot of examples of arguments against the reform plans which are dishonest or unrespectable, and you quote an article which does the same- but neither you nor that author explained why those tactics prove that the opponents are attacking Obama personally rather than his policies.”

Well CStanley I don't think there's anything I can say that will get you to see my position so I'll link you to Dorian's recent comment on Polimom's new thread on the topic.

He covers the same points that I have tried to make in my comment. He named names and cited specifics (and didn't use the word “black”) so he seems to have satisfied Polimom misunderstanding of what was being said… maybe it will satisfy you, too.

That's all true. And even though the weapons weren't actually IN the town halls (and were legally carried), those folks are being supremely stupid (imho), and deliberately “in your face” confrontational.

The guns, though, are reflective of a whole separate bunch of issues related to Obama opposition, centering up on the 2nd Amendment. I really do need to do a separate post on that — but essentially, I think the NRA is leading a lot of people around by the nose as they execute a massive fundraiser. It's working, but at a very high social cost.

Meanwhile, it was during Clinton's term that the militia movement REALLY took off. We saw all kinds of havoc playing out during his early (health care push) years, from Waco to Oklahoma City (which actually jumped off of Ruby Ridge, late during Reagan's term). The militia movement is also, in my head anyway, tied together with the endless 2nd Amendment argument.

The white supremacist movement is, of course, a whole different problem, and is much more on point. But as far as I know, they've not been out to the town halls…?

And I do in fact know the difference between conscious bigotry and the more subtle undercurrents of racism. What's still not clear to me is whether folks who toss the opponents as racists charge around do. Cuz it very often appears that they're very fast to slap that label on, when it ain't necessarily so. And given the history of our country, that's an extremely sensitive charge to make.

>I don't see any difference in the degree of political opposition that Obama is facing and that which Clinton faced.

Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone brought guns to town hall meetings or other similar public events when Clinton was President. And there has been an increase in membership in white supremacist membership since Obama took office. And then there is Glenn Beck's atrocious comment. I don't think opposing healthcare reform makes you a racist but I DO think that the most vitriolic opponents, such as the ones screaming and bringing guns to town hall meetings, are most likely racist. Militia groups in particular have a strong overlap with white supremacist groups.

And I think whoever wrote that other article might have a point about American's non-compassion toward the poor having something to do with blacks being disproportionately poor because during the Reagan era the word “welfare queen” was thrown about quite a bit and the stereotype of the welfare queen is a single mom who is black. That's what people think of when they hear that term. The problem is that people like Polimom don't understand the difference between deliberate, conscious bigotry and racism that is more unconscious and institutional — something coming from the way we've been conditioned, rather than from deliberate individual choice. No where in that article did I read that every person who opposes healthcare reform personally holds racist views. That's not what the article was about at all. But I can understand how people can misunderstand the point because conservatives in particular see everything from an individual point of view and don't look at things from an institutional or societal perspective. (Libertarians are even worse – “but society is made up of individuals!” yes, but the whole is more than the sum of its parts!) Looking at things from a societal view isn't an easy thing to do, either.

I actually left this alone for a full 24 hours, waiting to see how I felt a day later. But nope — you reset the standard to a new low. For that dubious achievement, I salute you.

It seems that you never actually read my original comment so here's a link… you can read it for yourself.

The personal attacks and insults being tossed around in this thread has made trying to actually debate views and opinions impossible.

You seem to have conveniently overlooked the parts where I said:
1) “morally questionable positions being taken by **some**”
2) “a anti-health care reform group (nameless?.. Faceless?..) ran one television ad 115 times over a day and a half”
3) “Republican legislators continue repeating BALD-FACE LIES”
4) “Death Panels!.. Euthanasia!.. Government panels that are going to kill Grannie…”
5) “Some people just can not stand the fact that a smart, black Democrat is President of the United States.”

That's certainly true, and would stand alone on its own merit. But it sure does sound a lot different without those adjectives.

Anytime one wonders whether or not racism might be a common motive, I think this is a good test- would the person or group be acting differently if race was taken out of the equation. By formulating Steve's statement without the racial adjective, I think the point is made- because I don't see any difference in the degree of political opposition that Obama is facing and that which Clinton faced. And even if it is greater now, there are other temporal differences that explain why conservatives are generally even more concerned about expansion of federal govt now than we were in the early 90s.

Since you seem to be claiming that your adjectives are all weighted equally, with absolutely no intended hint of a racial component, let's try your sentence a couple other ways, shall we?

“Some people just can not stand the fact that a black Democrat is President of the United States.”

Hmm. The racial emphasis is a little more glaring like that. You sure you wanted to go here?

“Some people just can not stand the fact that a smart Democrat is President of the United States.”

As opposed to what? I admit it — I still would have noticed the adjective, but it would have been funny.

“Some people just can not stand the fact that a Democrat is President of the United States.”

That's certainly true, and would stand alone on its own merit. But it sure does sound a lot different without those adjectives.

Also (I’m editing to add) — FWIW — your comment was only a part of what I was reacting to yesterday, and it’s certainly not all I wrote about in this vein. All by itself, I’d have ignored it.

“I am not saying that it's a common argument, but it has been brought up, and Beck has a rather wide audience that tends to parrot him practically verbatim.”

In fact, I stated a couple of times that this was not a common viewpoint, though I did say that I saw a lot more concentration of it in the South. Even then, that would not translate into “all opposition.” I was merely saying that, yes, the racial comments had been made and that while they may not present a majority viewpoint, we cannot ignore that they have been made– and by a man with a very wide audience at that.

As for “same arguments” I'm referring to the racial commentary, again. I don't recall anyone making the claim that health care reform attempted during Clinton's administration had anything to do with racial reparations. Racial reparations has nothing to do with the state of the economy.