Having spent most of March 21st (the day health care reform passed in the House and the day of the immigration rights march) inside the boiler room vote whipping operation, I missed most of the action on the streets, but a friend of mine who was at the march was telling me about how striking the contrast was between the immigration reform rally and the tea partiers gathered outside the Capitol building to protest the health care vote. The biggest difference, of course, was the size of the two crowds, the 200,000 on the side of immigration reform vs. several hundred tea partiers. But that wasn't what struck her.
"In our rally, the crowd was incredibly diverse - plenty of Latinos, of course, but a really tremendous cross-section of nationalities and backgrounds and religious faiths. A lot of young people, but a good cross-section of older people. Many immigrants, naturally, but a large number of clearly non-immigrant supporters as well.
"Beyond the demographic diversity, thought, it was striking how upbeat the really was. People were determined to get immigration reform passed, and there was some disappointment that it hadn't yet been a priority, but the crowd was happy, proud to be there, and confident that the country would do right by them."
The contrast could not have been sharper with the tea partiers. She didn't see a single non-white face, and saw very few young people. But the spirit of the crowd more than the demographics was what was most striking: that sense of bitterness, fear, and hate that was evident in their faces and remarks as the pro-immigration crowd passed by them by.
I was thinking this must have been the feeling held by civil rights marchers in looking at the pro-segregation crowds in the 1950s and '60s. In spite of the law, and the police, and decade after decade of oppression being against them, which side was more hopeful, and which side was more fearful in those marches? Which side had more joy and which side had more hate? The answer is obvious, now as it was then. The question for our times is the same question earlier generations of Americans had to answer: which side do you want to be on? The question goes far beyond the relatively easy question (for many of us) of which group of demonstrators you would have wanted to align yourself with on March 21st. The bigger question is whether we want to be aligned more broadly with the forces trying to change America vs. those not only with the most extreme forces of reaction and fear, but also with the money and power that is aligned with those forces. Insurance companies, the big banks, oil companies, and the Chamber of Commerce fuel the fear with their misleading ads and support of Dick Armey-style groups and Limbaugh/Beck style media. They don't want any important change to happen in America, so they are doing what they can to stir up anger and bitterness and fear at any kind of change.
The Republicans have clearly chosen a side -- the side of "Hell, no" as Sarah Palin put it in her rally with John McCain -- the side of fear. But too many Democratic politicians have had trouble choosing a side. Some of them don't want to, because they want to keep the big business campaign contributors flowing into their re-election efforts, and they see the intensity on the fear mongers side, and it scares them.
Here's the problem: trying to make everyone happy in times like these doesn't work. The tea partiers won't compromise, and big business will only compromise as much as they are forced to - they won't give up any power or money willingly. To bring real change to America, the change Barack Obama promised, Democrats will have to make a choice: which side are you on?
It takes some courage to walk away from big money contributions, and from DC conventional wisdom. But at the end of the day, looking at both history and our future, this shouldn't be too hard a choice.
Given how I was raised, it's the most obvious choice in the world for me. I am on the side of the immigrants marching that day because I was taught that I would be judged by whether I welcomed the stranger and gave aid to those who had less than me. I am on the side of the health care reformers because I was taught to take care of the sick and hurt and those in need. I was taught that kindness is better than cruelty, that generosity is better than selfishness, that love is better than hate. I was taught to believe this country is a beloved community, where we all respect each other and look out for each other.
It's easy to be on the other side of a movement that spits on people, calls others derogatory names, and throws rocks through windows. It's easy to be on the other side of the movement whose leaders are cheered when they make fun of people and talk about "the lions eating the weak." And it's easy to be on the other side of the big money that runs ads that plays to people's fears.
Which side are you on? This should be a very easy choice.
Which side am I on?
I'm on the side of the immigrants, both legal AND illegal.
I've evolved on this issue, because the community most impacted by this issue is the Black Community, from our neighborhoods, education system, competition for jobs, health care systems, etc.
This is having a devastating impact on our communities.
"Then why support them?"
Because they are humans, and that alone makes them worthy of support.
"But some broke laws."
So, what. What we have now is a lawless society where white men brake the law at will and now brag about it.
"But that will encourage more."
So what. The doors were opened for European whites. We can now throw them wide open for all peoples.
"But this will make whites minorities."
Yes, and thank God.
,
Sorry. I didn’t even know it was a competition.
“the forces trying to change America vs. those notâ€
The ones with somewhere to go vs. those going nowhere.
“They don't want any important change to happen in America, so they are doing what they can to stir up anger and bitterness and fear at any kind of change.â€
A nation formed by people who escaped the status-quo tyranny of one inflexible establishment regime. Only to almost fall victim, to their own home-grown version of that very same manifestation. A few centuries later.
“Here's the problem: trying to make everyone happyâ€
What makes you think that those who don’t see it yet, are happy? Have Sarah explain reality out loud, and it shouldn’t take more that a few sentences before she ties her own mind in a knot. Getting her to dispense with denial, and face up to that unavoidable fact, is going to be the hardest part. But if she can manage to grasp it, anybody can.
“it's easy to be on the other side of a movement that spits on people, calls others derogatory names, and throws rocks through windows.â€
Particularly when they appear totally unable to explain in precise detail, how such an approach to our species survival might actually work.
On one side the specter of hope for the future, of and end to the greedy and selfish ways of the past, are coming to an end. There is a better world on the horizon.
On the other side is the grudging realization that their grip on power in the US is slipping away. Their free ticket to the easier path based solely on their white skin color, is coming to an end.
So let the white supremacists, not the official organization, but all the teabaggers, because that is what they truly are, have their rallies and marches. Let Sarah Palin and Tom Tancredo espouse their thinly-veiled hate-speeches.
It's just the sound of a despicable way of life in it's final throes of death...
Were you just being funny and I was too slow to catch it?
Would we allow our electric company to allow some customers to pay a fraction of their bills, then pass the balances on to us to pay?
The theory has always been, if we decrease the amount we pay for services to doctors and hospitals, it will lower the cost of health care. In reality, those providers passed on the balances due to those carriers who paid the bill in full, quality commercial insurance and the self-pay patients without coverage. As Medicaid followed Medicare, and HMO's decided that if the government could pay less than the cost of care, they could too... the PRICE went up, and up, and up.
When each carrier or patient pays the approved rate for each service, basically what has been contained in the Blue Cross Cost Report for hospitals for fifty-years, then PRICE will match COST.
Fix the prices and no one wins.
There are no "sides" to take, IMHO. Everyone wants the same things for their children, regardless of the side they're on. We want them to be healthy, educated, protected from predators of all kinds, and successful on the road to being happy and well-adjusted adults.
We all agree that we all need health care for our children, as we all agree we need electricity and water. It should be relatively easy for us to shape our new health care system more closely like an electric utility than a profit-making corporate entity.
We would no more let our electric company take 35% of our bill in profit, than we should let our health insurance carrier do the same. They're both publicly-held corporations, requiring stockholders to invest in them to survive. Utilities are simply limited in the amount of profit they're allowed, typically about 10%. Maybe since they're taking the short-end financially, we allow the income to investors to be tax-free as an extra incentive to invest in public utilities.
You think that this is a solution. You just don't see the unintended consequences. Would you like to be told that you can make only so much and no more?
Yellow is a rather nauseating color, and the snake seems a perfect fit for a "Character" animal that represents them and their movement.
Slithery, fanged and completely full of venom... Yes. A perfect fit.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Gadsden_flag.svg/800px-Gadsden_flag.svg.png
Too bad so sad.
I've lived with this kind of stupidity for most of my life in the southeastern United States.
The handouts from big government seem to be going more toward those at the top of the economy.
Do a little research, get a library card, quit watching Fox.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25100.htm
If every employee had the name and prints on online for employers to check before hiring,
none of this would be a problem.
I do think we should limit the number of new citizens from any one country. We want a diversity, not a flood.