Militant Moderation
Madeleine Albright coined the term the 'Militant Moderate" or at least she is the first person I ever heard say it. "Moderation is the Key to All" used to say my father, and he wasn't talking just about drinking. We have now in Washington what I call the "Jane You Ignorant Slut" version of incivility in politics. Remember the early days of Saturday Night Live when they had the "Point/Counterpoint" spoof on talkingheadom? The contrarian position opened with someone declaring cavalierly "Jane You Ignorant Slut." That was rock-off-your-chair hilarious because of course it was the shocking opposite of anything you would or should expect to hear of talking headom back in the early days. Now it is basically, in so many words, the norm. Rachel Maddow
opens with the 'hey, you coconut bra' nutjob mockery (deserved in that case of the coconut bra guys from aptly named "Whackenhut" and that is descriptive more than uncivil.)
I am talking more about the types of antiabortionists who are not the rosary prayerful warrier types- I am talking about the types of wierdos who jump women looking for a papsmear.
The signs, the slogans, the vitriol, the slinging insult, the derrision, the total lack of trying to
empathize with the other side of anything is missing as polarization is idolized beyond
anything resembling consensus.
On the other side of antiabortion wierdodom are the militant pro-abortionists who are equally guilty of witch hunting. For example, what is with the persecution of an Attorney General or a DA who does his job so well that he thinks of cross referencing local hotel records with medical records to see if anyone was accompanying minors believed to be statutorily raped to abortion clinics? I think the guy should get an ABA award, not be hauled before an ethics committee. Are they kidding? If he has to endure an ethics trial for that what hope is there for any of us?
I watch the coverage of what is going on in Milwaukee over public union busting with a bit of sadness because the coverage is so unbalanced in either direction. Here is what I find missing:
These are about Public Unions, not about ALL unions. Public unions are dealing with taxpayer money- your money. Do you have any idea how well off some public union employees actually are compared to the shlubs who just got laid off from private industry? Do you have any idea what pension benefits actually look like for various public union employees?
Private contracts that are union busting should of course be competitively bid- the no bid stuff is ridiculous. That just makes fiduciary sense when dealing with public funds, e.g. your money.
But lets get real about what public employee pension benefits actually look like- some public teachers in California retire in million dollar style with pensions of hundreds of thousands, move to Arizona or Seattle and start their second careers at age 45. I don't feel sorry for those people.
Do you? Some of the same public employees screaming with hokie hand made signs have second homes on a lake in Wisconsin. Get serious. Have you seen any real one on one interviews where anyone's lifestyle is actually explored? Making less power for public unions doesn't help the two percent of uberwealthy Americans get richer, because the boss, e.g. the Governor doesn't get to pocket what they don't earn- it isn't a zero sum public administration where the bottom line goes to the Governor in a bonus. It's PUBLIC funds.
Just thought I should throw my two lucky penny's worth in the mix.
If I want to watch Loonie Tune coverage I will only watch Saturday morning cartoon TV with my four year old nephew. Big People News should be a bit more balanced.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment