What Romney Said

Mitt Romney in 2007 in Washington, DC at the Values Voters conference (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let’s take one sentence — a key sentence — out of Romney’s video taped fundraising faux pas.  He says:

“There are 47 percent [of Americans] who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

Ok, I’ll name it:  How about to some decency?  We should be entitled to that.  But that’s not going to happen.

People have already pointed out how obviously illogical and misplaced Romney’s assessment of people’s beliefs and values is in this statement.   Does Mitt know who is voting for him?

Consider this, Mitt, some of the people — by far too many of the people — you insulted will vote for you.  Or at least they would have.  These generalizations don’t show a very sophisticated assessment of your political support.

This cognitive dissonance is so common and familiar in politics today that it is not interesting.  I want to focus instead on the evil of believing you might be entitled to food, health care, and shelter.  Have we become so ridiculously petty that we that we scorn people for wanting to eat and survive?  Is it time to call out the Christian frauds and ask, What would Jesus do?

Where is your philosophical consistency?  Your moral integrity?  Good god, man, have a conscience!  I mean it is fair to pick on this, right?  Mitt and a lot of his supporters are pretty hardline Christians, are they not?

And if your religion is merely a mask behind which you stow your pettiness and bigotry — in other words if you don’t really give a rat’s ass about what Jesus would do, the old fashioned thinker that he was — why don’t you ask yourself what you should do?  Let your selfish, pragmatic side shine.  (Put Ayn Rand back on the bookshelf first.  Silly old bat.)

Example:  We spend billions of dollars on wars of revenge to vindicate the death of thousands of Americans, but we won’t support social systems and health care systems that cost a fraction of our war costs to protect living, breathing Americans struggling to get along?  Where is the morality in that?  Saving our own seems like a good thing. 

(Of course if you’re fortunate enough to live isolated from reality, then carry on.  A micro-minority should not prevail in a well-informed and active democracy anyway.  But perhaps there is the rub.  We are not as well informed and active as we should be.)

And does anyone really think America would go to hell in a handbasket if we did support people who need help?  I hardly see the danger of fostering a majority class of freeloaders.  Who really wants to be on welfare?  I’d argue it is a small minority, very small, if any.  Moreover, if we invest — say it again, invest — if we invest in the well-being of citizens we all benefit.  Sick people cost money.  Ignorant people cost money.  Crime costs money. 

All indications are that investing in the common good benefits society, supports a thriving economy, and makes everyone healthier and safer, rich and poor alike.  If we went back to the good old days when we paid for our common investments, things would look a lot better and we wouldn’t have a deficit. 

So what’s going on here?  Look at God-fearing conservative Mitt Romney, leading candidate of GOP politics today, and you get a clue or two.

Conservatives today demonstrate a level of short-sighted spitefulness that borders on the immoral.  At the very least it show poor planning.  We are better when we are strong and secure.  Strength and security is exactly what we’re losing.

Individual rights and responsibility are not incompatible with government and the common good.   

Government for the people should support the common strength and security of the people.  We are moving away from that purpose.  That’s the problem and that in a nutshell is the future supported by the likes of Mitt Romney.

Related articles

• Mitt Romney vs. the 47 Percent (reason.com)
• Romney Explains Obama Voters (politicalwire.com)
• Secret video shows Romney claiming 47 percent will vote for Obama because they are moochers (dailykos.com)
• The Bald-Faced Hypocrisy of Mitt Romney (mydd.com)
• my job is is not to worry about those people (metafilter.com)

Owly Night

Tonight has began owly and ends owly, but not just the same.  And when I dug around for a definition of owly, I found two different definitions to match each part of tonight.

One definition comes from the authority of the Oxford Dictionary.  It defines owly as someone who resembles the qualities of an owl, especially an owl’s unflappable calmness.

The other definition also appears in Oxford, but is more common as slang.  That is the irritable, cranky, and irrational man…or as likely…woman.

So strange that two very different human qualities can be expressed by one aloof animal.

I know the irritable and cranky animal all too well.  One that refuses contemplation and calmness.  It is much easier to be seen (usually seen marching away in some opposite direction in my experience) than it is to be heard.  The cranky, irritable owly doesn’t seem to have much to say.  Anger is the answer.

But…thank you sweet baby Jesus…there is the other owly.  Now I can’t say I have found many examples of this other owly in human form recently, but the calm soothing pleasure of owly calmness calls once again — airily, peacefully — from outside my window.  It is my Screech Owl and his … or perhaps as likely … her tremolo call that completes this night so nicely.

Unlike my human owly, this owl prefers to be heard rather than seen, and softly heard at that.  Just being present seems to be enough.  It is a calm presence, one sure of its place out there in the world.  Quietly marking its contentment with a soft call, evenly spaced in the night, the owl invites one to dream.

I see no reason why people cannot be the same.  The owl acts by its nature, people act by choice.  But perhaps people are too complex; perhaps they cannot choose the peace they seek.  In that way people are sad creatures, prone to mistakes and loss.  They are also wonderful creatures, however, with opportunities for great happiness and contentment.

So why is it then that we most often associate “owly” people with the more cranky connotations?

I’ll think about that as I let my owl call me to sleep.

Related articles

• Owly (rikrawling.wordpress.com)
• I Am Feeling Owly (suchawondrousplacethisfaerytalespace.blogspot.com)
• Owls and Greece  (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)