Want to feel good? Take three minutes to watch this overview. All Americans should feel proud of, and heartened by, the progress we’ve made.
Bill Merkel: “I’ll second Gray Chang’s recent advice, particularly about the sugary drinks. I’m not generally one to send links to others, but this video from Dr. Robert Lustig called “Sugar: the Bitter Truth” was a real game changer for me and my family. It’s hard to watch evidence that giving your kid a can of Coke is, nutritionally, the same as handing her a Budweiser and not be affected. Getting added sugar our of your diet (or perhaps just being fully aware of where it hides and what it does to you) should be the goal of everyone, particularly parents. Ninety minutes so worthwhile I’ve watched it several times.”
MY DOG, YOUR HOTEL
Grant K.: “This seems to be a very right wing-site you’ve directed us to!”
☞ Oops. Well, the letter itself is fun. I hadn’t looked at the rest. “Abducted By Demons! The Terrifying Truth Behind What They Do, and Their Sinister Plan For Humanity! (Real Video Footage).” Avert your eyes!
NADER AND REAGAN
Carl: “I totally agree with you what you said yesterday about the Supreme Court’s decision and the elimination of contribution limits. And we totally agree on the harm done by Bush 43. However, the blaming on Ralph Nader is unrealistic and not fair. Republicans blame Clinton’s win on Ross Perot and that is not fair either.”
☞ I disagree. Ralph had a clear, easy, realistic path that a great many of his advisers were begging him to take – just issue a statement a few days before the election asking his supporters in swing states to vote for Gore. It would have been so much better for the country and the world — and for Ralph himself, who’d have had more influence on the Gore Administration than the Bush Administration to move our shared goals forward.
Republicans can blame Perot for Clinton. I have no problem with that. Though it would be way harder for them to argue that Perot’s actions had tragic consequences, as Nader’s surely did. Rather than needless war, a near Depression, and a wrecked national balance sheet, under Clinton, arguably thanks to Perot, we had peace, unprecedented prosperity, and, by the end, a balanced budget.
Also, I think it should have been clear to Nader that Bush 43’s agenda would be much worse for the country than Gore’s.
I’m not sure it was so clear to Perot that Clinton would be worse for the country than Bush 41. But yes: If it was, then he, too, should have urged followers in swing states to vote to reelect Bush.
Carl continues: “Democrats mostly fear attacking the Republican messiah, Reagan. Sure Reagan was a nice guy and had a winning personality yet almost every promise he made about Reaganomics has proven wrong. He promised many times that his policies would balance the budget and it did the opposite. He promised his policies would help spread the wealth more equitably and it has done the opposite. He promised business and institutions would better succeed without government oversight and that has proven wrong with the S&L crash, the real estate crash, and more. Dems are so afraid of tarnishing this Republican god (it doesn’t have to be done disrespectfully) that even Obama said he was his earliest hero. If we are afraid to name the root cause of the rich becoming richer and getting bailed out when they screw up then we have our hands tied behind us.”
☞ Well, yes; but rather than “relitigate” all that, I think we might even better run against today’s Republicans, who make Reagan look like a moderate. For example, Reagan’s cut in the tax rate on investment income to 28% is nothing like today’s Republicans’ cut to 15% and goal of cutting the estate tax on billionheirs to zero. And the new Republican budget? The one that would cut $5.1 trillion over ten years by cutting deeply into programs for the middle class and those who are struggling? I’d rather make the point that Reagan would have been appalled.