By happenstance, I heard the last 45 minutes of the Diane Rehm show today on NPR. There was a professor who discussed empathy in nature. What really piqued my interest was that almost as soon as I started listening, he started discussing Social Darwinism.
Professor Frans de Waal starts discussing Social Darwinism at about the 10-minute mark. Diane Rehm asks again about the cognitive dissonance (not her words, but the idea) of those who advocate Social Darwinism often not believing in scientific Darwinism (see my last link) at about the 18-minute mark.
I have mentioned Social Darwinism in several of my posts:
Another reason why I thought of this topic is because Professor de Waal discusses the need for cooperation in human relations, which is a common theme in Thai's comments.
I am going to start off easy. We are in an epic fight to secure basic health care rights for all Americans.
I will start off with President Obama's opening speech in Colorado:
President Obama is too nice. He wants to find some "middle ground" on health insurance reform, rather than seeking to guarantee health care for all Americans. I know why he is doing it. For some reason, a "Medicare for All" national healthcare system is apparently unachievable because the public won't accept it due to the threat of "socialism." I would want to abolish for-profit health insurance for all basic care and only allow it for supplemental care (care which provide benefits that are not provided by government funding for basic care). For instance, allowing private insurance to provide elective surgeries or "pampered" care that are not affordable by basic medicine, or for quicker treatment that may available under the public system. (One of the complaints about public care is that needed, but non-emergency care takes too long -- such as knee or hip replacement surgery.) But then, that's probably why I will never be president.
In the next video, Lawrence O'Donnell is too nice. In the process of interviewing Representative John Culberson (R-TX), O'Donnell kept interrupting by repeating his question trying to get Culberson to answer his question regarding his position on abolishing Medicare and Social Security. I would have shouted "ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!" at the congressman. But, of course, that is probably why I could never be a good talkshow host.
While I understand Lawrence O'Donnell's point in conceding the argument that Social Security and Medicare are forms of "socialism," it technically is not correct. Socialism is actually defined as the "collective (government) ownership of the means of production and distribution." It is not socialism for governments to tax its citizens and use the revenue to alleviate social problems, injustices and inequality; that is called "welfare." However, most people don't have degrees in Political Science and therefore cannot distinguish between them.
However, the exchange still did a good job of showing the "cognitive dissonance" of the Republicans' argument regarding their opposition to expansion of Social Security and Medicare as "socialism" and their unwillingness to propose or vote to repeal the same.
Hardball With Rep. Culberson
By the way, I thought I should point out that many of the "newbie" political activists aren't new at all. Someone pointed out that the lady at the Arlen Specter town hall has a Facebook page which has information showing that she has been involved in politics for some time. What this proves is that a lot of what is passing for "public outrage" is actually nothing more than "astroturfing."
It is the increasing power of paid corporate shills (astroturfing) which is the real reason we are having difficulty passing real health care reform.
