Voting "rights"...

Do we live in a democracy? It's hard to know anymore. It's hard to know if we ever did. The definition of democracy is "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." Other definitions include terms like equality and rights. But it doesn't seem like the United States has lived up to any definition.
"In the beginning"...of this enterprise we call the United States, land-owning white men were the only people with any rights; and therefore the only people that could vote. This eventually changed to include all men. Then eventually it included land-owning former slaves. Then eventually it included women. Then eventually, with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it included EVERYONE. Well, in theory it included everyone.
Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, there has been a major effort made in several parts of the country to slowly deconstruct the bill. States have passed laws challenging the Voting Rights Act in an effort to limit the voting of racial and ethnic minorities, women, and immigrants. In addition, they attempted to discriminate against the poor, the elderly, and the infirmed. Basically, what some people in this country are trying to do is take us back to 1840 when only wealthy white men could vote.
What baffles me about this is not so much that politicians would support this; because unfortunately politicians don't seen the country (or the world) through the lens of humanity, but instead through he lens of politics. Therefore, if a politician in Alabama would benefit from the disenfranchisement of poor and minority citizens in their state, they're probably going to support it, regardless of the societal repercussions of that decision. It's not necessarily true that the individual is discriminatory (though it's not necessarily true that they're not, either), they're just opportunistic. But what they fail to realize is that their opportunism has real societal consequences that will live on much longer than their political careers. A mistrust or outright disgust for the electoral system is a consequence of that opportunism. And this is especially true among minorities and the poor.
While politicians may benefit from this narrowing of the political class, in the long run you're creating a society that hates politics and politicians, and could possibly (and will probably) one day rebel. Their attempts to keep white men on top will prove fruitless in the long run, because the reality is that old white men are dying every single day. And as the old guard of opportunistic politicians die out, we see the rise of younger politicians who, though they may still be opportunistic or even discriminatory, have to be much more pragmatic in a changing world.
Which brings us to the Supreme Courts decision to strike down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This specific provision basically makes mandatory a review of any changes to election laws made by states that have a history of discrimination in voting laws. Congress extended section 5 in both 1970 and 1975, and again in 1982, and lastly in 2006.
Therefore, despite antipathy among members of Congress, they were willing to uphold a piece of legislation that they determined was the bedrock of equality in voting. The Supreme Court decided otherwise. The problem with this decision is that even before the SCOTUS struck down section 5, we've seen an unrelenting effort (mostly by Republicans) to disenfranchise any and all people (or rather groups) they felt would vote Democrat. There have been requirements to buy government issued IDs (essentially a poll tax), limiting of voting times, closing of voting locations, confusing ballots, etc. All of these efforts are having the desired effect of those pushing them. They're creating confusion that leads to frustration, and eventually apathy toward the electoral process.
But we can't give in this easily. If we continue to be frustrated and allow those that would disenfranchise people to win, things are only going to get worse. We're going to see more than just voting rights go out the window; but rather our civil rights as well. It's time to get mad. It's time for people who don't agree with the direction we're heading to stand in front of the tank (so to speak), to set themselves on fire (so to speak), to chain themselves to the tree (so to speak), to refuse to leave the lunch counter (so to speak). Because right now we're playing right into the game of those that want to take away rights. They want us frustrated. They want us apathetic. They want us averse to the electoral and political process. It makes it a whole lot easier for wealthy white men to dominate if no one else wants to be part of the process.
So get angry. Protest. Start a march. Write your congressman and tell them to re-pass section 5 of the voting rights act with updated numbers of voter discrimination. It's time to act. Because it's better to change things now than to wait until the change will not be what anyone expects and will have the potential to create instability.

Government is...

The IRS. Good? Bad? Necessary?

I guess it’s easy for people to make a broad claim that I support big government because I’m unabashedly liberal, and therefore I generally support government assistance on many fronts. And I guess that I myself am guilty of defining conservatives as anti-tax, anti-government hate-mongers who care nothing for the poor and are only looking out for themselves, their guns, and their money. But the truth is that neither of these characterizations is fair.

I think the disconnect comes about when we define government as one, major monolithic institution. It isn’t. Government is as varied and diverse as the “private sector”, which is also often presented as having one definition and one goal. It doesn’t.

The IRS targeting conservative organizations that were seeking tax-exempt status was wrong. And while I most likely disagree with these organizations and their goals, I certainly don’t think it adds to democracy to have an institution within our government choosing winners and losers based upon political factors (to be a little fair to the IRS, many of the institutions filing for the tax-exempt status would not or should not have qualified – this includes many liberal organizations). So the IRS was wrong in this instance, but can we then turn around and say that since the IRS is part of “government”, then FEMA is wrong also, and so is HHS, and so is DHS, and so is the FDA. Where does it end? ALL government programs and institutions can’t be bad, can they? It’s ludicrous. The IRS isn’t even bad, there were just people within the institution that were doing the wrong thing.

We’re quick in this country to look for easy fixes and broad impacts. A government institution or program does something wrong – GET RID OF IT. But wait, wasn’t it performing some useful functions? Doesn’t matter, it messed up, so off with its head. That’s taxpayer money at work, and if it messes up its accountable to the taxpayers. Okay, fair enough. But what about all of the good services it provides – do those not account for anything against the mistake(s) it made? This is where conservatives and liberals seem to have the largest differential in opinion. Whereas liberals would say that the good outweighs the bad, and that there will always be government waste, but it’s a byproduct of the positive functions; conservatives are more apt to cut off the head of the individual, rather than treat the wound.

When there is waste in the private sector, we imagine that “the market” will work it out. That’s capitalism, right? WRONG. Government contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, even laws specifically written to benefit corporations. These are all examples of “government” propping up the “private sector”, because these companies no longer operated effectively or efficiently. And while it’s easy to turn this around and say that it is government that is at fault in this scenario (and part of the blame does lie with legislators), it is important to recognize that the same big business conservatives that are pimping the idea of the free market are the ones taking the government handouts. It is hypocrisy, and worse than that, it takes money away from government programs that help those in need to prop up businesses that are inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary.

I had a discussion with a conservative friend of mine a while back in which he said that he didn’t like paying taxes because he felt that the money was being spent on things he didn’t agree with. I stood there for a second trying to get into his head. Not really understanding how an intelligent person could be so dense. I said plainly, “That’s a democracy. How do you think I feel? I’m sure I disagree with many of the things government spends money on that you agree with.” He just shrugged it off, but I think the point was noted in his psyche, because it’s a true point that no one wants to face up to. Yes, of course we all want our government to represent our individual ideological perspective, but I’d rather live in a country where I didn’t get what I want, but the process was fair, rather than live in country where a dictator happened to support my views. FOR THE RECORD – this is an oversimplification, because we don’t, in fact, live in a democracy, and unfortunately our government is more reactive to interest group and moneyed individual pressure than to that of the majority of citizens.

Sorry, you can scratch this whole post if you want, it’s rather disjointed.

It doesn't seem so, but it is important...

Paul Ryan is a hack. Mitt Romney is a weather vane. Together they lack both experience and substance at a very important time for our country. Certainly I won’t raise the specter that this is “the most important election of our lifetime”, because frankly, I don’t think it is. Even with Romney being a boring, take-no-stance candidate, and Paul Ryan being a fake budget hawk, there is probably not a huge difference (in the short term) in how a Romney presidency would run the country versus how the Obama administration has run the country.

Now, that is not to say that there would be no difference. And when it comes to fiscal and foreign policy, nuance is very important. The lack of foreign policy experience for both Romney and Ryan is troubling, especially considering their hawkish views with little to back it up. In fact, part of Ryan’s “budget plan” is to continue increasing the military budget, while slashing funding for the State Department and diplomacy. While the State Department might be somewhat more low profile than the DOD or War Department, it’s role in foreign policy is paramount to walking the delicate line in international diplomacy. We’ve already seen how effective “gunboat diplomacy” is, as displayed during the Bush administration. Two unsuccessful wars with no diplomatic efforts, lead to continued fighting and strife with virtually no end in sight. And Republicans are still talking about making a move against Iran (or at least supporting Israel in doing so); reminiscent of the definition of insanity…

Anyway, back to Romney and Ryan. While I actually do think that Romney as a person is a moderate, his political winds (or constituent winds) strategy of politicking scares me. Romney will say and do whatever he has to to get elected (which actually makes the Ryan choice a bit odd), and therefore while he himself may be a moderate, he would kowtow to the hard core Republican base as president, nominating far right ideologues to cabinet positions, and pushing ultra conservative legislation, much of which he himself personally does not espouse.

That is the difference in this election. While certainly most Democrats and liberals will allow that President Obama has been hit or miss, the fact is he’s trying to do right. He’s a pragmatist, and as a pragmatist he’s not going to make everyone happy; and occasionally is going to piss people off – even his own supporters. But also as a pragmatist, that means that he’s principled enough to realize the realities of a situation and look for rational, well thought decisions. He doesn’t bend the wills of his party’s extreme every time a tough question comes up. He instead will make the decision he believes to be right (and by right here I mean what he believes to be best for the country), and then pays the political price for it afterward.

This president has been very good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) at using his political capital. He doesn’t keep a lot in reserve. He’s constantly make concessions that will make one group happy, just to turn around and piss them off with his next decision. But what is great about this is that it shows his ultimate goal is to get things done, even if he’s not leading all of the polls. A great gauge of this is that even while poll numbers might show that a particular policy of the president, or how he’s dealing with a particular issue, may be low, overall his approval ratings remain very high (relative to the myriad of problems that our country currently faces).

I guess the point of my post is that while President Obama has not done exactly what I would do as president, his overall goal has been to improve the economy and make our country great again. Mitt Romney cares nothing for the country, and instead would govern by the  mantra that he’s lived by of “everyone for themselves”; which he’s blindly followed despite being assisted throughout his life by other people. "We've always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.” Because we all have parents that can just hand us $25,000 to start a business. Mitt Romney is a shell, nothing more. And once he’s attained the office that he feels he’s always deserved, he’ll move on to something else. The presidency is not Mitt Romney’s way of improving the country or the lives of the people in it, but another trophy to show everyone what an important person he is.

The night is darkest...

I’m fearful for this country. I worry that we’re headed in the wrong direction. It seems as though many are bent on reshaping this country into some sort of theocratic dictatorship. And while Republicans say that they espouse freedom and liberty – and even attach Democrats and the president over the issue – there is always a place for exceptions to their rules…basically, whenever it suits their political or social ends.
Social conservatives hate abortions. Right, we get it, you’re “pro-life”. Well, guess what, most liberals don’t like abortions, either, but don’t frame the issue in that way. In fact, liberals are much more likely to teach women and men about the realities of sex and the use and availability of birth control, as well as educating women on their options if they do become pregnant by accident. Social conservatives, on the other hand, want to continue pushing abstinence-only education, limit the access to birth control, and tell women they absolutely must have the child, even though these policies have actually increased the number of abortions that women have received.
In addition, Republicans throughout the country are on the attack to limit women’s rights as a whole. They’re trying to limit women’s access to birth control, they’re trying to close down Planned Parenthood, they’re trying to tie a woman’s healthcare to whatever her boss wants to provide; it’s a mess.
But, the old saying that “the night is darkest before the dawn” seems apropos. Why are conservatives so vehement about pushing this anti-woman agenda of late? Because they see the male-only dominant power structure in this country slipping away. Their idea of “traditional” roles are being turned on their heads (since they’re still living in the 1950s), and they’re having a hard time dealing with it. This issue encompasses the idea of same-sex marriage, as well. Their idea of traditional (male/female) relationships reinforces their concept of an ideal partnership, and gay couples not only change their concepts of “traditional” relationships, but disrupt their ideas of sex/gender roles, as well.
So what am I saying? I think our night is at its darkest, and even though things seem awful right now, we’re going to soon reach the dawn, where the forces of good will truly win out.

Busy times...

A lot has occurred over the last couple of weeks.
The Republican primary is over…thank god. Well, at least it’s realistically over, if not technically over. I think Mitt Romney’s victory in the Republican primary has cemented Barack Obama as a two-term president. Mitt is boring, stiff, and totally uncharismatic. He’s out of touch with most people, and it’s palpable. While Republicans will fall in line for the most part, Romney does not excite the base, and independents are not fooled by the back and forth (etch-a-sketch) stances on every issue; they see Romney as being hollow, and blowing with the political winds of popularity. While the election will probably be close – all modern day presidential elections are – President Obama will reinvigorate Democrats (and the nation as a whole) with a charismatic campaign (even while he’s been unable to excite us as president).

George Zimmerman has FINALLY been arrested and charged with a crime. The prosecutor has charged Mr. Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. It’s possible that this is an overcharge, because manslaughter would probably be easier to convict, but I have to assume that the prosecutor knows what she is doing. Regardless of the charge; and really, regardless of whether Mr. Zimmerman is ultimately found guilty or not guilty, the important thing is that the facts of the case will be presented in a court of law so that guilt or innocence can be determined based not on one person’s opinion, or the bias of the police, but instead based upon the facts. George Zimmerman needs to answer some questions about what was suspicious about Trayvon Martin. About why he thought Trayvon Martin was on drugs. These are questions that are important, not only in this case, but also on the national conscience about race.

This brings me to the next big update, which is that a piece of legislation has been presented in the Senate that would ban racial profiling. This piece of legislation is still in utero, but I think it’s important that this issue is being brought back into the national discourse. It’s sad that it takes the death of young black man, at the hands of white (he has also identified as Hispanic at different times) man, when there are countless examples every day of racial profiling, which, while they don’t end in death, still end in distrust and humiliation.

Finally, I have to say that I’ve been surprised (though I guess I shouldn’t be) by political television. Every time I watch political shows (it’s an indulgence that I wish I didn’t want), there are always some middle-of-the-road, independent journalists that are commenting on some particular issue, and the host is typically fairly moderate, but then there is always some wealthly, smug-looking white man or woman who completely rejects any idea that our country has issues with race, human rights, equality, or jingoism. Their (ridiculous) perspective is that the United States is God’s (big G important) gift to the planet, and it’s our manifest destiny to the “beacon of freedom” in the world, and that whatever we do, wherever we do it is completely just and right. And the idea that there is anything wrong is this country is completely absurd, because we have the Declaration of Independence which states that all men are created equal, and the post civil rights/post women’s rights era has been a society that has reached near complete equality. It’s just race/gender/etc.-bating to say otherwise. Ugh…

The truth...

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46941182#46941784

Where has this guy been?

Not only was this speech a good political move, especially for a president that has maintained low but respectable ratings despite a fledgling economy, but he was right on.
Democrats are so quick to qualify any comments they make about politics, by stating that both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the ineffectiveness of government, and especially of Congress. While I think it’s important to recognize how poisonous money to both Democrats and Republicans has been to our political process, when we’re looking at actual legislating, it’s naïve or just completely disingenuous not to recognize that Republicans are holding up the process.
Republicans say that the president and Democrats in congress will not work with them; but what they fail to recognize is that when you come to the table with something so radical, and tell the other side before negotiations, and all throughout negotiations, that you’re unwilling to negotiate, it makes it somewhat difficult to get anything done. The president came into office hoping to work with Republicans, despite a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, and an overwhelming majority in the house. However, even with Republicans in a position of considerable weakness, they managed to throw wrenches in the cogs of government, and it was only be the skin of their teeth that Democrats managed to pass the Affordable Care Act.
Since then, and especially since the midterm elections, Republicans have done literally everything they can – including lying, delaying, chastising – to hurt the president politically, but have unfortunately spent no time actually legislating. Their goal, as stated, is to make President Obama a “one term president”. They believe that any substantial, positive legislation, no matter how much bi-partisan support it might get, will not get passed. The only legislation that has been passed since the Affordable Care Act have been only those laws necessary to prevent government shutdowns, the discontinuation of the unemployment insurance, the discontinuation of the payroll tax holiday, and the like. No new substantial legislation is on the horizon, and I don’t see any formulating anytime soon.

Let's bring everyone back in...

American systems are broken. Our political system is broke. Our economic system is broken. Our judicial system is broke. Our educational system is broke. I’m not going to go into examples of how and why these systems are broken, but I think that while people may disagree over the levels of dysfunction in these institutions, most people would agree that they’re all messed up and headed in the wrong direction.
So, short of completely overhauling our system – which basically would be mean scrapping our constitution and re-writing it (not a bad idea, but a proposal fraught with its own issues of who to write it and how to change it) – what we need is to change the way the people in this country interact with their institutions; government and other.
One major change that would help connect people more to their political system – and in my opinion, thereby connect them more to all of the institutions in our lives – would be to create a compulsory voting system in this country. Compulsory (or mandatory) voting would be helpful, because not only would it push voting numbers up to more democratic levels (the mid-terms had a 37% voter participation rate – disgraceful), but would also re-engage citizens in the politics and political process. In addition, voter participation on the level that we’re seeing in the Australia (95%), which has a fine-based mandatory voting process, would help weed out extreme candidates, and stifle ascension of highly partisan groups such as the tea party from become major political forces.
Voting day can also be made a mandatory national holiday, so that citizens have no excuses for not turning out to vote, and companies have no excuses for remaining open. Mobile voting centers can be setup to aid elderly or infirmed voters with the process, and those who are absolutely unable to participate may get a waiver through an extensive process of unenrollment, that would need to be re-submitted for every election.
Voting should be compulsory for both local and national elections. The reason this is important is because if we have extremists in our local office, they become our experienced lawmakers, and therefore will tend to move onto the next level. Rick Santorum is a perfect example of this. Santorum is a highly-partisan, ultra-religious extremist, but because he has moved through the levels of politics using a hard Christian-conservative bloc as his base, he’s been able to make his way all the way into a primary fight for the Republican nomination as President of the United States. But Rick Santorum in no way reflects the general feelings or beliefs of even a large minority in this country. His base is small, but fierce; they always vote, and always get their friends to vote. And when no one else is voting, it’s the extremists on both sides that decide both our local and national elections.
The argument against compulsory voting is that it infringes upon our rights. Personally, I feel that this argument is flimsy. There are several things that the government – whether local or federal – requires us to do. We’re required to sign up for selective service. We’re required to pay taxes. We’re required to serve on juries. And there are always caveats to these laws and people who flout the system, but on the whole, the majority of people participate in these activities. In addition, each citizen should only be required to register and show up on Election Day, they have no requirement to vote for a specific candidate, or vote for any candidate at all. There should be options to either write in a person’s own selection, or to completely abstain and select something like “I do not wish to vote”. This would give people who have a moral (or religious) opposition to the voting or political process a chance to withhold their active participation. And for those who say that they don’t want to participate because the system is broken, what is a better way to change the system than participate. The system is what the system is, and if we can’t completely overhaul it, isn’t it better to be able to change it from within.
The arguments against compulsory voting are mainly hyperbolic, and have nothing to do with any real negative impacts on the political process or the country in general. Therefore, to reduce hyper-partisanship, increase voter participation and engagement, and restore democracy to our fragile and disintegrating institutions, it’s time to implement compulsory voting into our local and national electoral processes.

Invaders...

While watching This Week yesterday, Rick Santorum was on the show and discussing Afghanistan. First of all, I must say that I think always interesting when people who know absolutely nothing about foreign affairs get into a discussion about them. I don’t think Rick Santorum is stupid, but I do think he is less than educated about foreign affairs; and therefore, to question the president who has as much information as anyone can, is ridiculous. Does that mean the president is always right? No, of course not. But to question the president’s understand, when he’s looking at all of the facts, and you’re not, is silly.


However, that’s not what I wanted to talk about.

Sorry, another tangent. I watched John McCain on Meet the Press, as well, and I have to say that John McCain has returned to the old John McCain that Democrats actually respected as a pragmatist. It’s too bad that his image is so tarnished with many Republicans and Democrats because of his presidential campaign. McCain made a hard right turn during his presidential run, with remnants of his views hanging around during the first year or so of the new Obama administration. And while I disagree with him on several issues, I’m starting to have respect for the man again as a politician that can rise above politics, and act in a rational and pragmatic way.

Alright, back to the lecture at hand.

During Santorum’s incomprehensible rant about Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan War, he made the comment that it was difficult because we were fighting against a “guerrilla insurgent force”. I think it’s ironic that someone trying to become a the leader of a nation that is an occupying force in another nation has the gall to call people that are fighting for their freedom and independence a “guerilla insurgent force”. I would say the United States is the insurgent force. And while the Taliban doesn’t seem to be a great alternative, and certainly the United States as a global power is trying to limit the influence and growth of international terrorism, Afghanistan is not our country. If Afghanistan doesn’t want us there, and they don’t want to move toward the type of government that we want them to be (puppet Democracy), then I say we let them go the way they want to go.
In the 10+ years we’ve been in Afghanistan, it doesn’t seem like we’ve made much progress. This is in no way to disparage “the troops”, because I would say the failure is due much more to planning, strategy, and politics, not due to the failure of our soldiers. It’s time to let history take over, and what happens in Afghanistan happens in Afghanistan. I know this may be harsh to say, because we went in and caused a problem, but the Afghans have been having problems for decades, and it doesn’t seem like anything we do – positive or negative – tends to have a lasting affect. People are going to get killed once we leave, but WE are responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians anyway. We should focus on humanitarian efforts, and completely pull out militarily.

The United [Countries]...

Our country is divided. We're divided politically, religiously, geographically, racially, ethnically, culturally, spatially, and every other -lly that you can think of. We're a big country (relatively), with a large population spread out over a vast expanse of land. Our climates differ dramatically depending on where you are in the country, as does the language. And yet, we try to operate this [so-called] Democracy in a way that is supposed to be pleasing to most people. IMPOSSIBLE.
Look, while I don't like to consider myself a member of a party, my ideas are much more in line with Democrats than Republicans (I go further left than Dems, so I don't really consider myself one). I'm a progressive. But I do agree with Republicans, at least from the very broadest perspective, that our government is too big. I don't mean too big the way that they mean it. I think the purpose of our government - really the only purpose - should be to protect the citizens of this country, and provide laws and services to those in need. Certainly there are complicated rules and regulations that the government enforces because of interstate commerce, but Europe manages to work through that, despite the fact that they operate as several different autonomous nations.
Which brings me to my point. The united states of America (lower-cased for emphasis) aren't working. The umbrella that is our federal government is just not diverse and progressive enough to deal with the changing face of our vast country and the different regions within. The idea of 1,000 people representing nearly 400 million is absurd. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the members of congress are old white men, who are so out of touch with what is going on across this country that it's laughable to say they represent us at all. They're from a country where old white men rule, and they want to keep it that way. The uprising of women and minorities in this country is foreign to them, as are new ideas about relationships and protection of privacy and individual rights. They don't represent us anymore, and it's time we recognize that fact and move on.
Move on to breaking this country up into different countries. I'm not sure exactly how we should break it up, but whatever makes the most sense to the people in the regions, I suppose. If people in Oklahoma want God to rule their schools, their government, and their lives, who am I to say that they cannot. Call this a new Declaration of Independence. I don't agree with God controlling every of my life. But if people in an area want that, should our federal government really stop them? According to the constitution, yes. But if you think about it, the constitution doesn't really make that much sense anymore either. It was created when the population was small, and controlled by a homogenous white male population who thought that they were the only people that mattered in the country. Rights were not given to women and minorities, because the framers of the constitution didn't even think of them as citizens; they were just sort of...there.
It's time to face up to reality. Our country isn't getting any better. It's been getting worse for a while now, but we blindly hope that eventually it will move toward progression (...the arc of the universe...). But what has proven this. The election of a black man as president? We've seen the reaction to that election, and the thinly veiled vitriol spewed at this man in the name of "politics", but really in the name of racial discrimination. His election was a major move forward for progressives, but I think the reaction reveals more than the election did. Our country is being held back by strong forces of generational disagreement, and just a general different in perspectives on the world. I don't think money is the most important thing in the world, and our current governmental, social, and economic systems are built upon this fact. People are irrelevant in modern American society. Well I say FUCK modern American society, we don't need it anymore.
Let's break up these broken united states, and create individual, autonomous regional countries, whose governments more accurately reflect the zeitgeist of a particular area, and can govern more flexibly and smoothly. It's time. It's been time. We're fooling ourselves if we really believe that things are going to get better. Moderates in congress are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. The age of moderation, compromise, and cooperation are over. The halls of congress are now a battlefield, and neither side is winning or will win, but the tragedy is that the stalemate isn't only affecting the soldiers, it's affecting us all.

Alright, I don’t want to start a cultural/religious war here. But I have to say that it is absolutely ridiculous the rhetoric that is coming from the religious (specifically Catholic) right about the Obama administrations so-called “war on religion”, by requiring healthcare plans associated with religious healthcare organization to provide birth control for women. I won’t even go into the argument of how ridiculous it is for Catholics to denounce birth control, while they still have an international uproar raging over a generation of priests molesting boys, and the upper echelon of the church attempting to cover it up (without punishing the priests).
Social conservatives are against abortion, they’ve made that abundantly clear. So in an attempt to avoid unwarranted pregnancies and the associated abortions, birth control pills were created. Yay!! But wait, social conservatives are also against birth control. Hmm…that doesn’t seem to add up. How do we stop from having unwanted pregnancies if we don’t use birth control (the Catholic Church is also anti-condom)? Oh, right, abstinence is the answer; because that is a realistic approach to the worldwide problem of HIV and AIDS, as well and overpopulation and unwanted pregnancies worldwide (ironically, abortion numbers would actually decline if birth control was cheaper or more widely available). Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The moral majority conservatives (and Catholics) can have all the kids they want, and reject any message about birth control and abortion (even while pushing abortion numbers up), but they should not have the right to deny employees full access to heath care. If an employee of one of these institutions is a Catholic or a social conservative, they can choose not to purchase or use birth control; but other employees who are not of that faith or ideology should have the choice to receive a full range of healthcare options when it comes to birth control.
In addition, to call this a “war on religion” is absurd. The president did not make this choice as an affront to the Catholic Church or any religious institution in general, his purpose was to expand the healthcare options provided to literally tens of millions of women across the country. Of course it was inevitable that this was to become a political issue, but I applaud the president for doing this in the face of blustery politicians who politicize everything the president does, regardless of who and how many it helps. Obviously the cleavage between Republicans and Democrats is so large that anything the president does is wrong (to be fair, it was the same under President Bush, but almost everything he did WAS wrong...see).
If our nation is ever going to be back on the right track, we’re going to have to quit looking at all of these issue through such an ideological (or religious) spectrum, and instead start to think (like the president has done in the circumstance) about the broad impact it will have on the citizens in this country. Good work President Obama (and I’m honestly not trying to put my finger in the eye of religion) for standing up for the interests of the people, instead of for political interests.

While Republicans have been the main focus of my ire during almost the whole Obama administration, I have to say that I received something yesterday that really angered me.
After Barack Obama was elected president, his campaign warchest still had a ton of money left in it, and a lot of excitement to go with it. Therefore, the people that were involved in the campaign started a political action committee called "Organizing for America". That PAC has since become (with the upcoming election) "Obama for America". I have no problem with this, as they wanted to continue to campaign for Obama's policies, and they knew they were going to have a tough election fight in 2012.
However, what I do have a problem with is that I received an email from them yesterday telling me that they were going to be supporting an Obama super PAC called "Priorities USA". What??!! Excuse me??!! I typically just delete these emails, but I after reading the subject - "We will not play by two sets of rules" - I knew exactly what they were going to say. The person whom the email was supposedly from was "Obama for America" campaign manager, Jim Messina. Messina basically spends the first of the email explaining about the awful decision (which I fully agree) in Citizens United, and how Republicans have been raising and spending massive amounts of super PAC money. And how the majority of that money spent has been on negative ads, and that Republicans are looking to raise about half a billion dollars in super PAC money before this election is over.
Alright...I'm with you so far.
Then, he goes on to say that because of this, we (Democrats, I guess he's saying) need to put aside our disdain for the Citizens United decision, and just go ahead and support super PACs. He says that this election is too important to NOT support super PACs, and that while we disagree with the decision and want it overturned, we will need the money to compete with Republicans. I CALL BULLSHIT!!!
Are Republicans going to raise a ton of money from super PACs...sure. However, even without the support of the "Obama for America" or the Obama administration, the president would receive tremendous super PAC support for his re-election. Legitimizing these awful entities by saying that it's necessary to support them, is only going to make the argument against them that much more difficult.
Obama's whole message in 2008 was that he was receiving massive numbers of donations for small amounts that were adding to a huge flood. That was a good message, and I think it could be again. Once these super PACs become a "necessity" to combat the other side that is using super PACs, they'll be a mainstay in the political process. Just to be clear, super PACs undermine our democracy, and should be made immediately illegal.
I cannot believe that "Obama for America" would take this stand, and it makes me seriously question their ethics as an organization and their view of the political process. I will support President Obama in the election, but I will give absolutely no money to "Obama for America".

"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it." ~ Eugene Debs

Forget about it...

The other day, after the Florida primary, I heard possibly the greatest political metaphor I've ever heard, in reference to Newt Gingrich's reasoning behind staying the Republican primary race.
Chuck Todd, Chief White House Correspondent for NBC News, was talking about why Newt Gingrich, and for that matter Rick Santorum, were staying in the race, despite the fact that their changes of winning the Republican primary are essentially nil, and diminishing (the reason I don't bring Ron Paul into this - and neither did Todd - is because he never had a shot at winning the nomination anyway).
Todd used Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade as the metaphor. He said that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum (and Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry) had seen that golden goblet (poll numbers rising, winning straw polls, excelling in debates), and could almost grab it, but then they watched their chances slip away. It was so difficult for them to then turn their back on it (well, it's so difficult for Newt, specifically, to turn his back on it), because they had almost tasted it, almost had it in their grasp. While in the movie, Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery) pulls Indy back from edge of the abyss, telling him to forget the goblet, no one as of yet has been able to have the same effect on Gringrich. Even as a lefty, I think that Gingrich should get out of the race for the good of his own party. His purpose for staying in the race now is nebulous, because as saave a political mind as Newt Gingrich has, he has to know that his primary campaign is over.
I just thought of another movie metaphor that illustrates the same thing. Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) in Field of Dreams, is speaking to an old ball player that never got a chance to bat in the majors. "Fifty years ago, for five minutes you came within... y-you came this close. It would KILL some men to get so close to their dream and not touch it. God, they'd consider it a tragedy." That is what Newt is feeling right now.

The state of the campaign...

The 2012 national presidential campaign has officially begun. It began last night with the president’s third State of the Union address. The president used language from his 2008 campaign, through the year-long healthcare debate, through the debt ceiling fight, as well as presented some new ideas that are blueprints for his 2012 campaign strategy.
It’s true that a lot of the president’s speech was overly hopeful and hyperbolic, and a lot of the “plans” he presented are never going to come to fruition. However, he is the president of the United States, and it is not only the duty of the president to try and make the country better, it is also the duty of the president to help citizens of this country have confidence that that is true. Republicans seem to be focused on how awful things are – the State of the Union rebuttal was a great example – and want to point fingers at whose fault it is, or who has been unable thus far to completely flip the economic downturn. It took more than a decade to cause the housing bubble and crash, to deregulate banks t the point where they could gamble with our savings and retirement, to deregulate industry to the point where they would re-form near monopolies and use lobbyists to push policies that protect them; the fact that it took a while to create these problems, it makes sense that it’s going to take longer than three years, two terms, or even a few terms to solve these problems.
The president’s administration has been imperfect to say the least. He’s let some people down. He’s continued some of the most appalling policies of the Bush administration. He’s been incredibly insular, when his stated desire early on was to stay open. He’s been dogged about working across the aisle, but has continued to do so even when his attempts were to his – and the country’s – detriment. However, his ideas still remain solid, and he remains an amazing campaigner who will no doubt excite the skeptics and those who feel betrayed.
A personal highlight I had during the debate last night showed that Obama is always so serious, and showed that the charismatic campaigner from 2008 is still there. He was making reference to outdated regulations, citing a particular regulation that considered milk to be oil, and therefore taxed dairy farmers up to $10,000 a year for containment. He goes on to say that with that regulation, it’s ‘worth crying over spilt milk’. He got crickets in the chamber, but the cheesy joke showed a different side of Obama than we’ve seen during his administration – the serious, somber, cerebral administrator.
The president will not officially begin campaigning until after a winner has been declared in the Republican primary, but his State of the Union address was an framework of legislation that he thinks will be successful in his next term, as well as issues he thinks will be politically advantageous in the upcoming election. His policies and campaign style are winners, he just needs to convince the American people of this.

As if the natural world's been turned upside down...

I’ve got to give it to Newt Gingrich, the guy is savvy. He decries career politicians, while he has been the ultimate career politician. Even as a “businessman” and “consultant” he was still playing a political role by influencing policy through lobbying. His actual political career was only ended once he was thrown out of the Speakership by angry Republicans. He derides Mitt Romney for not being conservative enough, while himself has a spotty record of jumpy from side to side, depending up on the policy. To note: I don’t think this is a bad thing, but for hardcore conservatives, it is. He scorns Mitt Romney for his super PACs being funded and run by friends and former staffers, but the nature of super PACs being what they are anyone with super PACs in support of them can’t really talk. Romney’s super PACs are attacking Newt Gingrich (which Newt says is the reason for his big loss in Iowa), but Newt’s super PACs are attacking Romney right back. Thieves can’t point fingers at others calling them thieves; they’re all scumbags, and none of them deserve to be president. I will say this about Barack Obama, as well, if he decides to use super PACs during his re-election campaign. If we are to restore democracy, we need to get all money, but especially money coming from unnamed sources, to be completely removed. We should completely change the electoral process, both locally and nationally, embrace moderation over ideology and allow no campaign ads, but simply have publically-funded elections that use debates as the only campaign tools.

Put a fork in it...

It's over. It's finally over.
Okay, the Republican primary might not be officially over, but after a much better than expected showing - and victory - in Iowa last night, Romney has all but wrapped up the nomination. The polls in Iowa show that he's still having a very difficult time connecting with the hardcore conservative voters, but that is not Romney's base, and he doesn't think he'll need them as much during the general election. In fact, he's basically been running a general election campaign during this entire primary process.
The Romney nomination, however, presents somewhat of a problem. Romney is boring. Romney is moderate. Romney is a flip-flopper. Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry in 2004. However, because of all these things, Romney has broad appeal. He doesn't excite, but his moderation makes him electable; and therein lies the problem ahead for Barack Obama and the Democrats.
If any other Republican primary candidate - short of Jon Huntsman - had won the primary battle, Barack Obama would walk away with the presidency in 2012 with no trouble. However, Romney's boring moderation makes him a candidate to be reckoned with in the general election if the economy doesn't improve between now and November 2012. If we look at history, incumbent president's with bad economies and high unemployment have had a very difficult - if not impossible - time getting re-elected. And since Romney has continued to tout his business experience, he might look like the shiny new thing in American politics, if voters think that he truly can improve their economic outlook.
In summation, we're at interesting crossroads here for Democrats; we're scared of almost every other Republican candidate besides Mitt Romney, and yet Romney is actually the most worrisome Republican to win the primary, because he has the best shot in a fledgling economy of beating Barack Obama in the general election.

Our Word is Our Weapon

A book suggestion. If you've never heard of the Zapatista Movement, or never heard of Subcomandate Marcos, who is the unofficial herald of the Zapatista Movement, take a few hours and pore over Our Word is Our Weapon, a selection of writings from the charismatic and enigmatic figure in the fight for indigenous rights in Mexico.
Subcomandate Marcos has become a wildly popular figurehead for the indigenous peoples of rural Mexico, whose message has resounded broadly throughout the world with all peoples that feel they are being exploited and unheard by their governments. The sentiments of the Zapatista are not that dissimilar from the movements of the "Arab Spring" or Occupy Wall Street, or even the Tea Party. The message is apolitical, but it's implications could and should be at least a wakeup call for corrupt politicans around the world, if not a call to movement for the rest of us.
While the tactics of the Zapatista have been called into question by authorities as disruptive and violent, the response is that they're simply doing whatever they must to gain the right to be heard. As with Marx's assertion that revolution, violent if necessary, will be required to bring about change because those in power will be unwilling to give it up without a fight. We in this country have taken to sitting back as armchair politicans, while our elected officials undermine our economy, our security and our very freedoms, while all we do is complain. The Zapatista have chosen to stop complaining about why their situation is the way it is and change it. And because the government was so used to dismissing its citizens, especially its indigenous citizens, it patronizingly dismissed the indigenous people of Mexico to its detriment.
We as a world need to heed the signs of the times. Hopefully the governments of the first world can and will improve, because if they don't, not only are they going to come undone themselves, but they're going to drive down the country's that they represent as a whole. We'll see chaos as the so-called military and economic superpowers are swallowed in a sea of worldwide economic collapse and general discontent. The military will mean nothing, because their no longer will be a specific "enemy" to target our weapons at, because WE will have become the rogue, the enemy, the failed state.
Our leaders need to head the warning signs, or we need to head them for them and toss them out, otherwise we're going to be looking at a world where economies, militaries, corporations and governments don't matter; it will be a Hobbesian struggle of every man [person] for themselves. Seems dark, and not plausible in the near future. But just how much can the rest of the world take; and just how much can we as citizens under these quasi-fascist, plutocratic, oligarchic, society stand, until we've reached our breaking point?
"I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." ~ Albert Einstein

Failure

I can't say I'm terribly surprised that the debt-reducation "super-committee" did not accomplish their task. Congress, whether as a complete body, the house, the senate, committees, subcommittees, or super committees, have been completely unable to accomplish anything substantial in the past couple of years, especially with regard to the the debt and deficit, and tax policy.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans have diametrically opposed views with regard to debt-reduction and taxes, and therefore it is understandable that these discussions and coming to agreement would not be an easy thing to do. However, the job of congress, of our government in general, is to serve the people in this country. So it doesn't really matter whether they disagree or not, the very nature of politics, and their responsibility as politicians, is to compromise and come to agreements regardless of their differences.
Therefore, by the simple standard of serving the citizens of this nation, and compromising to pass legislation to take care of the debt and deficit, these men and women on this committee have failed us.
But let's not let us forget that the President (regardless of his actual ability to affect legislation, or not) has also been a failure. It's a failure of a different kind, but Republicans are correct in one critique of the president - his failure of leadership. There's been a lot of hand-wringing by Republicans and Democrats, blaming the other side for the failure to pass legislation, by saying the other side is not willing to give in on anything. This would indicate to me that both sides are acting childish and obstinate. But the failure of the president has been to push congress to act, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are getting exactly what they want. The president has wanted to remain above the fray, but the problem is that he's been characterized as uninterested (whether fair or unfair, if people are seeing him seemingly uninvolved, it looks bad as a leader). The president needs to push the congress, house, senate, subcommittee, super committee...whatever, to get their act together and pass legislation.
So now that the super committee has failed, we're left with these "trigger" cuts that will slash funds toward both military spending and heathcare and medicare. Falling back on "trigger" cuts is totally unacceptable; not to mention the fact that Democrats and Republicans are already trying to alter the trigger, indicating that cutting military spending is a no-go (Republicans), or cutting medicare and healthcare is a no-go (Democrats).
As a liberal, I have to admit that I see a large part of the problem being Republicans standing firm on the Grover Norquist strategy of never, under any circumstances, raising taxes. We're in a MAJOR debt/deficit crisis, which is not as dire as it's made out to be, but will become so if we fail to stimulate the economy. The problem with the current tax structure, is that it continues to give tax breaks to people who do not need it, and who are hoarding the money (NOT stimulating the economy). The real tax breaks that would help the economy, should go toward the middle class who will spend the money, get the economy moving again, and then those that have the means to start or build their businesses will do so, because it will be profitable, regardless of their tax rate.
A member of congress cannot be hard-lined; especially a member of a super committee whose sole purpose is to come to an agreement about debt and deficit reduction.

Shame on you, congress.

Anything new...? ...No? Okay...

Another Republican primary debate down, another night of uninteresting hackery. The more I pay attention to the Republican debates, the more I become convinced that President Obama is likely to run away with this election - even if the Republicans happen to do the smart thing and nominate Mitten at their candidate.
What strikes me most about the modern Republican party is that there is absolutely no vetting process for their primary process. Not to say that there necessarily should be, but at least in the past it seemed that the number of completely unelectable candidates was grossly outnumbered by the number of those that were (at least by experience). Admittedly, President Obama was not that credentialed when he entered the race, but the guy is a constitutional scholar and a brilliant campaigner and political mind (no Bill Clinton, but pretty good). The current crop of primary candidates are barely able to discern their own policy ideas within their own brain, let alone describe them clearly and succinctly in a nationally televised debate. Herman Cain is a wild card - I'll give him credit for that. The guy comes on the scene out of nowhere and sincerely excites a terribly unexcited Republican primary audience. His actual policy is a bit unclear (except, of course, for his 9-9-9 plan, which he promotes at every chance he gets), and his memory and ideas continue to shift in any direction he finds to be politically advantageous. Herman Cain has no possibility of winning the Republican nomination (even without the sexual harassment issue), but at least he's presenting himself as an outside candidate, and freely admits that he doesn't have much foreign policy knowledge. Several other candidates; Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are all running on essentially a platform of who is most conservative. None of them have the domestic or foreign policy credentials to be qualified as president, and their reliance upon one narrow topic show that they don't have the bonafides to be the leader of the strongest country in the world.

"When are you going to unleash us..."

In case you missed it this week, my favorite California Congresswoman, Maxine Waters, was in the news this week after pleading with the black community to allow the Congressional Black Caucus to challenge the policies of the president and rejoin the political fighting in Washington.
“When you tell us it’s alright and you unleash us and you tell us you’re ready for us to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation." She went on to say, “We’re elected officials. We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go.” Maxine Waters was finally uttering a feeling that I think a lot of Democrats have been having about President Obama, but have as yet felt unable to speak about. I personally don't think the Obama presidency has been a failure of leadership, but as a liberal, I would say that I am frustrated with the policies that have come out Washington during his tenure.
Maxine Waters, as one of the leading voices of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, should be able to press the president day after day on every policy to try and push the legislation - and the country - in a more progressive direction. But what congressional members are seeing, and especially Democratic - and especially especially very liberal Democratic - members are seeing, is the president continually extending the olive branch to Republicans, watching them spit in his face, and then watching him wipe the spit off and extend the olive branch again. They're feeling as though he's continually trying to work across the aisle, but by doing so has forgotten about the people who supported him and elected him in the first place.
I think this is especially true of the Congressional Black Caucus, who as Mrs. Waters so vociferously pointed out, has felt "leashed" and unable to confront the president, because they worried about a backlash from the black community. While obviously the black community, and no other group as well, vote as a bloc, I think congressional Democrats - and especially the Congressional Black Caucus - have been walking on egg shells with regard to criticizing the president, because they don't want to scare people away from voting in 2012, and they don't want to anger a constituency that will get them personally re-elected. Waters stated this point in her meeting in Detroit, “We don’t put pressure on the president. Let me tell you why. We don’t put pressure on the president because ya’ll love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud to have a black man — first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us.”
So why is it that people are so protective of the president? Why do Democratic members of congress, and especially members of the Congressional Black Caucus, feel unable to speak freely about the president and his policies? I think that part of it might have to do with the fact that president Obama, both as a great orator, as well as the first black presidential nominee from a major party, excited a group of voters that has up til now [then, 2008] felt left out of the political process and felt like they had no one that cared about them or was representing them. And while President Obama may have seemed to be this shining knight, for congressional members he's proven to be just a politician, and not a voice for the voiceless. So what congressional Democrats - and again, especially the Congressional Black Caucus - want to do is to give voice to dissent against the president in an effort to create better policy, and stop letting Republicans be the only alternative voice to the president's, without upsetting this very group of people whose political involvement is tenuous, and who because they are either blinded by his professorial manner and oratory skill, or because they don't necessarily follow politics, still see the president as the knight that is going to be the champion of the downtrodden.

Important Note: I think I've stated this before, and I think it's worth noting again; I support the president, and I think that he's accomplished quite a lot in such a rough political climate. Has he fully represented the liberal perspective like I would like to see - not at all. But then again, he ran on a platform of change, and his idea of change was post-partisanship, not necessarily progression and reform. But look for the president to change after November 2012. I think that during the president's second term, he will be the leader that we've been waiting for, and the champion of the downtrodden that we hoped he would be. With no political ramifications to hold him back, the president will be able to push ahead with his progressive agenda unfettered. He will become what we've always wanted him to be; or maybe I'm just blinded by his professorial manner and oratory skill.

Did he just say that...?

After having missed the August 11 Republican debate, I finally had the opportunity to check it out in full yesterday. As a liberal, watching these debates are always rather frustrating and scary, but I feel that as somewhat of a political wonk, it's important to hear and understand (if possible) the perspectives of those on the other side.
While most of the questions thrown to the candidates are the standard softballs, occasionally they get hit with a tough policy question that the serious politicians and politicos like Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have no trouble with, but the less astute candidates such as Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain find to be a little more difficult to answer.
What I think is interesting is how these candidates are trying so hard to pander to the right (most of them, anyway), that they'll probably going to end up crippling themselves in the general election. I was reading an article yesterday about how this primary is much different from that between Obama and Hillary, because in that fight they were attacking each other, but fighting for political moderacy, while in this Republican primary fight they're aiming all of their arrows at the president, but fighting for the fringe. I've got news for these candidates, the Tea Party, while it may be a vocal and vociferous movement, simply does not have the votes to give you the primary victory, or especially a victory in the general election. Winning the presidency in this country has to do with a) getting the majority of registered members of your party to actually show up to the polls, and b) getting a lot of independent voters (by registration - no voter is truly independent on the issues) to vote for you. It's that simple.
What the republicans are banking on is that they can excite their base enough so that ALL of them show up, and then the Republican establishment-types will vote Republican no matter what, because that's what they do. Then, they're hoping that Independents will be disenchanted enough with the economy (remember, stupid...) that they're turn their back on the President and his efforts to revive it. The problem with this philosophy is that it only works if Republicans sent one of their warriors to the general, and not one of their establishment candidates. Michele Bachmann will excite the base, but she has literally no chance of winning the general. Same goes for Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Mitt Romney and John Huntsman are on the opposite end of the spectrum; they can make a lot of money by appealing to the party elites, and could both possibly win a general election, but would most likely not do so because the party base would stay at home, and opt to mourn the state of the country, instead of handing the presidency over to a more mainstream, establishment Republican (to be fair, I give them credit for being principled, even if they are misguided).
Basically, I think the point I'm making is that Republicans are in a catch-22, and are probably going to lose the election. I don't know much about Rick Perry, but I find it hard to imagine that even if the guy is a great campaigner, and can play moderate for the Independent's sake, that the country would be willing to throw out the current intelligent, moderate, professorial president we now have for another governor from Texas.

Two asides--
First, I find Herman Cain's obsession with Islam and making sure that Shari'ah law is not practiced within United States courts very odd. The guy has tried to clarify his statements over and over again, but he continues to make his hole deeper. Cain has basically said that Christian values must be respected, because those are protected by the Constitution, but that Islamic values are essentially an infringement upon Christian values, and are therefore not protected by the same Constitution. When will Republicans give up their jingoist, pro-Christian agenda, and just respectfully let everyone believe what they want to believe (including Christians). Despite popular Republican opinion, respect for other religions does not infringe upon your rights.
Second, I think Sarah Palin's trailing of the Republican primary campaign trail to be kind of creepy. It seems obvious that all she wants is attention, which is probably why she will end up joining the Republican primary fight. However, with her credentials known (or lack thereof) and her name recognition already greater, than any of the other Republican primary candidates; to involve herself in the debates would probably do more harm than good. With almost 7 months before the Republican primaries are set to begin, Sarah Palin has no real incentive to join the fray, when she'll only be running as a celebrity candidate anyway, and everyone just expects her do so. She'll try and keep herself in the news, while desperately trying to bulk up her foreign and domestic policy knowledge. Look for Palin's primary campaign to be short-lived. She'll be in and out.