“see through” government

During Obama’s campaign, he promised transparency throughout his administration, and the federal government.  His goal?  To urge the public to become more involved in the political process, and if the inner workings of government become easier to witness, then there is a chance to change our perceived culture of government.  Additionally, those that are opposed to big government bureaucracy will cite the inefficiencies of these federally run departments.  Well, the more transparent these sectors can become, the easier it may be for the private sector to help fix efficiency problems.  After all, it is our money that goes into government programs, we might as well make sure that what we “own” runs smoothly and doesn’t waste any more of our salary.  Recovery.org is one of the first attempts, take a look.

The administration released their open government plan to the heads of executive departments and agencies, describing how to implement these transparencies…

The three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration form the cornerstone of an open government.  Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what the Government is doing. Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that their government can make policies with the benefit of information that is widely dispersed in society.  Collaboration improves the effectiveness of Government by encouraging partnerships and cooperation within the Federal
Government, across levels of government, and between the Government and private institutions.

Reading through the docoument, you see the steps laid out to actually bring about this change.  Agencies will be required to post more and more of their data and information online in a timely manner.  New quality control managers will be required for agencies to promote better efficiency and production.  A combination of, “policy, legal, procurement, finance, and technology operations to work together to define and develop open government solutions.”  Obama is basically implementing standard business solutions to fix inherent problems in our government.  Viva capitalism?

This seems all good and well, but holding government agencies accountable, and making sure that they follow through on their directives will be the real test.  People have been screaming for more of an open government, and hopefully this is a promising first step.  It can be very difficult to change the culture of such a massive public sector, so it is understandable to be pessimistic about this.  More money will be to be thrown into these transparency programs too, providing checks and enforcing regulation are not free endeavors.  Hopefully our President can fulfill this campaign promise, and as a result, spend taxpayers dollars more efficiently.  At the very least, it will be easier to see where our money goes, and determine if it’s at all worth it.

Filed under: Political Pondering

Democrats are better at creating jobs

With the modestly optimistic job report that was released last week, it seems that the economy and the job market are on the track back to recovery.  Throughout the Bush administration, jobs created in the private sector were at a miserable low.  During the Clinton administration, they were near an all-time high.  Well, who is better at creating and sustaining jobs in the private sector, Democrats or Republicans?  You would think that Democrats prefer to create public jobs, and Republicans to favor private jobs, ideologically, right?  Here’s the raw data too. (h/t to kos)

Filed under: Political Pondering

What do you want in your president?

The complexity of the Afghanistan situation revealed itself in Obama’s speech on Tuesday.  You could tell that through the months of internal deliberation and analysis, Obama reached a decision that he is not, himself, completely comfortable with.  When you have to fight a war on multiple fronts that are so drastically different, you know that you’re undertaking a battle that could potentially end in failure.  The fronts: defeating the Taliban, building trust with the Afghan people, establishing a legitimate Afghan government, improve the states infrastructure, hunting down al qaeda, re-committing to relations with Pakistan, helping the Pakistani’s keep al qaeda out of their mountainous regions, and to bring the international community back into the fight.  I’m sure I am missing a few important aspects of the fight also, but as you can see, the challenge that we face may be near impossible.

I do not envy Obama at all, but what he is doing, is keeping true to his campaign promises, fighting the war that he feels is the “just,” war, a war that actually effects our national security.  I had a serious problem with his speech however, and this is a problem that chose me to support Hillary Clinton during the campaign.  Obama is a beautiful orator, and his rhetoric has the potential to change minds and energize the world.  But Obama toes the line between intellectual and preacher far too often for me.  Don’t preach to me about the moral imperative that we have as a nation, or the shining beacon of hope that America is.  We have not even come close to realizing a true democracy, we have our own failings, and who is to say that our form of government is the only successful one?   So I ask the question, what do you want in your president?  What personal characteristics are most valuable to you?

For me personally, I don’t want, or need my President to try and inspire me and light a fire from within.  I can understand how millions of Americans want this, and how valuable it can be however.  This is one of the reasons Obama was elected, and his election, hopefully, has inspired countless Americans to set goals that were once seen as only dreams.  But this is not for me, I don’t need my President to speak to me like a minister, this type of rhetoric has a tendency to frighten me.  Whether your message is correct or not, “evangelical speak,” can be manipulative…Its power cannot be understated.

However, I do want my President to be a great public speaker, but I want him to be an intellectual speaker.  I want my President to be so much smarter then me that it’s scary.  I surely would never vote for the candidate that I’d most like to have a beer with.  What does that have to do with anything?  There’s no reason we should dumb down our candidates to a level of ignorant folksiness.  Our President should be allowed and expected to use language that we might not be able to comprehend.  I don’t want my President to be a “real guy,” someone that middle America can relate to and want to bake a pie with, like Sarah Palin.  I don’t care if I like the person or not, I just want them to be able to get the job done.  To be so brilliant that they will see things that the normal person cannot, a President should be exceptional, not a “real American.”

Does Obama fall into this category?  Yes, I think he does.  He is a genius of a man, and as we have seen throughout his first year of office, the international community has already rallied behind his Presidency.  His style may not have been what I need in my leader, but I do think that it is what this nation, and the rest of the world needs. We desperately need a transcending figure like Obama.  Do I think Clinton would have been a successful President?  Of course, but she would not have had the glory, respect and revolutionary nature that Obama brings to the table.  But maybe this would have been a good thing?

It’s still early, but Obama has an image that he created, an image that was so powerful that he must live up to.  I think he has succeeded in maintaining that image thus far, even though many people have labeled him as a failure already.  There is a major problem, or challenge, that comes about when you paint yourself as a “spiritual, cultural, and ideological” figurehead for a movement.  Anything short of a dramatic paradigm shift will be seen as a disappointment, and can cripple your party and your beliefs for multiple election cycles.

Filed under: Political Pondering

The Stupak Amendment

update 11/17: Just saw a fairly softball interview with Stupak on Hardball, but Stupak definitely proved his worth.  His main point, is that he want’s to keep the status quo the same, and not have federal funds going towards abortions.  I don’t think anyone disagrees on this at all, there is no need for tax payers dollars to be put towards abortions.  However, the main issue I have, is the fear of insurance companies on and off the exchange not offering abortion coverage (for those who do not need a subsidy).  Stupak said however, that he would be in favor of language in the amendment that mandated that if insurance companies offer abortion coverage outside of the exchange, then they would also have to offer it inside the exchange.  So this seems like pretty big news to me, and a good compromise to officially maintain the status quo.  Nice job Rep. Stupak.

This text is taken directly from the Stupak Amendment, and contains the main argument of the Amendment…

No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

In other words, if a woman plans on entering the health care exchange that is set up, or plan on buying into the public option, it will make it near impossible for her to purchase a plan that covers abortions.  Most women who chose to buy insurance through the government will need federal subsidies, because they cannot afford to purchase a plan independently through the private sector.  Therefore, as this Amendment states, federal money cannot be given to such plans that cover abortions.  This will put the women who are at the highest risk for unplanned pregnancies in a difficult position.  Most cannot afford to buy insurance outside of the exchange, and most cannot afford to pay for an abortion, if such a need arose, on their own.  The frightening question, is what did poorer women do when abortions were made inaccessible in the past?  These Amendments (Stupak, Hyde) are an attempt phase out abortions at different levels of society, yet they will only force people to find alternate ways to deal with their personal situation.

What this is also doing is setting up different levels of accessibility in our social structure.  Those that can afford to buy their own private plans outside of the exchange, will continue to get coverage for abortions, so they will have this safety net to fall onto if needed.  But the insurance companies that will be competing with the public option on the exchange will be “forced” to include plans that do not cover abortions, due to the federal subsidies that most individuals will use to pay for it.  Insurance companies state that they need to operate under conditions where their plans are standardized, and have very little personalized changes.  Therefore, if more people choose to buy insurance through the exchange, you could see insurance companies excluding now standard abortion coverage from their plans in the futre, in order to create a more efficient process…

“If you speak to insurers in the industry, they will tell you that they simply can’t operate under these circumstances,” Rosenbaum says. “They need to be able to offer standard products that get administered in a standard way for everybody.”

Laszewski says the problem is that by all estimates, the vast majority of people who will be shopping in the new exchanges will be getting subsidies, so they won’t be allowed to get abortion coverage. Thus, if a health insurer did offer a separate plan with abortion coverage, it would only be available to a small universe of buyers, and it simply wouldn’t make much business sense.”

This is also putting the federal government in a position where they can control abortions for lower class citizens in this country.  “You have to buy an insurance plan, and if you take our money to do it, you cannot get a medical abortion.  If you don’t like this, you can choose not to buy a plan, but then we’ll punish you for it.”  Clearly, this is not what most Democrats had in mind as a stipulation in the final bill, but Stupak and the Catholic Bishops’ slipped in the Amedment, and it became what was needed to get some of the more conservative Democrats on board.

There is one more interesting aspect to the Amendment that is also prohibitive against a woman’s right to choose.  The wording is very vague, but it does speak of rape and incest as a valid reason for an abortion procedure.  What troubles me, is the fact that since insurance companies, and the public option will not offer abortions in their plans, if someone who buys a plan with a subsidy is a victim or rape or incest, insurance agents, and the victim, will need to prove it in order to have it paid for.  Anyone who has dealt with an insurance claim knows that the company is most concerned with their own bottom line as a corporation, not the patients needs.  It is a long, drawn out process that will need to include police reports, interviews, multiple claims, and endless paper work.  Therefore, a woman will have to cut through all of this red tape in order to prove that she was raped and impregnated.  The months that it would take, would only increase the risks associated with a late term abortion, and one cannot even imagine the mental anguish that a woman would go through having to deal with reliving the rape on a daily basis.

It will be very interesting to see how the more liberal Senate handles the Amendment.  Many in the House have said that if it is not included in a final bill, then there isn’t much of a chance it will be passed on to the President.  What is a bit troubling however, is that this Amendment was tacked on at the last minute, and it was completely necessary to get the bill passed through the House.  So taking away a lower class woman’s right to have a very personal medical procedure, and forcing them to either go through a bureaucratic nightmare, or explore “alternative” abortion methods, was the deal breaker for many Democrats?  Too many times, our politicians treat women like they are second class citizens and fail to realize the outcomes of their actions.  Through a bill that contains many historic reforms, it looks like we may be taking a step backwards in the case of female reproductive rights.

Here is a link to Planned Parenthood’s condemnation of the Amendment.

Filed under: Political Pondering

How will the health care bill affect you next year?

Here is a release from the House leadership (prepared by Nancy Pelosi) that lists 14 key provisions that will take effect almost immediately if the bill (Affordable Health Care for America Act) passes.  Here is a link to the link for the file….

1. Begins to close the Medicare Part D Donut Hole – Reduces the donut hole by $500 and institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, effective January 1, 2010.

2.  Immediate help for the uninsured until exchange is available (interim high-risk pool) – Creates a temporary insurance program until the Exchange is available for individuals who have been uninsured for several months or have been denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions.

3.  Bans lifetime limits on coverage – Prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage.

4.  Ends Recissions – Prohibits insurers from nullifying or rescinding a patient’s policy when they file a claim for benefits, except in the case of fraud.

5.  Extends coverage for young people up to 27th birthday through parents’ insurance – Requires health plans to allow young people through age 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice.

6.  Eliminates cost-sharing for preventive services in Medicare – Eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program

7.  Improves help for low-income Medicare beneficaries – Improves the low-income protection programs in Medicare to assure more individuals are able to access this vital help.

8.  Provides new consumer protections in Medicare Advantage – Prohibits Medicare Advantage plans from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than what is charged in traditional Medicare.

9.  Immediate sunshine on price gouging – Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases.

10.  Continuity for displaced workers – Allows Americans to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.

11.  Creates new, voluntary, public long-term care insurance program – Creates a long-term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.

12.  Help for early retirees – Creates a $10 billion fund to finance a temporary reinsurance program to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64.

13.  Community health centers – Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years.

14.  Increasing number of primary care doctors – Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

Any thoughts on some of the positives and/or negatives that we will see in the next year or so?  Does it sound too good to be true, or is this a huge first step in putting the power back into the hands of the consumers?  It looks like some immediate action will finally be taken to help the uninsured get some type of affordable coverage and treatment as soon as possible.  Once again, this is just the House’s bill, but you can expect to see most of these in the final bill.

Filed under: Political Pondering

there’s a rep for that

Watch the video first, it’s not too long.  Below is a list of quotes that have drawn attention to each of these Republican Representatives.  The point I am trying to get across here, is that those in the GOP that are the most outspoken and garner the most attention, are the most radical, and as a result, paint the GOP as a radical party.  Whose fault is this?  That’s your call.  Sorry for the length.

Rep. Joe Wilson (SC)…

“You lie!”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX)…

“We’ve been battling this socialist health care, the nationalization of health care, that is going to absolutely kill senior citizens.  They’ll put them on a list and force them to die early. (link)

A speech from Gohmert about his objection to the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill…

“If you’re orientated towards animals, bestiality, the, you know, that’s not something that can be used, held against you or an bias be held against you for that.  Which means you’d have to strike any laws against bestiality…pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations…It happened in 1920 and 1930′s.  Germany gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache, who was the ultimate hate monger.  And this is scary stuff we’re doing here when we take away what has traditionally been an important aspect of moral teaching in America.” (link)

Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill)  In reference to a conversation he had with the Chinese government…

“We need to build trust and confidence with our number one creditor…That the budget numbers that the US government has put forward should not be believed.” (link)

Rep. John Schimkus (Ill) – Both quotes are taken from a House panel on CO2 and global warming…

“The earth will end only when god declares it is time to be over.  Man will not destroy this earth.  The eart will not be destroyed by a flood.”

“So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?  So all our good intentions could be in vain.  That we could be doing the exact opposite of what people who want to save the world are saying?” (link)

Michelle Bachmann (MN) (link)…

“I don’t think it has been established yet, as a fact, that global warming is the issue of the day.”

“But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

“She (Nancy Pelosi) is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she’s been trying to save the planet.  We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago.  They saved the planet, we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that.”

“I want people of Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of energy tax”

“Thomas Jefferson told us: ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.’”

“It is the mother of all ironies…that the kids who voted en masse for Barak Obama are the ones being fitted with shackles and chains.”

“Not all cultures are equal.  Not all values are equal.”

“I’m very concerned that he (President Obama) may have anti-American views.”

“This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our writs, be blood brothers on this thing.  This will not pass.” (link)

Rep. Randy Forbes (VA)…

“While America has always welcomed individuals of diverse faiths and nonfaith, we have never ceased to be a Judeo-Christian nation. That small minority could tear references of faith off of every building and document across our nation, but it would not change the fact that we were built on Judeo-Christian principles. Indeed, these beliefs are so interwoven into the tapestry of freedom and liberty upon which our nation is built that to begin to unravel one is to begin to unravel the other.”

Rep. Bill Sali (ID)…

“Studies have shown that there is a statistical link between abortion and breast cancer, an increased risk, and women before they have an abortion should be told.  That’s what I believe.” (link)

Rep. Steve King (IA) – Referring to same-sex marriage (link)…

“If there’s a push for a socialist society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they have to go to, same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation, they want access to public funds and resources.”

“Not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.”

Rep. Lynn Jenkins (KS)…

“Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope.” (link)

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA)…

“Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they’re a member of an elite-class individual that thinks that they’re uppity.” (link)

Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC)…

“I also would like to point out that there was a bill — the hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. This — the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.” (link)

Rep. Trent Franks…

“Obama’s first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers’ money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries…there’s almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that.  We shouldn’t be shocked that he does all these other insane things.  A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can’t do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.” (link)

Filed under: Political Pondering

big step for medical marijuana

I wanted to write quickly about this, because I think it is a pretty huge story.  There has been a very interesting tug of war between the federal government and the states in regards to legal medical marijuana.   During the Bush administration, the DEA raided many legal medical marijuana distributors throughout the country.  Tons of federal money was being thrown into these cases in order to try and eliminate any and all marijuana in the states.

Medical marijuana facilities are very easy to take advantage of because they are actually businesses.  What is really interesting is that certain states have allowed for the legal sale of medical marijuana, therefore, quite a commercial industry exists.  However, since it is illegal federally, the DEA had free reign to do whatever they wanted.  Obama and the Justice Department yesterday basically told these states that, “we have better things to do, and more important ways to spend our time and money.” Here is what they said…

In a memorandum to federal prosecutors in the 14 states that allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the department said it was committed to the “efficient and rational use” of its resources and that going after individuals who were in “clear and unambiguous compliance” with state laws did not meet that standard.

This is huge news for those who need THC for certain ailments…

Advocates of medical marijuana say the substance can reduce chronic pain, nausea and other ailments associated with cancer and other serious illnesses.

The drug is prescribed by a doctor, so there are steps you need to take to legally get it.   There are currently 14 states that have legalized medical marijuana; California (thousands of stores), Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington (weird…not too many southern states).

This is a major shift from the Bush administration, and a step in the right direction towards the legalization of marijuana nationally.  Obama may get hammered for this, but I see an interested side that conservative should love.  Obama is keeping his hands off, and yielding to the states laws.  I wonder how Republicans will react, me thinks it might be hypocritical for them to be against it.  If the people in the state want it, the law should be respected and praised.  Any conservatives out there with a response?  Please comment, I’m interested to hear.

On a side note, if the U.S. taxed, regulated the sale and farming of marijuana, it would be the country’s largest cash crop and would get us out of our deficit rather quickly.  Just a thought.

Filed under: Political Pondering

Jackie Robinson and the GOP

If you have a chance to read The Plum Line, you should do it.  It’s the Washington Post’s blog about who’s who in the government, and Greg Sargent, the reporter who runs it, is a pretty big deal in Washington.  Greg broke this story this morning after it appeared on the GOP’s official website.  Here’s the deal, the GOP is promoting a segment on their site entitled, “GOP Heroes.” Well, there are two men on this list that jump out at me and scream, “THERE IS NO WAY HE WOULD SUPPORT THE GOP TODAY.”  The first, and most obvious has got to be Frederick Douglas.  I don’t know too much about his affiliation with the party, but it makes me want to vomit irritates me when people compare the Republicans of today with the Republicans of 100 years ago (I will get to this in a bit).  Can anyone in their right mind think Frederick Douglas would support the GOP today?  Come on now.

I’d like to focus on the GOP’s claim that Jackie Robinson (first black player in professional baseball), is, and was a GOP hero.  First, a few facts about Jackie’s political affiliation.  One, he was a registered independent, two, he campaigned for the Republican Nixon, and supported and was a special adviser for Rockefeller, also a Republican.  So yes, he did have some affiliation with the Republican party, even though he was a registered Independent.  But look at this quote from Robinsons biography…

“I guess you’d call me an independent since I’ve never identified myself with one party or another in politics.”

Ok, so it’s clear that Jackie never saw himself as a member of the GOP, so how can he be a hero for them?  I’m not quite sure.  But here is the real kicker.  As Sargent notes, when Goldwater won the nomination over Rockefeller, Robinson’s opinion of the GOP changed completely.  Take a look…

That convention was one of the most unforgettable and frightening experiences of my life. The hatred I saw was unique to me because it was hatred directed against a white man. It embodied a revulsion for all he stood for, including his enlightened attitude towards black people.

A new breed of Republicans had taken over the GOP. As I watched this steamroller operation in San Francisco, I had a better understanding of how it must have felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.

So maybe the GOP could say that Robinson was a “friend,” of the GOP before 1964, but it is pretty clear that after ’64, with the civil rights movement taking hold, Robinson did a complete 180.  So the GOP just thought it was OK to forget about all of this, and label him as a hero of the party?  It frustrates me when people associate the Democratic party with the party of slavery, and the Republicans as the party that ended it.  While officially, this may be true, the entire belief system of each party changed drastically in the 100 years since than, and you can easily say that the Republican’s became the party of slavery during the civil rights era.  There is very little debate that the GOP regained power during the Civil Rights Era due to their policies and actions towards segregation.

Ever since than, the GOP has become the party of the south, and this is even truer today then it has ever been.  The GOP has lost New England, and has even lost some of the Midwest states.  They are as regional a party as one can be, and as white as a party can be.  The lack of minorities in the party in staggering, and even though their leadership preaches to their politicians to be more inclusive with their message, the words that come out of the party are getting more and more conservative and continue to isolate minorities.  After everything Jackie Robinson went through, and this quote about how his beliefs about the GOP changed, how can a sane person label him as a hero of the Republican Party?  I hope Jackies family comes out with a statement in response, because this is more than irresponsible, it is borderline slanderous to the history of a true Independent American hero.

Filed under: Political Pondering

recent things on my mind. i.e. gang-rapes, chimps, lesbians, nazi’s, and american terrorists

The “debate” between evolution and creationism drives me nuts.  I have a hard time “debating” with someone seriously when they don’t trust scientific fact, because well…it’s fact.  Through many forms of radioactive dating, we pretty much know how old Earth is, and through archeological finds, we have discovered that humans didn’t start as humans, we evolved from some form of a hominid.  And with this most recent discovery of Ardi, the  oldest known hominid skeleton (replacing Lucy as the oldest), we have even more proof of the evolution of man.  Also, scientist have found that the earliest human’s were from Ethiopa, and most likely, were black.  This may just be me, but I think it’s pretty damn amazing, and awesome that my ancestors were black, Ethiopian, and looked like a human-chimp-combo person.  Let’s see if any of this science ends up in Texas textbooks.

.

What the Republicans and Saxby Chambliss did to Max Cleland (h/t to Alek) just further perpetuates the image of their party as heartlessly regressive posers and liars.  Cleland was an American hero, losing three of his limbs in Vietnam at the famed battle of Khe Sanh.  Cleland lost his Senatorial seat to Chambliss in 2002, and Chambliss embraced lies to paint Cleland as being in cahoots with terrorists, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein.  And people bought it…ugh.  This may be my ignorance, but I always felt that Republicans were respectful of the sacrifice our armed forces give to this country.  Why would someone paint a disabled veteran as terrorist when it’s simply a lie?  Anything to win, even if it goes against morality I guess.  As a result of losing the election, Cleland’s life took a downward spiral, and led to many of the tragedies he faced during the war coming back to his emotional surface.  Thankfully, he has successfully come back from the depths with the help of the great work done at the Walter Reed Center.  President Obama was also gracious enough to help him get back onto his feet as a public servant, as he is now the Secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission.  I’m sure some people will say that this is just politics, it’s a brutal game, and Democrats would do the same thing.  Well, in searching around, I cannot find an ad that has disgustingly discredited a veteran’s war record causing his life to spiral out of control.  Compassionate Conservatism?  Yea ok…

.

On a similar note, OMG THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH Peter Schiff, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Connecticut for taking away from your busy life to fight a war against our Fuhr…

I’m interrupting my career. It’s not like I want my new career in politics. But I’m willing to interrupt it the same way that somebody interrupted their career and joined World War II and went off to fight the Nazis.

These are the next wave of potential leaders of the Republican Party.  Can they seriously not find anyone better?  Are we really stuck debating with people that compare the Democrats, and President Obama to Hitler and the 3rd Reich.  What the hell is going on here?

.

I know Al, wtf?

Let’s now look at current proposed amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill that Senator Al Franken sponsored…

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.

.

How can 30/40 Republicans in the Senate vote against this amendment?  Can someone give me a rational argument as to why this is not a good idea?  How is being able to restrain sexual assault from the arm of the law a good thing?  Anyone?  More regression from the party of inequality.

.

Last but not least, congratulations and hat tips are in order for Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary and long time partner Heather, for the birth of their second child.  Kudos to Dick for coming out in support of his daughter, and in supporting gay marriage and equal rights.  He is a great example of what happens when you actually know someone that is gay, and realize that they are human beings too.  Weird concept, I know.  Here’s a little nugget as to how some of the conservative base has reacted.  What’s scary, is that there are many more people out there like this…

.

I respect Dick Cheney, but I don’t understand why he is allowing his daughter to take innocent children into her lesbianic home. Can anyone claim that these kids won’t be scarred for life? So sad.

.

Eeeeeek.  Those crazy lesbianic witches that, baby by baby, loving relationship by loving relationship, are destroying the fabric of the “American Family” (whatever the F that is).

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/conservative-base-not-han_n_313021.html

Filed under: Political Pondering

political pondering: ZOMGFGANISTAN part II

Colin’s final part on the war in Afghanistan…

Hopefully President Obama won’t beat me to the punch with decisions for the future of US involvement in Afghanistan, but he probably will. As I see it, he basically has three options. These scenarios assume continued tenuous cooperation with Pakistan, little to no involvement from the Russians, continued progress in Iraq, and effective containment of Iran, all of which are only uncertain assumptions.

1.  Following the recommendations of Gen. McChrystal, the president and Congress could send more troops (back from Iraq, ironically, of course, because this is Afghanistan) and re-win the war we recently re-lost. Some obvious downsides of this are that the Army is already and still overextended, and that the longer troops are in Afghanistan, the less available they are to react to other potential crises in that volatile part of the world. The obvious upside is that victory is obviously attainable, if we are patient enough.

2.  The executive and legislative branches could do nothing and continue to withstand the just-barely-acceptable casualty rate trickling back to the states. This preserves the troops to a certain extent, while crushing their morale. Politically, this is untenable for the long-term of the Democratic Party.

3.  Cowering to the far left and pulling totally out of Afghanistan is always on the table. It seems pretty unlikely in this case that that would happen, but if things turn really bad or really good in the immediate future, it could happen, and carries the unacceptable result of losing to the Taliban.

The trouble with these three scenarios is that all three could experience terrible results very quickly and bring unneeded attention to Afghanistan and away from other agenda items the Democrats want to keep the press on: health care, climate change, and the slowly recovering economy.

Loud talk-show talkers pay lip service to it, but seems to sometimes underestimate how savvy of a politician the president really is. Glenn Beck points out, as a scare tactic, that Mr. Obama took out the Clinton Machine, which is true and admirable in many ways. He’s already dodged one of the worst resumes a modern president has ever carried onto the campaign trail, Bill Ayers, the Rod Blagojevich/Roland Burris scandal, a number of cabinet appointee problems, and in the age of internet journalism, a staggering number of embarrassing quotes from deep inside his administration. All of these could have derailed his agenda, and yet he remains, with a steady approval rating of 51%, (Gallup, September 24, 2009) a popular president.

Ergo, President Obama will be smart enough to pass the buck. He will probably rubber stamp the confidential report recommending more troops (whomever thought to make that “confidential,” that was a brilliant idea) and sit back and allow Defense Secretary Gates, the Bush Administration holdover, to take any strategy heat. Secretary Gates seems ready to do this. The president can also play politics by sending spending bills to Congress. The midterm elections are always on the minds of House members, and they all know you can’t vote no on the troops if you want to hold your seat. Unless you’re Dennis Kucinich, and even then it’s dicey. The bottom line is, if the President loses in 2012, there’s no need for Afghanistan to be the cause. And this is probably good for the repairing of America after nearly a decade of fighting in the Middle East. And really, unless there’s another terrorist attack, the American people don’t care about Afghanistan. So let’s get it right and move on.

Filed under: Political Pondering