2003 All Over Again

Barely four days after the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas day, and Republicans are already throwing the Constitution and our legal system out the window. On Christmas Day, Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up an airplane in route to Detroit with a bomb that he had strapped to him. Luckily, the bomb failed and Abdulmutallab was overpowered and restrained. Once on the ground, he was seized by FBI agents and on the 26th, he was charged in a federal court of trying to destroy the airliner. And the screams of outrage from the right began almost immediately. Representative Peter King (R-NY), the ranking Republican in the House Homeland Security Committee, was the first to come out and blame the Obama Administration for this attempted attack. King has also come out and said that Abdulmutallab should not be tried in federal court, but instead in a "military tribunal."
"Wait," I hear you ask. "Haven't the Republicans been eviscerated over the last several years because of the handling of accused terrorists during the Bush Administration?" Well, yes, you are correct. And apparently, the Republicans learned little from it. King has decried the fact that Abdulmutallab will get a lawyer and Miranda rights. This is the same argument that was made about numerous enemy combatants seized during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans seem to think that we should just freeze all laws and rights in this country just because we are at war. They think anyone who commits a crime in the name of Al Qaeda should be thrown straight in prison, or even executed, without a fair trial first. This is absolutely wrong. Our Constitution was written for a reason. We have laws. Those laws must be observed and upheld. Just because someone commits a crime doesn't mean those laws become moot just because we are especially angry. If we aren't following the law, why even defend our nation? Why not just surrender? Our laws and rights set us apart from those we are fighting; when we abandon them, we are no longer an America worth defending. Abdulmutallab has just as much right to a fair trial as you or me. Why? Because he committed a crime here. And anyone who committs a crime here has rights so that we can curb abuses of power. The Bush Administration disregarded this, and apparently, some are willing to do it again. What they dont understand is that these tactics hurt America in the long run. When we disregard our own laws, it allows the terrorists to call us hypocrites. When we engage in torture, it becomes a recruiting tool for terror organization. We must not abandon our Constitution and laws. The courts may be slow, but they are effective. We must prosecute and find someone guilty before they can be punished, no matter who it is. Circumventing this process is like trying to arrest a susupected criminal before they even commit a crime. Our legal system is reactionary, nor preemptive. It cannot be preemptive. Because if it becomes that way, what is to stop your local police officer from arresting and charging you because he thinks you might someday commit a crime?

Health Reform?

We are closer than ever to passing Health Reform through the Senate, and I don't really know if I feel good about it.
News is coming out this morning that, after 13 hours of negotiating last night, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) has agreed to vote for the bill, giving the Democrats the majority they need. At what cost, though? Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) cut a deal with Nelson to ensure that Nebraska will never again pay a dime for Medicaid coverage. He also cut deals for Michigan, Louisiana, and Vermont, so that Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich), Mary Landrieu (D-Lou) and Bernie Sanders (I-Ver) would vote for the bill. He needed deals for Nelson, Levin, and Landrieu because, as conservative Democrats, they were moving away from the bill's public option (which was cut) and Medicare buy-in(which was also cut.) So I'm not really sure why he had to cut a deal when the two most liberal parts of the bill are already gone. The claim is because of abortion wording, which is not as restrictive as some hope (apparently, every single Senator has forgotten about Hyde Amendment, which states that no federal funding can be applied to abortions.) Sanders got a deal because no public option is included, and Sanders threatened to vote against the bill for this reason. I agree with Sen. Sanders; I think this bill should be scrapped. Without a public option, this is a handout to the insurance companies. The individual mandate included means millions of new customers for the insurance companies to overcharge and screw around. This is not the reform we have been working for since June. It's sad that Sen. Sanders has caved so easy. So now that we are here, with the first vote less than 24 hours away, I feel torn. Obviously, I want a health care bill badly. But I do not like the one being presented. Passing it will be a huge step, but the cost os too high. I agree that getting this done by the end of the year is important, but not if we have to make these crap deals for it to happend. I can only hope that a deal has been reached to reinsert the public option during conference committee (maybe our president will actually assert some force here and get it done?) That is basically our last hope. That, or reconciliation on the House bill, which would be nice, but won't happen. The next few days are going to be very interesting to see what happens.
One final note: I'm already tired of hearing Republicans complain about how this bill was crafted behind closed doors, how they weren't included, how it happened too fast. Republicans, shut up. Every time you were given the chance to help, you simply tried to torpedo all health reform. This is a Democratic bill. You want your own health care bill, go write one (fat chance that it even gets throught committe.) And as far as the "too fast" debate, last I checked, we've been having this debate since June. You know whats coming in this bill. And besides, it's not like you guys didn't spend eight years making shady backroom deals that you shoved through the Senate anyways without so much as acknowledging Democrats. It's called being the minority party. Get used to it.

Iraq

On March 20, 2003, coalition forces, led by the United States, initiated a preemptive strike against Iraq, under the presumption that Iraq was actively pursuing and developing weapons of mass destruction. The coaliton forces swiftly moved across the country, ousting President Saddam Hussein's government with relative ease. On May 1, 2003, in front of a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished," President George W. Bush annouced "The United States and our allies have prevailed." Later that year, on December 13, Hussein was captured by American forces, signaling the end of his regime. It appeared that, in the span of just nine short months, coaltion forces had wrapped up a quick and successful ousting of the Iraqi government.

Yet, here we sit, November 2009, and the war in Iraq is still raging. Soon after the capture of Hussein, an insurgency led by Al Qaeda forces began making life dificult for coalition forces. In addition, civil war broke out following the formation of a new, American-backed government. At this point in time, occupation forces are strongly resented by the Iraqi people, and the government is ignored by many. Instead, local councils, influenced by Al Qaeda, hold the real power. Yet, many in this country continue to insist that Iraq is a successful, and justified, war. However, the facts tell a different story.

The beginning of America's second war in Iraq actually dates back to January 2001, soon after George W. Bush was sworn in as president of the United States. Just ten days after the Inauguration, President Bush ordered his aides to begin searching for a reason to overthrow the Iraqi government. A memo titled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" also began circulating in the White Hosue around this same time. In March '01, a Pentagon memo titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" was produced, showing a map of areas in Iraq prime for petroleum production.

After Spetember 11th, President Bush began calling for Iraq to stop the production of weapons of mass destruction, and to comply with UN resolutions calling for weapons inspections. The Iraqi government insisted numreous times that they had no WMDs, and in late 2002, allowed UN weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, into the country. Blix informed the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating fully with inspections, and that he would be able to work quickly to complete his inspections in he had no outside interference.

The Bush Administration, however, had no intention of allowing Blix the chance to prove that Saddam had no WMDs. Bush wouldn't even listen to his own advisors. George Tenet, head of the CIA, was at the time telling Bush repeatedly that the CIA's own probes had shown that Saddam had no weapons. In fact, the CIA had interviewed a member of Saddam's cabinet, who said that not only did Saddam not have WMDs, he didn't even have the ability to produce them. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worked to marginalize Tenet and the CIA report, and soon produced their own report, written by the newly formed Office of Special Plans. The OSP report used new, "secret" intelligence known only to Cheney and the Rumsfeld Defense Department. This report said that the CIA intelligence was faulty, and that Iraq did in fact possess WMDs. Cheney's office proceeded to leak this information to the New York Times, which Cheney then cited to make his information seem more legit.

At this same time, the Administration sent former Ambassador Jospeh Wilson to investigate claims that Iraq was purchasing yellowcake Uranium from Niger. Wilson returned and informed Bush that Iraq was not attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger. But once again, the Administration chose to ignore the facts, and in his 2003 State of the Union, Bush said that British Intelligence had informed him that Iraq was acquiring Uranium from African nations. In June 2003, Wilson wrote a New York Times op-ed laying out his investigation, and exposing the White House for ignoring him. Soon after, his wife, Valerie Plame, was exposed as a CIA agent, leading to a Justice Department investigation that led to the eventual proscution of Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

In 2005, the Downing Street Memo showed a greater extent of the fraud committed by the Bush Administration. The memo details a meeting between the White House and British leadership that took place on July 23, 2002. In it, British intelligence states that Bush had clearly made up his mind to attack Iraq regardless of what else happened, and was fixing facts around policy, instead of basing policy on facts and information obtained.

In October 2002, 75 members of the U.S. Senate were informed that Iraq possessed the capabilities to attack the east coast with chemical and biological weapons. A few days later, the Senate voted to allow the Joint Chiefs to pursue military actions against Iraq. In February of 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell made his now-infamous presentation to the UN General Assembly laying out the American case for war. Powell told the UN the same thing that had been told to the Senate. However, the UN told Bush that preemptive strikes went against the UN charter, and he did not have UN support. In early March, Hans Blix reported that he had yet to find any WMDs, and he stated that he needed to be allowed more time without outside interference.

On the last day of January, however, Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the White House. Bush told Blair of an proposed plan to paint a spyplane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq, in the hopes it would be shot down and provoke the UN into pursuing war. The two leaders also resolved to attack Iraq regardless of the outcome of the inspections. They even set a date for invasion: March 10.

The Bush Administration began investigating what would be needed to conduct a successful war against Iraq. The top U.S. Army general, Eric Shineski, turned in a report stating that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to fight a winning war. The White House, however, did not like this number, and Runsfeld soon turned out his own report calling Shineski's suggestion way off base, and advising a significantly lower number of troops.

On March 20th, the invasion of Iraq began. The invading troops were mostly made up of American and British troops, with other countries supplying token amounts. The invasion proceeded northwest from the Persian Gulf, and Baghdad was taken by April 9th. Coaltion leaders declared the invasion successfully completed by April 15, and Bush held his "Mission Accomplished" celebration two weeks later. Only 139 U.S. troops had died.

It soon became clear that coalition forces werent going to be leaving Iraq anytime soon, though. In the months after Bush's declaration, religious radicals and other insurgents began a concerted effort to puch back against coalition troops. These insurgents opposed the U.S. plan to implement a democratic government with U.S. backing. After the capture of Hussein, insugrency attacks became more frequent and deadly.

2004 was a particularly bad year for the American-led forces. The American government began signing over many, many more duties to private contractors, who are not heavily regulated. Controversies ensued over shady practices and poor work by the contractors, particularly Blackwater USA. In June, the Provisional government signed over control of Iraq to the new Iraqi government, which provoked renewed violence from the insurgency. Finally, in April, the Abu Grahib scandal broke. Photos from the prison camp outside Iraq showed humiliating and tortoruous acts committed against Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. troops. The Abu Grahib incident is commonly held to be the main turning point in the war, the point at which coalition success took a downturn.

2005 brought the first elections for the new Iraqi government, and the ratification of their constitution. These events prompted the bloodiest month of the war, in April, and erased hopes of a forthcoming end to the insurgency, and the war.

The violence of 2005 carried over to 2006 to bring about civil war in Iraq. Various secterian groups began fighting each other, in addition to coalition troops, making it hard for the troops to know who was friendly, and who was enemy. Also, at the end of December, Saddam Hussein was put to death by the Iraqi government, for crimes against humanity. Most of the crimes cited were committed during Hussein's time as an ally of the U.S. and Britain during the 1980's.

2007 brought about the troop surge, an increase in 21,500 American troops. At the same time, Britain began pulling troops aout, due to increased opposition to the war back home. The surge was successful in reducing violence in Iraq, and in September, General David Petraeus announced that American troops would soon be reduced. However, secterian violence was as bad as ever, especially between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims.

2008 brought the arming and deployment of the new Iraqi military, and the reduction of involvement from U.S. troops. However, interference from Iran and Turkey caused violence to increase, and the American-backed government continued to be heavily unpopular. The civil war was also growing. In April, General Petraeus testified to Congress that the troop withdrawal needed to be halted, due to the fact that Iraq was becoming increasingly unstable.

During all thise time, the presence of Al Qaeda became a problem. Before the war, Al Qaeda had no prsence in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein believed that Al Qaeda was forment rebellion against him. However, during the war, Al Qaeda was able to gain a foothold, and were major players in promoting the insurgency.

In late 2008, the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was passed in Iraq and America. The Agreement stated that U.S. forces would withdraw from all Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. troops would be gone by December 31, 2011. The June 2009 withdrawal was a success, with Iraqi forces able to maintain control of the cities.

In 2009, with the election of Barack Obama as the new American President, the first exit strategy formulated by the U.S. was announced. This was considered by many a huge success, as the Bush Administration had failed over the course of six years to ever present a cohernent strategy for one day leaving Iraq. Obama announced that combat operations in Iraq would cease by August 31, 2010, and that troops would be gone by the date specified under the Forces Agreement.

The war in Iraq has been extraordinarily costly, and these costs are only exacerbated by the fact that the war is both unneccessary and potentially illegal. Long before September 11th, the Bush Administration had resolved that it would enact a preemptive war against a sovereign nation. In building the case for war, the White House ignored intelligence asserting that there was no reasonable pretext for war, instead lying to the public, the Congress, and the UN about what was happening in Iraq. Throughout 2002, the Hussein government insisted they had no WMDs, and the inspections by Hans Blix backed this up. Six years later, it appears that Saddam was telling the truth, as no weapons have been found, and in fact, no evidence of the ability to even produce WMDs has been found. The American public was led to believe that Iraq was an iminent threat to national security, and in lying to the Senate about the threat, potentially committed purjury. Neither had Saddam or his government committed any recent humanitarian violations. Due to the actions of the Bush Administration, our country is mired in a war that is costing us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. And the war is not even successful at this point. Civil war is raging, and Al Qaeda, who had not been involved in Iraq, now has a significant foothold among the people there. The government is widely unpopular, and the Iraqi people are resentful of the presence of coalition forces in their country. America has neglected its duty of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, returning much of Iraq to the middle ages in terms of technology and practices. For all intents and purposes, our foray into Iraq is an unmitigated failure, and one that could have been avoided. We cannot support a war on two fronts, especially while trying to work through a major recession. December 2011 cannot come quickly enough. Our government and military need to use the intervening two years to rebuild a country we have destroyed.

Coming Soon!!

Hey everyone, I just wanted to let you know what I have planned coming up. Next Tuesday, President Obama will be announcing his decision on the troop situation in Afghanistan. In anticipation of this, I will be working diligently on three new blog posts that hopefully will be done before then. First, in two seperate posts, I will break down both the wars: how they happened, what has happened, and where they are headed. Then, in the third I will give my opinion on where I think we should head, what the war is doing to our troops, and our relationship with Iran(hope you're ready to strongly disagree with me; most will concerning Iran.) I have some very strong beliefs here, and I am putting a lot of work into these posts. I hope you will click back here later this week to read them. And please, tell everyone you know who might be interested. Thanks for all you support!!

Justin

Basic Rights

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." Amendment VI, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution

America was built upon a foundation of laws, and a system of enacting those laws. If someone breaks a law, we have a judicial system with a specific, proven way of meteing out justice. This system is crucial to our identity as a free, fair nation, a nation where even criminals-burglars, rapists, fraud artists, mass murderers-have some basic rights. Without respect for these rights, we are no better than any totalitarian or oppressive state. This difference is what makes America great.

Yet for some reason, over the past decade, some people have tried to circumvent this system in the name of "national security." The USA PATRIOT Act is the most blatant, and most well known, of these instances. In the PATRIOT Act, the Bush Administration approved the use of illegal methods such as warrantless wiretapping and illegitimate detainment of suspects. When criticized, the White House said they were "protecting us" and if you complained, you were unpatriotic, and probably a traitor. Yet, aren't things like wiretapping and detainment hallmarks of oppressive regimes? Those on the right rail against left-wing communists, and big government looking over your shoulder, yet support "Big Brother-"type programs and policies like the PATRIOT Act, something that would not seem out of place in Orwell's "1984."

Now, another issue along these lines has popped up in New York City. Last week, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khaleed Sheik Mohammad, would be tried in a federal court in New York City. This immediately created an uproar in the Republican Party. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox News, "This seems to be an overconcern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern for the rights of the public." He called the trials an "unnecessary advantage to give to the terrorists" and a "security risk." I don't even know what to make of these comments. Disregarding the Bill of Rights is a good thing for the public? Last I checked, putting a terrorist on trial is not giving them an "advantage." And how would it be a security risk? Wouldn't compromising our system of laws be a victory for the terrorists? Just throwing them in prison wihtout a trial would be great propaganda for Al Qaeda. It's the same with Guantanomo Bay. Gitmo is Al Qaeda's single greatest recruiting tool. When talking about the "great American evil," they can simply point to Guantanamo as an example of the way America disregards other people's rights. Moving these detainees to Thomson, Illinois, which has volunteered to take them, would put all the negativism associated with Gitmo to rest.

People on the right claim holding and trying terrorists here creates security problems. Do they really have that little faith in our prisons, police, military, and courts? Illinois currently holds 35 prisoners classified as "terrorists" without any problems. And in 2006, the "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui, was prosecuted and convicted in a federal district court in Virginia, without any security problems. So what makes some think we can't do the same with Al Qaeda terrorists? Instead of a criminal court, Republicans want them tried in a military tribunal. This is unnecessary, however. These five terrorists are not on trial for military crimes. They are on trial for crimes committed in New York, Washington D.C., and rural Pennsylvania. If you strip away all the identifiers, 9/11 is easy to identify along criminal lines: a group of men commit mass murder by killing thousands simultaneously. There was no war going on, and it wasn't committed in a war zone. It's simple. This is how America's judicial system works. You don't just change it because you want to.

Let me make one final point. Besides being against legally and humanely holding prisoners, and giving them a quick and fair trial, some on the right are now advocating against a trial for Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood tragedy. I guess they want him jailed immediately, or executed without trial. My point is, they want to ignore our legal system in prosecuting him. Now, let me ask you something. Did those thirteen troops who died at Fort Hood, or the 5882 troops killed so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the 2976 people killed on 9/11, did all these people die so that we can set aside our laws and customs? Did they die so we can disregard civil liberties and human rights? Is it worth invalidating 8871 deaths for no reason? Because if we follow through on what the right is yelling incoherently for us to do, then they all died in vain. America must not compromise it's values. We must be a beacon of liberty and justice, even when it comes to terrorists. Without our laws, what are we? We must hold ourselves above the rest of the world. It's who we are.

Secession?

Hey guys, just checkin in real quick.

I hope you all enjoyed the videos. They are my insidious way of looking busy while in fact I do very little haha. Anyways, I'll be writing again this week, so I better get my work ethic in check. And after my one post diversion into political science, I think I'm gonna go back to issues, because I have more to say about that, and well, this whole blog idea is about me saying things, right?

Just to touch on a view things. First, congratulations to President Obama on recieving the Nobel Peace Prize. I agree it was shocking and I also agree maybe he wasn't the most qualified. However, this talk that he wasn't qualified in anyway is ridiculous. He has done so many good things in such a short amount of time, from peace talks with Iran to the advancement of minority rights here in America. He has projected a wonderful, new image of America to the world, which is exactly what we needed, considering the way we were viewed for the previous eight. It's embarassing that anyone in this country would be upset that he won (almost as embarassing as certain people cheering the fact that Chicago missed out on the Olympics.) I understand if you think he's underqualified. However, you should be proud. This isn't just an individual honor. This is a statment on America's new standing in the world.

One thing that is bothering me is the secessionist talks coming from certain states. I can't believe that people would be talking like this. What happened to patriotism? Can you really love America if you don't want to be a part of it anymore? Grow up. Secession is not an option, it isn't even a conversation. It's absolutely ridiculous, and borders on treason.

All these things, from the Olympics controversy to secession to siding with rebels in Honduras (see: Demint, Sen. Jim), makes the Republicans look strangely unpatriotic. Weren't these the same folks who just a few short years ago that said if you so much as look at the president wrong you were un-American? The same ones who bestowed us with "freedom fries?" Now they are out of power, and suddenly they seemingly abandon their country. Just because someone else is in power doesn't mean you give up on America. I don't remember Democrats threatening secession during the Bush Administration, and he did some pretty wacked out stuff.

For the best overview of Republican thinking right now, read this column by Paul Krugman from the New York Times last week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1
That sums it up pretty well. A strong, coherent, intelligent conservative movement is crucial to the success of this nation. The Republican Party has abandoned rationality and coherency in favor of vitriol and partisan politics. It's sad.

Well, I'll be back later this week. Later!

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment of Health Care Reform

Tonight, Keith Olbermann did an hour long special comment on the health care debate. It is a must-watch. Please, i beg you, find an hour and watch these videos. You will not look at the health care debate the same again.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Videos

This was great. Betsy McCaughey gets her ass handed to her by Rep. Anthony Weiner and Dylan Ratigan on "Morning Meeting" this morning.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

"I oppose that math."
"You can oppose the math all day."
thats awesome. go dylan!!!

Im slightly embarassed for her.

Ok that was a lie. I loved every minute. I have watched that video several times today. If this is the best the right can throw at health reform, then we don't have much to worry about.

If you want more look up the video of Betsy on the Daily Show a few weeks ago. Jon Stewart also hands it to her.

Hypocrisy?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Supreme Court

First of all, sorry I've been away for so long! School has started and I have been so incredibly busy! But I've gotten some pressure lately from people to start writing again, so here we go. I want to shift directions, though, and make a fresh start. Now that I am enrolled in Political Science courses here at OCU, I am very interested in the way our government works. While current issues are still very important to me, and I have still have opinions on them, I would like to use this space to discuss, for lack of a better term, political science topics. I still want feedback, now more than ever. Your input is crucial. A discussion of our government's structure and the way things happen in it is crucial, especially at this point in time, with some many exciting things happening in Washington D.C. I hope everyone is mildly interested in this new direction, and you all are willing to discuss with me.

I really want to talk about the Supreme Court right now. Now, my motive is that tonight in my Politics of Law class, our entire conversation centered on the nomination process of the Supreme Court, and what those who have a hand in the selection of justices should look for in candidates. We also looked at who or what exactly a Supreme Court justice represents. In the American government, everything originates at the Constitution. However, at times, the Constitution is intentionally vague in its wording. The Founding Fathers purposely wrote it this way so that it would be a living document that pertained to all ages, not just the one in which they lived. Because of this, a body is needed to interpret the way the Constitution is written and apply is to society. This body is the Supreme Court. The way this is done is through judicial review. Cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court rules on them based on their interpretation of the Constitution. The law that the case concerns in either upheld by the Court or declared unconstitutional. If no particular law is concerned, then a precedent is set for future matters concerning the issue. The Supreme Court has no official way to enforce its rulings, but it understood that you go along with them out of respect for the Constitution. If you disagree, you can attempt to bring another case that concerns the law in question, and attempt to get it heard. Now, this summer, the big controversy was over judicial activism. This is where the court is not just interpreting law, but instead making policy. My opinion is that this is splitting hairs. I guess technically the act of making precedent could be interpreted as policy making. However, the precedent can be overturned if an official law is passed. Until then though, the duty of the Court is to establish a precedent that is as good as policy, in effect. Also, I suppose the act of declaring something unconstitutional could be considered policy making, in a way. Do you see the point I'm getting at here? The outrage over the idea of the court making policy is absurd. The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on these laws and ideas. If it overturns a law, in effect, it creates a "policy". The Court has no way of writing a law into effect; that power is granted solely within the Congress.

The other big controversy surrounding the Sotomayor confirmations was the idea of personal bias and a candidate's background. It is impossible to peel away one's personality from one's self. It is who you are. Of course, anytime a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling, that person is going to draw upon their own experiences to help them understand the impact their ruling will have on people. This is why we have nine justices, and not just one. The variety of opinions and experiences will allow the body as a whole to make the correct decision. This idea is one explored prominently in philosophy. You cannot take off the "rose-colored glasses" through which you see life. Your personality, which is shaped by your life experience and background, has a hand in everything you do. This is what creates opinions and individuals. A variety of opinions and ideas on the Supreme Court is a good thing! We want the Constitution interpreted in a way that doesn't cater to one group or another. If you have nine people who are the same gender, same race, same religion, same age, same background, then the way they interpret is obviously gonna lean in a certain direction. But if you have nine different people, and those people bring their ideas and experience and customs to the conversation, then the debate over laws will be more nuanced and far-reaching, and the correct ruling will be made, because all opinions have been heard and all viewpoints have been consulted. Remember, the Constitution is a living document. It is not static; it does change. It changes because we as a people change, and the way we look at this great document changes. Thus, we interpret it differently than America in 1878 did, differently than America in 2145 will. American society and the Constitution must adapt to each other; it is not a one way street. It one or the other does not adapt, then no progress can ever be made. If we still thought the way our Founders did, then slavery would still be practiced, and women would not be allowed to vote or hold office. It is absolutely crucial to our survival as a nation. And it is what makes America such a great country: while others are mired in Medieval ways of life, we are constantly flowing forward and allowing ourselves to become a better people.

I just want to address one more issue. The biggest part of our conversation in class tonight centered on who does the Supreme Court represent? I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court represents nobody. They are not voted in. They don't favor one group over another. The argument was made that perhaps they represent the people. However, if this was the case, then they would never rule in favor of the government in a matter. It is absolutely crucial that they do not have a particular constituency. Their job is to interpret law not based in what the general populace is, but what is right by the Constitution and for our country as a whole.

Please, let me know what you think. What is the job of our Supreme Court? Are they fulfilling that job? Do they represent someone or something in particular? Remember, free and open discussion of our opinions and ideas is what sets our republic apart from other forms of society.

Checkin' In

Hey everyone! Sorry i havent written in a while. Things have been really busy with school, running, and the various organizations I'm in right now. But I promise to have something new up by Thursday night! Until then, I encourage you to watch the President's speech to the Joint Session of Congress tomorrow night. That is probably what a lot of my new post will be about.

Later!
Justin

Videos

Two videos tonight.

First, this is why Ted Kennedy was the best at what he did.



And this really cracked me up tonight when I watched it. Glenn Beck is an idiot.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Senator Ted Kennedy: An American Icon

The news of the death of Ted Kennedy has saddened me more than I thought any public figure's death could. In recent weeks, I have been studying the Kennedy Family more and more, and in particular John, Robert, and Ted. These men fasciante me, and Ted's contributions to our nation are astonishing and epic. No man has made as great an impact on this country in the last century as Ted Kennedy. In his 46 years an a Senator, he has initiated an amazing amount of groundbreaking and society-shaping legislation. Many aspects of our society are the way they are thanks to the contributions of this great man. Some of these bills: the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the National Cancer Act of 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, the COBRA Act of 1985, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Ryan White AIDS Care Act in 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Mental Health Parity Act in 1996 and 2008. Kennedy also was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, calling his vote against the war the best he ever cast in the Senate. He was a big supporter of education reform, and health care reforms, including the current push to get a public plan installed. Many Democrats beleive the debate over health care would be different and more successful if Sen. Kennedy had been there over the last few months, and it is sad he will not be around to see the final outcome of this current debate. Finally, Ted was a driving force behind raising the minimum wage above $7 and lowering the voting age to 18. Senator Ted Kennedy was a great, amazing man, and a true hero to myself. If I can ever make 1/100th of the impact that he made, then I will consider myself a success. American politics will never be the same, because of him and without him.

A Shameful Chapter

I had a very interesting experience yesterday. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn held a town hall meeting in downtown OKC, and I decided to attend, so I could experience what a town hall meeting was all about. First, a disclaimer: I have a lot of respect for Sen. Coburn, despute his far right beliefs. He does a lot of good work here in the state, and, generally, he stands up for what he beleives in, even if it is not exactly popular here in Oklahoma. He showed an ability to do this several times yesterday, such as when he defended his vote for the stimulus bill, and his personnel friendship with the president. Ok, all that said, I strongly disagree with him about health care. He does not support the public plan, but instead wants to reform insurance companies and continue with what we have. I obviously disagree with him on this, and when I had a chance to meet him afterwards, I told him this.

Anyways, I want to get away from the health care debate for tonight. This week has seen the unveiling of a lot of news concerning national security procedures during the Bush Administration. The revelation last week by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that the Bush Administration politicized the terror threat level is not unexpected, but still disgusting nonetheless. The fact that the former leaders of this country would use the threat of terrorism to win elections is absolutely abhorrent. This is something that you expect from totalitarian regimes in other countries that hold fake elections, not from the United States presidency. I wish it were possible to go after the people behind this in a court of law. But I guess we will just have to rely on the other big revelation this week to get Cheney and Rove. The CIA report on interrogation techniques is also disgusting. Prisoners were threatened with guns, electric drills, and threats to their families. Some torture even went so far that detainees were mentally scarred so bad that they can never defend themselves in a court of law, or were even killed. Is that what you want America doing to people? It disgusts me to think our leaders approved these things, and even praised the merits of torture. These things are all prohibited by U.S. law and the Geneva Convention. And what purpose did these methods serve? None at all. CIA interrogators have reported that detainees were more likely to turn over useful info when they were being treated well. Al-Qaeda officer Khalid sheik-Mohammad, who was tortured nearly to death, said in an interview that he often gave false info during torture, and when he was offered chocolate chip cookies, he finally turned over useful intel. KSM also said that Al-Qaeda actively uses U.S. torture to recruit young Arab men, because of the evil image it protects on the U.S. Now that we have proof that the Bush Administration authorized these tactics, it is a no brainer that certain officals should be prosecuted. Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed a prosecuter to try people and hopefully he will have the guts to go after those at the highest levels. All of this reminds me of the Nixon Administration. Richard Nixon once said that anything the president does is legal, and he has been roundly criticized for that statement for three decades. Isn't this basically the prinicple that President Bush and those around him operated on? Do you think anyone in the Bush Administration has actually read the Constitution. I just finished re-reading it for a class, and when I think about what went on in the last eight years, it makes me angry! The utter disregard for what our country truly stands for is absolutely insulting! What right did those people have to do just whatever they wanted while they were in office? We are not a totalitarian country. We are a country based on the rule of law, and nobody is above that law, not even the president, and especially not Bush, Cheney, or Rove. And as for the argument that these people were terrorists, so the treatment was justified is bull. All prisoners have rights. It is a key idea that we are built on. How can you claim to be defending our country when you are tearing down the laws that that country is built on!?! In fact, this is beyond an argument for the respect of our country. This is a moral issue. It is morally wrong to torture anyone, no matter how evil they are. I don't believe the Bible advocates torture. In fact, the Bible says to love your enemies. I didn't read a disclaimer under that that says, "Except for Muslim terrorists." Maybe if we spent less time doing these abominable things, and instead tried to reach out and make friendly relations with others, then we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism.

Our Line In The Sand

Just a quick call-to-arms on health care.

This morning on MSNBC, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) essentially drew a line in the sand. Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and until now, has been one of the few GOPers who it was thought could be counted on to help with health care reform. That all changed today. With rumors circulating DC that the public option is not a sure thing anymore, Grassley was asked if he would vote for a bill that didnt include a public option. Not only did he say no, he said that even if the bill was exactly what he wanted, he probably wouldn't vote for it.

Read that last sentence one more time.

Even if we locked Sen. Grassley in a room and let him write a health care bill to his own liking, he still wouldn't vote for it. So why in the hell are Dems trying to craft a bill that Republicans would vote for? This proves it: the GOP isn't going to vote for any health care bill in any form. So a message to Democrats in our nation's capital: FORGET BIPARTISANSHIP.> Republicans have just announced their intention to not cooperate no matter what. We have the White House, a 70 seat majority in the House, and a 60-seat, filibuster proof majority in the Senate. We do not need the Republicans. They are basically quitting. So lets get this done. Put the public option in, along with whatever else we need, and pass the bill.

It feels to me like universal health care is slipping away quickly. When Congress reconvenes in September, they need to get to work and get it done before October. I encourage anyone reading this: contact your Democratic Congresspeople and let them know: if they cant get this done, maybe we need to get some people up there that actually want to do the job we sent them for. This is our big chance: do not squander it!

Good news: You cant yell over my blog!

So I was sitting on the couch, and I realized: I havent written a blog in, like, over a week! What have I been doing?!?!? Anyways, here it is.

The absolute hate and vitriol being displayed by the extreme right at town hall meetings in the last week is, frankly, quite scary to me. What ever happened to a peaceful discourse of ideas? Did right-wingers decide that yelling over anything being said is a way to spread your viewpoint? I think that this tactic is being used because these people have no ideas of their own. Their only plan of action is to oppose anything Democrats propose. They know if Democratic officials are allowed to explain the health care plan to people, then it will be accepted for what it is: a good and reasonable plan. When they are criticized, these people claim that democracy is being repressed. I'm sorry, but angrily yelling down people who disagree with you is not democracy. It's the politics of fear and intimidation, an art the Republicans seem to have mastered over the last decade. And it's not just the actually yelling that is stupid. They are yelling out things that are flat-out lies. First, the supposed "death panels." The claim is that the government is going to tell you when and how to die. First, this is absolutely ridiculous. Use your brains for half a second. The actual provision that this comes from is one that allows for the compensation of doctors who provide end-of-life counciling that their patients ask for. Somehow, this has been twisted into death for old people? What the hell? Did right-wingers even read the provision, or did they just see "end-of-life" and "patients" and just assume something? These are elected officials and educated people, right? Not, like, 5th graders or something? This is conspiracy-mongering at it's best, and God forbid that anyone do some fact-checking and find out what exactly the bill says. The best part about this? Two years ago, Sen. John Isakson (R-GA), who has recently criticzed this very thing, co-sponsored a bill that passed that contained the exact same wording as the new health care bill! Hypicrosy at work again.
Another lie: that the bill will fund abortion initiatives. This one is easy to prove: it is against the law for any federal funds to be allocated for abortion support. Read the Hyde Amendment. The health care bill says nothing about repealing the Hyde Amendment.
Goodness, that was easy to dispel.

I guess I just really don't understand some of the opposition to health care. What really makes people think that government can't do as good a job as big insurance in providing coverage? I mean, the insurance corporations haven't exactly done a great job. I like this story: a conservative think tank recently issued a statement claiming that if we had public plan, like in Britain, then disabled people, such as physicist Stephen Hawking, would just be neglected and put down. Never mind the fact that Mr. Hawking is from Britain, and issued a statement saying that he would not be here without the great care provided by Britain's National Health Service. Once again, fact-checking: a good thing. Another example, as illustrated by Pres. Obama: government postal service has yet to drive public mail carriers like UPS and FedEx out of business. In fact, both companies are thriving due to the increased competition. So what makes you think the government will drive private insurance out of business? The only way this will happen is if the insurance companies refuse to adapt to the new landscape, in which case, good riddance! Adaption is key to survival.

The final point I want to make is about Republican legislators. Their calls that government-run health care cant work ring hollow, considering their own plans. Most Congresspeople are on government-run health care, and it seems to be working well for them. So the next time a Congressman wants to trash government-run health care, maybe that person should give up their own plan, if it sucks so bad. It's hard to kill something when it seems to be working so well.

Well, that's all I got for now. I'll try to get back sooner next time. And if you are reading this, please, leave your comments and ideas! I want to know what you are thinking, so I know what I need to address! Until next time!

Health Care

Great monologue by Keith Olbermann on tonight's Countdown

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

the man is a genius

Health Care: Choosing death?

Just a warning: this might be kind of long haha. A lot has been happening this week and I'm gonna try to hit all the big points. I may end up splitting this up, but I'm not sure yet.

First, obviously, health care. I've kind of pounded this subject into the ground, but it really is the key issue right now. The latest word from the capital is that a public plan may be gone, in favor of a co-op. The Senate Finance Committee finally released their bill, which did not include a public option. Democrats need to stand up and demand the public plan. It seems that the Republicans are winning this battle with a minority, just by pushing the Dems around. Liberal Democrats really need to get a spine and push back, and stop worrying about hurting the feelings of the Republicans.
But that's not my big issue with health care. The other big story this week is the idea that the government is going to force senior citizens to choose how they want to die. This is the most ridiculous thing I think I have heard yet concerning the health care bill. Let's not forget, the whole point of this bill is to get people health care so that they can live longer. It seems the main point here is a line in the bill that will divert funding to an ad campaign that encourages people to get living wills. First of all, the government has been doing this for twenty years. Second, what is wrong with a living will? I didn't realize that it was a bad thing. In fact, it seems getting a living will is a very good idea, for your children's sakes. But some conservative whack-job somewhere has started telling senior citizens that this means the government is going to force them to choose a death, so that they can be offed to make room for younger people. Usually, this kind of fear-mongering wouldn't be worrisome (in fact, we have kind of come to expect it from the Limbaugh-Beck-Coutler types.) The problem is, some Republican Congressmen and -women have taken up this ridiculous idea. Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said on the House floor, "Seniors will be put to death by their government." Also on the House floor, Rep. Paul Brown (R-GA) called the health care bill a "secret plan to kill people." An in interviews, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) likened it to "assisted suicide," while Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said, "It will absolutely kill people," and it will "put them on a list and force them to die early." And finally, during President Obama's town hall meeting Tuesday, a women called in saying that she heard a rumor that the government was going to send officials door-to-door asking people how they would like to die. The President dismissed this, calling it "kind of morbid," and explained the line encouraging living wills. This kind of fear-mongering by conservatives is disgraceful, and clearly shows that Republicans really have no other points that they can legitimately argue, considering the NBC poll released today showing that 94% (no that's not a typo) of the population wants health care reform of some type. 56% support a public plan. If this country is based in majority rules, then why aren't we seeing a public plan happening. Last I checked, 56% is a majority (almost as much as President Obama won the last election by!) My point is, the Republicans really have no options left. Many of them are happy with the status quo, and will do and say anything to make sure it happens.

Another big story this week has been the recent surge in Obama birther stories. If this isn't the most ridiculous story out there, I don't know what is. It seems that conservatives have this crazy idea that President Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, and his mother inexplicably put the birth announcement in two Hawaii newspapers, and also forged a Hawaii birth certificate. You know, on the off chance that her son might run for President 46 years later. The possibility of this story being anywhere near true is zero, which makes it all the more appealing for the Limbaugh crowd. But it's not just fringe-element conservatives following this line of thought. Apparently, some Republican Congressmen don't have the backbone or courage to stand up to people like Ann Coulter and say that Obama is an American citizen, and anyone who says otherwise is insane. They are more concerned with keeping the hard-line base happy, more so than standing up for the truth. Listen, you can disagree with Obama on everything in the world. But there is no doubt he is an American citizen. There are hospital records, a birth certificate, a certificate of live birth, and newspaper announcements that prove he was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961. This shouldn't even be an argument. Once again (I'm sensing a pattern here,) it seems that Republicans don't have many things of substance to argue, so they must grasp at air with ideas like this.
Just as a closing note for this story: 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain was actually not born in the United States. He was born in Panama on a U.S. base. Many Constitutional scholars still debate whether or not this would qualify McCain to be president. So chew on that.

The last major story is the Henry Louis Gates arrest. This is the perfect story to spark a national debate on the continued role of racism in America. There is no doubt in my mind that race played a role in this arrest. Despite what some want you to think, racism is still very much alive in America. I personally see it almost daily, living adjacent to a predominately poor, black neighborhood to the south, and a predominantly white, very rich neighborhood to the north. There is also a large Hispanic population in this area. The racism displayed by many has shocked me in the short amount of time I have lived here in downtown Oklahoma City. It just shows me how sheltered I was in terms of race living in Benton, KS for most of my life.
And now, Glenn Beck has decided to drop his two cents on this subject. On the Fox New Channel, he called President Obama a "racist" who "hates white people," and wants to put them at a disadvantage. Now before I comment on this, lets get one thing cleared up: I absolutely hate racism of any form. Nothing in this world angers me more than seeing or hearing someone discriminate against another because of the color of their skin. This is absolutely the most asinine thing I have ever seen. Racism is one thing that drove me away from the Republican party: I couldn't stand listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck say blatantly racist things on the radio daily, and never hearing any Republicans denounce them. So hearing Mr. Beck's latest comments almost don't even surprise me. I just don't understand why people hate others because of what color skin they have, or what country they are from. We are all people. Everyone has the same rights, whether their skin is black or white, whether they speak English or French, whether they are communist or capitalist, or whether they worship Jesus or Mohammad. I really long for a day when all these things can be accepted by others. But we aren't there. Many extreme conservatives can't seem to accept that a black man is president. These are the same people who attacked John Kerry is 2004 for "looking French." Who cares what he looks like? Why is that even a conversation? I think the basis of the racial argument is this: some white people can't stand the idea that they might not have a monopoly on power anymore. I think some Republicans are in this same boat. The idea of a black or Hispanic majority frightens them because they might not be able to make all the choices anymore. So the base of the Republican party has become the party that stands up for the abused white man. The thing is, in a few years, white people will no longer be the majority. So if Republicans want to continue to alienate minorities, they will soon learn that they can no longer win elections. Racism needs to come to an end, not for political reasons, but for moral ones. And anyone who thinks this argument is arcane, and racism is dead, just come spend a few days with me. I think I can open your eyes.

Health Insurance

Hey everyone, sorry its been such a long time. Katie was here for a week so I didn't have a lot of time to get typing. My best friend, Andrew, is on his way for the weekend so I don't know that I'll get anything else up until middle of next week. Anyways, here it is.

So I think it is pretty obvious where I am going with this. Health care has kind of dominated headlines the last week, especially considering the publicity tour President Obama has gone on to promote it. I think we are really close to getting something comprehensive and groundbreaking done here, but the last push is always the hardest. These next few weeks are gonna be a real fight. That said, I don't think there is anyway that this bill doesn't get passed. In particular, I'm excited about the talk about mandated health insurance. This is something that should have happened a long time ago. If auto insurance is required in this country, why shouldn't health insurance be the same way? This whole idea makes the argument about costs almost a moot point. Right now, if an uninsured person goes to the hospital, you foot the bill anyway.
There is also a more selfish reason for my support of public health care. In four short years, I will no longer be eligible to be on my parent's insurance. What am I supposed to do then? Chances are that in four years I won't be in a secure job that offers a strong health insurance plan. In four years, I will probably be in law school, and working a side job to pay bills. A public insurance plan would greatly benefit me, and millions of other twenty-somethings. Most recent college graduates either can't afford or don't have access to insurance. It's not because they are lazy or stupid. It is because rates and premiums are so insanely high that they just flat can't afford it, even if they have a decent job. This is where I will probably be. Let me give you an example. Nursing student Sarah Posekany, age 27, recently had to have colon surgery, and the long recovery did not allow her to have a job. The procedure cost thousands of dollars. Sarah does not have much money saved and can't afford either insurance or to pay her bills. On top of that, she can't get insurance easily in the future, due to her need for frequent check-ups and the possibility of future procedures. She was forced to declare bankruptcy. At age 27. This is a tragedy, one that could have been easily avoided if she were offered something she could afford and that didn't hinge on her holding a job. Sarah's not a bum. She simply had the misfortune of needing surgery, and consequently, the system in place simply decided that Sarah was going to just have to be a casualty. Right now, big insurance refers to us 20-somethings as the "invincibles," because we are perceived as never getting sick or hurt. Thus, getting us affordable insurance is not a big deal. This isn't oversight, or something that can be fixed by getting indignant at the companies. This is company policy, something they are loathe to change. The only way around this is to put an option out there that will wake them up and, if they are unwilling to change, drive them out of business. This is capitalism at it's finest. Keep up or die. Basically what the insurance business has been telling us for the last 50 years.

I have a few more subjects I wanna talk about, but I'm not at home and my computer is about to die, so I will try to get back tonight or tomorrow.

Sotomayor

Hey everyone. I've got a couple things to talk about just real quick. I'm having computer problems today and I have almost no patience so this will probably be short and sweet.
The main thing I wanna talk about is the Sotomayor hearings that have been going on this week. I think everyone is in agreement that she is going to get confirmed, so any fight the Republicans have is on political basis, rather than a substantive one. They aren't doing a very good job though. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee can't seem to move past the "wise Latina" comment and consequently have come off this week as underprepared and uninformed. This is a judge who has been on the bench for 17 years and has seen thousands of cases, some of which have gone on the be heard by the Supreme Court. Instead of possibly questioning her on many of these, Republicans want to cast her as a racist and bigot. This is glaringly hypocritical coming from proven racists such as Sen. Jeff Sessions (Alabama.) Lest we forget, Sessions himself got rejected by a Republican-majority Committee in 1986 as a nominee for a federal judgeship. The basis for his rejection was his indefensible racial comments, including saying that he thought the Ku Klux Klan wasn't so bad except for their support of marijuana. He also called the NAACP and ACLU "un-American" and "communist." In light of this, I don't think Mr. Sessions has much ground to stand on when it comes to racism. Then there is Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. When he was able to break away from "wise Latina" talk, he went into deep conversation with Mrs. Sotomayor over gun rights. One thing that caught my ear was when he asked the nominee what her personal belief was when it came to gun rights. What does it really matter? According to critics, Mrs. Sotomayor should never allow he personal beliefs to come into her judgments. So what difference does it really make what her thoughts on gun rights are? Her job will be to uphold existing laws. As for those who say she legislates from the bench, take a look at her record. Across the board, she has been fairly moderate, and has often made of point of avoiding legislating. Read her opinions. It's all there. All in all, the hearings have been rather useless and almost comical at times. She is gonna be nominated, but Republicans don't want to be fingered in future elections as someone who voted for Sotomayor. As Richard Wolffe (who I have immense respect for; one of the best commentators out there) said, this isn't about Sotomayor, this is about not siding with the president on anything. The Party of No strikes again.

Quick note on Sarah Palin. So she said she wants to spend her time concentrating on meaningful ways to help Alaska. Does that include writing Op Ed pieces for the Washington Post supporting big oil? Because that's what she did this weekend. And on top of that, the piece contradicted her past views on this subject! I can't even think about this anymore, the utter hypocrisy makes my head hurt.

One last comical note. Newt Gingrich did an interview with Al Jazeera this weekend. In it, he said he wants a one man sabotage mission to go in and take out Iran's "only" gas refinery. The man doing the interview, Avi Lewis, laughed out loud at this comment. First, I think Mr. Gingrich has been watching too many Bond movies. Does he really think one man can go in and take down a whole refinery by himself? HA! Good joke. And second, as the reporter told him, Iran doesn't have just one refinery. They have eight. Iran is a modern, industrialized country. Nice try, Newt.

That's all for now. Whenever I write again (maybe tomorrow), I have an absolutely ridiculous Obama birther story (as if that whole concept isn't ridiculous enough). Until then, best wishes.

American Law

Ok, I really hadn't planned on writing anything today, and I know that I already commented on this story, but the more I find out, the more pissed off I get. So I guess I'm gonna vent.

This whole story with the secret CIA death squad is absolutely infuriating to me. Here's the basic story, for those who don't know. Recently, CIA Director Leon Panneta informed Congress that the CIA had been running a secret counterterrorism unit that reported only to former VP Dick Cheney. As soon as he found out, Panneta informed Congress. This is bad because anything that the CIA does is supposed to be reported to Congress, by law. This is called oversight. It's part of on the foundations of our government, the balance of powers. Now, I have a deep respect for the laws of this country, and I believe nobody is exempt from them. Not you, not me, not George Bush, not Barack Obama. Anyone who breaks a law should be punished. Especially if they break them willingly. The fact that Cheney decided he was above our Constitution pisses me off to no end. Obviously, if Cheney felt the need to conceal it from a Republican-majority Congress, then he must have been doing something wrong. Let me play out a scenario for you. Reportedly, this unit was built to conduct secret operations inside other countries, and we weren't planning on informing the other countries that we had a unit inside their borders. So, lets say that this unit is sent on a mission deep inside North Korea. During their operation, they are discovered and captured. North Korea would undoubtably consider an armed American military unit in their country an act of war. Before we had any clue what was happening, North Korea would have all the reason they ever needed to start shooting nuclear bombs at our west coast. Even if we beat North Korea in a long-term war, we have severe devastation on out west coast, and our standing with the rest of the world is permanently damaged. This is bad, because regardless of what some right-wingers want you to believe, we cannot survive as a country if we have no allies. We have to be on good terms with other countries, for security and trade reasons, among other things. I am sick and tired of hearing a new story every week reporting that the Bush Administraion broke another law. This shows an utter lack of disrespect for the country I love and cherish, and the fact that someone we elected to office decided he wasn't gonna play by the rules is humiliating. We chastise and criticize countries where rulers ignore their own laws. But for the past eight years, we were no better than any of these countries. I am tired of America being seen as a bad guy in so much of the world. I long for the days I read about in history books, when Amercia was respected and looked upon as a paragon of virtue and all that was good. This argument also applies to torture. According to the Geneva Treaty, which we helped write and sign, torture is illegal. Not only is torture illegal, but it is wrong. I don't care who is in custody, no one should be tortured. It is an immoral practice. If it wasn't, we wouldn't debate it. And if you don't buy the morality issue, look at it this way: if the country we are fighting sees that we are ok with torturing their guys, what do you think they will do to our soldiers? We have an obligation, as the biggest and most influential country on the planet, to hold ourselves to a higher standard than torture. As I recently heard a minister say, "Who would Jesus torture?"
I absolutely dare anyone to argue with me about any of this. Because I know that I am on the moral highground on this issue. Torture is wrong. Lying is wrong. You cannot debate this. You also cannot debate the fact that Republicans consistently brand themselves as morally higher than the rest. But after torture, lying, extramarital affairs, and a war that was initiated by the use of deceit and backstabbing, I am begining to wonder where morality actually resides in our country.

Palin: A Comedy of Errors

Time for part 2 of my extra long weekend post. Just a couple subjects on tap here.

PALIN

For a little comic relief, I give you Sarah Palin and everyone around her! I know, that's an old and unfunny joke at this point, but that is what this situation feels like anymore. Lets look at how this comedy of errors is playing out: First, underqualified, semi-intelligent, fanatical woman is somehow elected governor of Alaska. Next, aforementioned governor proceeds to bend ethics and laws to her liking, while somehow convincing everyone she is fighting corruption. Then, fading presidential nominee pins her as running mate to (successfully) inject life into failing campaign. Governor-turned-VP nominee proceeds to bolster conservative base while alienating moderates, including the people running the campaign. Her lack of curiosity, low work ethic, and non-understanding of issues makes her the butt of jokes across the country. After the election, instead of laying low and buffing up on issues in anticipation of a potential 2012 presidential bid, she makes the rounds of the speaking circuit and develops a public feud with a late-night comedian, while alienating her few remaining political allies. Then, in a move that leaves everyone and their dog shaking their head, she resigns from the governorship with a rambling, semi-intelligible news conference with honking geese as her backing vocals. She spends the next week defending herself with the tired talking point, "I'm not a quitter, I'm a fighter," despite the fact she just quit her job that she was elected to. If it were a play, it might be funny. But this is an actual person we are talking about. It's almost sad at this point. And now she's in a spat with the father of her teenage daughter's baby, who she tried to force into marriage. Once again, I can only shake my head. The silver lining here? At least she's not running a state anymore.
By the way, if you haven't read the Vanity Fair article about Palin, you really need to. You can find it at the Vanity Fair website, titled "It Came From Wasilla."

CIA, CONGRESS, AND WIRETAPPING

Lots of developments coming from this front. The CIA and certain members of Congress are at odds over a public letter from six House Democrats addressed to CIA Director Leon Panetta. According to the Dems, Panetta admitted in a hearing that the CIA had misled Congress in the past. The CIA is obligated, under the National Security Act of 1947, to inform Congress of everything it does. Now it is being reported that the issue being discussed here is a secret counterterrorism operation that answered only to former VP Dick Cheney. Apparently, even Panetta didn't know about this operation until recently, and immediately ordered it's termination upon finding out about it. He also immediately informed Congress of the operation's existence. Also, a CIA report was unclassified that tells that President Bush personally authorized warrantless wiretapping. Not only this, but to get approval, he skipped getting Attorney General John Ashcroft to sign off, because Ashcroft was in the hospital recovering from surgery. OK, lets check these out one-by-one. First, what ever happened to the balance of powers and Congressional oversight in the CIA? Did the Bush administration decide it would follow the rules only when it felt like it? When the CIA decides it is gonna do what it wants, without telling anyone, and the White House is OK with that, who is to stop them from doing something illegal? This also vindicates House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who received criticism from the right for claiming that CIA misled her. Sounds like she was telling the truth. And Panetta didn't really deny the allegations. He simply issued a statement stating that "it's not the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress" Not exactly a scathing denial. We know it's not the CIA's policy, but policy and reality seem to have differed considerably over the last eight years. As for the connections to Bush-Cheney, this only confirms what many have suspected about the Bush Administration (and VP Cheney in particular) for a long time. It's really scary that even the CIA director didn't know about it. This ties in with the CIA failing to inform Congress of their acts. Apparently nobody knows what is going on in Langley. Except Dick Cheney. (Now that's a scary thought!) Finally, the fact that Bush was personally involved with the wiretapping is not a big shocker, at least to this observer. This is also very deja vu-like, considering the new Nixon Tapes, in which Nixon also personally authorizes wiretapping. Good example to follow. This could be a big blow to the former administration if a federal prosecutor decides to pursue charges. Regardless, many conservatives will argue that the the former president had every right to do things like this, considering the war on terror. No, you are wrong. The president never has the right to do these things. This undermines our laws and the Constitution. If Republicans love the Constitution as much as they say, they will stop trying to rip it to shreds over anything that concerns national security. Follow the laws. That is what they are there for.

Well, time to wrap this up. As a parting note, two quick, ridiculous stories. Governor Rick Perry of Texas (he of secessionist fame) has nominated as his new secretary of education someone who in the past said that public education was unconstitutional and communistic. Good job, Gov. Perry, you are making everyone proud. In your new nation that you want to form, will all education be outlawed? Can we just give this guy a patch of land somewhere far away to call his own, so we can get him out of our hair? Also, goodbye to Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois. The embattled senator, appointed by disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich, has announced he will not pursue re-election. Thank God.

Coming Monday, the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I am looking forward to it, and personally, I have no doubt she will be confirmed easily, making Monday a mere formality. More on this subject sometime in the next few days. Also, I may delve into the Republican sex scandals and the mysterious religious tying Ensign and Sanford together. If I can figure it out. Very shady, very interesting.

Thank you for sticking with me through this long-winded post; I promise they won't all be this long, this weekend was just one of those times. I'll be back within the next few days!

Health Care and $$$

OK, well here is my first "real" blog posting, as I promised in my last dispatch. When I first typed this up Friday night, it was waaayyy too long for one post, so I have split it in half, and will post part 2 tomorrow sometime. Enjoy!


BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS AND HEALTH CARE

I have been following the development of a government health-care plan very closely the last few weeks, as I am sure many people have. I am a strong supporter of the public option, but not at the expense of private options also. While a single-payer plan would be great, chances are that isn't going to happen anytime soon. So we will have to settle for a simple public option provided by the government. I don't think a public plan will drive private providers out of business, as some would have you believe. A public plan would actually drive down prices across the board. Both private insurers and doctors would be forced to lower prices to stay competitive. The public, in turn, would have the option of choosing a cheaper plan if they wanted, which is the main idea behind a capitalist system. You can compare the public plan to Medicare. The same argument was made against it as conservatives are now making against public health insurance. Not only does Medicare cost less than private plans, but consistently records higher satisfaction ratings than the private options. Chances are, a public option would do the same. Another huge point of contention is the idea of the government getting between you and your health care. But this is different from private insurance how? With the way things are now, instead of a government bureaucrat, you deal with insurance bureaucrats, who aren't exactly known for their big hearts or understanding attitudes. The key point is, a public plan will not drive insurance out of business. It will simply make them scale down and rethink how they do things. Most likely, if we pass a public plan, health care in America will resemble that of France, which has the top-rated plan in the world, according to the World Health Organization. In France, a government-run health care system provides for everyone, while private companies provide supplemental insurance that covers the items that fall through the cracks. The Republicans will do everything they can to quash this, not for any logical reasons, but ideological and partisan ones (big government evils, free market system, etc.; the usual stuff.) With all this said, Blue Dog Democrats in Congress have decided to pull their support from a public option for now, with 46 members issuing a letter stating their intent. And many other Dems, President Obama included, have said that a public plan isn't crucial to getting health care reform passed. This a typical show of spinelessness by the Democrats on Capital Hill, who can't seem to get anything constructive done without first making us all worry about whether or not it will even make it to committee. Nevermind that 72% of Americans support a public option. That doesn't seem to matter to Blue Dogs, who appear by cowed by tough Republican rhetoric. Many liberals, myself included, wish Democrats would forget this nonsense about a bi-partisan bill. Look, Democrats: you have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate with the addition of Al Franken. You also seem to forget that, if the tables were turned, the Republicans wouldn't hesitate to pass this bill with just 60 votes, and no support from Dems. So screw bi-partisanship and get something done already! The people have spoken, and want this public option. Blue Dogs say they have pulled their support because they want an affordable option, and will give support to a reasonable, and affordable, plan. The rest of the Democrats seem cautiously supportive of the public option, and promise to get it included. We can only hope.

THE DEFICIT

This brings me to a quick tangent. A lot has been talked about with the amount of money the government has been spending. Conservatives are upset, saying the deficit is way to high now, that the President needs to cut back on spending. This makes me angry. Historically, Republicans have presented themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, and the Democrats as wild spenders. However, lets look at the facts. In the last fifty years, only two presidents had a surplus spending situation: Carter and Clinton. The party of both those presidents? Democrat. In fact, since 1900, the top top two presidential spenders, based on amount spent per citizen, were Bush 43 and Bush 41, and Ronald Reagan, long held up as a paragon of spending virtue, is number four on the list. Ford and Nixon, also Republicans, were sixth and seventh, respectively. (Clinton was third and Carter was fifth, but as I already mentioned, they were spending from a surplus.) The short story? Five of the seven top presidential spenders have been Republicans, and only Dems on this list were spending money that actually had. So before Republicans start screaming about spending, just remember, you have your own skeletons.

GOLDMAN SACHS

In related news, Rolling Stone has a great article tracing investment bank Goldman Sachs' tentacles throughout our government. Turns out Goldman has been a major player behind the Great Depression, the dot com bust, the housing bubble, soaring gas prices, and the allocation of government bailout funds. The part dealing with gas prices was definitely the most interesting for me. It's something I've been asking about for a couple years: How can we have record gas prices when demand is falling and supply is rising? Turns out it had to do with speculative commodities trading on Wall Street. Basically, that means investors, as the urging of Goldman, were trading more oil futures(a promise to pay a fixed amount for a commodity on a future date) than there was actual oil in the world. This speculation caused many barrels of gas to change hands numerous times before finally being sold, which drove the prices up. My favorite quote from the article: "...in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy." This quote sums the last eight years very efficiently, I believe. All the major financial crises in the last 100 years were caused by deregulation supported by large corporations. Remember,regulation is not always a bad things, especially when it comes to large corporations that apparently have no collective conscience. For more info, and a great read, check the article, titled "The Great American Bubble Machine," out for yourself.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine


OK, well that's all I will give you for tonight. Tomorrow will be part two of this extra long post. It mostly concerns Sarah Palin, and various stories concerning the CIA that came out the last few days, as well as what I'm planning for Monday. See you tomorrow.

Introduction To Me

Welcome to The Opinions, my own personal area where I can get some ideas out into the open. I've never had a blog of any type before. Lately, I've been wanting to set something, though, just to put a pressure release on my brain, which feels a little full lately. Regardless of whether I have any readers or not, I feel the need to get some stuff out on paper (metaphorically speaking, of course!)
Anyways, about myself. My name is Justin DaMetz. I am 20 year old (soon to be 21!) student at Oklahoma City University. I just moved here June 1 from a small town near Wichita, KS, where I attended Butler Community College for two years. I have a wonderful girlfriend named Katie who I have been dating for a little over a year; she will be moving down here to the City in August to attend OU. I run cross country and track here at OCU, and I did the same at BCC. I am a political science major, looking to get into law school in two years. Politics are my big interest, and I look forward to going into the government after graduation, hopefully as an elected official. I also enjoy many sports, with the Texas Longhorns being my favorite team of any type. I also follow the Green Bay Packers and Oklahoma City Thunder closely, and enjoy NASCAR. My favorite pastime by far is reading; I am currently reading three books: Persian Fire by Tom Holland, Einstein by Walter Issacson, and The Iliad by Homer. I'm also reading Plato's Republic for the philosophy course I'm taking. I don't watch a lot of TV, but it is always on here at my apartment, usually tuned to MSNBC. I try to watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow nightly, if I'm not working. I really like music; my favorite bands are Coldplay, the Beatles, U2, Kings of Leon, and tons of other stuff (current IPod count: 3975 songs and counting!) I will probably comment often on what music I'm currently listening to (today: Off The Wall by Michael Jackson) and if I start new books.
As far as my politics, I tend to lean pretty far left, though being from Kansas has instilled some conservative beliefs in me. I am a registered Democrat, and a huge supporter of President Obama. However, this doesn't stop me criticizing both him and the Democrats if need be (and I have some big bones to pick with them at the moment!) I have recently taken to classifying myself as a Social Democrat, which I think best represents my beliefs. Socialist International, the body that represents most Social Democrat parties around the globe, classifies the three main tenants of Social Democracy as follows:

It affirms the following principles: first, freedom—not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power; second, equality and social justice—not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities; and, third, solidarity—unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.

This pretty well sums up what I believe! You will get a better idea where I stand on most issues if you comtinue to read my future posts.
Ok well I have rambled long enough that if you are still reading this, you deserve a Starbucks drink, complements of your wallet! I'll be back either tonight or tomorrow afternoon with my first "regular" blog. Until then, good times!

P.S. Comment, Comment, Comment!! I want your feedback! Let me know what you think, whether you agree or disagree with anything I say, or if you think I should just shut up. Your opinion is just as important as mine, and I love hearing what other people have to say, whether I agree or not!