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.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, July 13, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
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!
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.
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!
Saturday, July 11, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, July 10, 2009
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
