The Public Servant

Some Thoughts on DADT

2010-03-05T09:50:00.000-08:00

I read this stupid op-ed piece this morning, but it got me thinking about DADT. I don't know how else to say this, but these guys just don't get it. The flaw in his thinking is that male bonding can only occur among straight men, when, in fact, people bond through shared experience. Women and men can bond as a team, and I have experienced this in my line of work.

There already are gays in the military, everyone in the military knows someone who is gay, and yet, we continue to form tightly knit groups.

Just as with the racial and gender integration of the military, the burden is with the majority to accept the minority. The problem is not gays (or blacks or women). The problem is with the people who are in a position to accept the changes, but refuse to do so.

And, let's be honest. This whole debate about "unit cohesion" is just a euphimism for homophobia. If it weren't, what, exactly, could a homosexual do to undermine said unit cohesion? This is all about straight men who are afraid of being on the receiving end of some wayward homosexual advance. It's absurd. Especially when you consider how many of these men have acted inappropriately with straight women.

As for whether or not we're "sissifying" our military, I think the point has been demonstrated repeatedly that heroism and bravery are not exclusive to hyper-masculine men. Women continue to serve in very trying roles and have not detracted from our ability to wage warfare.

I have to ask honestly, are these people afraid that we're going to start wearing rainbow camouflage? That the military is going to become fabulous and fierce?? It's ridiculous. And, if they're going to stereotype gay men as sissies, what about the other stereotype of lesbians as masculine? Wouldn't that, in theory, be better for the military? The military attracts certain types of people, gay or straight. I find it hard to believe that if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly, then the military would attract a different type of person.

Finally, McPeak wrongly equates homosexuality with disability in his discussion of civil rights. Again, just as with racial and gender integration, if a homosexual meets the physical and educational guidelines set forth, there is no reason to exclude them.

If we are to continue to operate as a volunteer-based force, we must be open to accepting the best and the brightest. Period. Gay or straight, man or woman, black, white or brown, these should not be the deciding factors. The mililtary does not need to be a place of caveman-like behavior. The more professionalism we show, the better our fighting force is. Through the racial and gender integration process, our military has only increased in the levels of professionalism expected and demanded. This is another test of our commitment to equality and justice for all, and the only way we can succeed as a nation is to live the values that we preach and repeal DADT.

Free Health Clinics...not so funny

2009-11-16T19:41:00.000-08:00

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

This piece aired on November 16, 2009 on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Say what you will about the show, but this truly moved me. Every day I see people standing at the Upper Cardozo Health Clinic waiting for care. Every day, millions of people around this country go without care. Even health care workers cannot get care themselves. It's sickening. Literally.

These volunteers are saving lives and until we have health care for all, I will volunteer with them. I'm not a doctor or a nurse, but I can give my time.

Please visit: http://www.freeclinics.us/index.php

In the small bit of good news, I went to the site immediately after Olbermann's piece aired and it was down due to overwhelming traffic. I only hope that others were as moved as I was.

Don't forget to call your Senators and tell them to support Health Care Reform. Or at least tell them not to obstruct health care for the millions who need it (and majority who support it).

9/12 Teabaggers: Hypocrisy In Action

2009-09-15T10:04:00.001-07:00

So, the Million Moron March went off without a hitch?

Oh joy.

You’ll have to pardon my lack of enthusiasm because, well, it’s really hard to see past all the hypocrisy and discern what, exactly, these people are protesting. I just have to ask, if they’re so hell-bent on “defending” principles of American Democracy, where were they for the past eight years?

Let’s start at the beginning, shall we? The Teabaggers get their name from the idea that they’re “Taxed Enough Already.” Ok, fine, I’ll grant them the fact that even though they want a strong military, they don’t want to pay for it, but are they protesting the tax cut they’re getting under Obama’s plan? Or are they protesting the 4% tax increase that their CEO might get?

Do you really want to go there, lady??

Yea, well I don't want Bush's either. How 'bout you take it, m'kay?

Then there’s the deficit issue (DEFECITS R EIVL!!! OMGLOLWTF!!?!??!1111). They burden future generations with debt that can never be repaid. Uh, yup. This is what “libruls” were saying about the years of deficit spending to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where were the teabaggers then? The national debt more than doubled under W and they were cheering his war efforts on (but, it’s not like the troops saw the benefits).

At least, that's what Glenn Beck tells me...

While we’re here, let’s talk about Iraq for a second. If the teabaggers wanted an opportunity to demand Presidential truth-telling, the lead-up to the war in Iraq was a prime opportunity. Bush and Co told almost 1000 documented lies about starting a war with Iraq. And, where were the teabaggers? Unfortunately, they’re in the group that still believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (which is absurd considering even Cheney admitted it’s not true).

You lost one election. Get a fucking grip...

This person should definitely be in therapy (covered by private insurance, of course)

Speaking of Cheney, let’s talk about freedoms. Apparently, Obama is going to take the teabaggers’ freedom (which one(s), they don’t say), but Cheney (along with Bush) succeeded in actually demolishing the Constitution (you know, that piece of paper). Freedoms like the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, the right to be free from unlawful punishment and the right to know why you’re being detained. The PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act were two of the greatest affronts to American freedoms and the teabaggers wholeheartedly supported their enactment (Remember "if you're not a terrorist, you don't have to worry?") . And, teabaggers today continue to work against the freedoms of individual choice that truly define America.

So, they don’t really understand taxes, don’t truly care about deficits, aren’t actually concerned with the truth, definitely not interested in freedom. Oh, yea, this was supposed to be about health care ("supposed to" being the key phrase). There was surprisingly little mention of health care. It was mostly an after thought:

I wonder what poignant thought could possibly be on the front of this sign.

They’re concerned that somehow the government is going to take over health care by proposing a competitive alternative to private insurance, and simultaneously be so ineffective as to cause long waits and poor care, yet also be so effective as to cause private insurance to go out of business? Is something like that even possible? But, I guess it makes sense to people who believe Obama can be both a socialist and fascist at the same time...

Call this kid's World History/Civics teacher. Retroactive FAIL.

Yea, I'm trying to add that all up and it comes out to, um...you're a dumbass

Maybe they’re concerned about the cost. But, were they concerned about the cost of Medicare Part D, which will probably be more expensive as comprehensive health insurance reform (ten year cost estimated at $1.2 trillion), yet all taxpayer dollars go directly to PhARMA? No, no they weren’t.

Ah, nothing like people on Medicare protesting government health care:

I understand that people may be wary of so much government action, but eight years of improper, unjustifiable and sometimes illegal action cheered on by these teabaggers have brought America to the breaking point. The fact is, all these people are complicit in the real destruction that has been wrought.

So, here is my message to all the sometimes-patriots out there: You lost an election because of the failure of your leaders. You are intellectually and politically bankrupt, and generally have no legs to stand on in this debate. You didn’t show up when it mattered most, instead choosing to cheer on heinous and extreme behavior. Everyone noticed and said “No More.” If you want to have a legitimate, policy-based debate, we’re here to listen. But know this: your demagoguery of villainous characters is actually what is tearing at the fabric of our democracy. Your hateful ways will be your undoing.

But, let's be honest, hate is the real reason you came to Washington.

And they say it's not about race...

Just because?

I'm sure whoever made this sign is absolutely gorgeous

But, really, it's not about race

Where Do We Go From Here (a 9/11 reflection)

2009-09-11T08:18:00.000-07:00

When I talk to people casually I use words like “college” and “my job,” but on this anniversary of 9/11, I think about the reality of attending a service academy and deploying. I know I am not the first, nor have I sacrificed the most, but we have all answered the call.

Nine years ago, I decided to attend the Naval Academy. Visions of world travel and exciting port visits danced through my head. Eight years ago, I stood at the end of a hallway with a dull bayonet and wondered if I really could kill someone with my bare hands. I had just turned 18 three weeks prior and had been focused on getting good grades and learning to shine shoes. I thought about leaving. This was not what I signed up for.

I made up my mind on September 12, 2001. This doesn’t have anything to do with Glenn Beck and his stupid 9/12 project because, frankly, he’ll never understand how I felt that day. No, on that day, instead of cowering, instead of shutting down and hunkering in, we returned to class. We redoubled our efforts because now we had a purpose. I could feel the energy in the air. I’d never seen so many people at the gym. The whole world was watching and urging us to be faster and stronger. I felt connected.

So I stayed. And the days turned to weeks turned to months. No one can maintain that level of intensity forever. It’s draining. And it’s overwhelming. People tuned out. And Afghanistan turned into Iraq.

There was surprisingly little discussion about this. The desire for revenge was strong. Afghanistan was complicated and the politics seemed slow and boring. As a lifelong liberal, I was horrified, but even worse, I was disconnected. I didn’t feel this bloodlust. It seemed that we were abandoning a legitimate effort in Afghanistan to do (what, exactly, I could never tell) in Iraq.

And the talk turned to death. The guy who sat next to me in French class? IED. The kid down the hall who was always yelling? Sniper. And that officer who was always there to help people who struggled with PT? Double amputee. The administration decided they needed more Marines and more Navy SEALs, and people volunteered instantly.

The years have gone by, and more Americans have died in Iraq than in the attacks eight years ago. There are more questions than answers. But, more important than the location of Osama bin Laden or the strength and breadth of Al Qaeda is this: Where do we go from here? We’ve travelled so far yet made so little progress. We’ve long since been lead off the path, and I believe we’re further from success today than we were on September 12, 2001. Of course, that would be if there was a definition of success.

In my current position, I prepare information for the President to write the personal condolence letters of all Sailors and Marines killed in combat. Every day my inbox has gruesome information about people, some who were just 10 years old when this all began, and I wonder how much longer this will go on.

There is a fact that I fear politicians fail to fully grasp and appreciate. There are people, natural born and immigrants, who are willing to lay down their lives not for Democrats or Republicans, but for the idea that is America. They do this because they believe in the ideals of this country not because they care about politics, but because they are asked. It is that simple. And it is this image of America that has been twisted, warped and manipulated by politicians, and it is why we must demand more respect from politicians.

The people fighting, some dying, most going back for more, they aren’t just numbers, troop increases or drawdowns. They more than people with families and lives and histories. They’re volunteers. These wars wouldn’t be possible without them, but shouldn’t be fought simply because we have them.

On this day, we must decide where we will be in another eight years. The goodwill of Americans toward this nation can never be exhausted, but we’re not here for the political whims of deranged politicians. If America stands for things that are right and good, then it must be right and good. If mistakes were made in the past, they must be addressed, corrected, and protected against in the future.

I see signs all around today that proclaim “We Will Never Forget,” but I fear we already have. Not the dead or missing, they will never be forgotten. We have already forgotten the message: We are not perfect, but we can be better. If we charge boldly into the future without reflecting on the past, we are doomed to failure. So I ask, where do we go from here?

Teh Irony, It Hurtz...

2009-09-01T06:39:00.001-07:00

Checking the news on the interwebs this morning, I came across this little gem: College Republicans to identify liberal professors. Apparently, UT College Republicans feel that their grades were affected more by their political affiliation than, say, their crappy work and (apparent) whining.

I have to say, this is ironic on way too many levels. And, somehow, irony is always lost on Republicans.

First, in the context of the health care "debate," Republicans are the ones accusing Obama of being a fascist-socialest-Hitler-meanie. Yet, wasn't it Hitler and the Nazis (or Stalin and the Communists) who made lists targeting people with different views?

Second, and more importantly, this goes completely against all the stated "ideals" of the Republican Party. I mean, after all, aren't they the people always preaching "personal responsibility" and "independence?" Shouldn't they be overcoming whatever situation life presents without complaining?

Instead, in typical Republican fashion, they commence the victim act. They're never to blame. The "bad" things in their life are always someone else's fault. It couldn't be possible that they earned a lower grade. No, they deserve an A+++, but the evil liberal professors consipired against them. It couldn't be that they used made-up "facts" and failed to adequately defend an argument or idea. Oh no, they were TARGETED.

I'm sick of this BS. If they want to preach personal responsiblity, let them be responsible for their situation. If they want to call politicians and political parties names, they should have their facts about who did what when correct. But, people accept this stupid Republican behavior across the country. The media does the mental gymnastics that allow the perpetrator to cry "victim!" Why would the UT College Republicans expect any different??

I've had my fill of Dick

2009-05-12T18:52:00.001-07:00

In case you haven't noticed, Dick Cheney has been touring the conservative media, engaging in a hate-fueled circle jerk as they fantasize about what the Bush era wasn't. And the media, even the mainstream media is just eating this up. But no one is talking about the obvious: Cheney is so fucking wrong, there's almost no words to describe. Seriously, I looked up "wrong" in a thesaurus and I think we have to use all of them just to get close to his level.

The thing that's really bothering me is that Cheney even has any credibility to discuss anything. Let's check it out:

1) Saddam Hussein was tied to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Wrong.

2) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Wrong.

3) We will be greeted as liberators. Wrong.

4) The insurgency is in its last throes. Wrong.

And that's just some of the stuff dealing with Iraq. We won't even get into the rest of his "policies." The point is, not only was he wrong, he lied. He knew the facts didn't support his point of view, so he pressured analysts, waged a media war, and lied to the American people. We know this now.

The question remains, what credibility does he have left? Why would we listen when we know he had a "detainees" file in his office? When we know he purposely obscured and delayed the information provided to Congress? What legs does a man who started an unnecessary war for profit, while abandoning a legitimate mission directly related to 9/11, causing it to devolve and spread into neighboring countries, even stand on?

The answer: None. Dick Cheney is nothing but a crazy old man who's scared shitless about being prosecuted. For someone who was so wrong about so many things, it's shocking that people would even give any of his delusions credence. As if he knows what policies make and keep a country safe. More Americans have died in Iraq than they did in 9/11 and what does America have to show for it? A war in Pakistan, too? Super.

No, we don't want his opinion on what the Obama administration is doing wrong, considering his track record. We don't care if he doesn't like the closing of Guantanamo. Frankly, if he doesn't like it, we do. In fact, 63% of people still have an unfavorable view of Cheney. Compare that to the fact that 66% of people approve of Obama.

Seriously, I've had my fill of Dick, so stop trying to cram more down my throat.

And, Dick, I have a news flash for you, 9/11 happened in 2001. You don't get a pass for that. You were in office for eight years, so stop talking about the last seven and a half.

Some thoughts on socialism and health care

2009-04-28T18:18:00.000-07:00

Ok, I'm going to ask a question.

Is it more expensive and less efficient for Americans to:

a) pay for national defense on their own?

or

b) pay into a common system that takes that money and applies it to a defense system that covers all Americans?

If you chose A, you're right. In fact, it would be impossible for an individual to provide for national defense on a personal level. It's fair to say that what we receive in return is more valuable than what we pay into the system. But how does this apply to health care?

The point is, the same ideas apply to universal (single payer) health care. If we all put in, what we received in return (preventative care that leads to a healthier, more productive society) is more valuable than what we initially give. And, unlike national defense, which can be intangible at best and contentious at worst, health care is something that we can all see a return on in our personal lives.

It just makes sense, so why don't we do it?

SO Frustrated!

2009-03-24T19:57:00.000-07:00

So, this is how democracy works, huh? Eight years of presidential ass-kissing and now, now, you want to ask "questions?" Oh, that's right, you're all so afraid of being labeled as part of the "liberal media" that you'll embarrass yourselves on national teevee.

I started off tonight fine. I was going to watch the press conference and then do some cleaning...no big deal. But, one dumbass "reporter" and one dumbass question later, I'm pissed and needing to vent.

Q (paraphrased): Mr. President, WTF are you doing proposing a budget that's not balanced? Are you trying to ruin America?

I figure that's the gist of the question. It's what I heard, at least. And I'm sure others heard it, too. All of a sudden, people are concerned about what federal spending is doing to the deficit. Well, here's what I have to say:

Part 1: CBO (and really any) long term budget projections are bullshit. As we all remember, Clinton inhereted a deficit and ended with a surplus. Bush, famously, inhereted a sirplus and crapped out a ridiculous deficit. Not to mention the fact that the National Debt has DOUBLED in the past 8 years.

So, yea, budget projections are essentially irrelevant. The fact is, responsibility (or the lack thereof) can have an impact on how the projections change. All you critics were so quiet as the deficit projection was growing under Bush, why do you decide to be loud now?

Part 2: Enough already! I'm shocked that people are saying spending on education, health care, and energy are irresponsible. Are they high? Look! Look at where we are! Look at what we've become! America is no longer the place to bring your family to build a better life (unless you're already rich). Irresponsible is starting wars that should never have been started! Where's the outrage? Where were the questions?

It's too late for that now because it's already happened, and we're trying to fix it. Obama is here to undo all the damage so you hypocritical, lying, perverted Republicans can drive a wedge into this nation and use your absurd, underhanded tactics to play to people's fears.

Well, you Republicans had your chance. Remember? You were in power for six years. You did whatever you wanted for six years, and THIS is the outcome. And, what do you do? You filibuster. You don't help. You don't bring solutions. You just bitch and moan and whine and complain. You know what? You're not going to get your way. Your time came and went, and we're picking up the pieces.

If Congressional Republicans actually, truly cared about America and its future, they'd be working towards solutions. But, they listen to people like Rush and Bill-O, and continue this charade of "protecting" America. They foment hate and fear and mistrust, when they are the ones to be feared and mistrusted.

With friends like these, who needs enemies? Take your ball. Go home. America doesn't need people like you.

Bush Enron-ed America

2009-03-02T20:32:00.000-08:00

There's really no other way to put it. And it's essentially that simple.

Bush as been committing accounting fraud since we went to war with Afghanistan. It only got worse with Iraq. How much have these wars cost? Well, we have estimates of what Congress has authorized, but that's not where the accounting fraud has come in. The fact is that most of the money for Iraq was not included in the formal budget proposals from Bush. Sure, he requested some money. But then he requested more. And more. And eventually, most of the war funding requests came outside of the formal budget process. So, Bush dug us into debt with his budgets, and further with his wars. His accounting of our country's expenses was not honest, and it undermined our economic system. Like Enron, America appeared more solvent than it really was. See the similarity between Enron stock and the Dow recently?

Ok, I'll give you the fact that Bush didn't set up offshore accounts that moved money in generally illegal and improper ways (I think). But, his system of budgeting was a smoke and mirrors act. And the mirrors have come crashing down. Obama's commtiment to honest budgeting may not be pretty. But at least it's real. We can rebuild on real. We can cut back once we know what's actually being spent (and where it goes).

But, here's the real lesson from Enron: The Republican financial gambit makes it impossible to run an honest business in the long run. It was never about establishing long-term security and stability. It was about propping up the house of cards long enough to get yours and get out. So, no, Republicans we don't want your opinion on Obama's budget. You don't know WTF you're talking about, you're not fiscally conservative. You're liars and thieves and you haven't learned your lesson from Enron.

Bush, Cheney, DeLay: here's your next job option.

Stop the Senate 60 Votes lie!

2009-02-25T20:56:00.000-08:00

If the Republicans want to filibuster, let them. Let them be accountable to the American people. Let everyone see the Republicans obstructing the governing process and our progress as a nation.

Democrats have a majority in the Senate and we can't let this minority compromise our principles.

On Rachel Maddow, Pelosi specifically said "The Senate is different, they need 60 votes."

No, they don't.

Harry Reid needs to make them get out on the floor and actually filibuster. That would be more embarrassing for them than it would for the Democratic party.

51 votes is a majority. We can't be lead around by the minority and I wish Reid would get his balls out of the lock box and use them!

25 Things

2009-02-24T18:12:00.000-08:00

In the spirit of the Facebook wildfire that is “25 things,” I figured I’d share 25 political thoughts, since you probably don’t care that I always sleep in socks or that I eat cereal for dinner at least five days a week.

1. The more I learn about the Republican Party, the less I understand why anyone would want to be associated with such a hateful, backwards, hypocritical group. I’ve heard it best described as “jingoistic masquerading,” but whatever it is, it’s completely based in falsehoods. I’m truly convinced that Republicans are mentally unstable.

2. For the first few months of the primary, I thought Barack Obama was the “token black guy.” I was a big John Edwards fan. Shows you how good my instincts are…

3. I really wish that Republicans would learn the difference between Socialist and Fascist. For reference, George W. Bush’s administration had the underpinnings of fascism.

4. Just to clear up any confusion, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Saying something over and over does not make it true.

5. People need to read the entire Second Amendment before claiming they can carry fully automatic weapons into a McDonalds. (So you don’t have to go looking: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)

6. A flat tax would be the most effective and equitable way to fix the tax problem in this country.

7. It’s the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. Get it right.

8. George W. Bush did not serve his country in Vietnam. Don’t give me any crap about the National Guard. Ask anyone who lived during that time, only people with connections got into the National Guard.

9. The War on Drugs is just an excuse to stoke racial tensions. If we didn’t waste our money and prison space on mandatory sentences for drug offenses, we could actually use that money to aid the communities that need help. But, like Chris Rock said, a new jail is better than old projects.

10. A majority of the prisoners in Guantanamo are not terrorists. There is no harm in bringing these people to US prisons and trying them in US courts. After all, we’ve held crazier people than that before (best reference on this point).

11. Bill, Rush, other right-wing gasbags, listen up: yelling does not make you right. You can yell all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that your information is bad and your conclusions are whack.

12. Sarah Palin is a joke. The nail in the coffin was her teen daughter saying that “abstinence only” education is unrealistic. Life as proof…nice.

13. Speaking of reality, it does have a liberal bias. That’s why conservatives have to work so hard to counter it. Slowing the natural progression of society is hard work that only the supremely stubborn would undertake.

14. I’m convinced that the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives is the ability to empathize. Liberals can, conservatives don’t even attempt. But, if we had a culture of empathy, I think we’d be less likely to tell people to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” WTF does that even mean?

15. If Freepers were to leave America, where would they go? No other country would allow them to bitch and moan and obstruct the political process the way they do. But, they’d probably get health care.

16. How are Republicans the party of fiscal responsibility? Last time I checked, fiscal responsibility meant spending only what you have, be it a lot or a little. Three Republican presidents have accounted for more than 90% of our debt (check it out). Tax cuts don’t mean shit if you don’t cut spending…which Republicans couldn’t do to save their lives.

17. World War Two was the supreme example of government spending. All those people that were drafted into the military? Government employees. All those factory contracts that put people back to work? Government contracts. Republicans are dim for not figuring this out. Obviously throwing money at Haliburton doesn't have the same effect.

18. I’ve ended friendships over Prop 8. Well, probably more like acquaintance-ships. Either way, I don’t need to be around people who don’t support equality.

19. I support the idea of the death penalty, but I think it’s unworkable with our current justice system.

20. When people want to use the government to regulate your love life and your body, they cannot be the party of small government.

21. This whole debate over abortion and choice is taking place on the wrong terms. It’s not about “if” abortion is going to happen. It will. It’s about the right of an individual to seek medical assistance and make decisions based on the realities of their own situation.

22. Tax cuts for business are corporate welfare. The way to grow a business isn’t through government handouts, but by selling more of your product. You can only sell more of your product if people can afford to buy it. Therefore, if we’re going to cut anyone’s taxes, we should cut those of the people who would most likely spend that money.

23. Supporting our troops has nothing to do with blindly supporting a president. In fact, one of the best ways to support the troops is by keeping out of unnecessary war and providing proper care when they return. Bumperstickers don’t count.

24. George W. Bush’s administration was criminally negligent at best and down right criminal at worst, and no, I will not forget that and “move on.” I want some damn justice to keep this from happening again. Along those same lines, Karl Rove should be arrested. Sure, he’s in contempt of Congress, but he’s also a criminal.

25. I know a number of people who’ve become Democrats as they’ve gotten older. Most of they time, they’ve had an “eye-opening moment” where they realize that the Republicans had them by the nose. Today, I ran into a friend from college that I haven’t seen in five years, and he told me that he ditched the Republicans because he couldn’t stand the “fake machismo.” It’s the small victories that make me smile.

The Regular Person's Inauguration Weekend

2009-01-25T19:42:00.000-08:00

Don't believe what you see in all those press pictures. This is what real people did Inauguration Weekend (hint: it involved lots of waiting). Was it worth it? Hell Yes!

So, I managed to convince my mom to come to Baltimore to see Obama's "whistle stop." The sun was out, but the temperatures were still arctic. Literally, I could count all the Fahrenheit degrees on one hand. At least we only have four more hours to wait.

I was visiting from San Diego and failed to anticipate the FREEZING cold. It's too cold to smile. I spent about $90 at Sport Chalet purchasing survival gear (but that hat is sweet, right?).

Baltimore arranged for a Billy Blanks wannabe to come out and lead some aerobics. The funny thing was, we actually did it. It was really that cold.

I just thought this guy was cool. He was all about the peace sign.

My first shot of Obama. Of course the teleprompter is blocking his face.

That's better. You can't really tell, but we're pretty close. It was awesome!

You'll notice there are no pictures of the concert on the Mall. That's because it was (again) freezing cold and I can really only tolerate so much. So, I visited friends in VA instead. But, on Monday, I was returning my rental car to the airport (parking in DC is hopeless at best anyways), and I was treated to a preview of some of the parade floats. The cops literally blocked off the intersection right in front of me. Not sure what the Cinderella carriage is all about...

Code Pink looking good. Keep it up!

I decided to walk around the Capitol Monday afternoon. I figured it would be as close as I would get (I was right). Apparently a lot of other people had the same idea.

Ok, let's get to the good part. Inauguration Pics!!

Sunrise on the Capitol. This was about two hours after we headed out. At least we got in (some were not so lucky). AND, you have to have a ticket to get this close (yea, I got hookups!). This is the view from the silver section. I figured that only gold and platinum would be ahead of us. Wrong. Purple, yellow, blue and orange were ahead of us. Apparently the color designators don't know their rankings. I think this should have been renamed the puce or "flesh tone" section.

Inauguration Weekend friends. You can't tell how excited I am because I look like I'm dying from exhaustion. I was trying hard to make facial expressions, but apparently my face was frozen.

OMG!! It's Obama! Can't you see him?!?! Hahaha

Thank God for the Jumbotrons. He got it right in this shot, but for some reason, the teleprompter typist kept typing "threat ring" instead of "let freedom ring." Weird...

After the sun rose higher in the sky, it cast a shadow on the jumbotron and I gave up trying to get any good pics. I wanted to be there and absorb the moment. Besides, other people got way better shots than I ever could.

The official moment. It was incredible (and I'd like to point out that all those people were farther back. See the tickets were good).

The second biggest cheer came when Bush flew over for the last time. One guy yelled, "Take him to Guantanamo!" Most people gave him the finger. Good riddance!!

And, of course, after a shower and a nap, we celebrated like all young, urban professionals. Sushi and sake bombs!!

I do wish I was able to get better pictures on my own, but I was just so thrilled to be a part of this incredible weekend. People ask, where were you when Kennedy was killed? When the Challenger blew up? When the towers came down? And when people ask, "where were you when Obama became president?," I can say: I was there. Simply amazing.

Ok, back to work!

Will I always be mad at Bush?

2009-01-13T17:27:00.000-08:00

Seriously. Will I see pictures of him in five or ten years and still want to throw shoes at him?

Interestingly, it's not the series of increasingly bizarre press conferences that disgusts me (but it's safe to say he's back on the sauce). No, it's my graduate class. We actually had to have a discussion about Bush's "leadership ideas" and his "picture of success." Leadership? Success? I suppose Bush's picture of success will be staying out of prison.

Having to take (another) long look at the past eight years makes me sick. Everything he touches turns to shit. And he's so damn smug about it. He knows he's going to leave us holding the bill and with the targets on our heads while he just clears brush (or hires "non-whites" to do so). Fuuuuuuuuck. I'm having a hard time articulating how much he sucks. Justice. Economics. Environment. Military. Constitution. All of the above.

All I have to say is, no wonder Bush drinks. If I were him, I'd drink, too!

What are you doing here?

2008-12-18T11:22:00.000-08:00

That is probably the second most common question I'm asked. People come to my cubicle, see my Obama buttons (two, I'm tasteful) and my picture of Obama and Biden from the convention (not as tasteful, but cool to me), and they immediately forget what they came to talk about, instead asking me "You're a liberal? What are you doing here?"

See, I'm in the Navy and apparently, being a liberal in the military makes me a total freak. I usually just let it slide, but with the new year, and the impending inauguration, I've decided to change my attitude. No more shrugging it off. No. From now on, I'm going to take on these douchebags (nicely,if they out-rank me). As far as I can tell, the only people that have actually defended the Constitution in the past eight years have been liberal. Torture? Conservatives. Wiretapping? Conservatives again? I mean, Bush was the one who said the Constitution is "just a piece of paper." So, fuck conservatives. They suck at defending the Constitution.

I'd like to say that I have no idea why conservatives have felt that they own the military, but that's not exactly true, and this article does a pretty good job of explaining what drives the conservative mind ("fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity"). Well, I'd say that pretty much sums up the military. That, and they can be protected from "the gays." I guess it makes sense that conservatives would be attracted to the military environment. And there's guns, so many guns!!!

The past eight years have been a Bush love-fest. It's gross. He can do no wrong and I've endured way too many "discussions" about how going into Iraq was the right thing to do. But, I can feel the pendulum swinging back in the other direction. For people that have taken the "support the president or fuck off" attitude, they're surprisingly ready to shed that mentality. Ok, it's not surprising, but it's so hypocritical, it makes my head spin!

Well, I've been supporting the Constitution all along. It's not about the President, and it never should have been. So, you want to know what I'm doing here? The same thing I've always been doing here: exercising my right to serve my country and defend the Constitution. If you don't like that, well, fuck off.

Addicted to Religion

2008-12-11T10:00:00.000-08:00

I just want to preface this by saying that I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I haven’t even taken the “standard” college psych class. I’m just writing from my observations and experiences. So, on with the show…

I have this theory that everyone is addicted to something. Alcohol and drugs are the common ideas that pop into people’s minds because those are addictions that cause chemical dependency, but there are many more addictions and they’re only driven by one chemical: dopamine. Gambling, shopping, BASE jumping, sex, food, hell, even politics (c’mon, you know you’ve gotten a “rush” from a heated debate and totally trouncing your freeper cousin). We’re all after that feeling of total awesomeness. It’s not that our compulsive society drives these addictions, but that our need for satisfaction drives the compulsive society.

Addictions can be treated, but the need for that next rush never goes away. my observation is that people “trade” one addiction for the next. I have a family member that is a gambler. After attending Gamblers Anonymous, he gained about 60lbs. He loves food. Well, he loves eating. It’s that rush. It makes him feel good. I’m sure everyone knows someone who has traded one addiction for another (maybe it’s you); food for exercise, gambling for shopping, alcohol for God. Yea, I said it. People don’t stop being addicted, they just focus their addiction on something else.

How many people do you know that found God after battling an addiction or rough spot? I know a lot. After all, most born-agains have the “My life was crazy until I found God” story. And, it’s not just Christian God. We all know people who have converted to another religion and became fanatics. Well, I’d like to replace the word “fanatic” with “addict.” I believe that the religious fanaticism in this country is not about God at all, but about addiction.

Think about it. Is there another explanation for religious fanatics? They’re addicted to feeling righteous, to feeling superior. But, beyond that, they display all the signs of addiction. Here are some general signs of drug use from the Mayo Clinic:

• Feeling that you need the drug regularly and, in some cases, many times a day
• Making certain that you maintain a supply of the drug
• Feeling that you need the drug to deal with your problems
• Driving or doing other activities that place you and others at risk of physical harm when you're under the influence of the drug

And my personal favorite (from the Hallucinogens section):

• Greatly impaired perception of reality

Interestingly, neglect and abuse were not listed, but from my own experiences with addicts, these are classic symptoms.

Religion can absolutely be substituted for drug in many of these cases: daily church attendance, not being able to go without church, feeling that only God can handle your problems, denying medical care to people because of religion. The impared perception of reality speaks for itself. We can plainly see that religious fanatics are not operating in the same dimension as the rest of the world. These are signs of addiction. I went to college with a girl who became “born again” and she used to pray that God would give her ideas for her assignments. She’d waste hours waiting for signs instead of just writing the paper. I thought she was just crazy, when in reality, she was an addict.

Maybe it’s too controversial to suggest that people can be addicted to religion, but I’m pretty sure that if scientific studies were conducted on the dopamine levels of religious fanatics, they would bear strikingly similar results to those of recognized addicts. Religious addiction is damaging our society, our Constitution, and it, more than anything else, drives a wedge between us and keeps us from moving forward as a people.

How can I say this?? You're wrong

2008-12-10T13:03:00.000-08:00

So, I saw this the other day and laughed:

First of all, it's funny, but more importantly, it's true. I'm so sick and tired of having to defend equality. I'm sick of the Prop H8-ers, of the fundies, of the "civil unions are ok" people. No. Separate is not equal and marriage is a state institution. You and your partner can go into a church (or house of worship) and say your vows, but without a marriage license, you're not married. Conversely, you can go to town hall and say your vows before a judge or clerk, never set foot in a church, and be married.

So really, let's just get this equality thing on the books and everyone chill the fuck out. Civil unions are not equal. And, I don't really understand this thinking at all. Marriage is not car insurance. You can't pick the features you want. You're either married or you're not. It's very simple.

One reason this issue touches me is because my parents are an interracial couple and married only four years after Loving v Virginia. They endured hell to date and my mom, who's white, was shunned by her mother (didn't attend the wedding, never met or wanted to meet me, her oldest grandchild). People are people, rights are rights, and to quote Loving v Virginia, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'..." So, to all those people out there who are opposed to gay marriage: You're wrong. Go worry about your own lives and stay out of everyone else's.

I Am A Liberal Because...

2008-11-17T12:17:00.000-08:00

So, I just hung up the my picture of Obama and Biden that I received after donating to the DNC. I have this overwhelming sense of pride every time I look at the picture, and I though "I am so proud to be a liberal." But, I started to ask myself why am I liberal in the first place. So much of the last eight years have put liberalism in a context as against Bush and his administration. Yes, we are against many (all) of the things that W has done, but we are for more than we are against. And we stand for a lot.

* I am a liberal because I believe that America can only succeed when we include everyone in our process and our consideration.

* I am a liberal because I believe that success does not come from the top down, but from the bottom up. When the lives of those who are struggling the most are improved, we all benefit. America is the land of opportunity, but everyone is not born with the same access. We can change that.

* I am a liberal because I believe that the government has an obligation to take care of its people. Health Care and Education are a right, not a privilege.

* I am a liberal because I am not afraid to deal in reality. Sex is a reality. Unwanted pregnancy is a reality. We cannot solve the problem if we pretend it does not exist. Education is the key.

* I am a liberal because I believe in every right provided in the Bill of Rights. I also believe in the safety of the greater community. It's illegal to yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded building and I'm ok with that. You're not hunting with an assault rifle, so let's be reasonable about how far our right to do anything really goes.

* I am a liberal because I believe in the rule of law, man's laws. You can practice whatever religion you want, just don't expect me to follow your religion or its "laws."

* I am a liberal because I believe that when the government is run by good people, it can do great things. When there are bad people in charge, terrible things happen.

* I am a liberal because I believe in an economy that respects the strength of the individual not the influence of the corporation. Without individuals, every corporation fails.

* I am a liberal because I believe America is part of the global community. We cannot expect to hold influence if we don't also take responsibility. We are all partners and every nation shares in the future of this world.

* I am a liberal because I believe that power and military strength are not the same thing. I would rather speak softly and carry a big stick. Potential to act can be just as influential as the action itself.

* I am a liberal because I appreciate nuance and gray area. Life is rarely simple, and I accept that.

* I am a liberal because I believe that every person is equal regardless of the money they have or the place they live, I believe in a government by, of, and for the people, and that the future can only be better if we work to make it so.

Make no mistake, tomorrow is not the end. It is the beginning.

2008-11-03T19:31:00.000-08:00

I would just like to start out an say that I am so proud of the Democrats this year. We always knew we could run a better campaign, that we didn't need Karl Rove and fear tactics to win. We haven't won yet. I'm not counting those chickens. But, we are on the offensive, fighting Republicans on "their" turf. We are going into this ahead, in the best position we've seen in years.

And, thank you, all of those that have volunteered these past 20 months. Not just to those that have volunteered for Obama. Personally, I began this political season in the Edwards camp. But, from the beginning, we have been charged up. We have been ready to put our hearts and souls into electing a Democrat. We have put our divisions behind us and come together around Senators Obama and Biden.

When the votes are counted tomorrow (or next week), we will have our next president, and I believe we will have President Obama.

But, please, don't think the fight is over tomorrow.

This election is round one. The next four years will see an organized, vocal and aggressive Republican minority. They will push back against every plan we have for fixing America. They will not yield to our majority as so many Democrats yielded to them.

Make no mistake, tomorrow is just the beginning. We will need all of our strength, all of our grassroots networks to continue to be mobilized. We need to continue to speak out and support everything we have worked so hard for. After tomorrow, we will have the chance to see our dreams become reality. Fox and Rush and Bill-O will be feeding the fires of their followers. We must continue to outshine them. We must drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. They will hate it and us for it, but it is the only way to fix America.

Barack Obama could not have gotten this far without us. He will not get any further without us. Please, celebrate tomorrow, relax on Wednesday and come back ready for round two on Thursday.

Let's Talk About Taxes

2008-10-22T18:02:00.000-07:00

So, it's been, what, a week since the "Joe the Plumber" debacle at the debate, and I think it's fair to say that taxes are the most misunderstood issue in an election. Here we are, a nation fighting two wars (which is another issue entirely, but here we are), facing crippling economic slowdown and at an environmental precipice. How the party of "limited government interaction" got us to this point I'll never know, but these are problems where the government is either the only solution (war) or the likely leader of a solution.

I'm not for irresponsible government spending, but something's gotta give. Either government spending must come down drastically or the government must raise more income. What we have now is fiscal malfeasance at its absolute worst.

Now we have Republicans continuing to label Democrats as tax-and-spend. This will be the only time you ever hear me quote Cheney seriously, but "so?" In my view, a fiscal conservative is not someone who says they support small government but then goes and spends more than any administration in history. A true fiscal conservative spends what money they have, regardless of how much it actually is.

But, more importantly, who exactly are we taxing? It's misleading to say that only a certain type of tax scheme is "wealth redistribution." All tax schemes distribute wealth, plain and simple. The idea that somehow the wealth is going to trickle down has been proven false, not once, but twice now.

So, here are my thoughts. Any business person who believes that tax cuts are the best way to grow a business deserves to go under. These excessive tax cuts and rebates for businesses are nothing but corporate welfare. The best, and really only, way to grow a business is to sell more of your product. And, the only way to sell more is if people can buy more. So, doesn't it make more sense to keep the money in the hands of the people who spend it. Instead, with gas and food prices up 300 to 400%, people are struggling to cover their basic needs. They're not buying anything that's not a necessity.

I read a great piece on dkos (that I can't find anymore) that discussed the strength of the economy is in the rate at which money changes hands. It's like comparing the pulmonary system of a couch potato versus that of a triathlete. Right now, this economy is sluggish, slow and out of shape. We don't even have the energy to get off the couch, much less go for a run. And why is that? Probably because the last eight years have not been geared at truly growing our economy. Sure, there were shots in the arm, but we all know that steroids do more damage in the long run. The Bush tax plan was like steroids at the beginning, but the strength wasn't real and now we're suffering from crippling damage.

So, what do we need to do? Well, a good start would be to stop wasting $10-12 billion per month in Iraq and an increasing amount in Afghanistan. And then what? We need to keep the money in the hands of the people who drive this economy. So, rich people, sorry (not really), but you're heyday is over. You didn't hold up your end of the "trickle down" economy theory, so now we're going to go for the "trickle up" theory. I believe that when the many succeed, we all succeed. It's not socialism or communism, it's common sense.

There is a saying in the Navy that goes, essentially, "On the strength of one link in the cable, depends the might of the chain." Well, right now we have a lot of weak links in our economic chain. Strengthening those links would strengthen our economy. It's time to go back to REAL responsible government, a Democratic government.

Is There Anything Left To Say?

2008-09-29T13:35:00.000-07:00

I have to admit, I was kind of excited (hm, I don’t know if that’s the right word) on September 15th. It was really a turning point in this election. Finally, we were able to stop talking about pigs and lipstick and feigned sexism. We had real problems on our hands, and the candidates were given a chance to speak on real issues. I didn’t want to be one of those people using negative economic events to Democratic advantage, but there I was.

In the generic polls, Democrats had a lead in economic issues, and Obama was able to capitalize on that. He was smart, thoughtful and presidential. McCain looked schizophrenic, unsteady, totally unsure, and definitely not presidential. We were back on top and I felt so good. It’s entirely possible that I spent a lot of time gloating to my Republican coworkers. After all, it was their stupid greed and legislation that put the grease in that fire.

And then the bailout came along. Oh the free for all; hardcore capitalists and libertarians now begging for a big government band-aid. What irony. Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Admittedly, I was undecided on the bailout. I saw both sides of the issue, and, while I’d rather give $2,300 of my tax money for universal health care than bailing out Wall St, I don’t want to see America slip into a depression.

So, now the bill failed. Are Republican hurt feelings to blame? Was it a bad plan? Will the economy survive without the bailout?

But, I’m not feeling so good about this now. Obama’s got a strong lead, but how will this affect the next presidency? After January 20th, all the fingers are going to be pointing at that administration. I don’t think that Republicans can clean up this mess, considering how their policies and greed got us here, but the opportunity for a brilliant Democratic administration has been stolen by this crisis. Of course, I think a McCain administration would be far worse for America. I’m just sad for the fact that a Democratic President will be harangued by the blunders of a disastrous Republican administration. I believe that Obama will prevail, but it won’t be easy. And the Republicans will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. It’s going to be ugly.

This is just a really fucking depressing situation.

At least we can still be sure of one thing. John McCain is a complete joke. First of all, the suspension of his campaign (that was not actually a suspension) was probably the most absurd thing that’s happened in modern politics (except for the choice of Palin as a running mate). Who does that? Obviously it was a stunt, but maybe he should have double-checked the choreography. And even though McCain has been for and against and for the bailout, he was busy taking credit for its passage…before it failed. Maybe he shouldn’t have counted those chickens. So now is he taking the blame for the failure? Obviously he didn’t secure Republican support. But, it continues the image of his campaign as a circus. That, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin (he’s a moron…not even the high-functioning type).

Should have put my money under my mattress…

Enough! This Election Is NOT About Obama

2008-09-10T11:25:00.000-07:00

Is America regressing? Seriously. What is going on with this election?

In our personal lives we change jobs, dump boyfriends and return products when they don’t live up to our expectations. Why don’t we do the same when it comes to our politics?

This election is not about Barack Obama. It is about whether or not we as Americans want to turn our backs on the failures of the past eight years and make positive progress towards a better future. It’s about reining in the corporate interests that have poisoned our economy and restoring trust in America both at home and abroad.

The past eight years have been fraught with lies, destruction, and greed. Like a cheating spouse that begs for forgiveness yet again, John McCain pleads with the American people that he is the agent of change. McCain holds Sarah Palin aloft as evidence that he is different now, different than “those” Republicans. He swears it won’t happen again because he’s learned his lesson. No matter that, since his crushing defeat at the hands of Karl Rove in 2000, his voting record shows that he votes with Bush Administration more than a majority of the time (when he manages to show up). And make no mistake, Sarah Palin isn’t a pitbull in lipstick, she’s Dick Cheney in drag…and probably a better shot.

John McCain may not think you’re stupid (that’s the purview of Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt), but he thinks you’re forgiving. He thinks that if he pleads long enough and hard enough, you’ll forgive his transgressions and give him and his friends (because, let’s be honest, John McCain is bought and paid for) just four more years. Of course, John McCain’s friends also think that your suffering is part of a mental recession and that because Americans can go to an emergency room, there's no such thing as an uninsured American.

Reality provides a different look at the situation for Americans. McCain knows this so he wants to shift the debate (and thanks to our spineless media, he’s been able to). He doesn’t want this election to be about the issues or the problems that Americans are facing. He doesn’t want to talk about the economy or the war in Iraq (the Surge is ok though); he doesn’t want to talk about renewable energy or the soaring deficit. Because he knows he will lose if Americans demand an explanation for the last eight years. He knows he will lose when people ask him “How will you help us?” and he has no answer. No, John McCain wants to make this election about Barack Obama. Just look at his ads. Doesn't look like the "respectful campaign" he promised, does it? A majority of McCain’s ads focus on Obama because McCain is attempting to force the debate away from the real issues of this election. The fact that these ads are largely based on falsehoods is lost on most Americans (thanks again, “journalists”).

Now, conservatives will point to the fact that Democrats have been in control of Congress since January 2007 and, by that simple fact, it means that they are somehow responsible for our current situation. But, until one of those yammering heads can point to what legislation, exactly, the Democrats have passed that would have caused this, their argument is moot. Unfortunately, the Dems in Congress have capitulated on every issue. They haven’t forced an end to the war in Iraq, they haven’t repealed the Bush tax cuts or ended oil subsidies, they caved on FISA. And they took impeachment off the table, right up front.

Now, in the rare instance where Congress manages to pass meaningful legislation that would actually help Americans, such as Children’s Health Insurance or enforcing the Eighth Amendment by banning torture or improving the Medicare system, Bush goes and vetoes it. So, next time your child has to go without medical care or you hear of Americans being tortured as retaliation for the torture at Guantanamo, don’t look at this Congress. Cast your disapproving eye to the Republicans who refuse to actually help Americans.

So, in the words of Barack Obama: Enough!

Enough with this fake-outrage BS. Enough with the circus and non-issues. I don’t care who is wearing lipstick or which side can feign outrage faster. This has crossed the line from tedious to ridiculous. This election is not about Barack Obama. It’s about the crises that have been created in the last eight years and what we are going to do to reverse the damage. If you think the Constitution can stand one more pass through the shredder, then go ahead and vote for the old guy who keeps changing his positions and his fundamentalist sidekick. I, personally, like the First Amendment and want to keep it around. After these last eight years, I’m going with the Constitutional Law professor and the Senator with the history of real progress.

(This pretty much sums it up)

The Burden of Sacrificing Everything

2008-09-01T17:43:00.000-07:00

Let’s be honest – life is full of unpleasant experiences. We learn early on about coping mechanisms for life’s great devastations.

Life is not gentle – gracing us early with that unspeakable break up during the eighth grade dance – and it only gets worse from there. And although we all like lemonade a lot better than lemons – making the analogy work isn’t always that easy.

Life teaches us early on about the importance of coping, of grieving, of recovering, and most importantly – of growing. And as embarrassing as they may be, our stumbles really do make us smarter, and wiser.

This weekend, in the midst of sorting through my emotional confusion regarding the Republican announcement of their Vice Presidential candidate, I was reminded of my own middle school dance break up – and the heartbreak that followed. I was reminded of life’s recovery process – and what we learn along the way as we battle life’s curve balls.

Life teaches you about the five stages of grief:

Denial.
Anger.
Bargaining.
Depression.
Acceptance.

On the morning of August 29^th – as we sat in horror watching Senator McCain stumble through the announcement of his Vice Presidential running mate, many of us plunged into denial – praying, hoping, and pleading that we were victims of a sick political joke. It seemed nearly impossible that Governor Sarah Palin was qualified for the position. She was barely even “googleable.”

When denial wasn’t enough – we became angry – angry that such a pandering, nonsensical choice would be considered – let alone selected.

And then we bargained. We told ourselves, “…Maybe she is qualified.” And so we searched. We checked her record – we wanted to believe – but we couldn’t – because as a mayor of a town numbering less that 9,000 people and as a Governor for shy of 2 years, there was hardly a record to check.

Depression settled in across America this weekend. We looked at ourselves in the mirror. We asked, “Has it come to this? Is this what we’ve become?”

Today, I’ve left depression behind me and I’ve accepted. I’ve accepted that the Republicans and their poor, selfish policies, with their inadequate, condescending leaders, finally broke down their own immoral restraints.

Pain may not always be pleasant, but it makes us tougher – and the events of this past weekend have made me a better, more resilient Democrat. I’ll no longer allow myself to be surprised or shocked by Mc-Cheney-Bush’s ruthless political agenda. My skin is thick – they can’t make me angry any longer. I won’t let them.

I’m grateful for the snot-nosed eighth grader that broke my heart that night on the gymnasium floor during the dance. My heart is stronger – and I’ve learned. I’m a better, tougher woman because of that kid.

And I’m grateful for women like Sarah Palin – who chose to sacrifice her own integrity – her own pride as a woman – simply to fulfill a political agenda.

On Friday, August 29^th – I was reminded once again – that a woman’s greatest enemy isn’t that eighth grade kid on that gymnasium floor.

A woman’s greatest enemy is herself.

Dave Chappelle Was Right...

2008-08-21T12:35:00.000-07:00

I’m having a hard time with this presidential campaign. Not that it’s unexpected, but this is such an outrageously lopsided debate that it makes me want to tear my hair out. Luckily, I’ve been busy with one of the local campaigns, but I’ve decided to come back and address some things.

I’ve heard many times that Barack Obama doesn’t “deserve” to be president. Honestly, no one deserves to be president; people have to earn it. Hillary Clinton thought she deserved to be the Democratic nominee and look what happened to her. Just because you’ve been around for a while doesn’t mean you’re entitled to anything. All achievement must be constantly earned. But, I interpret this comment against Obama two ways.

One, Barack Obama is too young to be president, like there’s some sort of line that every person is in based on age (so, I guess McCain (JSM3) would be at the head of the line). But, like the policy of promotions based on time instead of skill, you won’t end up with the most qualified candidate, just the oldest one. McCain’s been in DC for 26 years and has contributed more to the problems than the solutions, especially in recent years. JSM3 is so entrenched in DC that he’s blinded by reality. Perhaps he should just retire? But this “too young” argument really loses legs considering that Obama can join the AARP in three years. Let’s not act like he’s a child. He’s actually in the prime of his life, with the energy and enthusiasm necessary for the hardest job on earth.

Two, Obama is black. Yea, I’ll say it. Rush Limbaugh was thisclose to dropping the N-word on Obama yesterday (“little black man-child” is pretty damn close). And, every time the Republicans say they don’t want to make this about race, they bring up race and make it about race. So, somehow a Harvard-educated man who is actually of mixed-race cannot be president? Welcome to the 21st century Republicans. I know you’ve spent the past 60 years oppressing minorities, but some manage to slip through and succeed. Weird.

Of course, Dave Chappelle had it right. In my favorite political skit of all time, Chappelle imagines what would have happened if Bush was Black (ok, not just black, but the worst of all African-American stereotypes). It’s hilarious. But, sadly, it’s true. Obama is getting grilled, while McCain gets a free pass (I know I’ve mentioned this media study, but it’s quite shocking). So, race is an issue, and it’s clouding the real issues in this election.

But, on the flip side of the idea that Obama doesn’t deserve the presidency is the idea that somehow John McCain does. So, I thought it would be prudent to look at what JSM3 has done with the other entitlements in his life.

1) John McCain goes to the Naval Academy. Thanks to his father and grandfather, both admirals (or, as the Navy calls them DADmirals), John Sidney the Third was able to circumvent the application process (which is currently in the top 1% of selectivity). So, of course, with an opportunity like that, there’s nothing left to do but squander it. Which McCain did with flying colors. As we all know by now, JSM3 had to call on his father numerous times just to keep him at the Academy. And, we’re all familiar with the number 894 (as in, McCain’s rank out of 899 graduates). Super.

2) John McCain becomes a pilot. Being a pilot is cool. Most people will admit that. However, at the Naval Academy, it’s also well known that in order to become a pilot, one has to work hard an prove that they have respect for the Navy’s time and money. Well, almost everybody. Even though he graduated at the bottom of his class, McCain managed to be selected as a Naval Aviator (I imagine it had something to do with his DADmiral). And again, it was a squandered opportunity. McCain wasn’t just a poor pilot. He sucked. In his time, he crashed five airplanes. I graduated with a kid who was in flight school and came up short on the runway. Guess what? He’s not in flight school any more. He didn’t crash the plane, but he made a serious mistake. So serious that the Navy determined he was no longer eligible to be a pilot. This leads me to the belief that not only did JSM3 believe he was entitled to a prestigious aviation billet, but that nothing should keep him from continuing, even after repeated fuck ups.

3) John McCain cheats on his first wife. Apparently, in McCain’s world, he’s also entitled to a beautiful, wealthy wife. Good thing he married a model. Too bad she was in a devastating car accident. Even though she stayed with him and kept the vigil for him while he was a POW, that apparently doesn’t count. None of that “for better or worse” crap for JSM3. He just wanted better. So, he went out and got himself better. Thirty-four days after officially divorcing his first wife, JSM3 picked up the newer, faster model. I’m not going to judge the age difference, but I am going to judge the 34 days courtship. You know that saying, “once a cheater, always a cheater?” Is that the judgment we need (new slogan: JSM3=Me first)?

4) John McCain goes to the Senate. Ha, ok well, he was elected. Going to work is another question entirely. And, I know I’ve talked about his horrific attendance record before, but it’s very troubling to me. Why would someone who so blatantly shirked his responsibilities be deserving of the Presidency?

I’m really just disgusted with the way this campaign is being handled, though it’s really no different than any other. Unfortunately, we can’t just throw in the towel. We have to redouble our efforts to expose the truth about JSM3: he’s a temperamental hot-head who believes that he’s entitled to anything he wants. He may deride Obama’s ambition, but what of his own? Whatever JSM3 wants, someone in his family has given him. Where has his work been? What has he earned?

So, I’ll leave you with this quote (though from a non-traditional source): According to one classmate, "being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck." It is unclear what being with McCain during his presidency would be like for the nation. Unfortunately, America has no direct experience from which to draw with a president who was a temperamental son of a distinguished military man and who in college was a temperamental fuck-up who liked to party. What could possibly be so dangerous about that?

Hm, I wonder??

Be The Tidal Wave

2008-08-04T21:54:00.000-07:00

Most people would assume that because I'm in the military, the War in Iraq/Global War on Terror (actually, I just wanted an excuse to use the acronym GWOT...G-WOT!!) is the most important issue to me in this election. And, honestly, I have been trying to pin down exactly what is the most important issue to me.

The War(s)? Possibly.

Energy? Also a good choice.

The Economy? Definitely in dire straits and in need of attention.

Health Care? The Right to Choose? Prosecuting the Wackos who've held this country hostage for eight years?

So, I mulled this over (and over again), and I finally came up with my answer. The most important issue in this election is...the election itself!

Surprised? I was, too. But, when you think about it, it makes sense. Here we are, talking about who's going to change (or not change, as the case may be) things around here, but nothing is going to happen if we don't have a successful election (by "we" I mean Democrats...and by extension, America). If we don't get the issues out there and talk about them in a way that's meaningful to Americans. If we don't honestly talk about what went wrong, what's still going wrong, and what could go wrong in the future. As well as what we are doing, and can continue to do, right.

You know, it's only August and already this campaign has taken a ridiculous turn. I suppose it's not unexpected, but it's completely unnecessary. John McCain (who is the worst candidate on earth) refuses to tell the truth about anythign, especially himself. He refuses to talk about the issues, adn instead, takes a road so low it's practically a tunnel.

And no one is going to stop him. The people should be pissed!! I'm completely insulted by McCain's campaign. To stoop so low and shirk the issues is NOT worthy of the American people's time or money. It's why American politics are a joke around the world, and why, if McCain is elected, America will continue to loose standing across the world (hard to imagine, but completely possible).

And, it's why we can't do enough this year. It's not enough to sit here and chat about it. It's not enough to send money (unless that's really all you can do). We all need to put our blood, sweat and tears into this election, from the top of the ticket to the bottom. WE need to be the force behind the change. Like Obama said, "he's just a symbol." The change has to come from us. We must demand that change. The people must be the ones who are driving this democracy. It's been hijacked and it's time for us to take back control.

So, in the interest of the election, I've started volunteering for one of the local campaigns. We don't need another Republican to come in here and privatize the city government. We don't need another politician who's going to make a profit off of the suffering of others. On November 4th, I'm not going to be sitting at home (or in a bar) wishing I did more. I'm going to be celebrating, knowing I did all I could for this democracy.

A drop of water may be small on its own, but millions of drops combined can form a tidal wave. Obama is just the catalyst, we are the true force of change.

John McCain Needs Equal Media Coverage? Sounds Good To Me...

2008-07-28T22:03:00.000-07:00

That John McCain is the worst candidate in this election is an axiom. There’s no way else to say it. Everything is says and does is confusing, wrong or false (or some combination of the three). And, yet, he keeps hanging on. Why? Well, as we’ve been made painfully aware, the media is essentially keeping him in this race by preventing any substantive discussion.

Don’t believe me? Well, let’s look at Exhibit A: The study released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. This study shows that in the first six weeks of the general election, the “liberal media” was actually harder on Obama. Yea, you read that right. So all you “liberal media” conspiracy theorists can just throw that crap out the window. In the evening news broadcasts, a mere 28% of stories about Obama were positive and the whopping 72% remaining were negative. As for McCain, he faired much better, with an essentially equal 43% positive and 57% negative showing. So, any claim that the media is simply presenting stories, and not specific viewpoints, is not true.

And, for Exhibit B, we’ll look at the fact that in a recent interview, CBS covered for McCain when he made a glaring mistake, especially considering that “the surge” is his area of expertise, so to speak. Instead of airing the mistake and letting the people discuss this fact, CBS edited in an answer to a previous question, an answer where McCain impugns Obama’s motives with more lies.

But, John McCain still whines that the media is unfair to him. He’s not satisfied with significantly more positive coverage, he wants equal time, too. Well, John, in case no one has mentioned this to you, you actually have to do something newsworthy to make the news. So, while you’re opponent is meeting with cheering crowds of hundreds of thousands around the world (at your urging, none the less), you’re knocking over applesauce and checking your notes for a price of milk in Pennsylvania. And then you're complaining about unfair coverage. C’mon John, you’re supposed to be the candidate of “experience” and “wisdom,” yet you’re stomping and pouting like a child. Is this how you’re going to handle the presidency?

And then you go and run “the ad.” You know what ad I’m talking about, the ad that completely goes against the “clean campaign” you promised to run. And, shit, John, you didn’t even have a 527 do it. You approved these falsehoods all on your own. Wow! It’s the one that only aired on national TV like four times, but has been on loop on all the news networks today. But, were the talking heads debunking the falsehood-laced ad? Not a chance. MSNBC made a feeble attempt during the day, but it wasn’t until Countdown that the whole truth came out. Shall we speak those truths? Yeah, I think so.

1) First, and most importantly, Obama never planned to make the Landstuhl trip a media fanfare. It was simply going to be a trip to visit the soldiers, just as similar trips in Afghanistan and Iraq were. However, the Pentagon labeled Obama’s trip a campaign event and did not allow advisors. Or specifically, one advisor: retired Air Force Major General Gration. But please, feel free to look further into who the Pentagon official responsible for the trip blunder is. It’s hilarious…you’ll never see it coming!
2) The full Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held three hearings on Afghanistan, and Obama did attend one of those. Let’s also bear in mind that he’s a member, not a chair (and, please, McCainiacs, bring up your candidate’s attendance record. We’ll compare).
3) And, let’s clarify what kind of years we’re talking about. Decades? No. Try two and a half years. And, thanks to the wonders of modern technology, like email and “the google,” we can all know what’s going on there every single day.

And, then of course, there are the lies that McCain tells about himself…in the same ad! McCain claims he's always supported the troops, but his actual voting record shows something different:
1) In mid-2007, McCain had only shown up for four of the previous 14 votes on Iraq.
2) In 2008, that number is zero. In fact, McCain hasn’t cast a vote in the Senate since April 8th. Not for FISA, not for Medicare, and not even for the GI Bill (which he and Bush opposed).
3) April 2003, McCain tabled a motion to provide over $1 billion in National Guard and Reserve equipment (brings a new meaning to BYO).
4) October 2003, McCain tabled a motion to provide an additional $233 million for safety equipment.
5) March 2004, McCain voted. He voted against closing tax loopholes that would have provided an additional $1.8 billion in veterans’ care.
6) March 2004, McCain voted against closing corporate tax loopholes that would have provided and additional $1.5 billion for veterans’ care.
7) April 2006, McCain voted against an extra $430 million for veteran outpatient care.

Sensing a pattern here? Ok, well I’ll continue then.

8) May 2006, McCain voted against $20 million for veteran health care facilities.
9) March 2007, McCain did not show up to vote on a bill to redeploy troops from Iraq in 2008.
10) September 2007, McCain voted against an amendment for minimum rest time between deployments.

And that was pretty much the last time McCain showed up to vote on anything (scroll down for a post that discusses his attendance record in depth). Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a D on his voting record. Obama received an B+. Disabled American Veterans gave McCain a 20% rating on his voting record, while Obama received an 80% rating. There's a difference in being a veteran and actually supporting veterans.

So, John McCain wants more equal media coverage, and I think he deserves it. Let’s write to all the media outlets and demand that they cover McCain the same way they cover Obama. Let’s see the pundits hack apart McCain’s gaffes hour after endless hour. Let’s see them call for him to do something, and then when he does it, let’s see them call him presumptuous. Let’s see him handle the pressure of true political discourse. Actually, it’s hard enough watching him now, I don’t know if I could really stomach any more. But, I suppose I can, and gladly will, in the name of democracy.

TRENDSETTING ON THE POLITICAL RUNWAY

2008-07-28T11:00:00.000-07:00

The August issue of Vogue demands an end to the spandex leggings era of last season, favoring the rebirth of the high-waisted, wide-leg trouser. Thus, as soon as the weather turns cool, women throughout Manhattan will rush to the store fronts of Bloomingdales and Neiman Marcus in search of this fashion frenzy. And of course, the craze will pulse from New York to LA and back to Chicago – infiltrating the shopping malls of middle-America until our twelve year old daughters in North Dakota are wearing these new pants.

Why? Because Vogue says so.

America thrives on trendy – new habits and styles are adopted and discarded like dirty socks. And so it follows that this obsession with the cool and chic has transcended fashion and media into a medium once monopolized by old, wrinkled white men – American politics.

Political awareness has become the latest fad. Couples on first dates at trendy martini bars smile coyly at one other, softly questioning, “So…Obama or McCain?”

Life is full of casual choices:
Red or white wine?
Red Sox or Yankees?
Light or dark beer?
And so it follows that the Obama / McCain controversy has become the latest trendy social debate.

Today, political choice trumps religion, wealth, and status. It’s become a source of social identity. In fact, while on a first date last week, a nice Jewish man said to me, “Listen, I don’t care that you’re Catholic….I just care that you’re not voting for McCain.”

And although Anna Wintour hasn’t proclaimed Obama as the next big trend, many other media avenues have been fearless in their endorsement. Barack Obama has become the epitome of cool; he’s the human equivalent of the Toyota Hybrid Prius, fusion resturants, the Mac computer and the Blackberry.

Because Americans love what is cool, Americans love Obama. Let’s face it – the man is trendy. Not only is he young, hip, and charming, but his wife is a rockstar. The Barack-Michelle ‘fist-bump' has permeated social coolness: first on the political podium, then on the set of day-time television’s The View, and now on Wall Street’s trading floor. Just last week, USA Today ran an article entitled, “Can the Fist Bump Mix with Business?”

As Frank Rich (NY Times) claims, “Obama-branded change is snowballing, whether it’s change you happen to believe in or not.” McCain will either need to reinvent himself, or admit to being last year’s leggings. Either way, those wide-leg trousers are looking pretty appealing to me.

Objection! Leading the Voter: How the GOP Stifles American Political Debate

2008-07-16T11:07:00.000-07:00

I know I’ve said it before, but I just can’t resist it: These people are scared S**tless. What people, you might ask? Well, the GOP, of course. And why are they scared? Because they lose on every issue that is important to Americans today.

It’s unfortunate that the GOP is so scared of true debate. Why must they always ignore the facts, spin the truth, and point fingers at their opponents? It’s tiring, and more importantly, it’s hurting America. The GOP’s smoke and mirrors act is hindering effective debate on important issues and keeps America from making true progress for all.

Maybe you were lucky enough to see the RNC 2008 Critical Issues Survey. If not, it’s definitely worth a peek. And, it shows exactly who has critical “issues” in this campaign (hint: the makes of this ridiculous poll). How ridiculous? Well, let’s preview some of these “fair and balanced” questions:

Shall we start with the economy?

1. Do you think Congress should respond to the economic slowdown with a plan of tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

Hahaha, yeah. OK. Since they sunk a robust and growing economy, I’m sure they’d do wonders for a recession.

2. Do you believe our economy will grow if we cut taxes and put more money in the hands of hardworking Americans who pay taxes?

Honestly, where to start with this one? Regardless of what one believes, supply-side economics don’t work.

4. Which of the following factors do you feel is most adversely affecting the economy in your area?
Burdensome Taxes
Severe Government Regulations
Unstable Real Estate Market
Growth of Government Spending
Threat of Terrorism
Unpredictable Fluctuating Fuel Prices
Other

Oh geez! Terrorism? Yes, I’m afraid of being the victim of a suicide bomber at the market. Oh wait. I’m in America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Gotta get that fear mongering in…

10. Should “pork-barrel” spending be completely eliminated?

Like the word “lobbyist,” “pork-barrel” and “ear marks” are getting a bad rap. And from the Republicans of all people. The most irresponsible party lampooning their own failures. Ugh. Let’s talk about the reality of ear-marked money and the abuses that the Republicans have committed.

Enough with that, let’s move to something cooler: (dun dun dun) National Security!

2. Should America surrender in Iraq regardless of the consequences in the Middle East?

Surrender? Who’s surrendering? Republicans are war-mongering, plain and simple. Nothing like stifling the debate over each candidate’s plan (well, Obama’s at least. McCain doesn’t have a coherent idea of what to do in Iraq…or Afghanistan).

3. Do you agree with Democrats who believe national defense spending should be slashed in order to fund domestic programs?

What Dems are doing this? As far as I can tell, they give Bush everything he wants on Defense spending…including no oversight. C’mon people, actions speak louder than words. Let’s talk about what people are actually doing.

5. Do you believe we should set a public date for withdrawing from Iraq even if it undermines our troops in the field?

“Even if it undermines our troops in the field?” Well, when you put it like that, I guess not. But, considering that Bush has done more to undermine our troops and our efforts, AND the Iraqis have asked for a withdrawl timeline, I would say, yes, I support the timeline.

These are some bad fucking questions. It makes me sad looking at them because it’s like watching a democracy die. But, we still have two more sections to conquer.

Now, on to Other Issues.

1. Should we appoint judges who will interpret the law instead of liberal activists who will make new laws from the bench?

“Liberal activists,” like who? You and me? We are talking about judges, right? Ok, just wanted to clear that up. Now, the SCOTUS isn’t my area of expertise, but I can see very clearly that the GOP only has intentions of politicizing the bench and not actually appointing people who are independent thinkers. Way to obfuscate the question, GOP! Gold star!!

2. Is it critical for the U.S. to develop alternative sources of energy and find new supplies of oil in order to slow inflation and keep fuel affordable?

Huh? How many questions are you trying to ask here? And, even if I say yes, it doesn’t mean I’ll agree with your plans. I think most people would say yes, but there’s nothing in here about “how.”

3. Do you think we should work to give parents with children trapped in failing schools more choices to help their children have a better future?

Trapped? Really?! No way of escaping? Wow, that does sound pretty serious. Well, I guess I agree, but one question, why not work to improve these schools? I think the last thing the GOP came up with was NCLB, so I’m going to say that their education “solutions” are nothing of the sort.

6. Do you think that forcing every American into a socialized national health care system is the best way to deal with uninsured patients?

Wow, this is a pretty serious statement. Too bad that’s not what Obama is talking about. Of course, reality doesn’t matter to the GOP. But, I wonder how the uninsured would feel about this. My guess? They’d love to have some guaranteed insurance. Just a guess, though.

And now the final section (and the one question that reveals their fear): Campaign Strategy.

3. Are you concerned about the vast sums of campaign funds being stockpiled by the Democrats and their liberal allies?

Haha, yup. The GOP doesn’t know what to do now that they’re losing the money race. They all hate their candidate, so even his best month pales in comparison to the Democrats. And they are crapping their pants. McCain even has to compete in his home state. They are on the defensive and they know they’re going to face huge losses.

So, of course, why not stifle the debate and twist the facts? Honestly, I’m surprised there were no race questions in this poll. But, there are many more gems available, if you can stomach it.

John McCain's Balance: Senate 0, Campaign 100%

2008-07-09T19:58:00.000-07:00

I know, it’s almost a week after the 4th of July. I’ve missed the celebratory bandwagon and now it’s back to politics as usual. Well, maybe I just needed some extra time to reflect on our situation. Each of the presidential candidates was asked to submit an essay about what “patriotism” means to them. John McCain focused on sacrifice, and Obama focused on faith in each other and in the American way (but, of course, also had to pay homage to McCain’s military service). Interesting, but do either actually do as they say or do they just expect us to look the other way when their actions contradict their words? John McCain is certainly expecting the public and the media to turn a blind eye to his hypocrisy (and, lucky for him, he’s getting it).

McCain always has a lot to say about duty and about his lifetime of service, but it appears that John McCain is sacrificing his duty in order to further his own goals. Why else would he be the most absent Senator, missing 61.8% of the votes in the 110th Congress? And today, of all days, McCain was absent again, campaigning in (insert state he’s going to lose here). Today is the day that McCain had an opportunity to stand up for the Constitution and for senior citizens or continue to act as a puppet for the neocons and big business. Unfortunately, he chose to do nothing. He couldn’t even bother to take a day off from campaigning in order to vote on the FISA and Medicare bills. Frankly, I’m not going accept any excuse that he’s too busy campaigning to do his job. Maybe he shouldn’t campaign if he can’t also handle his sworn duty to the Constitution.

And, I think I need to point out that Senator Edward Kennedy managed to make it to the senate votes on FISA and Medicare today. He’s recovering from brain surgery and undergoing chemotherapy for brain cancer and he was there Brain Cancer! Chemotherapy! And he can still make it.

What does this say about John McCain?

It says he cares more about himself than America. Sure, he can talk about his service, which I’m convinced he would have never done if his father and grandfather hadn’t been Admirals, but that’s really neither here nor there. And, of course, we’re not permitted to discuss just what McCain’s military record says about his service (demerits, reprimands, plane crashes, etc). Even if we put all that aside, and I’m not quite willing to, John McCain’s Senate record says one thing: he doesn’t care about America. He has cared more about himself than his sworn duty, so much so that he hasn’t cast a vote since April 8, 2008.

Is this the type of person we need in the White House? Someone who can’t even take a stand, even an unpopular one? Someone who needs weekends and 250 days to get used to the rigors of office?

But, even more disturbing than the absenteeism, if you can imagine it, is the fact that John McCain has the nerve to accuse Obama of “flip-flopping” on many issues, but FISA in particular. Perhaps someone forgot to mention to Johnny that he can’t attack his opponent’s position if he doesn’t have one on the books. And, John McCain’s positions are, shall we say, less than clear. Since he’s absent more than he’s present, we can’t even turn to his votes for clarity. Well, that’s unfair. He does vote periodically. And when he does, he votes the party line.

John McCain isn’t the answer. He’s the problem. He’s a disgrace to the US Senate. He offers confused, messy policies and no spine. John McCain is a puppet of the neocon corporate interests. He’s a sickening hypocrite and I can’t take his lies any more!

John McCain's Patriotism

Barack Obama's Patriotism

Elite? You Bet! And I Don't Care

2008-06-29T13:00:00.000-07:00

I’ve been sitting on this idea for a little while. I just really didn’t know where to start, but “luckily” the neo-cons came to the “rescue.” I was thinking about elitism and how to handle it, when Karl Rove pathetically attempted to paint Obama as an arrogant elitist (“You know, he’s that guy at the country club…” No Karl, we don’t know people at the country club, you do.). Ha! Karl Rove, the mind behind the permanent campaign and the worst presidency in history. Maybe Karl should remember the old saying, “when you point a finger at somebody, three more point back to you.” In his attempt to brand someone as elitist, Rove demonstrated just how arrogant and elite the right wing has become. But, when you get right down to it, the people running for president are elite. What we’re really talking about these days is what kind of elite we want in power.

I’m not sure where this anti-elitist idea came from. Why do people want the “leader of the free world” to be just like the guy down the street? People understand that some people are not athletic, not everyone can sing or dance or draw. We happily chalk these up to “natural ability.” Why would politics be any different? I know, I know, politics is about the people, about ideas, and everyone can have those. Well, I’m going to lay out the truth: a lot of people are stupid. A lot of people (obviously) don’t understand the complexities of government, and even the smart ones get it wrong. It takes a special person, with a certain mix of smarts and savvy to be successful in America’s political jungle.

Here’s another secret that the GOP doesn’t want you to know: the men that founded America were highly educated, wealthy and intelligent. They weren’t the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. They were lawyers, judges, scientists, physicians, plantation owners and financial giants. Many were known beyond their communities, a rare feat in that time. They were elite. Or, to put it another way, do you really think that the average person could write and lead the greatest experiment in individual freedom and self-determination in history? I thought not. I certainly don’t want Larry the Cable Guy writing (or rewriting) the Constitution.

And yet, this election year, the charges of elitism are already flying. Multi-millionaires each claiming that the other is “out of touch” with the cares of the average Americans. It’s ludicrous! But, more importantly, it’s a superficial waste of time. The question shouldn’t be who is more elite, but instead, who will work for the elite and who will work for the average citizen. And, with W as our guide, it’s quite obvious that Republican policies are geared towards the wealthy. Well, “geared towards” may not be strong enough. “Specifically written for and solely benefiting the wealthy” is a better way to describe these failed policies.

I guess the question you should be asking is: What kind of elitist do you want? Do you want someone who was born into privilege, handed the best off all worlds and then married into millions? Someone who feeds of the wealth of his wife’s father? Someone who acts for the rich because they made him who he is now? Or, do you want someone who came from humble beginnings, worked his way to success, and is the epitome of the American dream? Someone continues to work for the people and continues to protect the American dream? Being elite and caring about the average American are not mutually exclusive. Let’s ensure we elect a president who believes in the dream because he is living the dream.

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS – LITERALLY.

2008-06-24T17:31:00.000-07:00

I’ve been eying the stock market in the same manner as the political spectrum: at times incredibly interested, and at times pathetically bored. They seem to go hand-in-hand. Just when I’m completely frustrated and apathetic with the sinking economy, John McCain makes another war-mongrel comment, and my heart swells with political enthusiasm. Life’s funny like that.

Now that America’s desperate housewives have ousted Hillary’s fat ankles off the political podium, we’re back to the waiting game again. I’ve sent my money into the DNC; I even bought a bumper sticker. The only thing left to do is sit back and pray for either Republicans to get smart, or for McCain to crumble. It’s going to be a long summer.

Maybe Michelle Obama will challenge Cindy McCain to a spelling bee. That would provide some comic relief. [insert fist pound here]

Speaking of funny -- before my ultimate political boredom lapsed into a summer induced coma, the stock market barreled through with some charming summer humor.

At this point, Americans are struggling obtaining some of the most basic necessities. We can’t drive anywhere. We certainly can’t fly anywhere. We can’t buy new houses. We even found out last week that for the first time in almost two decades - the price of bananas is going up.

But if it’s one thing Americans haven’t given up on yet, it’s the power of good-old cheap, quickly made, American food. Maybe that’s why 4 out of 16 of Marketwatch’s “Stocks in Focus” are cheap restaurant or food brands.

We’re Americans! When life gives your lemons (or Bush’s oil war, a sinking economy and high gas prices) we make lemon pie! And lemon cake! And lemon pudding!

My gut tells me to trust Marketwatch – keep an eye on SONC, DRI, CKE and GIS.

I’m a skeptic; I don’t trust that Americans will vote for Obama, or that they’ll buy hybrids, or support women’s rights.

But if it’s one thing I know for sure, it’s that Americans will eat. As far as the stock market goes, I’m putting my money where my mouth is.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/stocks-focus-wednesday/story.aspx?guid=%7B2C61A506%2D9529%2D4A2E%2D91E1%2D8C3BAAD5EE08%7D&siteid=yhoof

Past Sexism in the Present Military

2008-06-10T13:17:00.000-07:00

The other day, I started a discussion about Sen. Jim Webb’s 1979 editorial railing against women in the military. The reaction of the general population? “Get over it.” And it made me wonder, if his statements had been about race instead of gender, would people tell me to let it go already? Doubt it. In the grand scheme of things, the past sexist ravings of a potential Vice Presidential candidate aren’t deal breakers. When I cast my ballot in November, I will be voting for Obama and his message of change. However, I believe that his number two also needs to be an agent of change, and this gives me reason to believe that Sen. Webb is not that person.

If we look at race, we can see what happened with Ron Paul. A series of writings dating back to 1978, penned under his name, espouse extreme racist and anti-Semitic views. And instead of people “getting over it,” they were shocked, outraged and disgusted by these views. Paul has claimed that he is not responsible for those writings and that he is not, nor has he ever been, racist. But, no matter, the damning label stuck. Why should sexism be any different?

I have definitely been berated for my lack of forgiveness towards Webb. People asked me if I believe that no one is allowed to change their mind, if I believe that Sen. Byrd is a still a racist (yes, I do), if I think Hillary Clinton is still a Goldwater Girl (sometimes it seemed like it, but no). I do believe that people can change their minds, but I think it’s harder for them to change their hearts. It also leads me to wonder whether we have to forgive and forget everything a person does as long as they apologize for it. Can a person spew hatred and then apologize when his position is no longer popular? “I said some hateful things in the past. Sorry. Here’s a grand gesture to make up for it.” It’s easy to say something that sounds good. It’s also easy to do something that the public supports, whether or not you believe it. In my mind, Sen. Webb will always be accompanied by a question mark when it comes to women’s rights.

As a minority in both the categories of race and gender, I am “lucky” enough to bear witness to discrimination on both points. As a female in the military, I can tell you that sexism is still alive and well. And while I do my best not to be a victim of sexism, it is constantly simmering right underneath the surface, tainting conversations and altering perceptions. I had an officer on my first ship that would send women off their watch stations if they “smelled too good.” Apparently, the first step to being a “real” sailor is not competency or skill, but smelling as if you’ve never been introduced to soap and deodorant. On a daily basis, women in the military are subjected to words and actions that would shock the civilian world. Actions that would get civilian men fired are acceptable in the military. And women often have no choice but to let it slide, lest they be painted as a whiner who can’t hack it.

I was in the 25th class to graduate women at the United States Naval Academy. No person who graduated in that class was alive before women were allowed into the service academies. Yet, there was constant, prevalent discrimination against and belittling of women. In a world of quotas, every woman’s accomplishment was attributed to “filling a quota” not her personal drive or ability. Men, on the other hand, earned everything they received. After my first midterm grades came out, my company officer, a Lieutenant, looked at the grades, and then looked at me and said “Wow, you actually are smart.” Well, gee thanks. I guess he missed the fact that it’s actually harder for women to be accepted into military academies. Approximately 2% of female applicants are accepted, as opposed to 9% for males.

The anti-female feelings still burn strong at our nation’s service academies. Outwardly, many men support women in the military, but behind closed doors, the sentiments are different. I will always be wary of someone who was so passionately against something that they now support. And, allowing women to hold more integrated and combat related roles in the military is still a battle. I don’t consider myself a super-feminist and I’ve been known to speak out against preferential treatment towards women. I believe that it only hinders our advancement and breeds resentment among men. While I attended the Naval Academy, the superintendent took bold steps to advance women, including the outlaw of derogatory terms and even changing the words in the alma mater. I’ve personally spoken with men who are angry and resentful towards women for changing “their” school. One of my neighbors was a 1958 grad who is against women in the military, but liked me and believed in me. He has yet to come around to fully support women in the military, but through me he saw that women were, in fact, compatible with the beliefs and teachings of the Naval Academy.

I think that when a majority of people look at the editorial by Sen. Webb and then his consequent actions, they see enough of a “change” to let it go. I think that these are also people who have never actually been through this warped world. When I look at Sen. Webb, I see someone who was passionately against women in the military. When I read his words, I feel the hatred and derision rising up from the page. I also see a political death trap. Jim Webb has been running from these words since the day he wrote them. What I see is someone trying to compensate for hatred that hides in his heart. I know the two-faced, politically convenient positions that men have taken over the years, and to me, Sen. Webb is no different.

I may never believe that Sen. Webb has truly had a change of heart. His position shift stinks of political convenience not genuine feeling. Unfortunately for Sen. Webb, his 1979 remarks were made at a time when women had demonstrated their competence and ability in technical and leadership positions. He is the one that opened his mouth and let his sexism show. He may see now that women are an integral part of our nation’s fighting force, but that will never fully excuse him from his past behavior. Has he repented? Yes. Willingly and whole-heartedly? We’ll never know. I will always doubt the sincerity of Sen. Webb’s subsequent actions regarding women in the military. It may be unfair or small-minded of me, but I treat claims of reformed sexism the same way I treat those of reformed racism, with skepticism and hesitation.

Click Here To Read Webb's Essay

The Republican Pro-Family Myth

2008-05-28T11:25:00.000-07:00

As we get into the meat of this election cycle, we will once again be subjected to the biggest Republican lie. No, not that they are the leaders in efficient, balanced government (the past seven years have pointedly contradicted that lie). And no, not the one about how they support the troops (unless you count multiple deployments, inadequate training and equipment and selling out to private contractors as support). No, this year we will once again suffer through this nauseating sound bite: The Republicans are the party of family values. Ha! Personal conduct of Republicans aside, at least for now, the fact remains that the Republican platform is decidedly anti-family.

Let’s look at this from the beginning. The Republicans have the gall to use the phrase “pro-life,” thus framing the debate in their favor. But, the issue isn’t the act of abortion because that will happen regardless of legality. The issue is choice, which is why the flip side is “pro-choice.” For a party that claims the federal government is too involved in our personal lives, this argument is non-sequitur (also, for a party that supports the death penalty to be somehow labeled as “pro-life” is a ridiculous, hypocritical joke).

There is no legal reason to ban abortion. Until we can agree on the definition of life and science (which Republicans hate) can determine when life begins, abortion is not murder. If your religion discourages abortion, fine. Don’t do it. However, that is not reason enough to prevent others from making that choice. Republicans will try to paint Democrats as giddy about abortion and excited at the prospect, but in reality, Democrats are simply trying to protect the right of Americans to choose what is best for their lives. After all, most reasonable people would agree that bringing a child into a situation where it cannot be properly cared for is an action with much more far-reaching consequences.

But, if you still believe that Republicans are pro-life and pro-family, then they must have other pro-family ideas, right? So, I guess the first thing about being pro-family would be ensuring that all people have access to proper health care. If they’re pro-life, they must support healthy life and access to health services. Wrong. Republicans are adamantly against Universal Health Care. In fact, they are against any legislation that would increase the standard of Health Care in America. Even though numerous studies have shown that the US lags behind the industrialized world (37th as judged by WHO) and has the highest rates of preventable death among 19 industrialized nations (as judged by US Journal Health Affairs), the Republicans would not want to do anything that would jeopardize the profit margin of health insurers and pharmaceutical companies. I don’t know about you, but the fact that more than 47 million Americans go without basic health coverage doesn’t sound pro-family to me. The fact remains that dozens of countries have managed to provide basic services for their people without going bankrupt. The US spends more than any other nation on health care and for what? These abysmal rankings? The Republicans have privatized the health care industry for the benefit of their corporate masters, not once thinking of the American people.

Perhaps a pro-family party would consider universally available day care as a part of its platform? After all, Republicans love that Americans work more than almost every other nation on earth, so they would probably support policies that allow parents to work more. Nope. Except for programs like Head Start, which the Republicans have cut-down each year, there is no plan to support working parents. Annual costs for daycare in America run up to $10,000, an outrageous sum and one that working Americans cannot manage to pay. If America had universally available daycare, rates could be based on income and ability to pay. I’m not even talking about free (or as Republicans will have you believe: Socialist), I’m talking about affordable. And, universally available daycare would pay for itself in the end. Children would be better prepared for school, which would improve drop-out rates and ease the burden on teachers by ensuring all children have basic skills by the time they are school aged. Not to mention the fact that access to proper nutrition cut down on many future health issues. And parents aren’t mandated to send their children, but the option is always available. Now, that is pro-family policy, and surprise, it’s not supported by Republicans.

Perhaps another family friendly policy supported by Republicans is equal pay for women and minimum wage that is a living wage? As we all know, there is an increase in the number of single mothers and, 30+ years after the women’s equality movement, women are still facing pay discrimination. Additionally, women are more likely to be working hourly-wage jobs, so Republicans must support initiatives to ensure that women are paid equally and that minimum wage is a living wage? Unfortunately, no, Republicans don’t support these ideas. They believe in the free market setting wages. Yes, I can see where this would be misleading, since markets fluctuate. But the reality is that in the past seven years, real wages for American have decreased by $1,000, and this during a supposed economic growth period. Well, at least CEOs are doing well. In 2007, the average CEO earned more than 367 times the average worker, not including the approximate $438,342 in unpaid “perks.” This is up from 1989 when CEOs earned 71 times the average salary. And, just in case you’re wondering, the average hedge fund manager earned $657.5 million in 2006, 16,000 times the average salary of $40,000. So, Republican policy towards wages basically amounts to pay the rich, burden the poor, since Americans are shelling out thousands for heath care, daycare, schools, etc. Unfortunately, we’ve seen what this free market policy does for real American wages. Nothing. Corporations won’t pay their people more or equally unless it’s mandated by the government.

Oh, schools! We haven’t even mentioned those yet. I would say that the bedrock of a pro-family policy must be education for the children, right? How can someone be more pro-family than by supporting quality education? One of the greatest American ideas was that public education would be available to all. Lately, and by “lately” I mean “under W’s reign of terror,” quality education has fallen by the wayside. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has done nothing to address the quality of education, nothing to ensure that American children are prepared for the future, nothing to ensure that children are getting the attention they need. It’s a one size fits no one failure. Special needs children are placed in classes with regular students and no aide because NCLB mandates 100% passing. Teachers are forced to “teach the test” instead of teaching the subject. This standardized test mess is not helping anyone, and it’s hurting our schools and our teachers. American students continue to fall in world rankings, thus making them less prepared for college, less able in the work force and more prone to losing their jobs overseas (because corporations want to hire the most skilled workers).

Additionally, college costs are on the rise, in both public and private universities. The year-to-year increase is about 6%, which is shocking considering that the average wage increase is less than half of that. More and more students are finding college out of reach, and parents cannot save enough to keep up with the runaway costs. I’m not saying that the government needs to foot the bill for every person’s higher education, but it needs to get creative. One great suggestion is a School for Service program that would operate like the military’s ROTC. People could receive scholarships in exchange for years of government service (currently ROTC students owe the military at least four years and service academy graduates owe at least five, depending on the service selected). This would also help bolster the dwindling ranks of public servants. There are ways to make college affordable and accessible, but under the current Republican policies, college is just another way for the rich to make more money from the poor.

My final note about pro-family policies is probably the most controversial, but the most necessary. Family planning services and sexual education are the keystone to a healthy, successful family, but Republicans keep shunning this topic as too taboo. Let’s end the prudeness and get realistic. We need to give our children the best information on the subject possible. Abstinence-only education cannot trump biology. Making family planning and sexual education resources available does not encourage people to have sex. We’re hardwired to have sex, so no safer-sex tools are going to make the inevitable more likely. But, right now we are facing the first increase in teen pregnancy and STDs in almost two decades, and lack of information is the culprit. Being pro-family means having the fortitude to address family planning and sexual education. Purposely keeping people ignorant is not pro-family.

Republicans think that being pro-family means supporting a radical Christian agenda which flies in the face of the Constitution, giving hundred-dollar tax credits to solve thousand-dollar problems, and letting the free market and tax loopholes set working wages, without regard to the actual consequences. Being pro-family means addressing the needs of real American families: health care, child care, education and wages. These are the issues that Republicans will attempt to distort and spin in their favor, but the reality is that their policies are decidedly anti-family. Bottom line: Republicans only care about you until you’re born. After that, they hope you make it long enough to become a cog in their war machine.

Going The Distance

2008-05-19T19:47:00.000-07:00

I'm not a distance runner, but I know a few things about endurance. And, I'm pretty sure everyone knows the first rule of competing in a long race: Pace Yourself! You might have a lot of energy in the beginning, you might think that adrenaline can carry you, but when you get halfway there and the novelty has worn off, what is going to make you push on? Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I did not pace myself for this race. And I know I'm not the only one.

Now, I like to consider myself a die hard politico, but I'm starting to rethink that assessment. In my defense, I had a lot going on in my personal life and with my job, but don't we all? Maybe it was the six week break in which we only heard about Reverend Wright, "guns and bitter", and learned new and different ways Hillary can fudge the math to make it work for her. Those six weeks were the longest of my political life. Nothing changed, but you would have thought that people were battling it out in the polls every night. The talking heads said the same things over and over and over. Luckily, I haven't had a TV for the past seven weeks or so and I've been spared the worst of it (on the flip side, I miss KO like crazy).

And then the races started again. Pennsylvania and Clinton's on the upswing, North Carolina and Indiana put Obama back on top, but can he win the racists and rednecks? (Note: not a particular state, but maybe a particular demographic). And still, nothing's changed. I'm starting to envy the campaign limits of Britain and France.

I think the biggest problem in this campaign is the information itself. Well, not the facts, but the 24-hour news cycle. Or more precisely, the 30 minute news cycle. I had MSNBC on today for about five hours, and except for the Obama speech, the other four hours were the same 20-30 minutes of news rehashed over and over. Enough already! If there's no news, don't pretend that there is. It just makes the TV stations look like morons (or they already are and it's showing) and it frustrates the crap out of Americans. Or, even better, report on the rest of the world. Americans are, for the most part, largely ignorant of the geography of anything past North America. Let's branch out and see what's going on with the other 5.7 billion people on this planet. Oh, that's depressing? Poverty, genocide, and famine? Better turn back to Clinton and Obama.

But, if I could thank one person for making me come back day after day, I'd have to thank John McCain. Almost more than I want a Democrat to win, I want John McCain to lose. I want him to lose embarrassingly. I want him and the rest of his Republican neo-con liars to go down in flames at the hands of 'We the People." I want Americans to stand up and say "Hell no I'm not voting for a lying, hypocritical, old fool who doesn't know crap about the economy and tries to pass off a corporate health care plan under which even he wouldn't be covered! Hell no I'm not voting for a man that didn't vote for Bush but now kisses his ass daily! Hell no I'm not voting for more of the same failed policies! But, mostly, I'm not voting for you because I do actually love America, and not just those with money. Hell no John McCain!"

So, thank you John McCain for reminding me every day of what we're fighting for in this election. I may not have paced myself, but you are the wind on my back, pushing me to victory. We are running away from your failed policies and towards One America!

GUILTY PLEASURES

2008-04-28T12:20:00.000-07:00

Like every other American, I have a secret list of what I consider to be life’s guilty pleasures. Some are traditionally (and pathetically) obvious: Egyptian cotton sheets, a good bottle of sangiovese, a classic Audrey Hepburn romance film, and a sinfully expensive pair of Italian heels.

But as of late, I have a new guilty pleasure: taking advantage of every opportunity to mock, ridicule, and scoff at Bush’s disastrous embarrassment of a Presidency. You know the feeling – the painfully enjoyable sensation you get every time he delivers a muddled, ambiguously misconstrued speech – the sadistic feeling of shock and disbelief after watching him cowboy swagger to the podium with his Cheney-posse. I have a feeling that I’m not alone on this one.

So this weekend, when practically handed a new opportunity for a Bush-attack, I surprised myself by suddenly recognizing the dangerous trap I had fallen into. My guilty pleasure had turned into a perilous blame game. Somehow, in an effort to shun Bush, we’ve begun to mimic him – placing blame instead of taking responsibility.

George W. Bush is not to blame for America’s oil crisis.

The Republicans, Cheney, Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi War, Ben Bernanke, hedge fund managers, and subprime mortgage lenders are all not the secret culprits behind the prices at the pump.

Like all Americans, I’m crushed about the price of gas and I’m giddy about the upcoming election. But we need not confuse the two. Ending the Bush regime will accomplish a lot of great things (think: better healthcare, decreased unemployment, sounder war policy) but the election will not suddenly reverse the 25% increase in the price of light crude oil this fiscal year.

Crude prices are a global problem; they’ve surged more than fivefold since 2002. The spread of globalization and the demand of emerging economies (China) have placed an increased strain on a diminishing resource. Americans aren’t the only ones vying for oil anymore. Simple economics: increased global demand coupled with a diminishing supply. Sure, the fall of the dollar and geopolitical problems exacerbated oil prices; but we need to look beyond America’s economic status.

So instead of placing blame, we need to begin to rethink our relationship with oil. It’s also important to recognize that the prices won’t be going down – regardless of the upcoming election. We need substantial action – and I don’t mean purchasing a Toyota Prius Hybrid. We need to consider new innovative methods of travel, specifically by means of electric public transportation. And we need to rethink our relationship with plastics and rubber – both oil dependent necessities.

Bernanke will walk the tightrope of interest rate cuts again on Wednesday. Perhaps he can manage to rescue the American people without allowing inflation to increase. Perhaps we’ll see the stock market bottom out during the third quarter summer lull. Perhaps we’ll all get in a few more pleasure-filled laughs from our comedian of a President.

Either way, it’s about time for us all to scratch oil-hungry SUVs and long scenic joy rides off our guilty pleasures list. We’d all be better off with a little more chocolate and red wine anyways.

If McCain Wins, America Loses

2008-04-20T18:11:00.000-07:00

If we elect John McCain, America will demonstrate how socially backward, morally bankrupt and politically inept it has truly become. Maybe Republicans want us to vote on who is more patriotic, which is completely subjective. I say that a flag lapel pin doesn’t make a patriot if that person is willing to send hundreds of thousands to death in a false war and simultaneously tear down the very laws that make us free. But, that’s just my opinion. Maybe they want us to vote on who would have the ability to provide cheap (and crappy) beer to America. Keep us drunk to keep our minds off the misery that is Bush’s reality. I guess McCain would win that contest, but as for the actual election, there is too much at stake to waste a vote on John McCain.

First, on the issues of the economy, McCain has continually demonstrated that he does not, in fact, know anything about how our economy actually works. Though he has shown that he is willing to accept how corporate lobbyists want our economy to work. I think this is the most important fact when it comes to McCain’s economy: McCain’s economic plan does not budget for the war in Iraq. Does not even mention it. Does not believe in accounting for the single greatest expenditure in American history. Hello?! For the man who is an ardent supporter of this war, wants to be in the country for, well, ever, and wants to go to war with Iran, China, North Korea, Russia, and probably Venezuela, this budget is a joke. All it does is fling money at wealthy individuals and corporations without acknowledging the reality of our current situation.

So, if that doesn’t scare you, here’s more. We all know that McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts. Why? Because they don’t give enough to the 99.9% of people that actually make up America. Now, he’s for them. Hm, sounds like someone sold out to the ridiculous neo-con perspective (I’ve got mine, screw everyone else) to get the Republican nomination.

And now McCain is pushing a suspension of the federal gas tax, saying it would ease gas prices by 20% (in reality, it’s only 5%, but we know McCain no longer operates in reality). What does he think people are going to do when gas is $3.32 vice $3.50? Yea, I’m not planning that road trip yet, and neither is the rest of America. A suspension does absolutely nothing to address the true cause of these inflated oil prices, corporate greed. Additionally, the federal gas tax goes to support and repair our highways, which are in dire need of maintenance. Not to sound morbid, but maybe McCain should ask the victims of the Minneapolis bridge collapse if they support taking money from highway repair. He would be putting even more Americans at risk of such a tragedy.

In case we weren’t convinced of the utter failure of supply-side economics, there is the sticky little problem of the current economic downturn being “rescued” be demand side policies. Give the people money and they will spend it. Of course, that will only happen if they aren’t in debt already. But, thanks to Bush’s economic policies, we all are. Tax cuts won’t solve it. Deficit spending won’t increase consumer confidence. People will spend money if they feel secure, but right now, we are barely keeping our heads above water trying to cover the basics, not to mention retirement and/or higher education for the future generations. We need a government that will implement policies that help us, and McCain’s policies do anything but.

But, maybe the economy isn’t you’re thing. Maybe you’re more of a rule of law kind of person. Well then, McCain isn’t your guy because he definitely does not support the rule of law, the bedrock of American principles. Foremost is his support for the war in Iraq, which we know was started over lies. However, that doesn’t matter to him. What matters to him is that Americans keep fighting, regardless of whether or not we have a goal or a reason.

Then there’s the troublesome fact that McCain continues to support Bush in all his efforts to restrict the freedoms that make us Americans (those same freedoms that people are fighting and dying for, I assume). And the most important of these would be the Writ of Habeas Corpus, otherwise known as, the ability for anyone who is jailed to appear before a judge and learn why. Now the Constitution says that this cornerstone of freedom may only be suspended in times of “rebellion or invasion,” but Bush just wanted to get rid of it all together. And, thanks to the Republican Congress of 2006, it’s gone. Why worry about the limits of the law when you can just change the laws? Needless to say, I’m more than a little concerned about the serious neutering of the Constitution that has taken place under Bush and that McCain promises to continue.

However, I doubt that these issues will be brought to the attention of the general public. Why would we want to talk about things like economic security and truly protecting freedom (as well as health care, education, the environment, corporate graft, political corruption, the real war on terror, social security, civil rights, I could go on and on)? Why would we want to discuss the issues when we can talk about flag lapel pins and who staffs more lobbyists? Well, probably because the media, following the lead of the Republican Party, is socially backward, morally bankrupt and politically inept. They will focus on God, guns and gays; they will focus on fear and on trivial non-issues to keep us from seeing how truly pathetic American politics has become. Unfortunately, I’m not sure enough Americans will figure it out on their own to keep McCain out of the White House. After Wednesday night’s debate, I saw how the media is going to hand the election to McCain, I just can’t figure out why. If John McCain wins, America will lose.

How to Be a Grown Up -- 101

2008-04-18T11:23:00.000-07:00

How to be a grown up 101:
Step one -- taking responsiblity.

At what age can we stop using ignorance as an excuse? Because it’s about time people begin to take responsibility for both their actions and their lack of action. Case in point: the members of the New Jersey National Guard – half of which are scheduled to deploy overseas in the next six months. This upcoming deployment, the largest in the NJ guard’s history, is scheduled to last 18-20 months.

Of the approximately 3,000 soldiers scheduled to deploy, 90 are currently enrolled in degree programs at Rutgers University in New Jersey. There will be a protest held at the Newark campus next week to voice staff and student concern that National Guard members are being uprooted in the middle of the semester. One professor voiced her concern, claiming, “Students should be finishing their accounting degrees, not deploying to Iraq”.

Did we forget that these students, by virtue of signing up for the National Guard and happily cashing their bimonthly paychecks are military members first, and students second? What did these National Guardsmen think they were getting paid for?

Look, I don’t want New Jersey’s children – or anyone’s children – to fight in Uncle Cheney’s oil war. And it goes without saying that I’m obviously in favor of continuing education. But these times aren’t about what I want, they’re about what is actually happening. Bush’s war business is booming; he needs more troops to feed his war machine.

Active duty military personnel have been shouldering the entirety of the war burden for too long. Some of our troops are approaching their fifth deployment to Iraq, and if McCain gets what he wants, we’ll be in Iraq for the next 100 years. It is not unreasonable to expect Reservists and National Guardsmen to contribute to this war effort. They’ve been receiving the paycheck for doing the job – why is it suddenly unfair to ask them to actually do it? And yes, it’s unfortunate that their education will be halted, but their education cannot continue at the expense of our active duty troops.

American apathy coupled with American ignorance is exhausting. First we didn’t know that we were signing mortgages that we couldn’t afford. Now, we didn’t realize that by taking National Guard paychecks, we’d actually be forced to serve in the armed forces. It’s about time that we take responsibility for the actions and choices that we made.

It’s time to step up and say YES – I signed that sub-prime mortgage. YES – I enlisted in the National Guard. And YES – I elected President Bush in 2004. Because knowing that we made a bad decision and admitting to that poor choice is far better than pretending that we didn’t understand the choice to begin with.

You Can't Teach An Old Dog New Tricks

2008-04-12T11:03:00.000-07:00

When we were younger, there was no such thing as “too much of a good thing.” How could we have too much candy or ice cream? But, as we grew older, we realized that even the good things in life can backfire, and that we must try to achieve balance. We balance the good with the bad and the mundane. If we don’t, we loose sight what makes the good valuable. This election has often come to the question of experience and whose has the most and/or the best. And for me, and many other voters, it’s not the size of the experience, but the quality, that counts.

John McCain is a Cold Warrior. He came of age in a militaristic time and he was a POW in a hot war of cold war principles. He was raised to believe in idea that there are only two sides to any issues; the US versus the Soviet Union, Democracy or Communism, War or peace. This is his fatal flaw. He is simply not equipped to deal with the modern world. He has not honed his skills in discerning shades of gray, and the geopolitical situation today is anything but clearly defined. He will constantly fail, as he has already begun to do, when he tries to dilute complex issues into two sides.

I overheard a political advisor on the Bill-O circus the other day (don’t think I make a habit of watching that clown show) say that all McCain has to do to make Obama look weak on Iraq is hold his “stay the course” stance. The advisor stated that when Obama tries to explain his position, he will appear to “flip flop.” I vehemently disagree with this position (but, I encourage McCain to keep it). The longer that McCain sticks to the black and white situation, the more people will realize that he’s not equipped to deal with the complex issues facing the next president. Just as Bush has gooned everything up because of his refusal to address multi-faceted situations, McCain will be a monumental failure when he continues that policy.

And for the past two days, we’ve been shown what “experience” can give us. Obama speaks the truth about people’s opinions of Washington and points out wedge issues for what they are, and then the “experienced” politicians try to jump in and tell us that we don’t feel bitter, that we’re being condescended towards. If anything, it is condescending to tell us how we feel. If their experience has taught them anything, they would be listening to us, reading our letters and realizing that we are bitter. We don’t want to hear a pretty picture of how they will make it all better. We want someone who is willing to address the issues truthfully.

Because the world is complex, we need a president who is willing to face that reality head on (hell, we need a president who’s willing to face reality head on). No more of this doctored intelligence crap or the politicizing of every issue. We need a leader who has the mental agility to absorb many points of view while keeping the best interest of America, not his checking account, in mind.

So, McCain especially, but increasingly Clinton, have failed my experience test. Too often they have shown themselves to be entrenched in the past, stuck in their old ways. And, all I can see is that their experience will not move us forward. Their experience is only good for how things used to be, not what they are or what they will be. They have not shown themselves to be open to the change we need. McCain and Clinton are the old dogs, and right now, we need some new tricks.

The Economic Crisis: A Valuable Republican Opportunity

2008-04-04T19:06:00.000-07:00

Just when you think you’ve beat the winter flu, your immune system inevitably fails and you get blindsided with that post-winter / pre-spring fever. I got sick earlier this week. Not that I went to the doctor – because I, like 15% of Americans, don’t have health insurance. Not that I could have afforded my co-pay anyways. I made an executive self-decision that my last $20 had to go into my gas tank.

And sadly, for middleclass Americans, this is what it has come to. We’re now projecting cost /benefit analysis into our daily lives. As inflation increases and economic stability decreases, we’re all feeling the pressing pinch of the dwindling dollar.

What we’re seeing now is a redistribution of economic pain as this recession plows forward. It was easy to sit perched on our ivory towers, pointing fingers down at the helpless victims of subprime mortgages. It was easy to blame the mythological behemoth financial institutions and their frivolous money mongering lending policies. Too many of us were quick with our smug smiles, shoulder shrugs and dismissals of self blame.

Unfortunately, what once was ‘it’s not MY problem’ has become ALL of our problems. As a nation, we are all destined to suffer under George Bush’s fouled oil war, the economic downfall and skyrocketing commodity prices. The economic beast pays no mind to social or economic status; he will make victims of us all.

And for those who have escaped this fiscal massacre untouched: beware. Commodities will continue to increase, making purchasing even the most basic items expensive. Increased oil prices will turn weekend road trips into expensive excursions. And interest rate cuts, instead of promoting liquidity, will create inflation. Even our savings accounts can’t catch a break.

In these troubled times, we’re forced to fall back on a life cost/benefit analysis – something many of us aren’t comfortable with applying. This means shifting focus from what we want to what we need by concentrating on the big picture and what’s ultimately important – not the trinkets and toys that we may have to give up every time the closing bell rings red. We’re now confronted with dollars and cents choices that did not exist two years ago. Some of us are going to have to sacrifice that big summer vacation this year, or those weekend road trip getaways.

McCain is missing out on a valuable opportunity. If Bush were running for reelection, he would have already taken credit for all the benefits that the recession has created. After all, Bush’s oil war has prompted a healthy return to the American core. We’ve been forced to abandon our capitalist ideals in exchange for a return to moral fortitude. Perhaps we’ve stumbled upon “American moral restoration” as the next excuse for our endeavors in Iraq – seeing how terrorism, WMD’s, and Iraqi liberation didn’t seem to work. “American moral restoration” could even justify turning a blind eye to the economic crisis. Either way, if there’s one truth we can believe, it’s that the republicans will spin whatever disaster they’ve created into something positive they can take credit for.

McCain the Next 'Honest Abe'? Highly Doubtful.

2008-04-03T10:39:00.000-07:00

John McCain claims that he is a proud to be a Republican in the tradition of “Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.” Knowing what I do about Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan, I am more than skeptical of McCain’s claim (except for the Reagan part). And, knowing what I do about McCain’s general level of knowledge (low), I am assuming that if someone were to ask him to compare himself to Lincoln and Roosevelt, he would have no clue where to start. And, just a note for his speech writers: before you write something for your candidate, make sure he can back it up when you’re not there.

Since this is kind of long, I’m going to have to do it in two parts. I’ve decided to leave Reagan out because we can all remember his policies, and Reagan was no Lincoln or Roosevelt either. I’ve highlighted some governing philosophies of Lincoln, and we’ll see if McCain is following his “tradition.”

It’s important to note that Lincoln was a Washington outsider. Lincoln spent only two years in the House of Representatives and took a ten year hiatus before he ran for President. Lincoln also had no military experience. Abraham Lincoln highlights:

In 1846, he spoke out against the Mexican-American, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory."
Lincoln did not support war for personal gain or presidential legacy. McCain has solidly supported Bush’s war and delusions of military glory.

After declaring "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just," Lincoln became a political liability and chose not to run for re-election.
Lincoln spoke out against injustice, regardless of the consequences. McCain used to speak out, but now he only says what the party tells him to say.

However, in 1854, Lincoln returned to politics in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which expressly repealed the limits on slavery's extent as determined by the Missouri Compromise.
Lincoln was involved in politics to promote justice and the ideas of the founders, not for personal gain. McCain does not support equal rights for all Americans.

Lincoln is well known for ending slavery in the United States. In 1861 – 1862, however, he made it clear that the North was fighting the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Freeing the slaves became, in late 1862, a war measure to weaken the rebellion by destroying the economic base of its leadership class.
When Lincoln had to fight a war, he had sound principles. He did not fight war based on personal feelings or philosophy. Again, McCain supports endless crusades based on the mistaken ideas of a few.

In 1863, when Lincoln saw support for his war wavering, and people were disturbed by the draft, he knew he had to make a statement to win back the people. Hence, his decision to go to Gettysburg and urge the Union to highly resolve that the dead there "shall not have died in vain" was Lincoln's way of saying that if the Copperhead peace democrats get their way, then the men who there gave the "last full measure of devotion" will have done so for no reason at all. In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln was proposing this question: what would these men who died for this cause want us to do--quit now or finish the job? How the country answered this question would determine the 1864 election.
Public support in a time of war is always hard to maintain in the face of high casualties. And, we’ve heard Bush say that the soldiers who’ve died in Iraq will not die in vain. And that giving into calls for peace would make the whole effort in vain. So what’s the difference? Well, for starters, Lincoln was fighting a war to protect the integrity of American, and it had a clear definition of success: The southern states return to the United States of America. In Bush’s war and with McCain’s support, the Global War on Terrorism has become a quagmire with no clear goals or definition of success. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so all those that have died have died in vain because Bush and McCain have chosen not to pursue the real terrorists who harmed America.

Even before the war ended, Lincoln was actively pursuing a reconstruction strategy. Determined to find a course that would reunite the nation and not alienate the South, Lincoln urged that speedy elections under generous terms be held throughout the war in areas behind Union lines. His Amnesty Proclamation of December 8, 1863, offered pardons to those who had not held a Confederate civil office, had not mistreated Union prisoners, and would sign an oath of allegiance.
Lincoln understands that a solid strategy needs to be in place if the region is going to rebuild. He did not tear down the system of government and replace it with partisans. He allowed the people to continue to govern themselves. McCain has supported the complete destruction of Iraq and the installation of Bush partisans, which has not helped the reconstruction effort.

Besides the war, Lincoln took a hands-off approach to legislation, where he allowed Congress to write the legislation and he vetoed only those bills that threatened his war powers. Thus, he signed the Homestead Act in 1862, making millions of acres of government-held land in the West available for purchase at very low cost. The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act, also signed in 1862, provided government grants for agricultural universities in each state. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States' First Transcontinental Railroad, which was completed in 1869. Other important legislation involved economic matters, including the first income tax and higher tariffs. Also included was the creation of the system of national banks by the National Banking Acts of 1863, 1864, and 1865, which allowed the creation of a strong national financial system. Congress created and Lincoln approved the Department of Agriculture in 1862, although that institution would not become a Cabinet-level department until 1889.
In his legislation, Lincoln showed that he supported a strong government. He supported the first income tax and higher tariffs. I don’t know if McCain could be more of a polar opposite on this issue. Lincoln also supported government grants for education, and large federal projects for infrastructure. McCain, like Bush, supports only private, for-profit industry. Additionally, Lincoln supported a growing federal government, but supported by the higher taxes and tariffs. This is where I believe McCain is more like Reagan; he says he supports small government, so he reduces taxes, but continues to expand the federal government without the necessary funds. Lastly, Lincoln did not meddle in legislative affairs or veto based on his personal beliefs. McCain has promised more Bush leadership: Approve only what he personally believes in, make no compromises or attempts to see an issue from the majority’s point of view. From what McCain has promised, he could not be more opposed to Lincoln’s governing style.

Lincoln largely relied on the Calvinistic "doctrine of necessity" and not organized religion to guide his beliefs. Lincoln’s religious skepticism was fueled by his exposure to the ideas of the Lockean Enlightenment and classical liberalism, especially economic liberalism. Consistent with the common practice of the Whig party, Lincoln would often use the Declaration of Independence as the philosophical and moral expression of these two philosophies.
This may be the most important point because it talks to governing and leadership style. Lately, the Republicans have come to be dominated by the Christian Fundamentalists, but this was not what the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln intended. Lincoln based his beliefs on Enlightenment-era philosophies, not religion. The Declaration of Independence was his guiding document. Lincoln believed that America’s destiny was to be shaped by the principles of its founding, not by the Bible. McCain has promised to turn this nation over to the Christian Extremists, which is not something Lincoln would ever do.

From these ideas, I can only conclude that Lincoln was a man of great principle. He believed in truth, justice, and enlightenment. When he had to fight, he did it judiciously, and based in solid principle. When he led America, he thought about what was best for the nation, not just for his supporters. Lincoln guided this nation through a time of great turmoil, and while he was not perfect, he was thoughtful. McCain promises to be none of these. McCain is a war monger who will continue the harmful, un-Constitutional policies of President Bush and the Christian extremists. If any candidate in this race is like Abraham Lincoln, it is Barack Obama, which these highlights make very clear. McCain should be ashamed for trying to degrade the memory of a good president for his own political gain!

Coming soon: Is McCain a Roosevelt “Rough Rider?”

The CIA Director Said What?

2008-03-30T22:49:00.000-07:00

We all know that this administration has an agenda. The recently released Department of Defense study not linking Iraq and 9/11 has made perfectly clear that war is the lifeblood of the current administration. War at all costs. And, while the war in Iraq is the current battle ground of this election year, I believe that we need to watch what is being said about Iran. We are being set up, and we need to confront these lies before they drag us, and the next president, into another costly war. In December 2007, a National Intelligence Estimate was release that said Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, yet we have been bombarded by administration officials who continue to say otherwise.

On "Meet The Press" this Sunday, the Director of the CIA said that he personally believed that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons. He acknowledged the NIE released in December 2007, but he immediately launched into a disqualification of the report, the intelligence, and Iran. And, Hayden isn't the first official to make these same remarks. Last week, Cheney said that Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons. Of course, he could have also said "probably not" or "we have no evidence of," but instead he continue to push his party's agenda of constant, costly war. And, just days after the NIE was released, Bush said "the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world." And who could forget Republican presidential candidate John McCain singing "Bomb Iran" during a campaign stump? I've tried, but I can't.

So, let me get this straight, even though 16 US Intelligence agencies concur that Iran is not working to produce a nuclear weapon and has not been working on acquiring a nuclear weapon for more than four years, the Bush administration continues to try and sell us another war based on false evidence? Even though the Intelligence agencies are stacked with Bush supporters, even they couldn't tell him what he so desperately wanted to hear? Even though the evidence is right in front of him, he can casually brush it aside for his "feelings"? No. I will not accept this. I will not accept more lies, and more officials who push the party line over truth. I will not accept a candidate who sings and dances to sell death and destruction. Now is the time for every American to demand that our leadership respect the truth of the world we live in: It may be dangerous, but picking fights won't make anyone safer. The officials who continue to lie to the people about Iran should be ashamed by the way they throw our credibility into the wind. I will not go to war based on their feelings, and neither should any other American.

Republicans Are the REAL Terrorists

2008-03-27T19:06:00.000-07:00

Everybody prepare to run to the hills! If Obama wins the nomination, the terrorists will certainly celebrate in the streets by slaughtering thousands!

Please, this is such a line of crap that the GOP has managed to sell. And truly, they are the ones who are terrorizing the world (feigned shock). They have engaged in an illegal war on false pretenses. They’ve caused the death of hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians, millions of refugees, and they knowingly send young Americans to die a horrific death in a foreign land. They have turned an admittedly suppressed nation into a battle ground between god knows how many players. They demand that other people conform to their idea of democracy while they desecrate the democracy of their own country. They spread lies about their opposition and attempt to stifle any free speech and debate.

The thing that makes the least sense in the whole Republican fear mongering machine is that they equate liberals to terrorists. Now, the Islamic extremists that Bush is fighting are religious CONSERVATIVES! They’re conservative! They’re religious nut-bags like Hucakbee, Buchanan, Falwell, Haggard, etc. There is no liberal Islamic terrorist wing! So, for Republicans to imply that liberalism is a threat to world peace takes a complete suspension of reality and facts. But, apparently, they’re very good at that.

The terrorists would be more apprehensive of a Democratic administration because they know that the Democrats are interested in catching the actual terrorists, like Osama bin Laden, who is still roaming free somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They know that the moderate Muslims would have a backing in the formation of a new government in Iraq. They know that they will receive welfare from Bush. That forming a new government would actually be up to them and that the US won’t back their civil war. Bush continues to egg them on by being obstinate, pugnacious, and wrong.

Now, McCain, Rove and the rest of the neo-conservatives would be right about one thing. Terrorists would celebrate the end of the fake justice of the military tribunals, Guantanamo, and the secret CIA prisons. Of course, so would most of America and the rest of the civilized world. So, between a return to justice and an end to the hostilities in Iraq, the terrorists would be back to fighting themselves instead of America.

Bush has single-handedly done more to create terrorists and breed hostilities towards Americans than any Islamic extremist could have ever hoped to do. Aside from the lies that got us into Iraq (and that’s a big aside), look at how poorly he continues to handle Afghanistan. The training ground of and host to the planners and perpetrators of 9/11 has largely been ignored. And, surprise, the Taliban are resurgent. But, for some reason, that’s NATO’s problem? I’m not following that logic. And then there’s his bellicose rhetoric on Iran. Even after the NIE determined Iran had stopped enriching uranium years ago, he and his cronies continue to push the idea that Iran is developing weapons to destroy humanity (I suppose Bush thinks that’s his domain, so he’s offended by anyone else who might want to do that). They say, “may be,” when they should really say “probably not” and “we have no evidence of.”

And now we have McCain, who used to be semi-independent. But, he continues to sell the lies that were manufactured by the neo-cons. He continues to champion Republican terrorism, and will continue to make America a target for future terrorist attacks. The best policy for America is one where we help the world, not destroy it.

It's Like Trying To Unscramble An Egg: Race, Gender and Our Election

2008-03-25T08:58:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting article about race and gender in the Washington Post yesterday. The thing that I found most interesting (almost offensive) was that idea that people have some sort of allegiance to race and or gender so that, in this election cycle black women will have to “choose” one over the other. Of course, if the election were about issues, which it should be anyways, it would be so easy to color- and/or gender-blindly choose a candidate. But, the media, always trying to sensationalize things, just can’t let this go. I really thought we could make it through this election without putting race or gender in the forefront. Boy, was I wrong! I feel like I need a vacation (the Caribbean sounds nice).

Then I realized that I’m on vacation this week, so I figured I’d just write about it. I started thinking about which identity is more deeply entrenched in our psyches. Have you every tried to buy baby clothes for someone who wants to be surprised by the gender of their child? Not easy, is it? Your choices are yellow or green or some sort of rainbow so as to remain as androgynous as possible. You can have balloons, maybe trees or things like cookies or weird non-gendered cartoon characters. So, from the time we are born we are either pink or blue, hearts and ruffles or trucks and airplanes. From the moment of our existence we are categorized into our own little niche based on gender. Boys are this and girls are that, boys do this and girls do that.

I think the issue of race is a bit more complicated, and one of the problems is that the standard in our society is still the white man (although I’m not sure why, they certainly haven’t proven their usefulness lately). Here’s what I mean, white men are still expected to do any range of jobs, nothing is surprising when it is done by a white man. However, if a minority does that same thing it’s considered shocking by some. And I don’t even mean running for president, but even things like becoming lawyers, doctors, holding political office. And they cynical tone perpetuated by white men is that somehow that person is a “token” in their world. Token candidate, token political appointee, token board member. And, in my experiences, the race issue is far more likely to fall into this category than gender.

What I see is that the gender issue is fought overtly, while race has once again slipped into the realm of taboo (or maybe it never left). Yes, the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed, while the Civil Rights Amendments of the 1960s were. Maybe that’s the difference. Maybe people assume that the race issue was already settled, but that gender has yet to be settled. I believe that women are making greater inroads while racial integration is not breaking the glass ceiling at the same pace.

As a person who falls into both the black and female category, I have to say I feel no particular “allegiance” to vote either my race or my gender. I voted for Edwards in the primary because I voted on the issues. And, I believe that the socioeconomic issues weigh far heavier on racial differences than they do on gender differences. But, I don’t think it takes a person of a particular race or gender to be able to tackle those issues. I think it takes dedication to the principles on which America was founded, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that all of mankind is created equal.

Honestly, I think all of these attempts to categorize people by things out of their control is a sign of some sort of societal weakness. Why can’t people be identified by what they choose, such as occupation, hobbies, interests or dislikes? Why are we so busy putting people into boxes and making them choose sides? Why are we still living by the white man standard? Why do I even feel that it’s necessary to write this article? Some people feel comfortable promoting the same old divisions, but it’s about the issues. We need a president who can solve America’s problems, who can address all of America, not just a niche.

Vote Of Allegiance?

BECAUSE BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO

2008-03-20T07:49:00.000-07:00

Just when I thought I had learned my lesson from all those painful failed past relationships –here I am again – depressed, despondent, and wondering, for the thousandth time, if this new failure has anything to do with me. I’m experiencing all the normal signs of a relationship on the brink of self-destruction: sleepless nights, lack of appetite, anger, frustration, longing for the past. But there’s no point in commiserating – we all know when it’s over.

The stock market and I had a good run. Years ago, in our honeymoon stage, every day was good; I felt confident and self assured, foolishly tricking myself (as I always do) into thinking that the good times would last, only to learn once again that love is blind.

My mother once told me that relationships aren’t easy. You have to work at them, she said. You need to weather through the good times and bad times. And I listened; I poured more money in; I supported defensive stocks; I diversified. Perhaps I’ve been a love-sick fool. Seven months ago when things started to get sour, I should have cut my losses and sold. But then I got nostalgic, thinking of all the good times, - the days of rallying into the green, when financials were high and commodities were low. So, being the good girlfriend that I am, I buckled down and prepared to weather the storm.

And so begins the proverbial relationship Catch-22. I’ve already committed for this long, I have to assume that things will get better, right? Please note: this break up is not my fault. I’ve always been an honest and faithful partner. I wasn’t tricked into taking out a sub-prime mortgage. I didn’t invest in collateralized debt. And I most certainly have not leveraged myself with complex insurance policies on mortgage debt. I’m just a stocks and bonds girl – I don’t even short sell.

And so subprime lending has destroyed my perfectly stable, healthy relationship. I’ve become the typical ex-girlfriend – waiting restlessly for the closing bell, basing my own mood on the dangerous and unpredictable swings of the market, and praying and pleading for things to get better. We sought help – but even the fed couldn’t offer any realistic solutions to mend our tanking relationship. President Bush offered us $600 but we can’t be bribed into fixing things.

This emotional rollercoaster needs to stop. There comes a point in a relationship where you need to finally admit that the pain is too much to bear. I have a lot to offer and I’m tired of this foul treatment. I’ve never had a zeal for foreigners, but the European Central Bank has asked me over for dinner. And I might just accept the offer.

Exporting Imperfection

2008-03-19T11:50:00.000-07:00

I’m going to start out with a few questions:
How many people here think the United States of America has a perfect government?
And, how many people here think that our government has always been perfect?
Do you agree that America has achieved separation of church and state?

My answer to all of these is unequivocally: No.

I’m not saying that America is a failed state, but it’s taken us over 200 years to get where we are. Why would we expect a country with no history of Democracy to be able to establish a constitution in a matter of years?

Neo-cons and Bush supporters always find it so convenient to gloss over the history of Democracy in the US. It helps their arguments. However, I like to start with the fact that before we had the glorious and ground breaking Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation. Oh boy, that failed miserably! So, America struck out at its first attempt at self-governance (don’t mention that to the lemmings. They don’t like to hear things that contradict what they already believe). The Constitution was definitely a hit, but it wasn’t a home run. Remember that whole part about only white, male, land owners over the age of 21 could vote? Hmmm, doesn’t sound very representative to me, but that’s just me. Not to gloss over the issues of slavery, civil rights, women’s rights, voting age, income taxes, citizenship, etc, but the 27 amendments to the Constitution prove that Democracy in America is a continually evolving process. Democracy in America will never be perfect (in part because there is a strong push by the neo-cons to keep it imperfect). And, in the past few years, we have seen legislation that actually infringes on our Constitutional rights; our rights to privacy and protection from unlawful search, our freedom from torture, our freedom of religion, are all being legislated away by a neo-conservative government with a not-so-secret agenda of consolidation of power.

Additionally, I will argue that America has never completely separated church and state. After all, we have federal holidays on Christian holy days, right? And Truman added “under God” to the pledge in 1954, right? While this is minimal, and America is a mostly Christian nation, I believe that it makes forcing another nation into separation of church and state a “do as I say, not as I do” argument. I find Sharia law difficult to stomach, but that is because I do not believe that it is an honest interpretation of Islam. Again, that’s just me. Who am I to say that no nation is allowed to use religion to shape their laws? I can’t. In different cultures, they may be comfortable with the idea of church and state as one.

So this begs the question (and I’m really directing this specifically at Iraq, but also Afghanistan and whatever countries may be next): What makes anyone believe that America has some sort of right to go around the world and establish democracies without regard for that country’s ethnic and historic background?

This is where I like to use two arguments. One, the region of Iraq is one of the oldest regions of civilization in the world. It has seen more wars, nations, and governments than any other place on earth. This is war is just one in a long history of war and conflict. I have no doubt that their culture will persist, no matter who attempts to interfere. Two, we all know about the Domino Theory that was used to justify Vietnam (as in, if one country falls to Communism, the rest will follow…just like dominos). As history has shown, this theory has not played out. Communism did not spread rampantly throughout Asia. So then why would we expect Democracy in the Middle East to be any different? Why would we expect that Democracy to spread like dominos falling when Communism didn’t?

I don’t expect any two governments in the world to be the same. I don’t believe that what works for us will work half way around the world. I expect that people will govern themselves as they see fit. I expect that people will make mistakes in the process, but come to solutions that fit their needs, not ours. I think we need to respect our differences and, instead of forcing change through imperialism, we need to guide change through diplomacy. In a country with a 5000 year history, five years is the blink of an eye. Why not have patience and encourage change over time? War has accomplished nothing, let’s give peace a chance.

Fight Fear With Logic

2008-03-16T12:50:00.000-07:00

In the words of a great Democrat “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” FDR uttered these words during his first inaugural address in 1933 while America in the midst of the Great Depression and the world was plunging into chaos and war. Imagine that! A president telling the people that our greatest threat is being too afraid to do anything. At a time when there was much to fear, we had a president telling us to face that fear and fight it back.

In my belief, a government should have the best interest of its people in mind (but, hey, that’s just me). And those interests span from health to education to, yes, security. I think that security coverts the daily and internal threats, but sometimes, security includes protecting the people from external threats; the key word being sometimes. Yet, external threats are all this administration can talk about. They would have us believe that there is nothing else to focus on except one threat, and that none of the domestic issues that we actually care about are tied to the external threat.

Unfortunately for us all, the current administration lacks the courage to lead the people. Instead they rely on the politics of fear and keeping the people afraid. For example, the “terror threat rainbow” (I have no idea what it’s really called, so that’s what I call it) is one tool that Bush and Co use to keep the people afraid. If the government were honest with us, it would be blue because, let’s face it, it’s way more dangerous to drive a car, eat a cheeseburger, use a hairdryer, etc. However, as we’ve come to expect, this administration is always less than honest and they’ll do whatever possible to retain their power over the people.

Cheney did it in 2006 and now McCain is doing it. What is it? Telling the people that he “believes” that the terrorists are watching our election cycle and will try sway the results through attacks. On the face, this seems like the Republicans (already) making excuses for losing the election. But, more importantly, it is the use of fear to manipulate the people. The Republicans continue to ignore the bests interests of the people, focus on wedge issues, and try to tell us that everything is going to be ok…as long as we vote for them. Their entire platform revolves around keeping the people scared.

We are at a point now where we need to face this fear mongering head on. This is what we need to say to the cowards who try to keep us afraid:

"We weren't afraid when we voted for you the first time. A few years later, you told us that we were almost done being afraid, and now your successor wants us to be afraid for the next 100 years. Well, we're sick of being afraid, so we're going to vote for the person who tells us the truth: Life is dangerous, but your chances of getting killed by a terrorist are smaller than your chances of winning the lottery; that, in order to have a friend, you need to be a friend. And that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. We're moving on. And, oh by the way, we’re also not voting for you because your party is run by hypocrites and perverts, and has managed to flush the economy, world opinion, our health care system, education and the environment down the toilet. But, we’re not afraid any more either."

COWBOYS ONLY: FALLON FALLS OFF BUSH’S WAR HORSE

2008-03-14T06:32:00.000-07:00

On March 11, 2008, Esquire Magazine published an article entitled, “The Man between War and Peace” in which Admiral Fallon, then CENTCOM Cdr, was referred to as the one man standing between the Bush Administration and war with Iran. Thomas Barnett’s article profiles Fallon as the single force preventing Cheney-Bush from riding into Iran, donning their cowboy ensembles and shooting off their pistols. Barnett says, “And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he's doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He's standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war.”

As a veteran service member, I was shocked when Fallon was appointed to position of CENTCOM. First, he’s in the Navy – what do Navy guys know about ground fighting? He’s a Villanova graduate and a NFO – unusual credentials in comparison to the service academy marine/army Generals that generally fit the position profile.

Realistically Fallon was perfect for the job. His level headedness and reasonable outlook seemed refreshing in comparison to Cheney-Bush’s war mongering hot-headedness. At least he served as a buffer between Bush and his go-to-it guy, Petraeus who is too keenly inline with Bush’s agenda.

This morning I sent out an email entitled, “Cowboys Only: Fallon Falls off Bush’s War Horse”. To issue a disclaimer: I’m usually not one to push my personal political agenda on my friends and loved ones. But this issue seemed too important to let slip by unnoticed. My greatest concern is that in the aftermath of the Geraldine Ferraro and Eliot Spitzer debacles, Fallon’s very important move would become second page news. If the media would stop for an instant and adjust their focus, they might realize what a significant and controversial stance Fallon took in both his Esquire interview and later in his step down from CENTCOM Cdr.

How do we stop Bush’s agenda? Congress has tried; political activists have tried. Now, America’s senior military officials are relinquishing positions, throwing their hands up in the air, refusing to play pawn for Cheney’s oil. But does anyone seem to care? Spitzer’s escort’s brother got more press yesterday than Fallon. So we’ll continue sending our children overseas to a useless war, to return with PTSD and lifelong disillusionment, to sit rotting in rundown infested military hospitals. Bush will dig a little harder for a yes-man general, which shouldn’t be a challenging task. And the war will press on. And on.

http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon

WTF, Hillary?

2008-03-10T20:55:00.000-07:00

Ok Hillary, we all know you want to be president. You want to be president really, really bad. But, don’t you think it’s gone just a little too far? I do. But, I just want to let you know, before I get started on this, that if you win the nomination, I’ll still vote for you. It will be like this post never happened.

In the beginning, you were doing so well. Personable, composed, nice. Ok, well maybe nice isn’t the word I’m looking for. Maybe mature or reasonable is more like it. Anyways, the point is, you seemed like a good candidate, like someone who was really about change and a turning over a new leaf. I even wrote an entry for you about why it would be good for America if you were president. I mean, even though I was an Edwards supporter, I was urging people in your direction, AND I always made a point to call you Clinton (calling women by their first names and men by their last is a common occurrence that I believes makes people take women less seriously).

Lately, though, I’m less than thrilled. What’s going on? People are calling you a “monster.” That’s pretty serious. Bush might be a monster; Cheney and Rove definitely are definitely monsters. But, you? This isn’t what we need. Remember the whole “change” and “healing” and “uniting” thing that we had going on? Thought so…

I can imagine that it would be hard to watch this dream slip away. Actually, no I can’t. This is really big! And, you have great policies. Ok, your policies are, for the most part, more progressive than your opponents. So, great might have been strong, good is sufficient. Definitely better than what we’ve got now.

Then things started to turn, I’d say around South Carolina. That’s when the “surrogates” started to come out. First it was Bill (“the first African American president”). I’ll be honest, the name-calling drew some criticism. And, it turned some people off. But it didn’t stop. And, I think we’ve gotten to a fever pitch here with the negative ads and negative speeches. Ok, you aren’t the only one doing it, but I think you started it. So, it’s time for you to end it. The whole “milking the cow” thing was way too much (and you know it. What did that even mean?).

The best thing about this primary was the fact that we had narrowed the field to two great candidates who could possibly work together in the future? Just so you know, you’ve totally ruined that. People are very drawn to a message of hope, change and doing things differently. You’ve been showing that you’re not so serious about this. I know, you’ve got experience, which I still haven’t figured out exactly how to measure. I’m not so convinced that your experience, is all that we need. We need the people to be mobilized, to care, to want to participate in politics. Obama is getting this done. He’s drawn new people and independents to the party (Bush and company have done a great job pushing people away, stepping on their heads, stabbing them in the back, etc.).

So, this will be my message to you. I’m sure you’re familiar with the saying “fail boldly.” Well, mine is a little different: Fail gracefully. If it does come to that, in April, June or August, please, put the good of the nation over your own desires. Remember that no good will can come of this. All these things that have been said cannot be stricken from the record. They are fair game in the general election. So, think carefully before that next negative statement comes out. If you want to be the leader, start right now. Get back to your original message; give us that dignity that we crave. That’s where you came from, and it was working, so get back to what works. Please.

Why NOT McCain?

2008-03-03T18:17:00.000-08:00

From McCain's website:

John McCain is an experienced conservative leader in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. He is a common sense conservative who believes in a strong national defense, a smaller, more accountable government, economic growth and opportunity, the dignity of life and traditional values.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Undecided/whymccain.htm

We need to get out there and debunk all of his myths. McCain is no Lincoln or Roosevelt (and being Reagan doesn't have positive implications, in my opinion). McCain will try to distance himself from Bush, while at the same time promoting the failed policies of the past eight years. We must head him off at every opportunity!

Why Not McCain? Let's hit some of his talking points:

America faces a dangerous, relentless enemy in the War against Islamic Extremists. Yes, there are Islamic extremists, but there are also Christian extremists who have very similar policies and you do not denounce them. The truth is, Bush's war on Terror has done more to fuel hatred against America and has only served to breed terrorism. This GWOT will never be solved through fighting, it will only be solved through diplomacy. If the US wants to be a leader, we need someone who is willing to take the time to get to the root of the problem, not someone who will go straight for war.

A Democrat elected President will join hands with a tax-and-spend Democratic Congress and subject Americans to enormous tax increases. Bush said in the SOTU that if his tax cuts are allowed to expire, the average American will see a tax increase of $1,087. Well, Bill Gates and a homeless person have an average net worth of $20 billion. True, but is it an accurate statement? Not at all. If a Democrat were elected, the wealthy would likely lose many of their tax breaks, that have already cost this nation $1.3 trillion. Additionally, corporations would see their useless tax breaks eliminated. But, putting the money back into the hands of the people WILL stimulate the economy. Every dollar spent returns to the economy five-fold. And, honestly, this is two strikes for trickle-down economics. It has yet to work. Democrats will balance the budget by eliminating wasteful Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and greedy. Democrats will spend the money they have available. Remember the surplus of the Clinton years? Well, it will be harder to get back to because of failed Republican economic policies, but it can be done.

Americans have lost faith and trust in their government. Special interests have too much influence in Washington. So, what were all the favors for Vikki Iseman's clients about? Oh yea, campaign donations. And all those lobbyists you have running your campaign? Face it John, you aren't the man to restore faith and trust. You are just another Republican, willing to do whatever you can to get more votes. This one is a total lie and we all know it.

Americans want judges who will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. Actually, we want judges who will uphold the Constitution and not allow Republicans to modify and ignore the basic principles of America. We don't want warrantless wiretaps, torture, or a government that combines church and state. Let us pursue life, liberty and happiness. As long as we don't bother you, what is your problem? Oh, and also we want judges who don't get DUIs while in drag (a la Robert Somma). Talk about hypocrites...

John McCain offers nothing but more policies that favor the wealthy and businesses. He has no desire to reform the government that is working so well for him. So, go ahead and vote for McCain if you want your grandchildren to die fighting in the perpetual war on terror, if you want to pay into Social Security and never be able to take out, if you want to see the American education system demolished and the economy handed over to the wealthy.

But, if you want to see America restored as a world leader in democracy and prosperity, vote Democratic in 2008!

Jesus Was A Democrat

2008-03-02T17:14:00.000-08:00

Jesus was a Democrat. That’s the secret that the Religious Right doesn’t want you to know. Jesus preached fairness, tolerance, peace and responsibility, all of which are Democratic principles. Republicans have continuously acted in the name of war, greed, fear and hatred, none of which are supported by the teachings of Jesus.

Here are some of the tenants of the Democratic Party: An honest, open and accountable government, fair trade and corporate responsibility, government responsibility to all its citizens, separation of church and state, and equal opportunity and equal justice for all. Democrats believe that the government exists for the benefit of all and that the government should adopt policies that enable all people to succeed. Democrats also believe that war should be used as a last resort, and only to protect America.

So what does the Bible teach us about these principles?

Honest, open and accountable government: Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. (Luke 12:2-3)

Fair trade and corporate responsibility: Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. ... For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matt. 6: 19, 21)  
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matt. 6:24)   
Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. (Luke 12:15).

Government aid to all: I was hungred and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.... Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:35-40)
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Matt. 19:21).

Separation of church and state: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matt. 22-21).

Equal opportunity and justice: Ye have heard that it hath it said, thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. (Matt. 5: 43-44);
Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. (Matt. 5:7).

War: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matt. 5:9).

So, how can the right be religious? One idea is that the leaders of the right focus on personal behavior instead of social behaviors, sin versus injustice. Of course, when you look at the personal behavior of Republicans, sins abound. Extortion, money laundering, drugs and sex are all scandals that have tainted Republican leaders (check out Republican Sex Offenders for continuously updated examples). A better argument is that the conservative leaders know that they can mobilize the “single issue” voters. The GOP rails against progressive positions on gay rights, gun rights, and abortion in order to attract Christian fundamentalists. They manipulate the teachings of Jesus for the sole purpose gaining votes.

What I don’t understand is how people could be so willing to ignore the book that they live by. I don’t see how people can cast aside the very phrases that they use to shape their existence. And I certainly can’t excuse the fact that they are willing to forgive those leaders who claim to live by the Bible but are then caught doing just the opposite.

Maybe we should challenge the leaders of the religious right to live by the teachings of Jesus. We should challenge them to tolerate, help and pay their taxes. I’ll tell you one thing, if this country were run by the teachings of Jesus, it would be a very liberal nation.

So, I’ll leave you with one last teaching, and maybe it is the one that the religious right should be most concerned about:

Hypocrisy: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.   Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess....   Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ... ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23: 23-28).

Vote Republican If You Hate America

2008-02-24T13:53:00.000-08:00

Voting Republican is not patriotic. Unless, of course, you believe that being a patriot means selling out your fellow countrymen to make more money. And, if we go by the 2004 election results, more than half of the people who voted feel this way. The question is, how were the Republicans able to hijack the idea of patriotism, convolute it’s meaning and convince people to vote against their own best interests?

Republicans stand for everything that is wrong with our government and our country. I’m not even going to go near George W. Bush because, as far as I can tell, he’s a complete psychopath (and I’m going to use him as a textbook example as to why people shouldn’t use drugs). Read this if you don't believe me. So, I’ll use john McCain and his “lobbyist problem” as my example. I could care less if they ever held hands, canoodled or whatever, that’s not the issue (but the Republicans would like you to focus on that because it’s easier to defend). No, the real issue is McCain’s sense of integrity and judgment. Why would someone who is so outspoken against lobbyists in the legislative process turn around and accept favors from and do favors for a lobbyist? McCain garnered huge campaign donations from this lobbyist’s clients, which leads one to believe that he was doing something for these people (and he was). McCain put his own self-interests above the needs of the American people and then expected people not to notice or care.

Yet somehow Republicans have managed to trick the general population into believing that they stand for “small government, low taxes,” and have labeled the Democrats as “tax and spend.” However, this is completely incorrect and not based in reality. For an example of how Republicans actually govern we’ll use Ronald Reagan (everything about his presidency). George W. bush says that if his tax cuts are not made permanent “the average American will see a tax increase of $1,087,” which is true, but not accurate. Bush is averaging the tax increase that millionaires will see and the decrease that the lower and middle class will see and it still comes out to an increase. Here, I can play that same game: Bill Gates and a homeless man have an average of $20 billion between them. That’s true, but it’s not accurate.

The hypocrisy is maddening. If being patriotic meant blindly accepting whatever the government says and does, there wouldn’t be an America for us to be patriotic about. If the founding fathers had not stood up to the injustices of the King, we would not be Americans. So, obviously, in America being patriotic means speaking out against a government that is unjust and asserting our right to personal freedom. However, Republicans would have you believe that being patriotic means believing whatever they say and accepting their corrupt ways as “best for America.”

Look at the titles of their legislation: The USA PATRIOT Act (clever acronym: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) which actually weakens civil liberty protection; the Protect America Act which allows the government to invade your privacy; the No Child Left Behind Act which, aside from being completely ineffective and weakening our public school system, actually requires all schools to distribute the name and home phone number of all enrolled students to military recruiters. These examples of legislation don’t even scratch the surface, but they illustrate the fact that Republicans have established a system in which voting against their fascist ideas makes it easy for them to point to someone and say “That person isn’t a patriot because they voted against the USA PATRIOT act,” or whatever legislation they are pushing. (On a side note, where can I get a job making up acronyms?)

And, I’m still not sure how Republicans can claim to be the party of morality and righteousness. Literally every day another Republican is indicted, outed or arrested (or some combination thereof). Just this week we’ve had McCain and his lobbyist issues, his campaign co-chair Rick Renzi indicted on 35 counts of fraud, extortion and money laundering, and Bush-appointed federal judge Robert Somma arrested for DUI while wearing drag. I mean, C’MON! Where do they find these people?! Their moral compasses a beyond broken, and yet Republicans continue to claim that they (as in all of them) are of sound morals and judgment. Nope. I’m not buying that at all.

I could go on forever. The corruption is deep and widespread. Republicans have hijacked America and turned it into their own little perverted playground. It’s time for us to take it back. Every time a Republican does something and then tries to sweep it under the rug, we’ll be there to keep it plain sight. Since the media is not going to help, we’re going to have to be the vigilant, patriotic citizens our founding fathers envisioned. Don’t let people hold our leaders to the low standard Bush has set. Expect more from our government. Vote Democratic in 2008!

What We're Fighting For

2008-02-18T18:19:00.000-08:00

I know that the debate of Clinton or Obama is occupying people's minds, but I thought we could use a reminder of what we're fighting for. Set to the song Fighter by Christina Aguilera, a brief summary of the past seven years. Enjoy!

Jesus Take The Wheel? Not On This Crazy Train...

2008-02-15T18:46:00.000-08:00

Now, don't get me wrong. I am supportive of religions and of people practicing their religion of choice. But, to me, religion is personal and should remain so. I fully believe in separation of Church and State, and I am more than put off when people suggest it should be otherwise.

The other day, I happened to drive by this "mobile billboard," so I stopped to take some pictures.

What do you think? Is this going too far?

So, is this supposed to mean that marriage is more important than the 10 Commandments or was the guy just too lazy to take down one sign before putting up the other? I guess I could call the number on the back of the truck to find out.

"Truth not tolerance." Catchy, but I don't that that was Jesus' message. This is a very disturbing set of ideas, and the more I look at this, the more sickened I become.

For someone who is supposedly against same sex partnerships, that's an awful big picture of two men kissing. Do you suppose he took that picture himself or just surfed the internet until he found a suitable image?

Good quote. I guess he hasn't heard this one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." First Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America.

Wait, what is that on the windshield?

Oh, it's a parking ticket! Hahaha, guess you can't park that "trailer of trash" on a bridge overlooking the freeway. Hold on. Is that a video camera? Am I being recorded as I laugh and take pictures? I must be! And that man cowering in the back seat must be the owner of this monstrosity. And he's too spineless to come out and take ownership of his offensive ideas. Sickening.

In case you were ever wondering why people think the Religious Right is crazy, this is a prime example.

Oh, I Bet That Tastes Terrible!!

2008-02-11T21:16:00.000-08:00

Have you noticed how many Republicans are now endorsing John McCain as a "true conservative"? Yes, I have too. And it made me wonder: What the F*** are they drinking?? Well folks, I've figured it out. Republicans across the country have been chugging this delightful new cocktail. But, you'd better hurry, this one will only be around until November 4, 2008!

McCain Kool-Aid Cocktail

aka: The REAL Jungle Juice

Ingredients
1 common language (usually English, Spanish when necessary)
1 “good” pinch of select “herbs” (can substitute cocaine, if desired)
2 prescription painkillers (Oxycontin preferred)
1 ½ oz Southern Comfort
Fear
Hatred
Xenophobia
Aggression
Grape Kool-Aid Powder
Ice

1) In a large Hurricane glass, muddle the common language, herbs and pain medications until sufficiently jumbled.
2) Stir in Southern Comfort (and then a little extra for good measure).
3) Add Grape Kool-Aid powder (enough so that your friends and donors won’t be able to tell you “fell off the wagon” at close range).
4) Toss in a few ice cubes.
5) Layer fear, hatred, xenophobia, and aggression (or any combination thereof).
6) Garnish with $100 bill or newest insider-trading stock tip.

Drink quickly (and discreetly) and order another!

*Best when served by Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly.

Variation 1:
Take two Oxycontin. Chug bottle of Southern Comfort. Make derogatory comment about passing minority. Watch Fox News until you pass out. Enjoy!

Money, It's A Hit: How Cash Perpetuates American Ignorance

2008-02-06T20:46:00.001-08:00

I know that today is the day after Super Tuesday, but I don’t really have anything to say about the contest that hasn’t already been said. I was happy to see such a good showing for Edwards, even though he has left the race. I think that goes to show that people are very connected to his positions on the issues, many that aren’t addressed as forcefully by the remaining candidates.

Moving on, I was talking with friends last night and we were talking about how poorly Americans handle foreign affairs (and domestic, too, but that’s another story). What is it about our society that let’s people feel that it’s okay to ignore and be ignorant about the rest of the world. I have been thinking about this and I came up with my answer: Money. In our capitalist society, money is the driving factor. But, it’s gone beyond influencing careers and motivating 80-hour weeks. The desire (need) for money is showing itself in every facet of our society. People are lining up to take lie-detector tests in front of the whole country, for the chance to win money! It’s an embarrassment. And our weakness is in the fact that society devours the spectacle.

I’m sure you’re familiar with the show ‘Are you smarter than a fifth grader’ (and if you’re not, don’t feel bad…you’re not missing anything). But, I caught a clip that literally made me cringe. Kelly Pickler of American Idol fame was the celebrity contestant. Her question was, “Budapest is the capitol of what European country?” And do you know what her response was? “I don’t want to sound stupid, but I thought Europe was a country.” Yes. That is true. And the sad thing is that she isn’t unique. International ignorance is the norm, not the exception.

The flip side to this story has to do with another celebrity. Montel Williams, retired Naval Officer and talk show host, was on a Fox News program to discuss the death of Heath Ledger. Instead of focusing on the one celebrity who died, Montel challenged the anchors to talk about the war in Iraq and the soldiers who die in harms way. They couldn’t do it. They didn’t know. And they kept trying to bring him back to Ledger, but Montel held his ground. Well, they couldn’t let the embarrassment continue so they went to commercial and Montel never came back. A few days later, his show was cancelled after numerous Fox affiliates refused to renew his 2008-09 season. Unbelievable! A television personality who tries to bring the attention to international affairs LOST HIS JOB. This is not acceptable.

You’re probably wondering how this goes back to money and why it keeps Americans from being valuable international citizens. Well, TV is driven by money, money comes with ratings and “boring” world events don’t draw ratings. But, people making fools of themselves for money? Instant ratings! And why? Because Americans are focused on money. We need money to live, to meet our basic needs. And many Americans’ aren’t able to meet their needs in their current situation.

People in the most dire situations worry about having enough to eat, a safe place to lay their head at night, having clothing that is sufficient. So of course, they must focus their energy on earning enough to meet their basic needs. But, many people are not at the basic level. They worry about having enough money to cover medical costs, about whether their child is getting a decent education at the local public school, and about whether all that money they pay to Social Security will be there for them in the future. So again, the focus shifts to money.

But, imagine what it would be like if people could take some of these issues off their minds; if they knew that they were medically secure, if they knew that their children were getting the best education, if they knew that their money was going to be there for them in the future. Imagine how people would respond if they knew their taxes were being used in ways that are tangible to them. I argue that people would be better citizens if their needs were being met.

And it doesn’t take a miracle. It takes a responsible government, a government who gives back to the people in order to strengthen the country. The way I see it, the government is the greatest benefactor of satisfied, well-cared for citizens. A government can only take from its citizens for so long before unrest sets in (see the Declaration of Independence if you have any questions about that). We are at another fork in the road. Do we take the path on the right that promises greed and government waste, or do we take the path on the left that promises a government that is will to take responsibility for its citizens?

We must choose the path of responsibility. We must free our people from the burdens that the government has piled on them. When we have citizens that have met their basic needs, they will be able to focus their energy outward. They will be better neighbors, at home and abroad. America will be able to return to a position of leadership and respect when our citizens are freed from the cycle of greed that has been forced upon us by an irresponsible government.

Fare Thee Well, John Edwards. You Are Already Missed.

2008-01-30T18:20:00.000-08:00

Today is a sad day in American politics. The most progressive, and arguably the strongest, candidate has left the race. The mainstream media has achieved its goal of a two-candidate race on the left (and are one step closer to getting their way on the right). Yet again, the American people are denied the true opportunity to choose their leader in a fair election. I have always been interested in politics, but John Edwards is the first candidate who moved me to act. He made me want to get up and spread his message to everyone I saw. I am deeply saddened today because the flame in this election has gone out.

John Edwards is the candidate of the people, but he is also the candidate of principle. His mission is to put the government back into the hands and service of the people. He is dedicated to lift up the people who need it most and bring conscience back into government. He truly believes in strengthening the middle class by strengthening our government. He has the bold initiatives and progressive ideas for health care, education, and corporate reform. He is not afraid to act for what is right and to live his life as an example of the American dream.

He is also highly principled, and unfortunately, that may have ultimately led to his exit. John Edwards does not accept money from lobbyists or special interests. He believes in the grassroots nature of American politics. The only people he indebted himself to are the American people. However, without the special interest money and backing, he couldn’t run the $100 million campaign that is required these days.

And then there is the problem of the media and corporations. They all knew that John Edwards would hold them responsible for their actions. They knew that Edwards would work to break up the monopolies that are breaking the American people. He scared them, so they actively worked against him. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but the blatant disregard for the campaign of John Edwards was astonishing. The mainstream media refused to cover him, refused to put his message and candidacy out to the people. The American people were kept from knowing their biggest advocate.

Earlier in this race I thought that Edwards didn’t need the media to win. I believed so strongly in his message that I thought others would catch on and throw their support to him. I believed that the people would recognize the importance of this election and of choosing the strongest candidate. For seven years we have been suffering the backlash of the “corporate candidate” and of the “media favorite.” We have seen the detrimental results of ambivalence. I was dad wrong. I completely underestimated the determination of the mainstream media to willfully direct the course of this election.

In the back of my mind, I know that there is something greater at work (maybe this is denial, maybe it is hope). I have to believe that Edwards would not pull out so close to Super Tuesday without knowing that something greater is in the works. I am grateful that he has not sold out his supporters for a gamble with another candidate. That may be politics, but it is not John Edwards. Besides, there is no guarantee that any of us will support any of the other candidates in the primary. I have already cast my absentee ballot, and John will be receiving my vote. I do believe that we will see more of John Edwards in the next Democratic administration.

But now we turn our attention to John Edwards’ final task: “One America, one America that works for everybody.” I will fully support the Democratic nominee because I believe that this election is still about ideas. It is still about making America a better place. We have strong Democratic candidates who are dedicated to reversing the Republican downfall that has stricken this country. Now, no one is perfect, so we will have to compromise. But, that is what “One America” is all about. We must out our differences aside and come together for a greater purpose. And we must not let the mainstream media steamroll us any longer. We are smarter and we are stronger, but we can only win if we unite.

How The Mighty Are Falling

2008-01-24T20:02:00.000-08:00

Has it really come to this? Is the Democratic Party, aided by the mainstream media, going to implode before the general election? Why have we let ourselves get caught up this media frenzy? Honestly, I have mostly ignored the Clinton/Obama fray. In part, it has to do with the fact that I am an Edwards supporter. I don’t make a point of reading anything that these candidates do or say that is outside of the scope of the issues. But, more importantly, I believe that people should not let themselves get drawn down into this media frenzy. It is petty and it does not add to the election process. It actually detracts from the professionalism and electability of the Democratic Party in the general election and it needs to stop. In today’s polls, McCain is leading Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. This is not where we need to be, and it’s all of our faults.

Why are people so unwilling to compromise? Specifically, Obama supporters. It has been shown that likely Hillary Clinton voters would vote for Obama, but the reverse is not true. Why? This idea is absurd and irritating, and it has a hint of reverse racism to it. Many of the Clinton detractors use extremely offensive and racist language when describing her. Where were these protests when she was First Lady and Bill was President? When you look at the three remaining Democratic candidates, you will see that not much separates their positions. When you look at the way our government is supposed to work, you will see that a President cannot single handedly run this country (note that I said “supposed to”). So then, what we need is a candidate who will direct Congress, lead the country, and act diplomatically abroad. All of the Democratic candidates are capable of fulfilling this role. The personal preference is in the details, and as we all know, details are subject to change.

Why are African Americans so firm in the idea of “Obama or bust”? There seems to be some sort of idea that Obama is entitled to the nomination because he is black, or at least this is how I interpret their comments. I have a hard time believing that people who are so mobilized to vote in the primary would just abandon the general election. I have a hard time believing that people would be so selfish in such an important election. Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t the Republicans done more that enough damage in the past seven years? How could a supporter of Obama believe that a vote for a Republican, or no vote at all, would be better for America?

Will John Edwards be the beneficiary of this bickering? It’s interesting that for the first time, a white male is at a disadvantage in an election. The media frenzy surrounds the successful minority candidates, but it also drags them down. As Clinton and Obama continue to bicker, Edwards is gaining independent and crossover support, simply because he looks increasingly like the only adult in the room. And it has nothing to do with looks. It has everything to do with attitude. Of course, having the strong message doesn’t hurt. We need a president with attitude to stand up to special interests and those that have systematically driven this country further right.

So here’s my bottom line: This race is about restoring America. It is about Iraq, the economy, education, protecting the Constitution and our personal rights. It is not about race or gender. Unfortunately, some people just can’t let that go. They continue to bring up these issues and perpetuate racism and sexism. To me, the white male candidate is the best not just because he has the best ideas, but because he has risen above the despicable bickering. And to all those that continue to sling mud in the form of racism and sexism: “Stop. It makes you look bad.”

The Color of Hope

2008-01-17T21:56:00.000-08:00

What is the one thing every American child grows up learning? Any one can grow up to be President. Over time, though, we learn that’s not exactly true. "Anyone" technically means American-born citizens (sorry, Arnold). And, up to this point, every president has been a privileged, white male.

What do minorities grow up believing they actually can be? Most don’t have visions of investment bankers or doctors dancing through their heads. Instead, they have images of diamonds and dollars. They want to be Rappers or Running Backs. Those are the options for many minorities. And this is constantly reinforced through a mix of popular culture and reality. But, with the grim statistics of the business world, who wouldn’t want to be famous?

According to 2002 census figures, black men still earn roughly 25 percent less than their white counterparts who have the same level of education. Specifically, the median income for a black man with a high school diploma was $27,224 in 2002, compared to $35,738 for whites. For those with higher educations, the discrepancy is even wider. The median income for a black man with a master's degree was 27 percent less than his white counterpart: $50,763 for blacks versus $69,655 for whites.

And, discrimination doesn’t stop at the paycheck. Many people discriminate without even realizing they’re doing it. Here’s one example (and I’m not making this up): Six weeks into my freshman year at the US Naval Academy, midterm grades came out. Each student has to meet with their superior officer to discuss their grades. Being the outstanding student that I am, I had earned 3.5 and was quite proud of it. So, I sit down with the superior officer, he pulls my grades up on the computer, and says “Wow! You’re actually really smart!” I was shocked. Was this man mentally ill? This is the Naval Academy, not a shopping mall. I had applied, along with everyone else, and was accepted. But, because of my minority status, some people automatically assumed that I was not as capable as my white male counterparts.

And now we come to this historic time. Barak Obama is really a black man. He is very capable and he is running for President of the United States. Every black and brown person should run out and vote for him because he represents the culmination of the Civil Rights movement, right?

In my opinion, this is the wrong attitude. Simply because someone is of a certain race does not mean that they bring any more hope or change than any other candidate. Barak Obama is a great and ambitious man. He is also a privileged man. He graduated from Columbia and Harvard. These are great accomplishments and should be regarded as such. But, has he overcome the struggle that is rampant among so many minority communities? Absolutely not.

If people actually look past the surface of the candidates, they will see that John Edwards is the candidate that has the humble roots. I’m sure you’ve heard it many times, but it’s true; John Edwards is the son of a mill worker. He worked his way through state schools in pursuit of his law degree. John Edwards is a self-made man. He is a prime example of hope and the American dream. Hope does not have a color. Hope is not about race. Hope is a feeling. One can only bring hope if they have the personal experience. John Edwards is that candidate.

Ronald Reagan Caused 9/11

2008-01-14T17:47:00.000-08:00

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say something controversial. Ronald Reagan caused 9/11. Not single-handedly of course (that would give him too much credit). But, his actions led directly to 9/11. And to this day, his followers are not equipped to handle the post-Soviet Union world.

If you listen to most Republicans, Reagan was solely responsible for “winning” the Cold War. Their fantasy is that Regan’s strength and power lead the Soviets to only one conclusion: Their time was through, so they should throw in the towel. This scenario is highly doubtful. Reagan was responsible for the largest peacetime military build-up in US history. He presided over the greatest budget deficits in US history. The National Defense Budget reached a high in 1985. Reagan's buildup, in today's dollars, peaked at $494 billion that year. Think about it: Reagan was spending more on the defense budget during peacetime than any other president since WWII, including the time during the Korea and Vietnam conflicts. Ronald Reagan out-spent the Soviet Union. In their efforts to keep pace with America, their economy crumbled. There was no historic “clash of the Titans” in which Reagan prevailed. He may have told Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” but his most direct contribution to the end of the Cold War was outrageous defense spending.

The Soviet Union spent an ever-increasing percentage of their budget on defense in order to keep up with Reagan. This directly led to economic downturn and the decline of the USSR. The Soviet Union fell apart. And with that, the fate of thousands of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons fell into the unknown. As Russia struggled to guard and maintain its arsenal, desperate scientists and soldiers were selling their wares to the highest bidder. When a wealthy individual could possess the same capabilities as a nation, that person could make their message heard around the world.

The fall of the USSR ushered in the modern terrorist era. Whereas before we were pitched against a nation, we were now defending ourselves against an enemy without borders who did not operate in accordance with international law. We were now the lone “superpower”; a giant in the world, but unable to look down and see the threats developing all around us.

The World Trade center bombings in 1993 should have been the wake-up call. America was the target, but we weren't being targeted in traditional ways. The new enemy did not follow the same rules. The new enemy did not practice diplomacy nor was he confined to borders. Terrorists moved underneath the radar, praying on the poor governments.

Clinton was trying to move the military in the right direction. A faster, lighter force that could defeat guerilla enemies would need to replace the hulking might that was needed to counter the USSR. He was also working the diplomatic side of the issue. If we could aid the nations where terrorists sought refuge, we could flush them out. If we could entice democracy, the terrorists would lose their footholds.

However, the Reagan faithful saw things differently. When they saw Clinton cut the Pentagon budget, they saw liberal destruction of the Regan strength. No one bothered to address the fact that Reagan built the military up to unsustainable and impractical peacetime levels. Additionally, the success of high-tech munitions in the first Gulf War should have proven the need for “quality” over “quantity”.

They failed to take stock of the new world order and adjust their thinking to match reality. Instead, the Reagan conservatives try to mold the new world order into the old good-vs-evil thinking.

So there we were, trapped in the past to Ronald Reagan’s legacy. Our government officials were too comfortable with how things used to be to realize what they really were. On the eve of those attacks, George W. Bush was elected. He surrounded himself with advisors from his father’s presidency, or even earlier. Men who also thought in the past, who couldn’t see something like this coming. And then it came.

Now here we are, almost seven years later, on the eve of another historic election. The past seven years can be summed up in one word: disaster. The economy is a disaster, the Global War on Terrorism is a disaster, America’s social progress has come to a standstill. What can we do now? Do we elect a leader who has promised us more of the same? Do we elect a leader who will surround himself with advisors from the past?

No. That is not the answer. Bush has proven that we cannot look to the past in order to solve the problems of the future. We must elect a candidate who will have a fresh view. We must elect someone who will move America forward, not backwards. We must move on!

Education 2.0

2008-01-10T12:07:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking a lot about the American public education system. I am a huge proponent of the public school system. I went to public schools, and I believe that access to quality public education has to be one of the foundations of American society. I would say that I did pretty well by it, but an increasing number of students are not faring so well. These charter schools and vouchers just take money away from the public schools that need it most. The obvious, embarrassing fact is that American public schools are in dire need of an overhaul. The curriculum needs updating, the classrooms are too crowded and students aren’t getting the quality education that they need. What used to be a world-class education system is now falling further behind. In 2007, UNICEF ranked US schools 14 of 24 in industrialized nations.

There are two types of people that get attention in the modern public school system: the smart kids and the troublemakers. Anyone else just gets by. And far too many people fall through the cracks. We need to shift the focus. Tests don’t measure education. Skills and knowledge make up an education. So, here is my plan for revamping the education system in America (I’m not going to say anything about NCLB except this: It’s Terrible. Get rid of it).

Instead of going to elementary, middle and high school, the system would be broken up into 3 five-year blocks. It would retain its similarity to the current system, but preschool would be the beginning of the public school education. This way, we can ensure that all students have access to the earliest building blocks necessary to have a strong educational foundation. Also, secondary language training would begin in this phase. The world is a multilingual place and Americans need to be able to operate in many languages. Also, experts agree that the “language learning window” is closed or closing at age 12, the age at which most Americans begin their foreign language training. It has also been shown that learning a foreign language along with a native language helps strengthen the understanding of the native language. So, if students learn a second language, they will be better English speakers.

The second block would be where the bulk of the learning takes place. But instead of just knowledge for knowledge’s sake, the learning will be focused on skills. Sure, people will still learn history, math, and literature. What we need is an education system that teaches applicable information. Students will also learn computers and international affairs.

And by the time students get to the third block, they will be branching into different areas. The courses available would be similar to college courses. Students would start at the 100 level and progress to more difficult courses. So, instead of Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry, the courses would be Math 100, 200, 300, and would integrate all subjects, but progress in difficulty. AP/College Level courses would still be available and encouraged. Students will also have the ability to start learning trades and study or volunteer abroad. We can’t force everyone to go to college, and frankly, not everyone is ready for college straight out of high school, but we can give our students skills with which they can succeed in the world.

Another hurdle we have to overcome is the practice of passing students in order to keep them with their peer group. This requires a total revamping of the school system. First, the school year would be broken into trimesters. At the end of the trimester, the teacher would decide whether the student had sufficiently grasped the knowledge to move further. This puts a lot more pressure on the teachers, but it also gives them the power they need to be effective. Additionally, the student can repeat a trimester instead of having to repeat the entire course.

People might gripe at the idea of trimesters, but summer vacation is outdated and hinders the learning process. No children are helping with the crops. Instead, they are forgetting the information that they learned the previous school year. This system allows for children to be continuously learning, thus increasing their chances of academic success.

These ideas might seem radical or even impossible, but if we really want to change the school system, we need to be drastic. Our education system needs to reflect the world we live in. We need to revamp the system, not adjust what is already there. Let’s make the first step a giant leap.

So This Is Why People Will Still Vote Republican...

2008-01-07T20:06:00.000-08:00

Did you know that the number of people who believe that Saddam was tied to 9/11 has actually increased since 2004? According to a June 2007 Newsweek poll, 41% of Americans believe this myth. And this is up 5% from September 2004! Additionally, a 2006 poll found that 50% of Americans believe that Iraq had or has WMD, up from 36% in 2005.

Can this be real? Are people seriously falling for this? Of course they are. And this is what the Republican Party is counting on. They perpetuate and exaggerate the threats (or make them up when they don’t exist), and then they claim that they are the only ones who can save us. This twisted logic is dangerous. It’s dangerous to America and it’s dangerous to the world.

There are the people that support the GOP because:
1) They have more money than 99.9999999999% of the world;
2) They don’t have a soul; or
3) Both
However, most of the people that fall into the Republican trap are just products of an “independent reality” (seriously, that’s a real term). The current reality is that America has spent almost $500 billion, lost 4,000 lives and displaced millions in Iraq. In order to justify this, the broken record of the GOP uses lies and half-truths to brainwash the American people into accepting their independent reality.

The independent reality is that Saddam was behind 9/11 and he had WMD poised and ready to use against American soldiers. Well, I guess he did have the chemical weapons that Reagan sold him in the 1980s, but that fact is conveniently omitted. Instead, the war-mongering Bush administration continues to spew lies. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania said, "it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible." This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said.

My favorite justification for Iraq is this: We will be instilling democracy in the region, and from Iraq, it will spread to other nations. This is absurd and far from the truth, and here’s why. Remember back in the Vietnam Armed Conflict (no war was declared) that America used the Domino Theory in order to justify our presence. In case you’ve forgotten, the theory goes that when one nation falls to Communism, the neighboring nations will soon fall, and so on and so on until everyone is a commie. You’ll also remember that this theory failed to pan out after Vietnam fell to the communists. Sure, Communism still exists, but it is not the threat that it once was. Fast-forward to today and we are applying the Domino Theory to Democracy in Iraq. Yet, if we are to learn from history, we will see that Democracy is no more likely to spread in the Middle East than Communism in Asia.

But, back in our reality, these policies are anything but defensible. They are abhorrent. And they are ruining America. At this point, we cannot do much besides impeach our current leaders. And vote. Vote in such overwhelming numbers that our next president has a true mandate to lead our country the way we want to be lead. We want change. We need a change. So, make your voice heard. Vote in the primary. Vote in the election. Take advantage of our democracy so that our leaders can’t take advantage of us!

Calls For Impeachment

2008-01-06T16:35:00.000-08:00

I know that this blog is supposed to be my thoughts, but I found this piece very interesting.

The Only Way To Salvage Our Dignity

The Man With The Plan

2008-01-06T11:08:00.000-08:00

Money. Media. History. All of these factors have people prematurely counting John Edwards out of the Democratic presidential nomination race. But, when you look at the field, John Edwards should be leading the pack, not fighting for attention.

John Edwards is the only candidate who has detailed his plan to provide health care to all Americans. He is not afraid to take on the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies in the effort to make health care affordable. Where the other candidates are vague and rhetorical, John Edwards is specific. He has outlined corporate responsibility, personal responsibility, funding, and a time frame. His plan will also eliminate wasteful spending that is hurting so many Americans in the fight for health care.

John Edwards has also strengthened his position on Iraq. He doesn’t make excuses about voting for the war, but he has learned from he previous positions. Edwards isn’t a flip-flopper or a hypocrite, but someone that has learned from the past. He knows that there is no military solution and has admitted that we must leave sooner rather than later. Edwards knows that reducing troop levels raises security concerns, but the Iraqi people must take part in the restoration of their nation. And again, Edwards has detailed his plan to restore America’s military power and regain the trust of the international community. Obama may have opposed the war from the beginning, but because he was not a US Senator, he never had to vote on the issue.

Edwards has a stronger, more specific stance on the issues than the other Democratic candidates, yet the media continue to push him aside. Sure, Clinton and Obama are running historic races in their bids for the presidency, but Edwards is not one to be ignored. Unfortunately, that’s just what happened after the Iowa caucuses. Between the accolades for Obama’s “win”, the dissections of Hillary’s “loss”, Edwards was practically ignored. His second place finish should have been the headline story.

Here is a campaign that is operating on a fraction of the budget than those of Clinton or Obama, yet has a strong enough message to edge out the media “front runners.” How did he do it? Because he cuts through the circus and the hype. Clinton and Obama are counting on the fact that their minority status will convince voters that they can bring change. However, the people that aren’t influenced by appearances know that changing the outside won’t necessarily change the inside.

John Edwards is the man with the plan. He can bring positive changes to America. He might not be the biggest story of this election cycle, but he is the most solid candidate. So, when you look at your choices, look past the media hype and the money. Look at the message. When you do, you will see that John Edwards is the best choice for Democratic Presidential nominee.

Click Here to Support John Edwards

Oh, What A Night!

2008-01-03T19:39:00.000-08:00

The 2008 election season has finally kicked off. And the Democrats are in the lead, at least by my assessment. As expected, Obama won Iowa. I attribute this win to the fact that he pushed for independents to attend the caucus, and that he spend $9.5 million more than any other Democrat. No doubt, Obama drummed up support to a fever pitch and people are excited to participate in an historic election. Could he win the nomination? Maybe. Of course, Iowa is just the beginning and with a race this close, it’s too early to tell who the Democratic front-runner is. What we do have are three viable candidates who are ready to lead America in a return to greatness.

The great news tonight is the second place showing for John Edwards. While the media was busy with Obama and Clinton, Edwards was busy taking his message on the road. While many people counted him out and predicted him to come in a distant third, he was busy proving that he cannot be ignored. His message is strong enough to win votes without all the money and hype.

The best sign, for the Democratic Party, is the enthusiasm shown by independent voters. The early predictions are that the turnout for the Democratic Party was double that of the Republican Party. People are excited about this election process and the Democratic candidates are the ones that people want to support.

The impact of Iowa could be historical. This “red” state had a 2:1 voter turnout in favor of the Democratic Party. If the red-ness of Iowa could be at stake and independents are running headlong toward the Democratic Party, the country could be headed for a red-blue transformation.

And more good news, in the form of the continued downward slide of the Republican Party. Even though Huckabee won Iowa, it’s unlikely that he will win New Hampshire (or any other state without strong evangelical backing). Romney came in second and that could hurt his already low national numbers. His negative Iowa campaign is also going to further diminish his chances of winning the nomination. So now McCain and Guiliani are the likely New Hampshire winners, although they performed poorly in Iowa.

Looks like the Republican Party is having a bit of an identity crisis. No clear front-runner to sweep the primaries and support scattered throughout the conservative spectrum will all contribute to an uphill battle for the Republicans this election season. And an endorsement from Bush or Cheney will certainly hurt any candidate more that it can help. The people want change and the Republicans just can’t (or won’t) make that happen.

Clean Slate for 2008

2008-01-02T22:27:00.000-08:00

New Year’s Resolutions. We all make them. Or we resolve to make them. What is so compelling about January 1? I like the whole “clean slate” idea. The whole year holds so much potential, untarnished by the follies of the previous year. And 2008 is a year with more potential than the previous years have had. We will finally have a chance to break the crippling hold of the conservative minority. We will have the opportunity to elect a government that can return America to dignity in the global community.

When I think of all the potential 2008 holds, my stomach practically flips with excitement. We have an extremely important presidential election. The chance to make an historic election. We may have out first female president. Or our first black leader. I see a chance for the Democratic Party to win by huge margins. The Republican Party is faltering and we just need to capitalize on their numerous gaffes.

I also see 2008 as the year when we can return to politics and policies for Americans. I envision the end of ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy, tax havens for businesses, tax breaks for oil. And with that, we have an opportunity for a balanced budget. Fiscal responsibility isn’t easy, but someone has to do it. The mortgage crisis is just the latest proof that citizens are taking their spending cues from the government. Except the government can steal from education and social security to pay for its spending spree. Regular citizens, on the other hand, default.

Once we have our budget under control, we can set out improving America. Health care, education, Social Security. All are currently outdated programs that have just been repackaged over the years. What we have this year is a golden opportunity to lay the groundwork for complete over haul. Let’s put America in the lead in the 21st century. We’ve fallen behind drastically under Bush’s watch, and we can’t afford to play catch up. We need to start strong with innovative policies, not reactive ones.

Of course, the clean slate of 2008 also puts me on edge. Too many times have we seen the Democratic Party slip in the face of golden opportunity. Too many times has the Democratic Party seemed weak in the face of ridiculous Republican accusations and spin. We need to be aggressive from the beginning. Too much is at stake this year. We need to come together. Despite our differences, we can still come together behind one candidate. Despite our differences, we can play a better, cleaner game than our opponents.

So, these are my hopes for 2008. Let’s stay positive and make this year a victory.
(Ok, yes, I’ve also been watching a lot of football).

Fear Is Not An Option

2007-12-29T21:10:00.001-08:00

Are you afraid? According to our government, you should be. You should be scared of terrorists (obviously). You should be scared of immigrants and their desire to steal every job available (even the ones you would never take). You should probably be scared of the Chinese and their plot to kill and retard our younger generations through lead poisoning.

People form societies and governments in order to protect themselves from threats. In the beginning the threats were external—your garden variety saber tooth tiger, warring clan, etc—but have since evolved. We’re still worried about the warring clans (more commonly called “evil empires”), but the tiger threat has pretty much gone away.

It’s obvious that governments need enemies to stay in business. And they use fear to keep their subjects passive. America is no exception. Before we were allies with the British, they were our oppressor and our enemy. We’ve been enemies with Native Americans, Canada, Mexico, most of Europe, Japan, all those tiny islands between Hawaii and Japan, Russia (and the countries that comprised the Soviet Union), China, the Middle East, and various well evil people with no country to call home. They’ve gone by different names: Monarchists, Savages, Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, and Terrorists, but they all have the same plot. They must end our freedom-loving way of life. And we must fear this.

What is so shocking and outrageous to me is how this current administration has abused the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Those tragic events were a wake up call to America, but Bush has used those events to keep Americans afraid and force legislation that chips away at the very thing that makes our country great: our civil liberties.

Subtle isn’t a word anyone would use to describe the President, but in one case, he has been quite subtle. I suppose it’s a matter of semantics, but Bush has done irreparable damage to the American psyche. Where “evildoers” and “Islamofascists” perpetrated the events of 9/11, the bombing the USS Cole highlighted a “serious geopolitical threat.” Similarly, the bombings in Bali, London and Madrid indicated “security concerns.” by using the language that they do, the Bush administration perpetuates the idea of a mythical, all-powerful enemy that does not present the same concerns as a typical enemy. But Bush is describing the same enemy that Clinton described after the USS Cole attacks. And those “evildoers” are the same people that create ‘security concerns” to Europe and Indonesia. What is the purpose of using such intense and horrific language? It’s used to put keep fear in Americans’ hearts.

And how does Bush keep the fear in our hearts? With the Terror Alert scale, of course. In case you have ignored it, I’ll give you a quick refresher. The scale has five levels: Green (Low), Blue (Guarded), Yellow (Elevated), Orange (High), and Red (Severe). For today, the National Treat Level is Elevated and the Flight Threat Level is High (which is why you have to buy $5 water to take on the plane). Since its inception, has it ever been below Yellow? No. In fact, it has only alternated between Elevated and High. So, the administration keeps us in fear, and as soon as we become too complacent, the threat level is raised to High. Just to keep us on our toes and under their thumb.

What is the point of all this fear? Why are we being made to fear the entire world? Because subject who are afraid are passive. Since we’ve been afraid, we’ve let the government pass some astonishing pieces of legislation. First and foremost, the PATRIOT Act of 2001, which is anything but patriotic. Of course, there is much more to the Act, but here are the highlights:
• Expands terrorism laws to include “domestic terrorism” which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy.
• Expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret searches, gives them wide powers of phone and Internet surveillance, and access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records with minimal judicial oversight.
• Allows FBI Agents to investigate American citizens for criminal matters without probable cause of crime if they say it is for “intelligence purposes.”
• Permits non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and to be denied re-admission to the US for engaging in free speech. Suspects convicted of no crime may be detained indefinitely in six month increments without meaningful judicial review.
And then there is the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners for more than five years without charges. It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse.

Now let’s talk about what we should really be afraid of. We should be wary of a government that tries to oppress us through fear. The world is a dangerous place, but it’s not out to get us. We should be afraid of a government that tries to suppress our civil liberties in order to further its own goals. We should be afraid of an administration that does not value our Constitution or the rights we are afforded. As citizens, we have an obligation to vote out the people who support these laws and ideas. We also have an obligation to notify our congressional representatives and have these pieces of legislation repealed. It will save our country and our collective dignity.

In America Anyone Can Be President. Almost...

2007-12-20T12:30:00.002-08:00

Let’s take a look at countries that currently have elected female leaders: Ireland, New Zealand, The Philippines, Mozambique, Germany, Liberia, Chile, Switzerland, Georgia, Argentina, Ukraine and India. The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Canada and Denmark all have female monarchs.

Of the world's 10 most populous nations, six have not had a woman as head of government or state in the modern era. They are the United States, Brazil, China, Japan, Nigeria, and Russia

It is an embarrassment to America that we have not progressed enough as a democracy to elect a female President. We are just now electing women to congressional and gubernatorial seats, yet we demand that Iraq reserve and elect women to leadership positions. And in a greater percentage than they are elected in this country. Many countries that have female leaders have been democratic for decades, not centuries, yet they have seen that it’s not about gender, it’s about ability. This country needs to dust off its tired stereotypes and step into the modern era.

I’m no angry feminist, but I do see an obvious disparity in what we say our political system can do versus what we actually do with our political system. Nor am I saying that I would vote for Hillary solely because she is a woman, but I do take offense to the obvious double standard that she is being held to.

Looking at the numbers, men are the largest group of Hillary detractors. Yet outwardly they say that they would vote for a female candidate. It just won’t be Hillary. And then they proceed to list bogus “reasons” as to why she wouldn’t be a good President. I’m going to take some typical statements and debunk them (or at least give my thoughts on how people are making excuses).

1) Hillary doesn’t give straight answers.

Um, ok. This is a cop-out. First, we are talking about politics. There are no straight answers. Issues are more complex than yes or no (and if you believe that things are just black and white, you probably still think Saddam had WMDs hidden throughout the desert). Second, no politician wants to make a statement that they believe will be taken out of context and used against them, which people are more than wont to do in Hillary’s case.

Bush has been much less honest than any democratic candidate ever has. And this administration has continued to use lies and half-truths to perpetuate the war in Iraq, give tax breaks to the rich while claiming that they are helping the average American family, and to perpetuate their own conservative agenda.

2) Hillary doesn’t have enough experience.

Considering that she’s the only candidate who has lived in the White House, I would say that she knows more about what it takes to be President than any of the people running. Being the President is about being a diplomat. It’s not about how much legislation someone has written or how someone has led a state. Her experience as First Lady has given her inside knowledge about what the President truly does. She is more than prepared to be the President lead America, both nationally and internationally. Besides, with Bill as First Husband, she’ll essentially have the crib notes for “How to be President in Every Situation.”

3) Hillary isn’t a Uniter

Well, considering that about half the country is red and the other half is blue, no candidate is going to be a uniter. What Hillary does have are mainstream, progressive views. The leading Republican candidates are a Mormon and a Baptist minister, neither of whom have uniting views. Neither has proven an ability to appeal to a large and diverse demographic. The person that is going to win the vote is the person that is moderate, but don’t expect any uniting to happen.

4) She doesn’t know what it take to be Commander in Chief

This is a big problem for men because they see the military is a man’s realm. But, they had no problem electing Bush and Cheney, who not only had no military experience between them, but they both actively sought ways out of the draft. Only one of the candidates running today has any military experience, so the argument that Hillary is somehow “lacking” in the military arena is totally bunk. The Joint Chiefs of Staff exist for a reason, and Hillary is more than willing to listen to their recommendations (we know all too well what happens when Presidents decide not to listen to the professionals).

To everyone out there that is holding Hillary to a higher standard: get real. This is the 21st century and women have proven themselves capable of being in power. If men are scared of that fact, then they need to take some time for introspection to figure out why they are so scared. Look at the candidates for who they are and what they can do. Don’t make lame excuses about why a woman can’t do the job.

We're Not Getting What We Pay For

2007-12-16T22:02:00.001-08:00

The basics of money are something that most people learn in childhood. If you want to buy something, you have the money to pay for it. In order to get that money, you either have to earn it or get the credit for it. This is apparently something that President Bush has not learned, as evidenced by his latest round of illogical vetoes and spending requests.

President Bush has vetoed children’s health insurance in the name of principle. He has prevented the roll back of massive tax cuts for the wealthy, despite the mounting costs of two wars. All in the name of principle. President Bush resisted an $11 billion increase in domestic spending, yet demanded $200 billion in additional war funding. This could add $239 billion to the deficit just this year. Without adding one additional cent of revenue.

Throughout human history, governments have taxed their people in order to generate revenue. American history is no different. In WWI, the top income tax rate was raised to 77% (for incomes of $1 million or greater). Seventy-seven percent!!! During the great depression, income taxes were raised to 94%. And in World War Two, the government even introduced payroll withholding! And all of this is on the highest tax bracket. Today, the highest tax rate is 35% (and even that is on a progressive scale, so the effective tax rate is lower).

Something has to give. The government can’t continue to spend at an out-of-control rate, while denying the simple fact that it is not generating the necessary income. At a time of war, it would be prudent to fund the war with actual dollars instead of dollars borrowed from future generations.

Taxes are not the enemy. Republicans would like you to believe that a government can exist solely on spite, war and oil. They’ll also have you believe that the Democrats want to tax you into oblivion. And that your hard-earned money will probably be used to fund underwater basket weaving courses for drug addicts and people on welfare. These so-called proponents of “small government” continue to grow the government at staggering rates. The government (and the national debt) grew ten-fold while Reagan was in office. And these are the people who continue to operate our government in a deficit situation even though it flies the face of all logic. As the population grows, the government should grow to compensate. It's the direction of that growth that causes problems (Department of Homeland Security, anyone??).

The fact of the matter is that a government is a social contract among a group of people. The government agrees to protect and provide to the people, and the people agree to follow the rules set forth by the government. Americans seem to have forgotten that their government is supposed to give them more than headaches. It should be providing education, health care, and jobs to the people who need it. And everyone needs something from the government, not just the underprivileged. I’m by no means a socialist, but the government should be striving to improve society, not drive it into recession in the name of principle. I don’t see the government working to benefit the people. I certainly don’t see my tax dollars going towards anything but war and the depletion of natural resources.

In the years during the Cold War, America was truly a leading nation, with the healthiest people and the best paying jobs. But, since the decline of the Soviet Union and the growth of the global market, America continues to fall behind. American students are ranked lower by international research each year. So is the health care system. The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the World Health Organization reported. And why? Because the money is consistently directed away from the people and causes that will ensure our continued success. As domestic programs continue to operate at reduced capacity (or are chopped all together), America falls behind.

How can a government be allowed to so blatantly fail its people? We are paying taxes at a rate comparable to developed European and Asian nations. The same countries that are ranked ahead of America. We must demand a government that puts our money to use for us. We should revamp the 1950’s public school system into something that supports modern learning and technology. By decreasing the tax breaks for the wealthy by just $5000, we can generate $1.2 billion in revenue for education programs. We should demand a repeal to the outrageous tax breaks for big oil companies. Hell, we should demand corporations pay the $300 billion in back-taxes that they’ve owed since Bush took office.

Do the wealthy pay more taxes? Sure. Is it fair? Definitely. In this social contract we’ve created, we owe it to each other to do what we can to improve our society. In the end, whether we’re rich or poor, we are all American. And what we’re doing is looking out for each other and the future of the nation. And the next time a politician tells you “no new taxes”, watch out, because you’ll end up paying more in the long run.

Bring Back The Draft!

2007-12-13T18:36:00.000-08:00

We should bring back the draft. After all, if people felt that they were personally impacted by government decisions, they might be moved to participate. If we truly cherish our democracy, we will protect it where it matters most: at home. Maybe we need the shock of the return of the draft in order to realize that we are thisclose to losing our democracy. This is not the time for America to be ambivalent about its government. Each individual needs to do all that they can to make their voice heard. The leadership is supposed to represent the people, not the other way around.

Americans don’t care really about their country. Sure, they might take an interest in the things that directly affect them such as El Niño, Hannah Montana concerts, Major League Baseball, etc. But, overall, the interest of the citizenry in its government continues its steady decline into the 21st century.

Many people compare the current political environment to the Vietnam Era, but it’s obvious that people today prefer to distance themselves from any real involvement with the direction of the country. In one day in 1969, almost 500,000 people gathered in Washington, DC to protest the war in Vietnam. That’s half a million people who took leave from their schools and jobs to send a message to leaders. Protests today fall on deaf ears, both within the leadership and the citizenship. An ANSWER coalition protest permit in September 2007 estimated that 10,000 people would attend. At the time of the ANSWER coalition protest, polls showed that 70% of Americans did not approve of the handling of Iraq. It’s hard to believe that only 10,000 people care enough to actually do something about it.

Election trends are even more disheartening. In the 1968 Presidential election 60.6% of the eligible population cast a vote. In the equally volatile 2004 Presidential election, 55.3% of the entitled population made the trek to the polling booths. Interim elections (which have always suffered from poor participation) have also shown a steady decline. In 1970 the direction of the Vietnam War was on the line and 46.6% of American voters participated. However, in 2006, with the Iraq war in the spotlight, 36.8% of voters cast a vote. This is down from 2002 when 37.0% of people voted. You may not think this is a significant shift, but think about how much more media the media is involved in today’s election cycles, and how many more media outlets exist. It wouldn’t be outrageous to say that more people know about today’s elections and choose not to participate.

How can America be the world’s beacon of democracy when the American people don’t care about their own democracy? How can America fight wars in the name of democracy when America doesn’t even participate in her own democracy? I don’t understand how people can say they care about an issue or an idea, but then trust that other people will somehow take care of it. So many people have fought and died for my right to vote that I can’t fathom throwing that freedom away.

In addition to protesting the general principles of the Vietnam War, the draft was a contentious issue that fueled protests and riots. At the heart of the issue was the fact that people were being pressed to serve in a war in which they had no say. See, the draft age was 18, but the voting age was 21. The war and the draft affected almost every American in a very personal way. It spurred people to work together for change. Although it took time, on July 1, 1971 the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was passed, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. While this wasn’t the end to the draft (that would come in 1973), it did prove that leaders listen when the people collect their voices.

So, what can we do to pump life into the flagging American Democracy? With support for the Iraq war at perpetual lows and the American military stretched thin, there seems to be two options: dramatically reduce American military participation in Iraq or re-instate the draft. The former is favored by a majority of the country and the latter is equally opposed, but we can’t continue burning the candle at both ends. Something has to give. Up to this point, there has been grumbling and mild dissention with the occasional protest, but we choose to ignore the fact that we aren’t doing enough to send a strong message to the leadership.

I don’t actually support the return of the draft, but I do believe that people won’t participate unless the feel personally obligated. At this point, it’s going to take something outrageous to get America’s attention. Our relationship with our government is not self-sustaining, and just like any relationship, we need to work to keep it progressing. Don’t let the people in Washington, DC get away with ignoring the desires of the people…Get involved!

The Lost Christmas Card

2007-12-11T14:55:00.000-08:00

Dear Britney ~~Spears~~, ~~Federline~~, Spears,
I know that I have not been in touch this year, but as you know, I have been a very busy man. Or maybe you didn’t know and I’m telling you now. Either way, I just want to thank you for your patriotic contributions to this country. You might be askin’ yourself “What did I do that is so patriotic?” That is why I am writing to tell you.
You see, I know you have been busy this year with your ~~husband~~ ex-husband and kids, and also with your vacations, hair cuts, court appearances and car accidents. Basically, you have been kind enough to let Americans share in your life experiences. And Americans (me included) focus so much energy on you that they barely take the time to notice me or my friends. Some people would be sad about that, but I am so thankful.
For the most part, we work completely undeterred (by public opinion or law). I mean sure there was the uproar about the troop surge, but you were there to shave your head. Hahaha, that was a good one! Even I didn’t see that one coming, and I see a lot of things. Well, I see the things that Dick and Condi let me see, but it seems like a lot to me.
And when people were upset about me giving the pardon to Scooter, which really wasn’t even really a pardon. I just ‘commuted’ the jail time, he still had to pay a small fine. It was the least I could do for an old friend. I thought Americans would understand, but I guess they’re not like you and me. You were there for me, wearing that pink wig and sunglasses at night, then drivin’ all crazy like. You really know how to capture the hearts and minds, let me tell you.
I just like that so much about you. Whenever things get rough around me, you are always there to help out and steal the spotlight. Or a lighter. Thanks to you and your charms, people just totally ignore me when I veto health care or have evidence against me destroyed. I can’t even begin to mention all that you have done for me, just this year alone.
I don’t have much time left here, so I wanted to get my thanks out now. Keep up the good work in 2008!

Merry Christmas on behalf of the White House/Executive Branch (I just want to get Dick in there, who knows where he is these days…)

Your favorite (ok, only) El Presidente,
W