9/12 Teabaggers: Hypocrisy In Action

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

Some thoughts on socialism and health care

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?

25 Things

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.

Let's Talk About Taxes

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?

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…

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

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.

The Republican Pro-Family Myth

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.

If McCain Wins, America Loses

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.

McCain the Next 'Honest Abe'? Highly Doubtful.

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?”

Exporting Imperfection

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.

Why NOT McCain?

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

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

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!

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

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.

We're Not Getting What We Pay For

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.