Marriage-equality proponents have finally had their day in front of the Supreme Court of the United States; we await a decision.
Before their decision, though, let's take a moment to examine why this is even an issue in the first place. It is a perhaps unfortunate situation that the word "marriage" is used for two entirely unrelated issues in the United States (and elsewhere): we use "marriage" for the religious commitment ceremony and also for the secular legal contract. Those arguing in favor of marriage equality are not attempting to somehow force the church to condone gay marriage; the church can believe whatever it wants, and given that the separation of the affairs of the church and the state is one of the principles this country was founded on, the opinion of the church should have no bearing here anyway. Rather, proponents of equality want simply for the government to be forced to treat heterosexual and homosexual unions equally, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
That this is an issue at all is only because the government decided to get into the marriage business in the first place. By law, married couples enjoy all sorts of rights and benefits, such as tax benefits (the ability to file jointly, for example), medical benefits (a legal spouse is generally granted the power to make decisions given the incapacitation of the spouse), spouses not being compelled to testify against each other in court, and more. By refusing to view gay marriages as equal, all of these rights are denied to gay couples who wish to be married. Whether we turn to the 14th Amendment or simply to our own moral compass, this just isn't right.
There are two possible solutions: either affirm the right of gays to marry and have this marriage recognized in every state, with all of the benefits that entails, or completely eliminate the role of government in all marriage, returning the idea of marriage to a simple religious commitment. If we do not wish to be hypocrites in claiming America as one of the most free and equal places on the planet, these are the only options. Given these options, it is desirable to many, and frankly much easier, to take the first route.
Arguments that we should not be "redefining" marriage to "accommodate" the homosexual "lifestyle" fall flat. The church does not own the word marriage; allowing gays equality under federal law is not a redefinition of anything. Rather, for the first time in human history, science understands that homosexuality is not a choice, and more and more people are accepting this. I'd argue that all it takes is to ponder a simple question: whether you're straight or gay, is your attraction to a beautiful person automatic, or do you have to make a conscious decision every time you see one? If you answer the former, congratulations; you now understand why homosexuality is not a choice. It is, therefore, illogical to make any distinction in law between straight and gay relationships or marriages.
Religious people don't have to like it, but we do not govern this country based on religion. The equality movement takes exactly zero rights away from the religious; marriage equality does not affect a person's free practice of their religion, it does not harm the "institution of marriage", and it most certainly does not "destroy the fabric of morality of this country". It would be like a vegetarian claiming that other people eating meat in the same cafeteria as them somehow affects their ability to practice their choice of type of food to consume; the only difference is that one could make a logical argument that the smell of a delicious hamburger is tempting to a vegetarian, while marriage equality could not possibly tempt someone who isn't gay.
If you believe in the ideals on which the United States were founded, you must be for marriage equality. Love is love, and there is no rational reason to draw a distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals on this issue.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Monday, September 1, 2014
Caution: World Imploding
Sometimes the correct answer is that there is no correct answer.
Republicans and even some Democrats are ratcheting up their criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. Of course, each side has political reason to do so: the Republicans obviously look better by making Obama look worse, and Democrats are nervous that Obama's low approval ratings will drag them down in midterm elections. With control of the Senate in the balance, both sides are going to try whatever it takes to come out on top.
But if we look a little deeper, we see... nothing. That is, for all the criticisms, I've yet to hear a legitimate solution to any of the world's problems. They want Obama to be more forceful in Syria, in Iraq, and in Ukraine/Russia. Have we learned nothing from moving too quickly to the drumbeats of war? I'm not a fortune teller, and I can't say for sure that the Middle East would be any different or better today had the US not invaded Iraq. It certainly seems to me, though, that it would be far less of a mess. We went in, toppled Hussein, hung around for a while providing "security and training", and then left... and we left a country with no way to combat the threat of terror groups such as ISIS. Is it really such a surprise what's happening over there today?
What I'd really love to hear is not what we should be doing in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine, but rather what these politicians think the results of such action would be. They want us to begin airstrikes in Syria and to arm the "more moderate rebels". No one, of course, is willing to say publicly that conducting airstrikes in Syria against ISIS is equivalent to supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad. No one is willing to say publicly that it's effectively impossible to identify moderate groups in Syria, and even if we could, it would be entirely impossible to ensure that our weapons don't end up in the hands of ISIS or Assad. We need only look to Iraq to see how easily our weapons can end up in the hands of ISIS. I'd be all for a solution, if only one person would propose an answer that seems feasible. Going in with guns blazing and American flags flying hasn't yet worked in the Middle East, and I don't see why it should be any different this time around.
As for Ukraine, again, what are we to do? I suppose helping to arm the Ukrainians makes more sense than does trying to do the same in Syria. At the same time, I don't know if any amount of weapons we give to Ukraine would be enough to overcome the power of the Russian army; I believe that if we wanted to turn the Russians back with force, it would require direct American military intervention. That may be in Ukraine's best interest, but is it in America's? At the beginning of the Obama presidency in 2009, he and Hillary Clinton spoke of a "Russian reset", trying to begin our relations with Russia anew. Was that such a crazy idea? In hindsight it's very easy to say "obviously it didn't work, therefore it was a bad idea." But what else could we have said? A new administration has two basic options for dealing with a contentious nation: either try to work with them or declare them an enemy. As far as I'm concerned, attempting diplomatic solutions to issues, attempting to work with Russia as a partner is preferable to declaring them an enemy and starting Cold War II with the beginning of the Obama administration. So we tried to work with Russia, and recently we've seen Russia has no interest in being an ally; their actions in Ukraine prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. So I'd say the "reset" is less of a mistake and more of optimism that didn't turn out so well. In any case, the reset is in the past. We tried working with the Russians and it didn't work. So while it makes sense from a narrow point of view to support Ukraine against Russia, is that a situation we really want to step into? Anything the United States does, from arming the Ukrainians, to providing air support, to direct military involvement, will be clearly seen as an act of aggression of the US against Russia. Given Russia's actions, I believe our intervention would be wholly justified; the issue, however, is how Russia would perceive such actions. Vladimir Putin and the Russian people have a completely different view of their involvement in Ukraine, and I believe would likely take great offense at America "interfering" in their affairs. Any action the US takes would, in my opinion, sever the few remaining threads connecting the US to Russia, and officially begin Cold War II... and we could only hope Cold War II doesn't become Nuclear Apocalypse I.
We need to be fully prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions around the world, and this is something I think is lost on the politicians calling for immediate action. They accuse Obama of being too cautious, which in some cases is a legitimate criticism; my opinion is that Obama's caution has so far prevented a catastrophe on a scale most politicians can't fathom. Obama's policy of "don't do stupid stuff" has become a punching bag for many, but I believe those four words have stopped us from making a few grave mistakes. While it seems the time is coming for America to take some sort of action, I believe a policy of caution, patience, planning, and depth of strategy are vital to achieving our goals without causing even greater chaos in the world.
Let us learn from the lesson of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq that caution is required. Patience is needed. Just because America has the military power to go anywhere and crush any threat doesn't mean that that's always the best solution. Hopefully our politicians can realize this before we repeat the mistakes we've made so many times before.
Republicans and even some Democrats are ratcheting up their criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. Of course, each side has political reason to do so: the Republicans obviously look better by making Obama look worse, and Democrats are nervous that Obama's low approval ratings will drag them down in midterm elections. With control of the Senate in the balance, both sides are going to try whatever it takes to come out on top.
But if we look a little deeper, we see... nothing. That is, for all the criticisms, I've yet to hear a legitimate solution to any of the world's problems. They want Obama to be more forceful in Syria, in Iraq, and in Ukraine/Russia. Have we learned nothing from moving too quickly to the drumbeats of war? I'm not a fortune teller, and I can't say for sure that the Middle East would be any different or better today had the US not invaded Iraq. It certainly seems to me, though, that it would be far less of a mess. We went in, toppled Hussein, hung around for a while providing "security and training", and then left... and we left a country with no way to combat the threat of terror groups such as ISIS. Is it really such a surprise what's happening over there today?
What I'd really love to hear is not what we should be doing in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine, but rather what these politicians think the results of such action would be. They want us to begin airstrikes in Syria and to arm the "more moderate rebels". No one, of course, is willing to say publicly that conducting airstrikes in Syria against ISIS is equivalent to supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad. No one is willing to say publicly that it's effectively impossible to identify moderate groups in Syria, and even if we could, it would be entirely impossible to ensure that our weapons don't end up in the hands of ISIS or Assad. We need only look to Iraq to see how easily our weapons can end up in the hands of ISIS. I'd be all for a solution, if only one person would propose an answer that seems feasible. Going in with guns blazing and American flags flying hasn't yet worked in the Middle East, and I don't see why it should be any different this time around.
As for Ukraine, again, what are we to do? I suppose helping to arm the Ukrainians makes more sense than does trying to do the same in Syria. At the same time, I don't know if any amount of weapons we give to Ukraine would be enough to overcome the power of the Russian army; I believe that if we wanted to turn the Russians back with force, it would require direct American military intervention. That may be in Ukraine's best interest, but is it in America's? At the beginning of the Obama presidency in 2009, he and Hillary Clinton spoke of a "Russian reset", trying to begin our relations with Russia anew. Was that such a crazy idea? In hindsight it's very easy to say "obviously it didn't work, therefore it was a bad idea." But what else could we have said? A new administration has two basic options for dealing with a contentious nation: either try to work with them or declare them an enemy. As far as I'm concerned, attempting diplomatic solutions to issues, attempting to work with Russia as a partner is preferable to declaring them an enemy and starting Cold War II with the beginning of the Obama administration. So we tried to work with Russia, and recently we've seen Russia has no interest in being an ally; their actions in Ukraine prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. So I'd say the "reset" is less of a mistake and more of optimism that didn't turn out so well. In any case, the reset is in the past. We tried working with the Russians and it didn't work. So while it makes sense from a narrow point of view to support Ukraine against Russia, is that a situation we really want to step into? Anything the United States does, from arming the Ukrainians, to providing air support, to direct military involvement, will be clearly seen as an act of aggression of the US against Russia. Given Russia's actions, I believe our intervention would be wholly justified; the issue, however, is how Russia would perceive such actions. Vladimir Putin and the Russian people have a completely different view of their involvement in Ukraine, and I believe would likely take great offense at America "interfering" in their affairs. Any action the US takes would, in my opinion, sever the few remaining threads connecting the US to Russia, and officially begin Cold War II... and we could only hope Cold War II doesn't become Nuclear Apocalypse I.
We need to be fully prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions around the world, and this is something I think is lost on the politicians calling for immediate action. They accuse Obama of being too cautious, which in some cases is a legitimate criticism; my opinion is that Obama's caution has so far prevented a catastrophe on a scale most politicians can't fathom. Obama's policy of "don't do stupid stuff" has become a punching bag for many, but I believe those four words have stopped us from making a few grave mistakes. While it seems the time is coming for America to take some sort of action, I believe a policy of caution, patience, planning, and depth of strategy are vital to achieving our goals without causing even greater chaos in the world.
Let us learn from the lesson of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq that caution is required. Patience is needed. Just because America has the military power to go anywhere and crush any threat doesn't mean that that's always the best solution. Hopefully our politicians can realize this before we repeat the mistakes we've made so many times before.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
A Low Point For Bowe
There have been some low political moments recently in America, such as the Benghazi witch-hunt, the ongoing Obamacare war... but I think this may be the lowest I've ever seen.
As a result, or perhaps symptom, of the toxic atmosphere caused by the deal to free Bowe Bergdahl from Afghanistan, the Bergdahl family has been on the receiving end of death threats recently. Isn't it ironic that these people who sent these death threats, people who no would doubt self-identify on the high end of the "love America, hate the terrorists" scale, are themselves employing terroristic acts against the Bergdahl family?
These are also likely to be people who hold America's justice system and due process of law in the highest regard. Yet they've already convicted Bowe Bergdahl without even letting Bowe get well enough to tell his side of the story; the right to confront one's accuser is central to our justice system, but these people are ready to say Bowe's guilty (and threaten his family's lives!!) before even hearing him speak. So hypocritical.
If it turns out Bowe has committed some sort of crime, he should be punished. But if not? Who are we to assassinate his character at this point? I've seen people defend the rights of those Obama strikes with drones, saying we're "killing them without the due process of American law"... but somehow Bowe Bergdahl, a soldier and American, doesn't have that same right? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I've seen people say this will encourage terrorists to kidnap more people for ransom; however, isn't this already standard operating procedure for terrorists? They've always kidnapped Americans given the opportunity; this is (unfortunately) nothing new that will be caused by the Bergdahl deal.
It's been said that Bergdahl willingly provided information to the Taliban on how to more effectively attack Americans, and that the Taliban's attacks became more precise shortly following this. I don't claim to know exactly what happened, but do the people who argue this not realize that the Taliban would have gotten this information from Bergdahl whether he wanted to give it up or not? He was a prisoner of war; the Taliban would have gotten their information out of him one way or another. It being willing on Bowe's part is merely one plausible explanation, and doesn't really seem any more plausible than anything else at this this point.
I've seen people of the opinion that this deal is a slap in the face to the families of soldiers who died searching for Bergdahl after he disappeared. This is an absurd notion in at least two ways: First, the sad deaths of these soldiers happened long before any deal to free Bergdahl was even considered (and maybe it's just me, but isn't it possible that the fact that our men died trying to find him gave the option of negotiation a bit more merit compared to rescue?), and one can't possibly be linked to the other. Second, I would imagine that the soldiers that gave their lives trying to save Bergdahl would be happy to see their mission finally completed, regardless of what they think of Bowe personally. I honestly can't come up with a good rationalization for why finally securing Bowe's release should be in any way insulting to those who died; in fact, I'd say that leaving Bowe in Afghanistan forever would have been the real insult. It would have sent the message "Yeah, you died trying to save him, but he's actually not that important."
Finally, it's been argued that the five released men will return to the fight and attempt to kill Americans again. This unfortunately cannot be guaranteed against, but, I ask, forgetting the Bergdahl situation, what IS the ultimate plan for these people at Gitmo? Indefinite detention with no trial, again ignoring the due process of our justice system that is held so dear? Better would be an actual trial and conviction, but there seems to be no hurry for that (why would there be when we can just hold prisoners forever though). We parole murderers from regular American prisons every single day, and we KNOW there is a massive danger that they will reoffend. Yet we act like it's nothing; "well they did their time". But the men we released to Qatar likely won't have much chance to hurt many Americans, since we are supposed to be leaving Afghanistan soon; yes, the random murderer or rapist we parole from prison here has a higher chance of succeeding in hurting Americans than these 5 Taliban do, in my opinion. Again... hypocrisy.
I guess I just don't get the speed and contradictions of the judgment against Bergdahl... okay that's not totally true; I definitely understand that some of it is political, as far as anything involving Obama becomes immediately politicized. But that certainly cannot be the extent of it, because I've seen plenty of "average" people around the internet claiming that Bowe should have been left in Afghanistan, should be executed, or any other number of extreme punishments. Is it just that Obama made this deal? Is Bowe Bergdahl collateral damage of the partisan hatred toward Obama? Or is there a deeper reason that people are outraged?
Finally, it's been argued that the five released men will return to the fight and attempt to kill Americans again. This unfortunately cannot be guaranteed against, but, I ask, forgetting the Bergdahl situation, what IS the ultimate plan for these people at Gitmo? Indefinite detention with no trial, again ignoring the due process of our justice system that is held so dear? Better would be an actual trial and conviction, but there seems to be no hurry for that (why would there be when we can just hold prisoners forever though). We parole murderers from regular American prisons every single day, and we KNOW there is a massive danger that they will reoffend. Yet we act like it's nothing; "well they did their time". But the men we released to Qatar likely won't have much chance to hurt many Americans, since we are supposed to be leaving Afghanistan soon; yes, the random murderer or rapist we parole from prison here has a higher chance of succeeding in hurting Americans than these 5 Taliban do, in my opinion. Again... hypocrisy.
I guess I just don't get the speed and contradictions of the judgment against Bergdahl... okay that's not totally true; I definitely understand that some of it is political, as far as anything involving Obama becomes immediately politicized. But that certainly cannot be the extent of it, because I've seen plenty of "average" people around the internet claiming that Bowe should have been left in Afghanistan, should be executed, or any other number of extreme punishments. Is it just that Obama made this deal? Is Bowe Bergdahl collateral damage of the partisan hatred toward Obama? Or is there a deeper reason that people are outraged?
Thursday, June 13, 2013
The Red Line
Ever since this war in Syria has escalated, the right has been ridiculing President Obama for sitting back and doing nothing. They have called him weak for allowing Assad to slaughter his own people without stepping in and doing something. They said, how could the greatest nation in the world stand idly by and allow this atrocity to continue?
Obama said that the use of chemical weapons was a red line. It may have taken a while (maybe they wanted to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that it actually happened after the whole Iraq WMD debacle, maybe there were second thoughts, I don't know), but it seems that Obama is now prepared to offer some sort of support to the rebels. And what is the response to this decision?
"Biggest F'ing mistake by the Admin so far. I don't want American blood, sweat, or tears, spent on anything to do with either side in this civil war. Let the EU handle it if they must, but keep us the hell out of it."
"we need to take our own country back.
this is NOT what the American people want."
"Do they remotely care about the American people want?!! We need to stay out of this! This is a sectarian, civil war. There are atrocities on both sides. Neither side is our friend. If the Syrian people want this war to end, they simply have to stop shooting at each other. This isn't our concern!"
"The US decides to arm terrorists once again?"
"More of our boy's [sic] being sent to a place we don't belong to fight a fight that's not our own."
Obama said that the use of chemical weapons was a red line. It may have taken a while (maybe they wanted to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that it actually happened after the whole Iraq WMD debacle, maybe there were second thoughts, I don't know), but it seems that Obama is now prepared to offer some sort of support to the rebels. And what is the response to this decision?
"Biggest F'ing mistake by the Admin so far. I don't want American blood, sweat, or tears, spent on anything to do with either side in this civil war. Let the EU handle it if they must, but keep us the hell out of it."
"we need to take our own country back.
this is NOT what the American people want."
"Do they remotely care about the American people want?!! We need to stay out of this! This is a sectarian, civil war. There are atrocities on both sides. Neither side is our friend. If the Syrian people want this war to end, they simply have to stop shooting at each other. This isn't our concern!"
"The US decides to arm terrorists once again?"
"More of our boy's [sic] being sent to a place we don't belong to fight a fight that's not our own."
(Quotes taken from the comment section of this Yahoo! article.)
I'm pretty sure that these comments mostly come from the same side of the isle condemning Obama for ignoring Syria.
I understand that Obama has made mistakes, I am more than willing to admit that. No one is perfect. But how can someone possibly succeed when EVERY option is apparently wrong?
I'm pretty sure that these comments mostly come from the same side of the isle condemning Obama for ignoring Syria.
I understand that Obama has made mistakes, I am more than willing to admit that. No one is perfect. But how can someone possibly succeed when EVERY option is apparently wrong?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Obama's Gun Proposals, and a Changing World
I've never really been a fan of the "bad guys don't follow laws, so we shouldn't make laws" point of view. The same logic could be applied to any criminal laws on the books, but of course people want to pretend that the logic magically stops where guns end. To that end, the President is unveiling some very common-sense proposals to attempt to prevent another tragedy.
The proposals seem to be focused on preventing mass shootings and violence in schools. We all agree that violence doesn't stop with these events, but does that mean we shouldn't do something about them if we can? I can't see a reason that each of these proposals doesn't make good, common sense? As the President himself said, no law will be able to prevent every shooting. But if a law has a chance to curb some of the violence without trampling people's rights, what's the problem with that?
Please, someone, explain to me how an assault weapons ban, or limiting the size of a clip to a reasonable size, is an "assault on freedom and the Second Amendment". The amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. You can sure as hell be well-armed without owning an assault weapon or a high-capacity clip. You'd have to be a moron to own 20 guns and say "gee, I'm not bearing arms". Reasonable restrictions do NOT violate the second amendment.
Furthermore, times have changed since the Constitution was drafted. Would the Second Amendment be worded in the open ended way it is if the types of powerful guns that exist today had existed then? Nobody knows, but I believe the Founding Fathers would be sick to their stomachs at the thought of military style weapons being used to mow down civilians, and especially children. The Constitution is a great document, but the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of growing as times changed; that's why they included the ability to draft new laws and amend the Constitution. Statements that applied centuries ago may not necessarily apply now. It amazes me that we have seemingly regressed in our thought to the point where we no longer understand the importance of adapting to the changing world; that we no longer understand what the Founding Fathers understood, all those years ago.
Finally, as kind of a side remark, why is it that the people so hellbent on protecting the Second Amendment seem to be so willing to trample on the First Amendment? Things like trying to deport Piers Morgan because you don't agree with what he used his First Amendment right to say flies directly in the face of the Constitution you claim to be defending.
Maybe all of these sentiments can easily be summed up in two words: grow up.
The proposals seem to be focused on preventing mass shootings and violence in schools. We all agree that violence doesn't stop with these events, but does that mean we shouldn't do something about them if we can? I can't see a reason that each of these proposals doesn't make good, common sense? As the President himself said, no law will be able to prevent every shooting. But if a law has a chance to curb some of the violence without trampling people's rights, what's the problem with that?
Please, someone, explain to me how an assault weapons ban, or limiting the size of a clip to a reasonable size, is an "assault on freedom and the Second Amendment". The amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. You can sure as hell be well-armed without owning an assault weapon or a high-capacity clip. You'd have to be a moron to own 20 guns and say "gee, I'm not bearing arms". Reasonable restrictions do NOT violate the second amendment.
Furthermore, times have changed since the Constitution was drafted. Would the Second Amendment be worded in the open ended way it is if the types of powerful guns that exist today had existed then? Nobody knows, but I believe the Founding Fathers would be sick to their stomachs at the thought of military style weapons being used to mow down civilians, and especially children. The Constitution is a great document, but the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of growing as times changed; that's why they included the ability to draft new laws and amend the Constitution. Statements that applied centuries ago may not necessarily apply now. It amazes me that we have seemingly regressed in our thought to the point where we no longer understand the importance of adapting to the changing world; that we no longer understand what the Founding Fathers understood, all those years ago.
Finally, as kind of a side remark, why is it that the people so hellbent on protecting the Second Amendment seem to be so willing to trample on the First Amendment? Things like trying to deport Piers Morgan because you don't agree with what he used his First Amendment right to say flies directly in the face of the Constitution you claim to be defending.
Maybe all of these sentiments can easily be summed up in two words: grow up.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Forward.
Election Day has come and gone. President Obama has been reelected.
In the end, the election wasn't even close in terms of the Electoral College tally. Voters in every swing state (except North Carolina, for those who consider that one) broke for the President. In an election that any GOP pundit told us was about jobs and the economy, America spoke: they decided that they just trusted President Obama more than they did Governor Romney.
It would be nice if we, as a country, could go forward from here. Obama will face no more presidential elections; there are no political points to be scored through obstructionism and attempting to make him look bad. The hope is that the two sides can come together and compromise, though it already seems that that may not be realistic.
For example, anyone may look up Donald Trump's Twitter rant (I refuse to link to such nonsense here) on election night. The same night, a Republican CNN contributor remarked that Obama should give in to 80% of the House's demands. Now, I don't think Obama should be handed the world on a silver platter, but considering that the American people did just reelect him, it seems to me that basically putting the Republicans in charge is not only unwarranted, but is ignorant of the will of the people.
Speaker Boehner of course still opposes raising taxes on those making over $250,000. Honestly, "raising taxes" doesn't seem to be the correct phrase; all indications are that the Bush tax cuts were to be temporary, considering that that's how they were written. President Bush cut taxes to an extremely low level, and when the expiration date of his legislation comes, suddenly "Democrats want to raise your taxes". Very clever indeed. The arguments for keeping the break for the wealthy are dwindling: they don't seem to need the tax cuts at this point (did they ever?), and the CBO released a report stating that a tax hike for the wealthy won't kill growth. At this point, the fight to keep the cuts for everyone seems to be more of an ideological struggle from the GOP than it is a practical point.
The fact that the GOP still refuses to come to the bargaining table over something which would seem to have minimal practical impact is disturbing. The hope was that the days of "we don't care if we don't have a valid reason, we're gonna oppose you just for the hell of it" were over with the election, but reality may be setting in. The GOP still seems unwilling to compromise, and it would be ignorant for the President to not fight for his positions, considering that he has the will of the majority of the American people behind him.
We may be in for a bumpy four years.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Superstorm Sandy
Wow.
Just..... wow.
The images coming in from the destruction caused by hurricane/superstorm/Frankenstorm/whatever Sandy are incredible. Streets of New York City underwater. Tunnels flooded. Fires destroying 80 homes in Queens. Oceanside houses wrecked.
Even as the storm passes, challenges remain. Close to 8,000,000 people without power. The mass transit system of NYC completely shut down. Water on the runways at Laguardia. Feet of snow falling in West Virginia.
My thoughts go out to those in the affected areas. It appears that the federal response has been swift, with the President declaring disaster areas, and receiving and communicating information all throughout the night. Even Governor Christie of New Jersey has praised the President's response to the disaster, which really says something. President Obama and Governor Romney have put aside the campaign for the moment to focus on the relief efforts (though, honestly, the cynic in me says that is at least partly because campaigning during these events would appear insensitive, thus losing votes). Even though it can't be a major concern at the moment, part of me does wonder what sort of an affect the storm will have a week from today, when people from all over the country will (at least try to) go to the polls. The NYSE was even brought down for two days because of this, something that hasn't happened due to weather since the 1800's. This is perhaps one of the most astounding symbols of how historic this hurricane truly has been.
For now, the focus will be surviving the storm and picking up the pieces. It remains to be seen exactly how much work that will require, and what the financial cost of this tragedy will be. It's nice to see that the country seems to be pulling together in support of the affected region, but at the same time it saddens me that it takes a historic storm of epic proportions for this to happen.
Just..... wow.
The images coming in from the destruction caused by hurricane/superstorm/Frankenstorm/whatever Sandy are incredible. Streets of New York City underwater. Tunnels flooded. Fires destroying 80 homes in Queens. Oceanside houses wrecked.
Even as the storm passes, challenges remain. Close to 8,000,000 people without power. The mass transit system of NYC completely shut down. Water on the runways at Laguardia. Feet of snow falling in West Virginia.
My thoughts go out to those in the affected areas. It appears that the federal response has been swift, with the President declaring disaster areas, and receiving and communicating information all throughout the night. Even Governor Christie of New Jersey has praised the President's response to the disaster, which really says something. President Obama and Governor Romney have put aside the campaign for the moment to focus on the relief efforts (though, honestly, the cynic in me says that is at least partly because campaigning during these events would appear insensitive, thus losing votes). Even though it can't be a major concern at the moment, part of me does wonder what sort of an affect the storm will have a week from today, when people from all over the country will (at least try to) go to the polls. The NYSE was even brought down for two days because of this, something that hasn't happened due to weather since the 1800's. This is perhaps one of the most astounding symbols of how historic this hurricane truly has been.
For now, the focus will be surviving the storm and picking up the pieces. It remains to be seen exactly how much work that will require, and what the financial cost of this tragedy will be. It's nice to see that the country seems to be pulling together in support of the affected region, but at the same time it saddens me that it takes a historic storm of epic proportions for this to happen.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
RIP George McGovern
George McGovern has died at the age of 90.
Regardless of his political positions, every person who considers themselves a patriot should respect McGovern for having the courage to stand up for his convictions. His vocal protest of the Vietnam War gave a voice to so many of the voiceless soldiers who were used as pawns by their own government without having a say in the matter. Standing up and speaking your mind, even against the government he served, was a true embrace of the ideals embedded in the founding of our country.
It sickens me to see some of the comments that people have posted about McGovern. I shall not dignify them by quoting them here; instead, I link to a Yahoo article with a comment section so you can see for yourself the vile trash that comes from the fingertips of such radicals. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated; it should be vigorously pointed out that one cannot call themselves a patriot while simultaneously speaking such things about such a great American. A true patriot agrees to disagree with others while still respecting each others' rights to their own opinion. A true patriot follows in the footsteps of our heroes and works with those he does not agree with for the betterment of our nation. A true patriot does not think of other Americans as the enemy because they do not agree with his opinion. This is the sort of thought that the founding of America was expressly supposed to stamp out, that those who created this great nation sought to escape from. Anyone espousing such views is the true traitor to the American way.
Let us on this day celebrate the life of a true patriot and pay no mind to those who would show him hatred, for they are not true Americans anyway.
RIP George Stanley McGovern,
July 19, 1922 – October 21, 2012.
Regardless of his political positions, every person who considers themselves a patriot should respect McGovern for having the courage to stand up for his convictions. His vocal protest of the Vietnam War gave a voice to so many of the voiceless soldiers who were used as pawns by their own government without having a say in the matter. Standing up and speaking your mind, even against the government he served, was a true embrace of the ideals embedded in the founding of our country.
It sickens me to see some of the comments that people have posted about McGovern. I shall not dignify them by quoting them here; instead, I link to a Yahoo article with a comment section so you can see for yourself the vile trash that comes from the fingertips of such radicals. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated; it should be vigorously pointed out that one cannot call themselves a patriot while simultaneously speaking such things about such a great American. A true patriot agrees to disagree with others while still respecting each others' rights to their own opinion. A true patriot follows in the footsteps of our heroes and works with those he does not agree with for the betterment of our nation. A true patriot does not think of other Americans as the enemy because they do not agree with his opinion. This is the sort of thought that the founding of America was expressly supposed to stamp out, that those who created this great nation sought to escape from. Anyone espousing such views is the true traitor to the American way.
Let us on this day celebrate the life of a true patriot and pay no mind to those who would show him hatred, for they are not true Americans anyway.
RIP George Stanley McGovern,
July 19, 1922 – October 21, 2012.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Forgetting the 47%
We've all seen the video clip by now, with Mitt Romney discussing how he feels about voters who support President Obama:
Romney has since doubled down on his comments, while allowing that they "were not elegantly stated". I suppose that's smart; he'd have a hard time trying to explain that he didn't really mean what he said. After all, the comments were made during a private fundraiser that was not supposed to be filmed, which would seem to be a perfect setting to speak candidly about what he really believes.
Most people shouldn't be surprised that Romney feels this way. By now we are all well aware of his total and utter disconnect from the issues that trouble anyone not at the very top of the income spectrum. His "lower the rates and broaden the base" statement is about the only concrete piece of policy we've heard from him in the entire campaign. Apparently, the 47% of people who owe no income tax each year are all completely dependent on entitlements, and have no desire to move up the economic ladder.
After all, we all know that the 50% of recent college graduates that can't find a job are just sitting back and loving it. The elderly who receive no income could be in the factory working their butts off, but they just think they're too good for that type of work. And soldiers? They think that just because they're on the front lines of the War that Never Ends that they should be exempt from getting a real job and actually doing something for their country? Please.
Humorously, many of the 47% that Romney has such contempt for are probably supporters of his. Seniors have tended to back the GOP for some time now. The military will always have a strong connection to the party that can't cut a penny from defense spending (even though our military spending is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined). Many southern states that back the Republicans based on religious and social considerations (the "Bible Belt") are among the poorest states in the nation.
The former governor's comments are ridiculous in every sense of the word. He has tried some damage control, but cannot stop himself from saying stupid things. As quoted in this article, Romney believes that his comments underscore his effort to "focus on the people in middle". How are you focusing on the middle of the country if you have thrown out nearly half of it? The hits just keep coming in an interview with Fox News:
"There are a number of retirees and members of the military and so forth who aren't paying taxes and that's how it should be.
"But I do believe we should have enough jobs and take-home pay such that people have the privilege of higher incomes that allow them to be paying taxes.
"I think people would like to be paying taxes. The good news is if you're doing well enough financially that you can pay a tax. And the problem right now is you see in this country so many people have fallen into poverty that they're not paying taxes they have to rely on government and the right course to help them is not just to have government handing out but instead government helping people to get back to good jobs."
It's funny how in one breath you can stand by your comments, and in your explanation, you completely change what the comments said in the first place. The quoted remarks are clearly in direct conflict with the position that the 47% of people who do not owe income taxes are dependent on government and do not want to take responsibility.
We all knew how Mitt Romney felt. Still, there's something sickening about hearing it come so bluntly out of his own mouth. It saddens me that a man such as this can be so close to becoming the President of the United States of America.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Obama Isn't Cooking The Books
So, I was just poking around the internet and started to get interested in saying something about this. During this election cycle, we hear an earful from the GOP about how the unemployment rate is "actually much higher than the 8.2% number that the government reports". In one of Mitt Romney's latest appearances, he said that "the true number... is probably 15 percent".
Now, we can argue until the end of time about what is the best way to compute this, and other, statistics. What I have an issue with is the seeming implication of many in the GOP, leading to belief by many Americans unable to think for themselves, that President Obama is somehow manipulating the unemployment numbers to appear more favorable for himself. The fact is that Obama is using the same numbers that have been calculated for decades, and the last major change of any kind that would affect the statistic came in 1994, when the questionnaire was last significantly changed.
There are multiple measures of unemployment, which FactCheck.org has conveniently explained in this article. President Obama is doing nothing wrong or different by reporting the U-3 number; it's the same number the last President Bush reported as well. And back then, I don't recall Republican congressmen saying that it was important to change the way unemployment is calculated, as has seemingly become so important to them in this election cycle.
Even so, it is noteworthy that while the GOP touts that states with Republican governors are doing better with unemployment, they use the U-3 number to do so, which is the same number they criticize the President for reporting.
So much hypocrisy... though I'd be lying if I said I were surprised at this point.
Now, we can argue until the end of time about what is the best way to compute this, and other, statistics. What I have an issue with is the seeming implication of many in the GOP, leading to belief by many Americans unable to think for themselves, that President Obama is somehow manipulating the unemployment numbers to appear more favorable for himself. The fact is that Obama is using the same numbers that have been calculated for decades, and the last major change of any kind that would affect the statistic came in 1994, when the questionnaire was last significantly changed.
There are multiple measures of unemployment, which FactCheck.org has conveniently explained in this article. President Obama is doing nothing wrong or different by reporting the U-3 number; it's the same number the last President Bush reported as well. And back then, I don't recall Republican congressmen saying that it was important to change the way unemployment is calculated, as has seemingly become so important to them in this election cycle.
Even so, it is noteworthy that while the GOP touts that states with Republican governors are doing better with unemployment, they use the U-3 number to do so, which is the same number they criticize the President for reporting.
So much hypocrisy... though I'd be lying if I said I were surprised at this point.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
GOP Fanatics Are Only Hurting Americans
By now, I'm sure the whole country is aware that the Supreme Court of the United States has (more or less) upheld the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. This isn't stopping Republicans from fighting it; if anything, they have only been invigorated in their efforts to kill the ACA.
Many GOP leaders have redoubled their efforts to deny health care to the masses. In this article, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell said that the decision "marks a fresh start on the road to repeal". Senator Rand Paul goes as far as to question the validity of SCOTUS's decision, saying "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so". It's interesting that when the decision goes their way, the GOP seems to believe that the Supreme Court's word is absolutely unquestionable. Clearly their opinion has changed.
Even more harmful than rhetoric, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare even after the ruling by the Supreme Court. The ACA does allow until 2014 for states to set up health care exchanges, even though people desperately in need of health care obviously would like their state to move more quickly than that. Instead of going forward with this, Governor Jindal has decided to put his efforts into making sure Mitt Romney is elected to repeal the law. Clearly, this is not helpful to the citizens of Louisiana. Jindal, along with many in the GOP, has decided to completely abandon any semblance of trying to make economic progress in this country in order to launch a full scale assault on Democrats in the fall. This not only affects those in need of health insurance, but the country as a whole that needs the full attention of all its leaders at this critical economic juncture.
Certainly, this will be the GOP's excuse for not getting anything done until the election. They are "putting their efforts into a full repeal" even though it is clear that that just isn't possible at this time. This means that they will accomplish absolutely nothing, and the GOP's base will absolutely eat it up. I suppose one could view this as a genius move by the Republicans, though the only reason it can work is because it is what their base wants. To get rid of Obama and his signature piece of legislation at any cost, even it it means completely paralyzing the country until at least November.
Many GOP leaders have redoubled their efforts to deny health care to the masses. In this article, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell said that the decision "marks a fresh start on the road to repeal". Senator Rand Paul goes as far as to question the validity of SCOTUS's decision, saying "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so". It's interesting that when the decision goes their way, the GOP seems to believe that the Supreme Court's word is absolutely unquestionable. Clearly their opinion has changed.
Even more harmful than rhetoric, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare even after the ruling by the Supreme Court. The ACA does allow until 2014 for states to set up health care exchanges, even though people desperately in need of health care obviously would like their state to move more quickly than that. Instead of going forward with this, Governor Jindal has decided to put his efforts into making sure Mitt Romney is elected to repeal the law. Clearly, this is not helpful to the citizens of Louisiana. Jindal, along with many in the GOP, has decided to completely abandon any semblance of trying to make economic progress in this country in order to launch a full scale assault on Democrats in the fall. This not only affects those in need of health insurance, but the country as a whole that needs the full attention of all its leaders at this critical economic juncture.
Certainly, this will be the GOP's excuse for not getting anything done until the election. They are "putting their efforts into a full repeal" even though it is clear that that just isn't possible at this time. This means that they will accomplish absolutely nothing, and the GOP's base will absolutely eat it up. I suppose one could view this as a genius move by the Republicans, though the only reason it can work is because it is what their base wants. To get rid of Obama and his signature piece of legislation at any cost, even it it means completely paralyzing the country until at least November.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Taxmaggedon
First, a quick thought; why is everyone spelling it as "Taxmaggedon" rather than "Taxmageddon"? Strange.
Anyway... does this song sound familiar to anyone? Congress can't seem to figure out what to do about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, automatic spending cuts, and expiration of the payroll tax cut that are all scheduled for the end of the year. Pulling from the tried and true playbook of GOP rhetoric, Republican senators sent a letter to Senator Reid stating "...President Obama and Congress have spent much of the past year advancing misguided redistributionist policies in the name of fairness".
It's starting to get tiresome that every time a tax increase on the wealthiest is mentioned, or even just letting previous tax cuts on them expire, we are suddenly talking about Obama's socialist wealth redistribution policies. I don't think anyone is really talking about collecting all of the money in the country and equally dividing it among all citizens. That would be redistributionism. Are the rich going to even notice it if their taxes go up by letting their tax cuts expire? Well... of course they will, because they notice every penny as if it will be the last they ever see. But I hardly think they would be adversely affected by paying an amount more consistent with their income.
I do find it surprising that the idea of fairness is such a disgusting thing to the GOP. Again, when Democrats say "fairness", they don't mean equal distribution of wealth. They just mean that everyone pays a reasonable amount in taxes. America is a great country, but clearly some people have benefited more than others from being here, and I don't think asking a fair (not exorbitant, but fair) amount in return is unreasonable.
The GOP politicians know this, but it doesn't fit their message. So they go to the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric, all but saying it at every opportunity. Which is unfortunate because, as it seems it always is with them, the middle class suffers because of it. When it comes to taxes, the GOP version of compromise is "give us everything we want, and then we can talk". And the Democrats have been doing it because, in the end, they recognize the stakes for the average citizen. It's just too bad that, while they may be able to keep the ship afloat like that, no progress can truly be made under these conditions.
Anyway... does this song sound familiar to anyone? Congress can't seem to figure out what to do about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, automatic spending cuts, and expiration of the payroll tax cut that are all scheduled for the end of the year. Pulling from the tried and true playbook of GOP rhetoric, Republican senators sent a letter to Senator Reid stating "...President Obama and Congress have spent much of the past year advancing misguided redistributionist policies in the name of fairness".
It's starting to get tiresome that every time a tax increase on the wealthiest is mentioned, or even just letting previous tax cuts on them expire, we are suddenly talking about Obama's socialist wealth redistribution policies. I don't think anyone is really talking about collecting all of the money in the country and equally dividing it among all citizens. That would be redistributionism. Are the rich going to even notice it if their taxes go up by letting their tax cuts expire? Well... of course they will, because they notice every penny as if it will be the last they ever see. But I hardly think they would be adversely affected by paying an amount more consistent with their income.
I do find it surprising that the idea of fairness is such a disgusting thing to the GOP. Again, when Democrats say "fairness", they don't mean equal distribution of wealth. They just mean that everyone pays a reasonable amount in taxes. America is a great country, but clearly some people have benefited more than others from being here, and I don't think asking a fair (not exorbitant, but fair) amount in return is unreasonable.
The GOP politicians know this, but it doesn't fit their message. So they go to the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric, all but saying it at every opportunity. Which is unfortunate because, as it seems it always is with them, the middle class suffers because of it. When it comes to taxes, the GOP version of compromise is "give us everything we want, and then we can talk". And the Democrats have been doing it because, in the end, they recognize the stakes for the average citizen. It's just too bad that, while they may be able to keep the ship afloat like that, no progress can truly be made under these conditions.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Let's Ignore The Issues... That We Keep Bringing Up
Mitt Romney, campaigning in Colorado, stopped for an interview with CBS Denver. After being asked about a variety of issues, Romney made it quite clear that the only thing he wanted to discuss was the economy. He answered questions about marriage equality, but a question about marijuana was just too much, apparently:
So I suppose the GOP wishes the Democrats would stop bringing up social issues in legislation across the country. Except... the GOP themselves are the ones that tend to keep bringing it up. Earlier this week, the GOP-led North Carolina government was successful in adding Amendment 1 to the state constitution, defining marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal partnership. Also, the state of Tennessee, with a Republican governor and majorities in both the state House and Senate, Friday signed into law a bill that says teachers can no longer condone so-called "gateway sexual activity", whatever that means.
Time and again, it seems that the Republicans are the ones who are trying to legislate social issues; the ones trying to tell people by what values they should live their lives. If Romney and Boehner want the focus of the party to be on the economy, maybe they need to tell the other lawmakers in their own party first.
“Aren’t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about? ...The economy, the economy, the economy. The growth of jobs. The need to put people back to work. The challenges of Iran. “We’ve got enormous issues that we face, but you want talk about, go ahead, you want to talk about marijuana?"This sentiment seems to be echoing throughout the GOP politicians in the House and Senate. When asked for comment, Speaker Boehner said "The president can talk about it all he wants. I’m going to stay focused on what the American people want us to stay focused on, and that’s jobs."
So I suppose the GOP wishes the Democrats would stop bringing up social issues in legislation across the country. Except... the GOP themselves are the ones that tend to keep bringing it up. Earlier this week, the GOP-led North Carolina government was successful in adding Amendment 1 to the state constitution, defining marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal partnership. Also, the state of Tennessee, with a Republican governor and majorities in both the state House and Senate, Friday signed into law a bill that says teachers can no longer condone so-called "gateway sexual activity", whatever that means.
Time and again, it seems that the Republicans are the ones who are trying to legislate social issues; the ones trying to tell people by what values they should live their lives. If Romney and Boehner want the focus of the party to be on the economy, maybe they need to tell the other lawmakers in their own party first.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Political Spin... Or Cyclone Of Untruth
We're all used to political spin and taking statements out of context. Even so, I found this particular incident amusing.
President Obama had a fundraising campaign stop in Seattle on Thursday. At it, he said the following, speaking about the state of the economy at the time when he became President:
Obviously, the video and its message are ridiculous. No one with a working brain (that hasn't been brainwashed by Fox News) would take what President Obama said and honestly believe that he forgot that the country was in a recession. It should be clear that the point the President was making is that this country has indeed come quite a way since January 2009; that we're not in a perfect position right now, but things were so much worse just three years ago. And I think Obama is right; a lot of people do forget (whether it's on purpose or not is another story...) how bad the economy was when he took office. If you seriously stop to think about where we were then and compare it to today, any rational person would have to admit that the country is going in the right direction.
Unfortunately, Americans don't tend to be all that rational. Many Americans don't really have the ability to form their own opinion about something, so they'll take this video from the RNC and go around online telling people "lol can u believe obama forgot about the recesion". Republican voters tonight will sit around their dinner tables and discuss how the President is so rich that the recession didn't concern him, and how Mitt Romney is so much better positioned to know what it put the average American through. And they will do it over and over until they convince themselves that they aren't lying.
People complain about politics and career politicians; I say that the only reason that "career politician" is even a possibility is because of the gullibility of America as a whole. If we weren't so eager to believe all of this nonsense, most politicians would not be able to last in the spotlight. Maybe we need to look at ourselves before we complain about the state of politics.
President Obama had a fundraising campaign stop in Seattle on Thursday. At it, he said the following, speaking about the state of the economy at the time when he became President:
"...it was a house of cards, and it collapsed in the most destructive, worst crisis that we've seen since the Great Depression. And sometimes people forget the magnitude of it, you know? And you saw some of that I think in the video that was shown. Sometimes I forget. In the last six months of 2008, while we were campaigning, nearly three million of our neighbors lost their jobs; 800,000 lost their jobs in the month that I took office."Never one to miss an opportunity to stretch (or obliterate) the truth, the Republican National Committee quickly whipped up a video highlighting Obama's comments. It begins by asking: "How can a sitting president forget about the recession?" The video goes on to talk about how America hasn't forgotten about the recession, even though our president may have.
Obviously, the video and its message are ridiculous. No one with a working brain (that hasn't been brainwashed by Fox News) would take what President Obama said and honestly believe that he forgot that the country was in a recession. It should be clear that the point the President was making is that this country has indeed come quite a way since January 2009; that we're not in a perfect position right now, but things were so much worse just three years ago. And I think Obama is right; a lot of people do forget (whether it's on purpose or not is another story...) how bad the economy was when he took office. If you seriously stop to think about where we were then and compare it to today, any rational person would have to admit that the country is going in the right direction.
Unfortunately, Americans don't tend to be all that rational. Many Americans don't really have the ability to form their own opinion about something, so they'll take this video from the RNC and go around online telling people "lol can u believe obama forgot about the recesion". Republican voters tonight will sit around their dinner tables and discuss how the President is so rich that the recession didn't concern him, and how Mitt Romney is so much better positioned to know what it put the average American through. And they will do it over and over until they convince themselves that they aren't lying.
People complain about politics and career politicians; I say that the only reason that "career politician" is even a possibility is because of the gullibility of America as a whole. If we weren't so eager to believe all of this nonsense, most politicians would not be able to last in the spotlight. Maybe we need to look at ourselves before we complain about the state of politics.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Going Forward
It seems like I've been spending a lot of time on this issue lately... but that's only because it keeps finding its way into the news.
In a history making statement, President Barack Obama has confirmed that he supports gay marriage. In this linked article, the President admits "...in this electoral map. It may hurt me." Which, most logical people would admit, is a very big possibility. While there continue to be polls that say that Americans today support gay marriage by a very slim margin, the issue loses every time it is put to a vote. This is because, as with many issues, the people against something tend to be more passionate and outspoken than the people for the same thing. These people are therefore more motivated to come out and vote.
This is a problem for the President; while this is unlikely to gain him many voters (people will vote against him over the economy, and this stance probably won't attract many of those people who happen to support gay marriage), it could be a turn-off to some of his supporters who may have been wavering. While they may not flock to Romney, some people, such as Evangelicals, may stay home instead of turning out for Obama. In an election that is already projected to be very tight, this could be a disaster.
I believe, knowing this, it took a great deal of courage for the President to come out an confirm something that he has probably personally believed for some time. I don't think he was necessarily forced into it by Biden or anyone else; Joe Biden is allowed to have an opinion on something, and that does not have to reflect the President's view. The way that the media has been beating Biden's comments to death may have had something to do with the timing of Obama's statement, however. The President did the right thing by standing firm and saying what he believes in, regardless of the inevitable political consequences.
Some call Obama's announcement a flip-flop. I suppose it could be construed that way, as the President has, in the past, argued against gay marriage. However, I also see a person's opinion on gay marriage as something that can change over time, much as Obama's view has. Being a Christian on one hand, and someone who favors equality and fairness on the other, one could see how the President could struggle with the issue. I believe it's understandable that someone's opinion on this could waver. Considering that the most likely political consequences of this announcement are negative, it would be difficult to cast this as a politically motivated statement (though cast away some on the right will).
In the end, I am proud of our President for showing true leadership and character on this issue. At a time when politics does nothing but constantly cause me to embarrassed for our country, this is a rare high note.
In a history making statement, President Barack Obama has confirmed that he supports gay marriage. In this linked article, the President admits "...in this electoral map. It may hurt me." Which, most logical people would admit, is a very big possibility. While there continue to be polls that say that Americans today support gay marriage by a very slim margin, the issue loses every time it is put to a vote. This is because, as with many issues, the people against something tend to be more passionate and outspoken than the people for the same thing. These people are therefore more motivated to come out and vote.
This is a problem for the President; while this is unlikely to gain him many voters (people will vote against him over the economy, and this stance probably won't attract many of those people who happen to support gay marriage), it could be a turn-off to some of his supporters who may have been wavering. While they may not flock to Romney, some people, such as Evangelicals, may stay home instead of turning out for Obama. In an election that is already projected to be very tight, this could be a disaster.
I believe, knowing this, it took a great deal of courage for the President to come out an confirm something that he has probably personally believed for some time. I don't think he was necessarily forced into it by Biden or anyone else; Joe Biden is allowed to have an opinion on something, and that does not have to reflect the President's view. The way that the media has been beating Biden's comments to death may have had something to do with the timing of Obama's statement, however. The President did the right thing by standing firm and saying what he believes in, regardless of the inevitable political consequences.
Some call Obama's announcement a flip-flop. I suppose it could be construed that way, as the President has, in the past, argued against gay marriage. However, I also see a person's opinion on gay marriage as something that can change over time, much as Obama's view has. Being a Christian on one hand, and someone who favors equality and fairness on the other, one could see how the President could struggle with the issue. I believe it's understandable that someone's opinion on this could waver. Considering that the most likely political consequences of this announcement are negative, it would be difficult to cast this as a politically motivated statement (though cast away some on the right will).
In the end, I am proud of our President for showing true leadership and character on this issue. At a time when politics does nothing but constantly cause me to embarrassed for our country, this is a rare high note.
Friday, May 4, 2012
What Passes For A Gaffe
As I've said before, the reason that the media may seem liberally biased to some is that Republicans, and conservatives in general, seem to say wacky things on a much more consistent basis than Democrats do.
Want proof? This is what has to pass for a significant gaffe from the Democrats. This article seems to be an attempt to showcase a serious gaffe from Joe Biden that "jinxes US-Mexico relations". According to the article, "[Biden] began to make a toast, saying, 'It's considered bad luck among the Irish to toast with water. So I'm not going to do that.' But ultimately Biden couldn't resist, so he toasted anyway, 'To friendship, to Mexico and
to America, happy Cinco de Mayo.'"
Yes... because of Biden's major error, relations between the US and Mexico will never be the same. In fact, I think we can blame any issue the two countries have ever had with each other on this atrocity.
Honestly, there are so many gems that the GOP gives us to pick from. When this is the story that has to be used to compete with those, is it so surprising that the media seems to "liberally biased"?
Want proof? This is what has to pass for a significant gaffe from the Democrats. This article seems to be an attempt to showcase a serious gaffe from Joe Biden that "jinxes US-Mexico relations". According to the article, "[Biden] began to make a toast, saying, 'It's considered bad luck among the Irish to toast with water. So I'm not going to do that.' But ultimately Biden couldn't resist, so he toasted anyway, 'To friendship, to Mexico and
to America, happy Cinco de Mayo.'"
Yes... because of Biden's major error, relations between the US and Mexico will never be the same. In fact, I think we can blame any issue the two countries have ever had with each other on this atrocity.
Honestly, there are so many gems that the GOP gives us to pick from. When this is the story that has to be used to compete with those, is it so surprising that the media seems to "liberally biased"?
Friday, April 13, 2012
Illogical Arguments Against The Buffett Rule
Gotta love Yahoo!. And I do love Yahoo!; I like the page layout and the easy access to all the top news stories.
What I'm less of a fan of, however, are the comment sections on the articles. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be allowed to comment about things and speak their minds. But I have to question what is actually going on in the minds of many of the Yahoo! users. More often than not, the comment section has far more than its fair share of Obama hatred (even on articles not anywhere near concerning him), and (even though I'm very careful about throwing around this accusation, as it gets used far too often) even overt racism. You need look no further than any article mentioning the Williams sisters (or any tennis article... it will get brought up eventually) to see what I mean.
This article contains a discussion of the Buffett Rule, but the article itself contains nothing particularly interesting. The comments, as usual, are another story. My favorite argument against the Rule:
This whole "well if you think you should pay more, then send the government a check" argument is ridiculous. If our tax system was voluntary, this country would never have survived two months, much less 200+ years. No person should have to send the government a check to make up for an obvious imbalance in the way taxes are collected. What is even sadder is that this same argument has even been used by Republican congressmen to shoot down the Rule.
Is the Buffett Rule the way to go? Maybe, maybe not. But if you want to say no, come up with a reason that actually halfway makes it look like you even considered the question at all, and aren't just saying what Fox News tells you to.
What I'm less of a fan of, however, are the comment sections on the articles. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be allowed to comment about things and speak their minds. But I have to question what is actually going on in the minds of many of the Yahoo! users. More often than not, the comment section has far more than its fair share of Obama hatred (even on articles not anywhere near concerning him), and (even though I'm very careful about throwing around this accusation, as it gets used far too often) even overt racism. You need look no further than any article mentioning the Williams sisters (or any tennis article... it will get brought up eventually) to see what I mean.
This article contains a discussion of the Buffett Rule, but the article itself contains nothing particularly interesting. The comments, as usual, are another story. My favorite argument against the Rule:
"If he or anybody else thinks they aren't taxed enough, why do they utilize the so-called 'loopholes' to lower their taxes? Why don't they just pay the higher rate? Why don't they simply send a check to the government?"Ah, the sweet smell of ignorance (well, maybe the sweet smell is the smell of my cookies baking... I think ignorance smells like something else entirely). The point isn't for one person to pay more taxes, it's that it simply makes no sense for people with more money to pay a smaller share than someone with less money. (Whether or not there should be a flat tax is another discussion, but for the richer person to actually pay less makes no sense.)
This whole "well if you think you should pay more, then send the government a check" argument is ridiculous. If our tax system was voluntary, this country would never have survived two months, much less 200+ years. No person should have to send the government a check to make up for an obvious imbalance in the way taxes are collected. What is even sadder is that this same argument has even been used by Republican congressmen to shoot down the Rule.
Is the Buffett Rule the way to go? Maybe, maybe not. But if you want to say no, come up with a reason that actually halfway makes it look like you even considered the question at all, and aren't just saying what Fox News tells you to.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Apparently, The Fat Lady Isn't Even Enough To Stop Gingrich
Newt Gingrich has admitted that Mitt Romney is "far and away the most likely" Republican presidential nominee. He says he is $4.5 million in debt. Yet, he refuses to exit the race.
The former Speaker claims that he is staying in the race to promote agendas such as increased domestic oil production and personal Social Security accounts. Despite this claim and anything positive (grudgingly positive) he has to say about Romney, I would wager that the major driving force behind Gingrich's desire to stay in the race is his loathing of Mitt Romney. Even if his presence in the race isn't doing all that much to Romney at this point, even if his presence may actually be hurting efforts to stop Romney, there is something deep, deep in Newt Gingrich's heart that prevents him from admitting defeat to the man. I think that Newt is going all the way to the convention, where he will be dragged kicking and screaming (metaphorically, of course; though seeing the literal version would be hilarious) out of the race. At least that way, he would never have to make the call himself.
Not to mention that his alleged reasoning is ridiculous: at this point, he could probably further his agendas more by getting a job on Fox News again. That way, he could get paid for his opinion, without having to put himself millions in the hole to give it.
The fat lady has been singing for so long that she has gone completely hoarse from the effort. Perhaps that is why Newt Gingrich can't hear her at this point. Or maybe he just doesn't care. Either way, for now it seems that Gingrich will be in it until the bitter, bitter end, no matter how much people don't care anymore.
The former Speaker claims that he is staying in the race to promote agendas such as increased domestic oil production and personal Social Security accounts. Despite this claim and anything positive (grudgingly positive) he has to say about Romney, I would wager that the major driving force behind Gingrich's desire to stay in the race is his loathing of Mitt Romney. Even if his presence in the race isn't doing all that much to Romney at this point, even if his presence may actually be hurting efforts to stop Romney, there is something deep, deep in Newt Gingrich's heart that prevents him from admitting defeat to the man. I think that Newt is going all the way to the convention, where he will be dragged kicking and screaming (metaphorically, of course; though seeing the literal version would be hilarious) out of the race. At least that way, he would never have to make the call himself.
Not to mention that his alleged reasoning is ridiculous: at this point, he could probably further his agendas more by getting a job on Fox News again. That way, he could get paid for his opinion, without having to put himself millions in the hole to give it.
The fat lady has been singing for so long that she has gone completely hoarse from the effort. Perhaps that is why Newt Gingrich can't hear her at this point. Or maybe he just doesn't care. Either way, for now it seems that Gingrich will be in it until the bitter, bitter end, no matter how much people don't care anymore.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Politicizing A Tragedy
I've written many posts which highlight the ridiculous things that the Republican presidential candidates are willing to say in order to cast President Obama in the worst possible light.
However, when it comes to using a tragedy such as the killing of Trayvon Martin for political gain, this is absolutely disgraceful.
In his first public comments about the incident, President Obama said that "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon". Obama proceeded to say that we are going to get to the bottom of this case, and talked about how this affected him on a personal level, saying "...when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids...".
What I heard was a heartfelt statement from the President, who I am sure during his life has had occasion to worry about just such events happening which involve his daughters.
Apparently, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum heard differently.
An article on The Huffington Post contains a quote from Newt Gingrich, responding to the President's comments during a Hannity Radio interview. Gingrich began with "What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like," and also said "Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up... Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling."
Rick Santorum accused the President of "politicizing" the death of Trayvon Martin, and of "us[ing] these types of horrible and tragic individual cases to try to drive a wedge in America".
To any sensible person, these comments by Gingrich and Santorum are a reprehensible attempt to use Obama's message to the parents of Trayvon Martin to drive a wedge between President Obama and potential voters, not the other way around. It seems clear that Obama was merely attempting to inject a bit of a personal touch into his message. If he was trying to instigate a race war in the U.S. or condone the killing of white teenagers, then I certainly don't see it.
The Republican candidates have said many things that are ridiculous or flat-out untrue during this campaign... but this is something that these two should really be ashamed of.
However, when it comes to using a tragedy such as the killing of Trayvon Martin for political gain, this is absolutely disgraceful.
In his first public comments about the incident, President Obama said that "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon". Obama proceeded to say that we are going to get to the bottom of this case, and talked about how this affected him on a personal level, saying "...when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids...".
What I heard was a heartfelt statement from the President, who I am sure during his life has had occasion to worry about just such events happening which involve his daughters.
Apparently, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum heard differently.
An article on The Huffington Post contains a quote from Newt Gingrich, responding to the President's comments during a Hannity Radio interview. Gingrich began with "What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like," and also said "Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up... Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling."
Rick Santorum accused the President of "politicizing" the death of Trayvon Martin, and of "us[ing] these types of horrible and tragic individual cases to try to drive a wedge in America".
To any sensible person, these comments by Gingrich and Santorum are a reprehensible attempt to use Obama's message to the parents of Trayvon Martin to drive a wedge between President Obama and potential voters, not the other way around. It seems clear that Obama was merely attempting to inject a bit of a personal touch into his message. If he was trying to instigate a race war in the U.S. or condone the killing of white teenagers, then I certainly don't see it.
The Republican candidates have said many things that are ridiculous or flat-out untrue during this campaign... but this is something that these two should really be ashamed of.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Left vs Right: Maher And Limbaugh Edition
KAT2VAHE7494 (Ignore this code...)
It's always amusing to watch politicians and political figures go after each other. Without failure, extreme hypocrisy is demonstrated... and what's more humorous than pointing out hypocrisy?
I'm sure that, by now, everyone has heard about the whole Rush Limbaugh issue. Actually... I probably need to be more specific. After Georgetown student Sarah Fluke testified to Congress (or part of Congress...) about contraception, Mr. Limbaugh referred to her as a "slut", among other things. His logic being that her support for insurance provided contraception is tantamount to wanting to be paid to have sex.
Many on the right are crying "double standard", citing Bill Maher's treatment of such conservative women as Sarah Palin; see, for example, this video, and others like it:
I'm sure some will see this as bias, but I will say that I do find a difference between the two incidents. Maher's comments, while not really acceptable (though one could argue that, as a comedian doing a comedic act, he can say whatever he wants), aren't really on the same level as what Rush did. There is a difference between name calling and mudslinging, and complete character assassination and embarrassment for no reason. It's the difference between me calling some guy a "jerk", or spending days trying to convince anyone who will listen that he cheats on his wife given absolutely no evidence of such. If Rush had just said he doesn't like Ms. Fluke or he doesn't agree with her, or even called her a one-off derogatory name or two, I think that would have been on Maher's level. I think three days (see, for example, this article on The Daily Beast) of referring to someone as a prostitute is another step up (or down, as the case may be).
Next, I want to mention the calls for President Obama to return Maher's million dollar donation to his super PAC. The logic being, I suppose, that someone who has ever used foul language should not be allowed to donate to a political campaign. I think that Obama should return the money as soon as the right agrees to take Limbaugh off the air permanently. The right certainly is entitled to make as big of an issue as they want about Maher's donation, but I don't think using rude language should disqualify anyone from making donations. If it's okay for Rush to say the things he does in an effort to influence politics, then it's okay for Maher to influence politics through donations.
To close, I have a personal observation about this whole mess. It's astonishing how both sides can defend their own while condemning the other side for doing more or less the same exact thing. This is nothing new, and certainly isn't limited to Limbaugh and Maher. That doesn't stop it from still being amusing, though.
It's always amusing to watch politicians and political figures go after each other. Without failure, extreme hypocrisy is demonstrated... and what's more humorous than pointing out hypocrisy?
I'm sure that, by now, everyone has heard about the whole Rush Limbaugh issue. Actually... I probably need to be more specific. After Georgetown student Sarah Fluke testified to Congress (or part of Congress...) about contraception, Mr. Limbaugh referred to her as a "slut", among other things. His logic being that her support for insurance provided contraception is tantamount to wanting to be paid to have sex.
Many on the right are crying "double standard", citing Bill Maher's treatment of such conservative women as Sarah Palin; see, for example, this video, and others like it:
To be clear, I don't think such language has any place in politics, whether it comes from the left or the right. However, this doesn't excuse what Rush did. Rush has apologized, which I suppose must be taken for what it is. But as much as some from the left continue to pursue Rush over this issue, just as many from the right won't let it die. They are using Rush's gaffe to go after Maher and Democrats, claiming that this is just a way for liberals to try to silence Limbaugh.
I'm sure some will see this as bias, but I will say that I do find a difference between the two incidents. Maher's comments, while not really acceptable (though one could argue that, as a comedian doing a comedic act, he can say whatever he wants), aren't really on the same level as what Rush did. There is a difference between name calling and mudslinging, and complete character assassination and embarrassment for no reason. It's the difference between me calling some guy a "jerk", or spending days trying to convince anyone who will listen that he cheats on his wife given absolutely no evidence of such. If Rush had just said he doesn't like Ms. Fluke or he doesn't agree with her, or even called her a one-off derogatory name or two, I think that would have been on Maher's level. I think three days (see, for example, this article on The Daily Beast) of referring to someone as a prostitute is another step up (or down, as the case may be).
Next, I want to mention the calls for President Obama to return Maher's million dollar donation to his super PAC. The logic being, I suppose, that someone who has ever used foul language should not be allowed to donate to a political campaign. I think that Obama should return the money as soon as the right agrees to take Limbaugh off the air permanently. The right certainly is entitled to make as big of an issue as they want about Maher's donation, but I don't think using rude language should disqualify anyone from making donations. If it's okay for Rush to say the things he does in an effort to influence politics, then it's okay for Maher to influence politics through donations.
To close, I have a personal observation about this whole mess. It's astonishing how both sides can defend their own while condemning the other side for doing more or less the same exact thing. This is nothing new, and certainly isn't limited to Limbaugh and Maher. That doesn't stop it from still being amusing, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)