Occupy
Friday, December 5, 2008
The 'Right to Conscience,' Harvey Milk and the Bailout hypocracy
First off... Rachel Maddow is brilliant, as is Melissa Harris-Lacewell. But, to move on to the matter at hand, this policy change newly implemented by the Lame Duck Bush administration is despicable. The 'right to conscience' is an obvious ploy to narrow the rights of women as protected by Roe v. Wade. Giving anyone the option to opt out of legal medical procedures allows an end-run around individual rights. This seems so similar to me of women's health clinics around the country that have no intention to conduct abortions and lie to women until it's literally too late. Why would means such as this be the way that the Republicans try to eliminate a woman's right to choose? Isn't it a crusade put on by the Right? Why not validate that 'moral' position with a popular decision or highly public Supreme Court decision?
Well... just in this past election, two such measures were defeated. One in Colorado that redefined 'personhood' to begin at the moment of fertilization, which was defeated by a double digit margin. And the other, and this one I think is much more indicative, where severe restrictions towards abortions was defeated in SOUTH DAKOTA. I'm sorry, but when abortion can't be defeated by popular decision in a state like South Dakota... perhaps it's just time for the Right to resign themselves to the fact that these rights are popularly supported and leave it be.
Even when I considered myself to be a Republican, I was always a bit concerned with the intrusive nature of Social Conservatism. To me, I always saw it as the majority trying to push their views of morality on society as a whole. I don't believe that this is a Christian nation, and I think that it's a travesty that any individual running for elected office seemingly has to prove to the American people how much faith he or she has and that literally being a litmus test to their electability. Just for argument's sake, why would the fact that Barack Obama's being a muslim (which is completely untrue and no one of true intellect can say otherwise) be a threat to national security? He did not have dual citizenship with any Middle Eastern country, so clearly his religion solely would be the culprit. I reject the assumption that an individual's faith would necessarily paint their judgment (unless that individual claims to talk to God personally... I'm talking to you W.). JFK did not take his orders from the Pope and a muslim leader would not take orders from the Ayatolla.
Speaking of Social Conservatism and its danger, the movie that I am most excited to see right now is Milk. Going through my public education, I was never made aware of Harvey Milk's story and the crusade against Prop 6 in California in the late 70s. For anyone interested, Harvey Milk was the first openly gay elected official in the U.S. He was a City Supervisor for the city of San Francisco. And the battle against Prop 6, which is what the movie revolves around, was a measure that would fire any teacher who was either gay or supportive of gays. It's really quite amazing the parallels that this time makes with the current circumstances after the passing of Prop 8. Fortunately, I was educated on the matter during my first Women's Studies class at OSU and I was amazed by it. Not surprisingly, Harvey was assasinated early in life. But, I am intrigued to see how Sean Penn plays the role of Milk, as well as the parts played by Emile Hirsch and James Franco - I have only heard amazing things about it and I'm sure it will be up for more than a couple oscars.
NOTE - Prop 8 will be defeated and it overturning will be a step towards true equality... How long must we wait?
Finally, the last topic that is on my mind is the matter of the bailout for the auto manufacturing industry in this country. As I have just heard tonight, there will be a loan given which I can only see as good news. Sure, these companies have mismanaged their industry, but showing them a lesson at the expense of one tenth of the jobs in this nation is a price that is far too high to consider. This bailout has been the topic of much disagreement, but I have taken one piece of information out of it. The Big 3 execs have had to grovel and plead and give plans upon plans on how the money will help, all while being brow-beaten by Congress. Romney and other fiscal conservatives have called for no money to be given and to let the companies fail. Much more insidiously, the dreaded unions have been vilified as the reason that GM and the lot are in this mess...
My question is this - why is all of this stringency being placed on the Auto makers but not on the banking industry that we have already given $700 billion (much more than the $25 billion that we're giving Detroit)? This disconnect between those who take a shower before work and those who have to shower afterwards is clear. The banking bailout is being spent on executive bonuses while union members are being blamed for wanting a decent wage and health benefits? Seriously?!
I actually liked the opinion offered by Michael Moore on Countdown the other day... The Big 3 have an actual value of around $3 billion now... why are we going to give them $25 billion more? For that we could buy the companies and nationalize in a way that we the people can determine the future productions - emphasizing hybrid and electric technologies. It won't happen, but hopefully the money we're giving will allow us influence to change the directions of the companies.
Hmm... In conclusion, I'm happy to see that Bill O'Reilly's radio show will go under at the beginning of the year! One down, one more to go :) It's well on its way if Olbermann continues to outdo Billo in the ratings!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Perception is Reality
As Reagan's chief of staff so roughly put it "Perception is reality." And as the past twenty years have unfolded, that quote has proven to be prophetic in a way that is beyond belief. Reagan, as successful as he was, was always shielded by an image created by his political staff and propagated by a media that was more than willing to eat it up. I mean, an ex-movie star that was congenial and loved jelly beans? His persona was supposed to lead America into a grand Conservative movement that would minimize the size of the government to the point that it could be 'drowned in a bathtub.' And history has shown him to be a larger than life figure, still to this day. Hardly a speech by a prominent Republican figure goes by in which his name is not called out as a testament to how America should be governed. Hell, my father has always told me that 'Reagan made everyone proud to be Americans again.' And I cannot take that away from him, I did not live in that time so I have no point of view. I do know that he built up the largest national debt in history to that point. I know that his 'trickle down' economics are a remnant that has not proved to be an effective stimulus for the majority of the American population. But... the ultimate point that I am making is that he was president in a very fortunate time. He was hawkish in the highest degree towards the Soviets (almost dangerously) and was credited with the bankrupting of the USSR, although their collapse was not far off due to poor leadership. Hell, it's Reagan with his name on the airport at DC, certainly not Jimmy Carter, so his success has clearly been deemed so by 'those who know,' whoever they are. Image was key to Reagan and was key to George W. until the sheer ineptitude of his governance overrided it.
Image is once again vital when taking the incoming Obama Administration in context. Historical hyperbole has been given to Obama from the start. His orations evoke the power of JFK and Bobby Kennedy... Being the first African-American president, America seems to be near the proverbial mountaintop that Martin Luther King once spoke of. Even rumors of his naming Hillary Clinton to the Secretary of State post evoked Lincoln's 'Team of Rivals.' These expectations, along with Barack's rhetoric of massive fundamental change to the federal government as a whole seem to allow no room for failure in his governance. This may be possible, and I certainly voted and campaigned for him knowing that he gave us the best chance of success in the coming years. But, before we all exclaim that all our problems are solved because we have a man from the opposing party in the White House, let us take a look at all of the challenges that have been left on his desk by the departing administration:
1) We are fighting two wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are not like traditional wars in American history. There is no chance of achieving 'total victory' because there is not a standing army to combat, terror cells and insurgents are moving targets without exact numbers. Even General David Petraeus, the general behind the much vaunted 'Surge' has admitted that Iraq is not a situation where the term 'victory' can truly apply. Iraq is especially dire due to the fact that the Status of Forces agreement that was in place expires on January 1st of next year and the Iraqis have been unwilling to agree to another. If and when that expires, any actions that the US military takes would be unlawful and every soldier would be subject to war crimes. The election of Obama has made the Iraqis more open to another agreement, which is a good sign. A new agreement and a shift in mission from one of full military occupation to an international policing effort would help facilitate a gradual shift to the Iraqis and withdrawal of American troops.
But the real war still to be fought is in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 under Bush was a travesty. Too few troops were allotted and corners were cut in the securing of the country. With all of the attention paid to Iraq, Afghanistan has fallen into worse shape than since we first invaded. Al Qaeda has risen again and the Taliban has regained standing. A lot of this has occured in the loose border that Afghanistan shares with Pakistan called Waziristan... This area is quite mountainous which allows almost no border enforcement, and here tribal Islamic leaders are slowly regaining strength and sending troops into Afghanistan. Here, some more troops are needed, but mostly more policing and greater economic aid to reduce the Afghan economy's need to lean on opiate poppy production from being their main export.
2) The ecomony is shit. Plain and simple... credit markets have not improved in the preceding weeks, even following the banking bailout. But why is this so? Didn't we, the taxpayers just give them $700 billion dollars to start doing that? And not just a blank check like Paulson, the Treasury secretary asked for but with OVERSIGHT! Well... that's simply not the case. Even though oversight was written into the legisation, reportedly nearly $300 billion of the alloted money has been spent and the regulatory positions that were meant to oversee the spending haven't been filled yet. This money is being spent on executive salaries and bonuses, company retreats and other avenues to help shareholders, not taxpayers. This is not a nationalized banking system, it is certainly the blank check that the banks did not deserve and could not be trusted with. Bailouts were done much more deftly in other countries. Gordon Brown in the UK, for example, reached an agreement with each bank he leant to that: 1)Taxpayers got 12% back on their investment annually; 2)The government gained members on the board to help in decisionmaking; and 3)A written agreement with each bank that they would start lending to small businesses and individuals. Paulson, on the other hand, was only able to negotiate a 5% return annually and got no agreement that banks would again start lending.
With this failed bailout, another is needed for homeowners who face foreclosure and others who are in dire need. The American auto industry is in desperate need for a cash infusion. One in ten jobs in this country is with one of the Big 3 auto manufacturers, and General Motors for one, has said that they do not have enough cash to last the remainder of the year. A bailout here, contingent on enforced regulation of the kinds of cars produced in the future (Green friendly hybrid production increased), would do a great deal towards righting the ship. That, along with increased government spending on public works infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, solar panels, etc.) would increase the number of jobs in the short term and help slowly bring the economy back.
3) Finally, Barack Obama has to juggle those two behemoths, achieve his promise on passing universal health care, work towards becoming a more green friendly nation and less energy dependent on oil from the Middle East and (most importantly) restore the people's faith and trust in its government. I've been reading a book regarding John McCain recently, and his belief in a 'greater cause' for government is a noble endeavor that I think bears following. His belief that a government should be clean and open and trustworthy is an end that our representative democracy deserves.
These goals, as well as the effectiveness of Obama in general, will be judged in the present by the 'storyline-based' media. This media is one of hardening partisanship on both sides. Almost anyone can see the conservative lean at Fox News and even I admit that MSNBC clearly leans to the left (Yay Olbermann and Maddow!). These are the same forces that helped shape Reagan's image towards sainthood. Say what you will about him, but after the attacks of 9/11, and the subsequent building up of national identity under a strong leader, George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings of any president at ANY time. That is a truly strong statement. But, as the wars drug on and episode after episode (Katrina, Warantless Wiretapping, TORTURE at Guantanamo), that image slipped away from him until he had nothing. This is the fear I have for the Obama administration, not from ineptitude but from outward catastrophe. With the economy slipping fast and no solution in place yet (I'm sorry, but that $700 billion is a lost cause), the ambitious changes that Obama promised will have to take a backseat to trying to prevent another Great Depression.
And if that depression hits and Obama cannot lift us out of it, what will his image and his legacy be? Will he be the man who promised the world only to have the rug pulled out on him by the past? Will he be blamed for the catastrophe? Rush Limbaugh and the other Conservative talking heads have called this the 'Obama Recession'; which is complete bullshit... I'm sorry, but Obama hasn't changed a single policy or changed a single bit of regulation. That 'honor' falls upon Alan Greenspan who recently admitted that 'his assumptions on the way the world works were wrong.' (Really? Who knew that rather than regulate themselves, banks would take risks in the name of outrageous profit?) Anyway, enough ranting... The media and the conventional wisdom of the time will all make their judgements regarding how this ambitious young president will handle these challenges.
I want to say that I am truly, TRULY hopeful that Barack Obama will be able to weather these storms, resolve the conflicts in the Middle East, right our economic ship and restore our national standing with its citizens as well as the world. His oratory skills are superb and he will be able to comfort the nation in a way that no one has before. I am willing to do my part to make this 'the world as it should be' as opposed to settling for 'the world as it is' and I hope that everyone else is as well. Regardless of party and partisanship, the main purpose of government is to make the society that its citizens live in a prosperous (and I would say equitable) one. Four years from now, I hope that we are on our way to becoming that nation for all.
This first blog post was more of a rant, so there weren't any particular sources that I took from. Suffice it to say, any questioned facts or figures probably came from Olbermann, Maddow, or dailykos.com. Maybe I'll do some of that citing stuff next time... but probably not.
Image is once again vital when taking the incoming Obama Administration in context. Historical hyperbole has been given to Obama from the start. His orations evoke the power of JFK and Bobby Kennedy... Being the first African-American president, America seems to be near the proverbial mountaintop that Martin Luther King once spoke of. Even rumors of his naming Hillary Clinton to the Secretary of State post evoked Lincoln's 'Team of Rivals.' These expectations, along with Barack's rhetoric of massive fundamental change to the federal government as a whole seem to allow no room for failure in his governance. This may be possible, and I certainly voted and campaigned for him knowing that he gave us the best chance of success in the coming years. But, before we all exclaim that all our problems are solved because we have a man from the opposing party in the White House, let us take a look at all of the challenges that have been left on his desk by the departing administration:
1) We are fighting two wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are not like traditional wars in American history. There is no chance of achieving 'total victory' because there is not a standing army to combat, terror cells and insurgents are moving targets without exact numbers. Even General David Petraeus, the general behind the much vaunted 'Surge' has admitted that Iraq is not a situation where the term 'victory' can truly apply. Iraq is especially dire due to the fact that the Status of Forces agreement that was in place expires on January 1st of next year and the Iraqis have been unwilling to agree to another. If and when that expires, any actions that the US military takes would be unlawful and every soldier would be subject to war crimes. The election of Obama has made the Iraqis more open to another agreement, which is a good sign. A new agreement and a shift in mission from one of full military occupation to an international policing effort would help facilitate a gradual shift to the Iraqis and withdrawal of American troops.
But the real war still to be fought is in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 under Bush was a travesty. Too few troops were allotted and corners were cut in the securing of the country. With all of the attention paid to Iraq, Afghanistan has fallen into worse shape than since we first invaded. Al Qaeda has risen again and the Taliban has regained standing. A lot of this has occured in the loose border that Afghanistan shares with Pakistan called Waziristan... This area is quite mountainous which allows almost no border enforcement, and here tribal Islamic leaders are slowly regaining strength and sending troops into Afghanistan. Here, some more troops are needed, but mostly more policing and greater economic aid to reduce the Afghan economy's need to lean on opiate poppy production from being their main export.
2) The ecomony is shit. Plain and simple... credit markets have not improved in the preceding weeks, even following the banking bailout. But why is this so? Didn't we, the taxpayers just give them $700 billion dollars to start doing that? And not just a blank check like Paulson, the Treasury secretary asked for but with OVERSIGHT! Well... that's simply not the case. Even though oversight was written into the legisation, reportedly nearly $300 billion of the alloted money has been spent and the regulatory positions that were meant to oversee the spending haven't been filled yet. This money is being spent on executive salaries and bonuses, company retreats and other avenues to help shareholders, not taxpayers. This is not a nationalized banking system, it is certainly the blank check that the banks did not deserve and could not be trusted with. Bailouts were done much more deftly in other countries. Gordon Brown in the UK, for example, reached an agreement with each bank he leant to that: 1)Taxpayers got 12% back on their investment annually; 2)The government gained members on the board to help in decisionmaking; and 3)A written agreement with each bank that they would start lending to small businesses and individuals. Paulson, on the other hand, was only able to negotiate a 5% return annually and got no agreement that banks would again start lending.
With this failed bailout, another is needed for homeowners who face foreclosure and others who are in dire need. The American auto industry is in desperate need for a cash infusion. One in ten jobs in this country is with one of the Big 3 auto manufacturers, and General Motors for one, has said that they do not have enough cash to last the remainder of the year. A bailout here, contingent on enforced regulation of the kinds of cars produced in the future (Green friendly hybrid production increased), would do a great deal towards righting the ship. That, along with increased government spending on public works infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, solar panels, etc.) would increase the number of jobs in the short term and help slowly bring the economy back.
3) Finally, Barack Obama has to juggle those two behemoths, achieve his promise on passing universal health care, work towards becoming a more green friendly nation and less energy dependent on oil from the Middle East and (most importantly) restore the people's faith and trust in its government. I've been reading a book regarding John McCain recently, and his belief in a 'greater cause' for government is a noble endeavor that I think bears following. His belief that a government should be clean and open and trustworthy is an end that our representative democracy deserves.
These goals, as well as the effectiveness of Obama in general, will be judged in the present by the 'storyline-based' media. This media is one of hardening partisanship on both sides. Almost anyone can see the conservative lean at Fox News and even I admit that MSNBC clearly leans to the left (Yay Olbermann and Maddow!). These are the same forces that helped shape Reagan's image towards sainthood. Say what you will about him, but after the attacks of 9/11, and the subsequent building up of national identity under a strong leader, George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings of any president at ANY time. That is a truly strong statement. But, as the wars drug on and episode after episode (Katrina, Warantless Wiretapping, TORTURE at Guantanamo), that image slipped away from him until he had nothing. This is the fear I have for the Obama administration, not from ineptitude but from outward catastrophe. With the economy slipping fast and no solution in place yet (I'm sorry, but that $700 billion is a lost cause), the ambitious changes that Obama promised will have to take a backseat to trying to prevent another Great Depression.
And if that depression hits and Obama cannot lift us out of it, what will his image and his legacy be? Will he be the man who promised the world only to have the rug pulled out on him by the past? Will he be blamed for the catastrophe? Rush Limbaugh and the other Conservative talking heads have called this the 'Obama Recession'; which is complete bullshit... I'm sorry, but Obama hasn't changed a single policy or changed a single bit of regulation. That 'honor' falls upon Alan Greenspan who recently admitted that 'his assumptions on the way the world works were wrong.' (Really? Who knew that rather than regulate themselves, banks would take risks in the name of outrageous profit?) Anyway, enough ranting... The media and the conventional wisdom of the time will all make their judgements regarding how this ambitious young president will handle these challenges.
I want to say that I am truly, TRULY hopeful that Barack Obama will be able to weather these storms, resolve the conflicts in the Middle East, right our economic ship and restore our national standing with its citizens as well as the world. His oratory skills are superb and he will be able to comfort the nation in a way that no one has before. I am willing to do my part to make this 'the world as it should be' as opposed to settling for 'the world as it is' and I hope that everyone else is as well. Regardless of party and partisanship, the main purpose of government is to make the society that its citizens live in a prosperous (and I would say equitable) one. Four years from now, I hope that we are on our way to becoming that nation for all.
This first blog post was more of a rant, so there weren't any particular sources that I took from. Suffice it to say, any questioned facts or figures probably came from Olbermann, Maddow, or dailykos.com. Maybe I'll do some of that citing stuff next time... but probably not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)