Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson have broken off their engagement.
Their story is a story in which the legitimacy of Abstinence-only sex education has been removed. In an interview after the election, Bristol admitted that she believed that 'abstinence was unrealistic.' This is a view that many have, and those that choose to take that path have little information given to them in many public schools that have resorted to teaching abstinence only. I can understand the rationale of parents not wanting their children to have sex and their means of succeeding in this is not giving teenagers information and permission to have sex.
I see this as shortsighted and ineffective. Trying to avoid the elephant in the room is impossible. With the sexual culture that exists in the media and in everyday conversation between teenagers, simply ignoring the topic will not prevent individuals from partaking in it. In this culture and these conditions, mainly the high number of teenage numbers and surging number of sexually transmitted infections, safe sex must be taught in public schools. Referring back to Bristol Palin, in the same interview where she called abstinence 'unrealistic,' she was unable to explain why she and Levi did not practice safe sex. Surely some of the blame must lie with the schools, a problem that was not alleviated by the fact that Governor Palin unabashedly supports abstinence only education.
Teenage sexuality is a fact that cannot be swept under the rug. With STIs such as HIV out in the population, this is absolutely a life or death matter. Finally, safe sex education is the surest way to reduce abortions among teenagers. Whether you are pro life or pro choice, no one wants there to be more abortions than are absolutely necessary. By teaching teenagers ways to prevent pregnancy, the number will shrink and the use of abortion as a form of birth control will be shown to all as the wrong path.
Finally, I read online political news far too often. With Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer having a bit of a spat, the Daily Beast posted a few 'on air' feuds. This one I found particularly scathing and entertaining. Stewart, on Crossfire, holds his own with Tucker Carlson through humor and rational discourse... enjoy! (p.s. the link to the page is http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-11/7-best-cable-tv-feuds/)
Occupy
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Fox News?!
Well, I was flipping around channels tonight and found myself watching Hannity... Wow, I actually missed Colmes. Anyway, there was this 'shocking piece' in which a 'New BRIDGE TO NOWHERE'
Anyway... this piece was shocking in three ways:
1)It gives credit to 'environmental concerns'
2)It feigns interest in the 'survival of the Everglades'
3)They actually interviewed Native Americans
4)It chides excess development as what hurt the Everglades
*RANT BREAK*
Wait, What?! Under the Bush Administration, just a few months ago, it was commonplace for the members of the Department of the Interior (Many of whom are now in jail for partaking in bribery in the form of drugs and hookers from the industries they were regulating) routinely auctioned off valuable protected land to the highest bidder. Not the least of which was contracts to strip mine for Uranium in the land near the Grand Canyon where possible spills into the Colorado River would endanger the main water supply of Las Vegas and Los Angeles?!? To me, these practices don't seem like the best way to maintain precious 'beautiful landscapes.'
*END RANT BREAK*
Ok, I've ranted enough... here is the clip for you to watch to see if you're as angered as me. And it's not just the reporting itself, it's just how disingenuous and hypocritical it is...
Well, here's a link to the video, http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3778357&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
Finally, this is shown to be a 'pork' addition to the bill that is CLEARLY one of many in this Spending Bill. I wanted to see who was the horrible congressman whose district this flaunting of money would go in. His name was Adam Putnam and he's a Republican. On his website, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl12_putnam/20090220_everglades_funding.shtml, he praises the large amount of Everglades funding in the bill. Nailed ya Fox News!
Oh, and on another note... Glenn Beck is insane. A fearmonger among fearmongers, Beck has something he calls the 'War Room' in which he envisions the many horrible ways that the country will inevitably fall (All thanks to Barack Obama, of course). Colbert just killed him with this bit, and I think that for levity's sake I'll include it was well.
Here's Colbert describing Beck's 'War Room'
And, here's Colbert's response to Beck - His 'Doom Bunker'
Anyway... this piece was shocking in three ways:
1)It gives credit to 'environmental concerns'
2)It feigns interest in the 'survival of the Everglades'
3)They actually interviewed Native Americans
4)It chides excess development as what hurt the Everglades
*RANT BREAK*
Wait, What?! Under the Bush Administration, just a few months ago, it was commonplace for the members of the Department of the Interior (Many of whom are now in jail for partaking in bribery in the form of drugs and hookers from the industries they were regulating) routinely auctioned off valuable protected land to the highest bidder. Not the least of which was contracts to strip mine for Uranium in the land near the Grand Canyon where possible spills into the Colorado River would endanger the main water supply of Las Vegas and Los Angeles?!? To me, these practices don't seem like the best way to maintain precious 'beautiful landscapes.'
*END RANT BREAK*
Ok, I've ranted enough... here is the clip for you to watch to see if you're as angered as me. And it's not just the reporting itself, it's just how disingenuous and hypocritical it is...
Well, here's a link to the video, http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3778357&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
Finally, this is shown to be a 'pork' addition to the bill that is CLEARLY one of many in this Spending Bill. I wanted to see who was the horrible congressman whose district this flaunting of money would go in. His name was Adam Putnam and he's a Republican. On his website, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl12_putnam/20090220_everglades_funding.shtml, he praises the large amount of Everglades funding in the bill. Nailed ya Fox News!
Oh, and on another note... Glenn Beck is insane. A fearmonger among fearmongers, Beck has something he calls the 'War Room' in which he envisions the many horrible ways that the country will inevitably fall (All thanks to Barack Obama, of course). Colbert just killed him with this bit, and I think that for levity's sake I'll include it was well.
Here's Colbert describing Beck's 'War Room'
And, here's Colbert's response to Beck - His 'Doom Bunker'
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Looking backwards to move forwards
This is a speech Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island spoke on the Senate floor on January 21st, 2009 - the first full day of the Obama administration. This encapsulates the need that I feel also to look back at the mistakes that have been made in the previous eight years... Without such self-evaluation, the road has been left for others to abuse this great nation's institutions once more.
Whitehouse: As We Look Forward We Must Also Look Back
January 21, 2009
I rise as we celebrate a new President, a new administration, a new mode of governing, and a new future for America.
Even in the gloom of our present predicaments, Americans' hearts are strong and confident because we see a brighter future ahead.
President Obama looks to that future. Given the depth and severity of those predicaments, we need all his energy to look forward to lead us to that brighter day; forward to what Winston Churchill in Britain's dark days called those "broad and sunlit uplands."
But, as we steer toward this broad and sunlit future, what about the past? As the President looks forward and charts a new course, must someone not also look back, to take an accounting of where we are, what was done, and what must now be repaired.
Our new President has said, "America needs to look forward." I agree.
Our new Attorney-General designate has said, we should not criminalize policy differences. I agree.
And I hope we can all agree that summoning young sacrificial lambs to prosecute, as we did after the Abu Ghraib disaster, would be reprehensible.
But consider the pervasive, deliberate, and systematic damage the Bush Administration did to America, to her finest traditions and institutions, to her reputation and integrity.
I evaluate that damage in history's light. Although I'm no historian, here is what I believe:
The story of humankind on this Earth has been a long and halting march from the darkness of barbarism and the principle that to the victor go the spoils, to the light of organized civilization and freedom. During that long and halting march, this light of progress has burned, sometimes brightly and sometimes softly, in different places at different times around the world.
The light shone in Athens, when that first Senate made democracy a living experiment; and again in the softer but broader glow of the Roman Empire and Senate.
That light burned brightly, incandescently, in Jerusalem, when Jesus of Nazareth cast his lot with the weak and the powerless.
The light burned in Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo and Cordoba, when the Arab world kept science, mathematics, art, and logic alive, as Europe descended into Dark Ages of plague and violence.
The light flashed from the fields of Runnymede when English nobles forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, and glowed steadily from that island kingdom as England developed Parliament and the common law, and was the first to stand against slavery.
It rekindled in Europe at the time of the Reformation, with a bright flash in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his edicts to the Wittenberg cathedral doors, and faced with excommunication, stated "Here I stand. I can do no other."
Over the years across the globe, that light, and the darkness of tyranny and cruelty, have ebbed and flowed.
But for the duration of our Republic, even though our Republic is admittedly imperfect, that light has shone more brightly and more steadily here in this Republic than in any place on earth: as we adopted the Constitution, the greatest achievement yet in human freedom; as boys and men bled out of shattered bodies into sodden fields at Antietam and Chicamagua, Shiloh and Gettysburg to expiate the sin of slavery; as we rebuilt shattered enemies, now friends, overseas and came home after winning world wars; and as we threw off bit by bit ancient shackles of race and gender to make this a more perfect union for all of us.
What made this bright and steady glow possible? What made it possible is not that we are better people, I believe, but that our system of government is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Why else does our President take his oath to defend a Constitution of the United States of America? Our unique form of self-government is a blessing, and we hold it in trust; not just for us, but for our children and grandchildren down through history; not just for us, but as an example out through the world.
That is why our Statue of Liberty raises a lamp to other nations still engloomed in tyranny.
That is why we stand as a beacon in this world, beckoning to all who seek a kinder, freer, brighter future.
We hold this unique gift in trust for the future and the world. Each generation assumes responsibility for this Republic and its government, and each generation takes on a special obligation when they do. Our new President closed his Inaugural Address by setting forth the challenge against which future generations will test us: whether "with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generation." There are no guarantees that we will - this is a continuing experiment we are embarked upon - and a lot is at stake; indeed, the most precious thing of man's creation on the face of the Earth is at stake. That is what I believe.
So from that perspective, what about the past? No one can deny that in the last eight years America's bright light has dimmed and flickered, darkening our country and darkening the world.
The price of that is incalculable. There are nearly 7 billion human souls on this world. Every morning, the sun rises anew over their villages and hamlets and barrios, and every day they can choose where to invest their hopes, their confidence, and their dreams.
I submit that when America's light shines brightly, when honesty, freedom, justice and compassion glow from our institutions, it attracts those hopes, those dreams; and the force of those 7 billion hopes and dreams, the confidence of those 7 billion souls in our lively experiment, is, I believe, the strongest power in our national arsenal - stronger than atom bombs. We risk it at our peril.
And of course when our own faith is diminished at home, this vital light only dims further, again at incalculable cost.
So when an administration rigs the intelligence process and produces false evidence to send our country to war;
When an administration descends to interrogation techniques of the Inquisition, of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge - descends to techniques that we have prosecuted as crimes in military tribunals and federal courts;
When institutions as noble as the Department of Justice and as vital as the Environmental Protection Agency are systematically and deliberately twisted from their missions by odious means of institutional sabotage;
When the integrity of our markets and the fiscal security of our budget are opened wide to the frenzied greed of corporations, speculators and contractors;
When the integrity of public officials; the warnings of science; the honesty of government procedures; and the careful historic balance of our separated powers of government, are all seen as obstacles to be overcome and not attributes to be celebrated;
When taxpayers are cheated, and the forces of government ride to the rescue of the cheaters and punish the whistleblowers;
When a government turns the guns of official secrecy against its own people to mislead, confuse and propagandize them;
When government ceases to even try to understand the complex topography of the difficult problems it is our very purpose and duty to solve, and instead cares only for these points where it intersects with the party ideology, so that the purpose of government becomes no longer to solve problems, but only to work them for political advantage;
In short, when you have pervasive infiltration into all the halls of government - judicial, legislative, and executive - of the most ignoble forms of influence; when you see systematic dismantling of historic processes and traditions of government that are the safeguards of our democracy; and when you have a bodyguard of lies, jargon, and propaganda emitted to fool and beguile the American people...
Well, something very serious in the history of our republic has gone wrong, something that dims the light of progress for all humanity.
As we look forward, as we begin the task of rebuilding this nation, we have an abiding duty to determine how great the damage is. I say this in no spirit of vindictiveness or revenge. I say it because the thing that was sullied is so, so precious; and I say it because the past bears upon the future. If people have been planted in government in violation of our civil service laws to serve their party and their ideology instead of serving the public, the past will bear upon the future. If procedures and institutions of government have been corrupted and are not put right, that past will assuredly bear on the future. In an ongoing enterprise like government, the door cannot be so conveniently closed on the closets of the past. The past always bears on the future.
Moreover, a democracy is not just a static institution, it is a living education - an ongoing education in freedom of a people. As Harry Truman said addressing a joint session of Congress back in 1947, "One of the chief virtues of a democracy is that its defects are always visible, and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected."
Entirely apart from tentacles of the past that may reach into the future, are the lessons we as a people have to learn from this past carnival of folly, greed, lies, and sabotage, so that it can, under democratic processes, be pointed out and corrected.
If we blind ourselves to this history, if we pull an invisibility cloak over it, we will deny ourselves its lessons. Those lessons came at too painful a cost to ignore. Those lessons merit discovery, disclosure and discussion. Indeed, disclosure and discussion is the difference between a valuable lesson for the bright upward forces of our democracy, and a blueprint for darker forces to return and do it all over again.
A little bright, healthy sunshine and fresh air, so that an educated population knows what was done and how, can show where the tunnels were bored, when the truth was subordinated; what institutions were subverted; how our democracy was compromised; so this grim history is not condemned to repeat itself; so a knowing public in the clarity of day can say, "Never, never, never, again;" so we can keep that light - that light that is at once America's greatest gift and greatest strength - brightly shining. To do this, I submit, we must look back.
I yield the floor.
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)