411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 130 – The Governator Attempts to Terminate Welfare, Iranian Democracy Stinks, Letterman VS Palin and War on Drugs

Posted by Mark Radulich on 06.18.2009

This week we give Obama a break and look California, Iran, Letterman VS Palin and The War on Drugs!

So I says to the girl, I says, "Let's invite our friends over for dinner and play Guitar Hero: Smash Hits, that'll be fun." And the girl agrees and so da friends come over and after about 20 minutes of only me and one other person playing GH SM another girl asks me if we can play SingStar instead. Two hours later after some painful renditions of Boyz II Men and Extreme everyone left and now I've only played my new game for, once again, twenty minutes. To make up for it I attempted to play World Of Warcraft before I went to sleep and Blizzard was doing maintenance on the realm I play in…I tell you I just can't catch a break…

…I didn't come here to tell you that.

Welcome to the fourth edition of the Radulich Era Fact or Fiction. I want to thank everyone who e-mailed me last week about participating and I encourage the rest of you to throw your hat in the ring as well.
A little something about the process, like everyone else on the net, I start my research with news aggregator sites like Drudge and MyWay and if I still can't find anything that I want to include, talk radio usually has some good topics (Bill Bennett's Morning In America is always good for an idea). However, I am open to other ideas as well so if you see something in the news that you would like to see included, send me the link and I'll check it out.

Lastly, on occasion I come across a video that's worth looking at so in future Fact or Fictions I'll be including some video's for participates to respond to.

This week our smart and fantastic participants are Jake G and Robert Chapman. Jake G occasionally blogs for 411 Politics and you can check his out latest blog, "Quick to Judge, Quick to Forget" right here after you are done with reading this. Rob Chapman occasionally comments on 411 under various names. He has a B.A. in Political Science, which he uses to torment The Spook : ) (among other things as well I'm sure).
Alright Ramblers, let's get ramblin'

Ding Ding!

1) Last week, Schwarzenegger told lawmakers that California's $24 billion budget deficit could be reduced with cuts to or possibly the complete elimination of CalWORKS, Medicare, Healthy Families, In-Home Supportive Services Program (IHSS) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for seniors among other cuts. But to make the state budget situation even worse California will automatically lose billions of dollars in matching federal and private funds by not meeting its minimum funding requirements. For example, by eliminating altogether, CalWORKS, a welfare assistance program, the state will save $1.3 billion but will loses $3.7 billion in federal funding according to H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance. These cuts would impact 1.3 million residents, 1 million being children belonging to some 521,000 affected families. If Governor Schwarzenegger goes through with this plan to cut CalWorks among other programs, it will be an unmitigated social, criminal and economic disaster from which California may not recover for many years to come.

Jake G: Fact. Something has to give with California's government structure but I'm not sure exactly what. I truly believe that Arnold is constantly working to improve California and I think despite making a handful of dunderheaded decisions, Arnold is working hard to cut down the budget deficit. Running California is often compared to running a small country as California has around the tenth largest economy. Unfortunately for California, it's not another country and is forced into a lot of guidelines that make it almost impossible to govern on the economic standpoint. I don't have the answer as to what the Governator can do to fix his problem either, I'd rather not play armchair economist and offer my "solution"... But I will say that eliminating that many social programs, especially all at once could be a disaster. Cutting those programs not only effect real people, but removes a lot of Federal and Private funds. Arnold may be able to cut one program, but he won't be able to cut them all without having a lot of problems that could make the situation even worse.

I tend to think that Arnold wants a clean slate, to remove all the programs of Government and then rebudget and put into place what they can afford. Unfortunately you don't get those sort of opportunities. You always have to work off what the last guy left you or the last ten guys left you.

Robert Chapman: Fact. Obviously California and Schwarzenegger will have to make some tough decisions, but completely eliminating programs that are keeping over a million people afloat in our current economy won't solve anything. A lot of programs will have to be cut to keep the state from bankrupting. But a lot of people don't realize that most social programs operate at bare bones budgets in the best of times, so right now they're definitely suffering. There's no easy solution to this problem, but if the numbers are true it's obvious that saving $1.3 billion to lose $3.7 billion is just bad policy. I do find it a little interesting, and it's probably just a coincidence, that the programs listed are Medicare, welfare, and retirement programs, which most Republicans favor cutting or eliminating anyway. Let's hope the Governor isn't using California's crisis for political gain and only looking at cutting programs his base wants him to.

My colleague is also correct that getting rid of the programs completely and starting over again later with new ones is a bad move. Trying to make them more efficient is one thing, but to eliminate them all at the same time is something you'll spend years coming back from. Also consider thousands of the government employees working for these organizations will be out of jobs, and your situation in California starts snowballing with higher unemployment, millions more in poverty, and less medical and retirement benefits. This won't just affect those using these government programs, but could snowball and affect everyone in the state.

1 and 1 to start. It's really simple – whether you like them or not, because of the New Deal, The Great Society and Change We Can Believe in, social service programs are institutions and they cannot be simply deleted from society without hurting millions of people. As much as conservatives would like to believe that EVERYONE is capable of rugged individualism, 60 years of welfare programs and the entitlement society it creates can't be undone in a weekend.

2) The NY Times reports that, "A report from Iran's Press TV says that the country's most senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that the country's election was a great success and "has once again approved its result." Since Ayatollah Khamenei is the ultimate authority in Iran's complex governing structure, it seems clear that the regime is digging in against the protests by the opposition. Press TV added that Ayatollah Khamenei said that "psychological warfare aimed at discouraging people from voting failed.""

However, "A moderate clerical body, the Association of Combatant Clergy, issued a statement posted on reformist Web sites saying the election was rigged and calling for it to be canceled, warning that "if this process becomes the norm, the republican aspect of the regime will be damaged and people will lose confidence in the system."" Mr. Ahmadinejad's landslide re-election is a fraud and an embarrassment to the ideal of free and open democratic elections.

Jake G: Fact. I say that with a bit of trepidation, because I've never been to Iran, I only know what I've learned through books and TV. So it's easy for me to say "Oh it's a fraud" and have no real investment in the country. If the stories we hear ARE true, then obviously the Iranian elections were a scam. Unfortunately this will likely always be the case so long as radicals run the country. When clerics and religious figures are the ones who have the final sayso in elections, you'll never get a fair election. I know I wouldn't want the Pope making the final call on a hotly contested US election. I do think that the riots in Iran show the country slowly moving towards a serious democracy. The people want change, but right now their government isn't allowing it. This will either lead to a stronger revolution next time, or the people becoming so downtrodden that the status quo remains in power for years to come. I think we should all hope and pray for the former, not the latter.

Robert Chapman: Fact. A million times fact. My only evidence in saying this is the knowledge that Ahmadinejad is bat-shit crazy. Not quite Kim Jong-Il crazy, but close. I find it almost impossible that a bat-shit crazy guy can get 62% of the vote. A narrower margin, maybe, but this SCREAMS tampering.

I obviously don't know any of this for sure, but in the last few years, the Iranian people have seemed among the more level-headed in the region. The sad part to all of this is that Iran, aside from the pro-western Turkey and Israel (and even they're clamping down on human rights), is the closest thing to a real democracy in the region. Of course most power in the nation rests with the shahs and the Ayatollahs, but Iranians have more of a political voice that those in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, or any other major Middle Eastern nation. In fact, most of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa are run by governments claiming to be democracies that run complete sham elections without even pretending to be honest, but until now Iran has seemed fairly legitimate.

The best part about this is the thousands taking to the street in protest. With the world watching, the government has been somewhat reluctant to hurt or kill protesters as much as they could have been, and this can give the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad a glimpse of what happens when you not only ignore the will of the people, but slap them in the face as you're doing it. If they had been smart, they wouldn't have made it a landslide, and the victory would have been more believable. Like the other guy said, this will lead to either the government giving a little, or clamping down so much that they become another dictatorship. We can only hope the protesters keep it up and don't give up because it may be decades before they get as motivated and organized as they are now if the government clamps down.

2 for 2. Now here's my question, will someone send Jimmy Carter to observe the recount?

AND NOW WE ARE SO HAPPY WE DO THE DANCE OF JOY…I mean SWITCH!

3a) On Monday June 8th, David Letterman made the following joke while Gov Palin was visiting NY (presumably for the Hannity interview among other reasons), ""One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."" He later explained that he meant 18-year-old Bristol, not 14-year-old Willow (who as at the game, as opposed to Bristol, who was not). Limbaugh, Jimmy The Greek, Imus, Bubba the Lovesponge, Michael Savage and Howard Cossell among others were all fired from their respective gigs when they made insensitive or perceived insensitive comments regardless of what they actually meant at the time. In the interest of fairness and consistency, David Letterman should be fired from his Late Night TV show.

Robert Chapman : Fiction. Apples and oranges. Letterman is a comedian, and comedy has to be able to push the envelope sometimes. Go listen to your average stand-up comic for ten minutes and you'll hear things that make Letterman look like a nun. Limbaugh, Imus, Bubba the Love Sponge, and Michael Savage are shock jocks, and all have said much worse things than this. Hell, of the top of my head, Limbaugh has accused Michael J. Fox of faking Parkinson's, asked followers to intentionally disrupt the Democratic primary, and referred to then-candidate Obama as "Barack the Magic Negro", and was only fired from a brief stint at ESPN for insinuating Donovan McNabb was only a famous quarterback because he was black. I had to look up what Bubba the Love Sponge did, but he murdered a pig on air, and in another incident raped a porn star with a dildo. On air. You read that right. And that's not even what he got fired for.

Rush Limbaugh and Jimmy the Greek were fired for saying racist things during a televised sportscast, and Letterman made a joke about a politician that went a little too far. No one would have ever remembered it the next day from the rest of Letterman's ten or fifteen minutes of monologue he has to do every night until Palin made such a big deal about it. That said, he has now apologized for it, and should have, but he doesn't deserve to get fired for it.

Jake G: Fiction. There is no fairness or consistency at hand here. Although I think some of the instances that Jimmy The Greek and others were fired could be argued both ways, Letterman's playing on a different field. For starters as Rob said, it was a JOKE. Humor is allowed a little more leeway in the public spectrum than not. That doesn't mean Letterman can do a stand-up routine consisting of racist dead baby jokes and not expect backlash, but if the joke is acceptable to a majority of the audience, then it's fine. Letterman's joke about Palin's daughter fit perfectly. It's very funny actually.

The problem comes when you start investigating the joke and find out that Bristol wasn't the one at the game. I can see where some might take offense to that. However the joke didn't mention either daughter by name and it was more a joke about the scenario, than the actual real event. If Palin's other daughter hadn't gotten herself knocked up in the national spotlight, she wouldn't be the butt end of jokes. The joke was directed at Sarah Palin's lack of parenting skills and it was funny. It evolved into a gaffe, but it's hardly something to be fired over. The right has been looking for a reason to campaign against Letterman since he creamed McCain during the election. That's why we're getting such an instant stink over this.

Truth be told I don't think anyone should be fired for what they say when they are an entertainer. They should be fired if they cause the business to lose money. But I'm sick of the double standard in the media and I will call it out every time I see it. A liberal entertainer can get away saying anything about a conservative and if a conservative says anything, including defending themselves, there are calls for tarring and feathering by said liberals. Maybe you readers are much more fair minded but your peers in the media certainly aren't.

3b) In response, Gov Palin stated, "I would like to see him apologize to young women across the country for contributing to kind of that thread that is throughout our culture that makes it sound like it is OK to talk about young girls in that way, where it's kind of OK, accepted and funny to talk about statutory rape," she said. "It's not cool. It's not funny." She added, "No wonder young girls especially have such low self-esteem in America when we think it's funny for a so-called comedian to get away with such a remark as he did," she said. "I don't think that's acceptable." Palin is making the argument that it's jokes like the one Letterman made the add to the sexualization of young girls in our society and ultimately contribute to their abuse. Sarah Palin is correct.

Robert Chapman: Fiction. I think if I hear Sarah Palin claim to be a victim of the media one more time, my head will explode. Sarah Palin is a public figure, and like it or not, she and her family will be the butt of a lot of jokes. It's not right, but it comes with the territory. How many comedy shows, talk shows, and conservative pundits called Chelsea Clinton ugly for eight years? How often were the Bush twins characterized as drunken partying sorority girls? Sarah Palin is just trying to get all the media attention she can so no one forgets about her before she runs for president in three years.

But I'm off topic. If any of the jokes from late night talk shows contribute to the sexualization of young girls, it's miniscule. The media at large does it, and we're all partly responsible. We're all constantly hit with gorgeous half naked women in movies, commercials, TV shows, and every other place we constantly can be. Teenage girls are socialized to fall in love with boy bands, movie stars, and even that guy from Twilight with the bed hair for some reason at the earliest possible age. Find one show of the Real World (which I think only teenage girls watch anyway) where someone isn't having sex with someone else. AND THIS IS EVERYWHERE! This is why I can't go out into public without seeing a 13 year old girl dressed like a prostitute. It's become socially acceptable and they get attention for it, which reinforces the idea. This is a much much larger problem than late night talk show jokes, and we can't fix it until we realize that American society is by and large addicted to the constant sexual imagery that kids see, even if it isn't always targeted at them.

Jake G: Fiction. I'll be honest, Sarah Palin's remarks once again don't make much sense. That's no surprise considering the source, but I digress. How are young women in America offended by this remark again? The only young woman that could be offended is Willow. The joke wasn't about statutory rape for starters. More importantly there are plenty of issues that need to be addressed in this country and the hypersexualiztion of young women especially, should be brought to the forefront. Young women today are dressing like "adults" and many young women become sex objects long before they're of the age of legal consent.

So while the issue itself is one that does have some merit in the public dialogue, Sarah Palin doesn't. Palin talks out both sides of her mouth and her ass at the same time. This is the woman who trumpeted her clean and Christian lifestyle, all the while her family was falling apart. Bristol got pregnant and they said she was going to "do the right thing" and marry that goofball that knocked her up. As soon as the election was over, we find out that was all a sham. This woman is a walking punchline who is so desperate to be a victim. Pig in lipstick? Now she thinks Letterman is a dirty old pervert? Enough already. Go Govern Alaska.

3 for 3. I'll agree that jokes made by comedians don't have quite the impact as say Bratz dolls or MTV on the mind of a teen girl. That's fair. It's still an important issue worth discussing, regardless of Palin's involvement.

4) The NY Times reports that, "It's now broadly acknowledged that the drug war approach has failed. President Obama's new drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, told the Wall Street Journal that he wants to banish the war on drugs phraseology, while shifting more toward treatment over imprisonment." However, Kerlikowske also plans to disrupt trafficking across the Mexican border through a new focus on the guns and cash that travel south, as well as the drugs coming north. In addition to more money for treatment both in and out of prison, there's talk of needle exchanges and allowing states to experiment with controlled legalization (selling narcotics through pharmacies, as was the norm 100 years ago) among other ideas. The Obama administration is on the right track in dealing with the drug problem.

Robert Chapman: Fact. This is a very loaded question, but I didn't want to cop out with a faction. The War on Drugs is a lost cause, but that doesn't mean we can't still fight it. Overall, this is the right approach. Pharmaceutical prescriptions should be legalized as long as they are a proven treatment for disease (I'm looking at you, marijuana). We do need increased attention to addiction treatments also, and not just punishing offenders.

The problem is that none of this is enough. If you really want to fight the War on Drugs, legalize marijuana. I'm not a pothead and haven't smoked in many years, but it makes sense. We'll stop wasting time, money, and energy that we would have spent tracking down, prosecuting, and imprisoning people for weed, and we can spend that much more time and money focusing on the actually bad stuff like meth, cocaine, heroin, and whatever else pops up. Alcohol and cigarettes are much more deadly, so I fail to see the logic in keeping it illegal. Plus, if we legalize it we can tax the hell out of it and use that money to maybe, I don't know, fix roads or pay teachers or whatever else the government is supposed to do when it's not bailing out multinational corporations that have been run into the ground. Just a thought.

But mostly, we have to take the fight to the source if we really want to fix the problem. The government needs to work with Mexico, Colombia, Afghanistan, and other producing nations whether its through funding or military assistance to help it. Once it gets to America, it is a pain to track down, but we pretty much know where all of it is coming from.

Jake G: Fact. I'm not certain that the drug war was a failure, but it's hard to find that it was a success either. Plenty of drug dealers have ended up in jail but that hasn't solved many of the problems. Drugs today are far worse than they were 15, 20 years ago. In the 1980's when the drug war really became big, you didn't live next door to coke dealers. Sure, it was possible, but you have a greater chance of living next to someone making Meth now than you had the possibility of even meeting someone who did coke in the 80's. Popular youth drugs like ecstasy and marijuana are practically everywhere. What's the statistics on weed? Like 1 in 5 people smoke it?

You can't even go into your local Walgreens and buy certain types of cough medicine today because of the meth problem. I'm not certain that the Obama administration's approach will be the right approach, but it's definitely time we try something new. Locking people up in prisons, where drugs and crime is even more prevalent isn't the solution either. Drug dealers who are arrested usually come out just as likely to do drugs and many of them actually come out hardened criminals who are a much worse individual than when they went in. So I'm willing to fundamentally change the "war" on drugs and see if it has any results. It couldn't be any worse.

4 for 4. So I didn't exactly produce the raucous debate I was looking for here but that's OK. I'm sure the comment section will more than make up for it. Also, since apparently everyone's answer to the drug problem in America is to legalize marijuana, I think I'll make that the centerpiece of next week's Fact or Fiction.

Thanks to both Jake G and Robert for participating. If you would like to join in and play along too email me [e-mail] or leave your email address in a comment and I'll contact you.