411POLITICS BLOG
The purpose of a judiciary is not only to interpret laws but to draw a line. For instance, we allow people the right to own some pretty powerful guns/arms but we don't want people to own rocket launchers or nuclear weapons. Even with free speech, we can't make threats but we can call porn freedom of expression. The problem with money is that when there are no limits, it corrupts.
The Supreme Court's decision to allow unions and corporations no limits when it comes to campaign advertising is potentially disastrous. If a Senator changes his vote because he got some free stuff, we call that bribery. However, if a Senator changes his vote because he got a campaign contribution, it is called free speech? Now the theory is that with limits, we can give enough money to show approval or support a cause but not enough single handedly to change a Senator's mind. Yet, with corporations able to spend unlimited capital (something which they have a lot of) that may be enough to let the banking committee's ignore their outrageous bonuses despite owing their existence to the federal government.
What compounds this problem is that many politicians leave politics for very lucrative business positions that makes one wonder how they were able to get such a cushy job in the first place? A Senator's voting record should not be a reward when they leave politics for a private sector job that relies on government contracts. If corporations and unions have more money in the system, this problem will only get worse. This "free speech" is why we have the military industrial complex and now what appears to be the health industrial complex.
Now this court decision won't change elections dramatically but if corporations and unions can spend without limits on advertising, why have limits for people? Limits allow a middle class man like me to have just as much speech as Bill Gates which I think is essential for a Democracy. Both of us can give 2,000 dollars to Obama to show our support, but if the limits are done away with, Gates will have far more influence to the point where I may feel like 3/5 of a person.
With the amount of corruption and money in our political system, the US is looking increasingly more like Mexico. How did Joe Lieberman voice only a year ago to change Medicare eligibility to 55 and then when it came to an actual vote, he stayed with the status quo. I'd follow the money.
Think of all the things you would do for the right price. If someone gave me enough money, I would do a lot of things that may be immoral or unethical; why should Congress behave any differently? Do we really want more money in our political system? Do we feel more free as individual Americans by the Supreme Court ruling? This decision makes government, big business and unions more powerful… something that doesn't appear conservative.
By Enrique on February 3, 2010, at 8:07PM
Happy Super Bowl week, dear readers! Super Bowl season has its own MSM clichés, and one of the more tiresome is that more people watch the advertisements than the game. Oh c'mon, that's just silly. When a pollster calls and asks you if you watch the Super bowl for the ads, don't be a dumbass and say "yes." Christ. You're not even going to remember any of them the next day. For fun, when you go into work on Monday, ask your colleagues to name five companies that advertised during the Super Bowl. More than likely, they'll remember a mascot or a gimmick, but they'll have a hard time naming five brands. Try it, it's good for laugh. You're welcome.
One of the advertisers they won't remember is the one paying for a pro-life ad featuring college football star Tim Tebow. You may have heard some lawyers and so-called "women's groups" are whining about CBS agreeing to run a politically charged spot. For our story this week, let's manufacture some outrage over the fact that politics poisons everything. Jesus, can't we just a watch a football game between two teams we don't care about without all the drama?
"I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It's interesting: he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he's gone a long way to become a leader of this country, and past so much history, in just a year or two. I mean, it's something we don't even think about. I was watching, I said, wait a minute, he's an African American guy in front of a bunch of other white people. And here he is president of the United States and we've completely forgotten that tonight -- completely forgotten it. I think it was in the scope of his discussion. It was so broad-ranging, so in tune with so many problems, of aspects, and aspects of American life that you don't think in terms of the old tribalism, the old ethnicity. It was astounding in that regard. A very subtle fact. It's so hard to talk about. Maybe I shouldn't talk about it, but I am. I thought it was profound that way."
First, there's the obvious irony that Chris Matthews apparently only forgot "for an hour" that Obama is black, which would seem to indicate we are not in a post-racial era at all. For all the subjects in that speech, the moment where the President directly chastised the Supreme Court as they sat before him, the promises made on top of those not yet kept from his campaign, who was thinking about Obama's blackness? If you read Matthews' remarks and thought "What does that have to do with anything?" you are probably part of the post-racial America he's thinking of. If you share his way of processing things, not so much. Count me among those who were completely confused. Tribalism? Both Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann were clearly rattled by what they were hearing. It reminds me of a rant several years back from Chris Rock when he said calling Colin Powell "well spoken" was not a compliment. "He's an educated man. What voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth?" Had Matthews been remarking on the reaction Obama was getting, it might well have made some sense. But his fascination with Obama's delivery smacks of what Rock criticized. Yes, our first black President gave a major speech and not once sounded like Malcolm X or Al Sharpton. As far as I can tell, Chris Matthews was the only person on earth who was surprised by that. Well, maybe Harry Reid.
But Matthews wasn't done making confusing statements that night, as he came back under 90 minutes later to say this:
"I went in the room tonight, you could feel it wasn't there tonight and that takes leadership on his part, to get us beyond those divisions."
It takes leadership to get people to simply listen to what you're saying rather than consciously think about your skin tone? Does anyone have that problem with Michael Steele? When James Carville speaks, do you find yourself so enthralled with his odd-shaped head that you can't listen to what he's saying? If so, apparently it just means they're bad leaders, not that you need to take a serious look at your priorities. If you didn't previously hear the quote above and didn't know who said it, what did/would you think of it? Had those exact same words been spoken by Lindsey Graham, wouldn't there be a media firestorm? Olbermann and Maddow would have roast Matthews on a spit if he worked for Fox News and said that. If Matthews gets a free pass because he's an animated Obama supporter, what does that say about the standards we hold people to? Harry Reid was harshly criticized for using the word "negro", even in a context where he seemed to be ignorant rather than actively offensive. Is Matthews' choice of words any better than Reid's? Is a racist remark made in ignorance really any better than one made in hatred? Whether the person in question is a politician or a pundit with years of experience, shouldn't we expect them to know better?
Barack Obama was elected under the guise of change and transformation. This dream is gone, but not solely by his hand. There are others to blame for his failures. I would admit that Obama did inherit many problems from past administrations, but a transformational leader does not continue to place these blames at the heart of his own failures.
Obama blaming Bush, and he did so at least five times last night, is like Ronald Reagan blaming Harry Truman for the problems with the Soviet Union. Reagan inherited the Cold War, but that did not stop him from producing solutions to solve the problem. Franklin D. Roosevelt inherited the Nazi problem from Woodrow Wilson. Wilson could have insisted on European reconstruction and reunion after the Great War, but instead he simply pulled the United States back into isolationism and that led to the rise of Nazi Germany. Not once did Reagan or FDR blame the guy before them for their current problems.
The fact is Obama ran for President knowing what challenges laid before him. He made promises that he would fix the enormous problems we are facing today. He claimed to know how to do it. He even had an unprecedented majority congress to pass his bills and agenda and overwhelming popularity with the people and the world community following his election.
The speech last night gave new meaning to the word "Rhetoric".
8:00 – Flipping channels checking out the pre-speech coverage. On MSNBC, do you ever get the impression Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann don't like each other? Pelosi and Biden seem in good spirits; I wonder if they have discussed who will use the baseball bat on any Republican who shouts "You lie!"? On CNN, Wolf Blitzer seems to always be wishing he were somewhere other than at work, like wearing linen pants and sipping a cognac.
8:05 – CNN reporting that Obama's speech will contain a call for Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and allow gay folks to serve openly in the military. This is like dropping raw meat in a tank full of socially conservative sharks. Will Republicans seek to exploit this wedge issue to their benefit (again)?
8:06 -- I know this is shallow, but the president's teeth look slightly less perfectly white than I recall. How much does anyone want to bet that Obama has been sneaking the occasional cigarette outside the Oval Office? I would!
8:08 – Obama looks confident, good body language. A friend texts to say "better b speech of his life – again," and I respond "great, if follow thru of his life ensues".
8:15 – Obama returns once again to a post-partisan stance, and comes out fully populist. As it should be, methinks. He's tied the present shithole to what got us in this mess, and in turn ties the campaign-era demand and promise of hope back to the here and now. "Change hasn't come fast enough" for many Americans, he acknowledges.
8:18 – "We all hated the bank bailout." – Republicans see the cameras panning across their side, and reluctantly applaud.
8:20 – Looks like the proposed fee on big banks to recover TARP money is a hit idea.
8:21 – I'm surprised how much fun Obama seems to be having in spite of the stakes. He gently made fun of himself and the Republicans when his litany of tax cuts didn't garner any GOP applause.
8:24 – Whoop, there it is: "I am calling for a new jobs bill TONIGHT."
By Enrique on January 27, 2010, at 9:49PM
Last night, President Barack Obama delivered a smashing State of the Union Address in which he promised to freeze spending on non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans affairs, non-entitlement, non-healthcare reform, non-stimulus items. In other news, this is the week Guantanamo Bay was supposed to be closed. So, you know, he makes a lot of promises. Obama also promised that government would continue picking winners and losers, and that what the economy really needs is more central planning. I'm sure that's non-change we can believe in.
In other-other news, the U.S. Supreme Court found greedy corporations not guilty of improperly influencing elections, due to a technicality called the First Amendment. Patriotic Americans and New York Times editorialists were outraged at the idea of politically-connected corporations possibly manipulating lawmakers. I mean, can you imagine?
But you can read about that stuff anywhere, dear readers. For our story this week, let's talk about prison rape. You're welcome.
Free speech and the First Amendment is a touchy situation because the courts have to draw a line, but we all have a different idea of where the line should be drawn. Oliver Wendell Holms once wrote about shouting fire in a crowded theater would be an overreach of free speech when he stated: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." We can all agree that premeditated lies can cause someone to sue for liability and defamation of character. However, satire of public officials is acceptable as Jerry Falwell found out when he lost his court case to Larry Flynt despite the emotional distress Falwell claimed.
Last night I watched the free speech documentary on HBO entitled "Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech." The first section of the documentary featured our old buddy Ward Churchill. Since 2005, I've been writing for 411 Politics and never once wrote about Mr. Churchill. Churchill wrote an op-ed essay after 9/11 where he wrote of American foreign policy abuses which may have been the cause of 9/11. In addition what got him the majority of the attention was his stance that the victims were not innocent. For 41 straight days the O'Reiley Factor reported on Churchill and conservative watchdog groups pressured the university to fire him. Since they couldn't fire him for writing an op-ed essay, after all it is his opinion; they came up with some charges of exaggeration and plagiarism and fired him. Of course had he never written the essay, he would never have been fired. In 2007 he sued the university and won.
What is unbelievable is that his take on 9/11 isn't that out of line. Ron Paul also blamed American Imperial Foreign Policy on 9/11 and he had a lot of support. On the question of whether or not the victims were innocent, one could argue that in a Democracy, the citizens are responsible for their government's actions since it is a government by the people. Where I disagree with Churchill is that some people who died may have opposed American intervention in other countries and some could have been immigrants that had nothing to do with foreign policy. When a Native American complains about the "white man" taking their land, I remind them that my family did not come to America until the 1920s and they weren't exactly welcomed here either. Nevertheless, he should not have been fired for stating his views just as I should not be fired for commenting on his views.
The other free speech abuse that caught my eye was the student that put tape on a shirt that stated: "Homosexuality is Shameful." He was ordered to remove the shirt because it could have caused a disruption to the other students learning. The student had Court precedent on his side when the Court in the Tinker decision allowed students to wear wristbands protesting the Vietnam War. There is a legitimate argument to be made that the First Amendment doesn't apply to schools. After all, a teacher can tell students to quiet down when the teacher is talking. However, a shirt is expression and it is no different than a student saying homosexuality is a sin during a classroom debate.
We need to protect our First Amendment rights no matter how offensive some speech can be; Nazis and gay bashers have a right to be heard as well as long as they do so peacefully. In the next couple days I will be commenting on the latest controversial 5-4 decision to allow corporations and unions more power to influence campaigns in the name of free speech. This is where I will draw the line in the sand.
I first heard about comments made by South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer on the Rachel Maddow Show. Here are his quotes from a town hall meeting:
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
During the town hall meeting, Bauer said he "can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina."
I never doubted there are politicians who think this way, but most of them have more sense than to say these things out loud. They usually hide behind claiming it's wrong to spend tax dollars to help the poor. No doubt there are people who really feel that way, and those people get upset when someone equates their position to being indifferent to the needs of others or not being charitable. They find themselves so accused because those who really don't care about others hide among their ranks. Lots of people who oppose government run social programs give their time and money to charity, so to be perfectly clear, I am not calling them out. Some commenters here have pointed out that while Christ advocated for giving to others, he never made mention of government involvement. I think that's a valid point, so the whole "Christians who oppose social programs are hypocrites" argument doesn't hold up.
I don't think it was possible for Andre Bauer to more blatantly say "poor people are stupid" without just coming right out and saying it. He also comes right out and says that aid to the poor should be cut off to keep them from reproducing. It isn't possible for someone to say such things unless they harbor a belief that poor people are inherently inferior to others. As I stated in a previous article, while there are opportunities to escape poverty, there aren't nearly enough for everyone with a work ethic to succeed. The fact is, poverty is primarily an accident of birth, not a natural consequence of lacking intelligence, ability or ambition. As anyone struggling to find work in this economy can tell you, having a four-year degree or other developed skill set does not guarantee success. You can take actions to improve your chance to succeed, but that's really it.
What of Bauer's suggestion that food be cut off to keep the poor from reproducing? I remember the first time I saw a commercial for the Christian Children's Fund. I was four years old, seeing images of starving children in impoverished countries. I thought "Why do people there have kids if they can't afford to feed them?". Personally, I lack any desire to procreate, so it's hard to understand most people's natural inclination toward parenthood. Maybe poor kids are born because birth control is unavailable to the poorest people. Maybe it's because the act of conceiving them is one of the few forms of pleasure the deeply impoverished can afford. Maybe it's because there are welfare queens. Or maybe the poor feel they have just as much of a right to live what they see as a full life as anyone else. Wages in America have stagnated. The proportion of people who can be classified as the working poor has never been higher, and there aren't openings for good jobs just waiting to be filled by those with the drive to claim them. Our economy has been shedding middle class manufacturing jobs for years, with only low paying service jobs to replace them. Bauer looks at those who have been forced into that position as "the problem". His take on poverty is to solve it by ensuring that poor people cease to exist.
By Enrique on January 21, 2010, at 12:25AM
Whew, that Massachusetts senate race ended being pretty dramatic. How will a fractured America cope with the symbolic significance of Republican Scott Brown's historic victory? Although it may be too early to tell if this is the end of Democrat healthcare reform, we do know this – there's nothing quite as hilarious as watching Rachel Maddow's inability to cope manifest itself in real time on MSNBC. I think I remember her telling Ezra Klein of Chuck Todd the Massachusetts election result was proof positive Democrats needed to pass health care reform as soon as possible. Yes, because if there's one conclusion we can draw from Brown's victory, it's that the public is clamoring for further government interference with the healthcare market. Shine on, you crazy diamond.
But let's forget about that and turn now to a new report issued last week that found conclusive evidence the government's popular Head Start program is a failure. Obviously, that's nothing new – there are many studies showing government programs are very expensive and don't work. This new report is somewhat of a novelty, though, in that it is a product of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the Head Start program. Finally, a little honesty from government for a change. Progress.
In a symbolic kick in the balls to the Democratic party establishment, voters of Massachusetts handed Ted Kennedy's Senate seat to a Republican for the first time in decades, state senator Scott Brown. The charismatic Brown ran a terrific, insurgent campaign against Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who seemed vaguely befuddled that she actually had to campaign for the seat. Coakley ran a simply awful campaign that had her vacationing in the Caribbean last month while the charismatic Brown walked door-to-door in Southie, asking for votes the old-fashioned way.
However, the symbolism of losing Ted Kennedy's seat is less important than the substance of what Scott Brown's victory does and does not mean. It does not mean the demise of health care reform, nor was the election a referendum on Obama, nor on the idea of health care reform. Nor does it represent a resurgence of the Republican brand; Brown's campaign barely even mentioned his political affiliation. The message was twofold:
A lot can change in one year. A year ago, I would have never thought Ted Kennedy's seat would be held by a Republican. But a lot can change in a year. With the Democrats holding a 60 seat majority in the Senate, many independents have rightfully grown weary of giving them even more power. The Democrats have focused so heavily on health care but they haven't listened to the American people. The American people, most of which supported Obama want small changes. They like the idea of not being dropped due to pre-existing conditions. They like the idea of reigning in Medicare waste. But they don't want to see the system radically changed. And when legislation insures 30 million more people; this is what you would call radical change.
Instead of piling everything into one bill, the Democrats should have focused more on making health insurance companies more accountable. That is something most Americans wanted. They also should have focused more on making health care costs more affordable. By spending tons of political capital on a dead public option, allowing Republicans to stand up for Medicare, (Something that I still can't wrap my head around), and exchanges, they forgot that most voters already had health insurance and were somewhat happy with it. They wanted change but not a revolution. Most Americans were afraid that adding 30 million to the system would create a huge demand and short supply thus increasing the cost of service. In addition, government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid cost the most so they weren't buying the idea that a public option was going to be cost effective.
Obama fixed one of Clinton's problems. Obama got the drug companies, insurance companies and some health providers on board. However, he forgot the grassroots AKA the American people. On top of this, Coakley forgot her grassroots and was apparently on vacation in December. She assumed she would win and tried to make the election national while Brown was smart enough to make it local. He stood up for Massachusetts and won.
I've always said the Democrats will lose some seats but if they don't turn things around, they could lose their majority, especially in the House. With the Wall Street crisis, they should be focusing on reigning in stupid banks and turning the economy around. You know… Populism! Instead somehow the Party that represents Wall Street and tax cuts for the wealthy has taken the role of the populists.
My prescription to minimize losses in November for the Democrats is simple, "It's the economy… stupid." Get rid of insurance discrimination and quickly vote for the things the majority of people and politicians support and then move on to the economy. Oh yeah, forget cap and trade!
For the Republicans, keep in mind that America is not embracing you and is sending the Democrats a message. Don't think this message means they necessarily want your agenda either.
President Obama did what any leader in a crisis should do: He made a decision. He did not hesitate, call for countless advisors, or debate the situation for days. He made a decision.
It was not a decision based on politics or elections, but about what our country should represent to the world. It was based on our values, ethics and morals. We all take for granted the society that we live in, our ability to argue, fight, and debate the actions of our leaders without fear of reprisal. We should always remember that being the most powerful country in the world has a purpose that daily reminds us to use that power responsibly. America is only great when we side with justice and decency.
As everyone knows by now, Haiti was hit by a devastating earthquake on Tuesday. People are trapped under rubble, others are homeless and hungry, bodies are piled in the street. With most of the people there very poor to begin with, they really have no means to provide aid to the victims. Their only airport is damaged. Ports are damaged, preventing rescue and supply ships from docking. Roads are impassable; hospitals are either destroyed or not functional. As you read this, there are people alive under the rubble that was their home, calling out for help. Some may be saved, while others are waiting to die. Those who were not injured initially face the danger of becoming sick from the dust, as well as the health hazard created by the dead being strewn about for days on end. It's a disaster of the worst kind.
An event like this transcends political views. It doesn't matter where you stand on our own health care bill. It doesn't matter if you are still upset about the response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Fellow human beings are suffering, and it's up to all of us to help in whatever way we can. I urge you all to visit the Doctors Without Borders website and donate whatever you can, even if it's only a few dollars. Medical workers from the organization are already in Haiti, providing what care they can with the supplies they are able to get into the country. In the days and weeks to come, they will have a tremendous task in front of them, treating both the injured and the sick. The website has lots of information on the work they do, and it will only take a few minutes of your time. Even if you simply skip your iced coffee today and give a few bucks, the donations add up and make a real difference. You're already online right now; don't procrastinate and have it slip your mind. Urge your friends and family to give something too. You'll feel good about yourself, and your generosity will remind the world that Americans are caring, giving people.
The web address is: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org
Thank you all for coming to the aid of those in need. Regardless of America's own problems, we are all human beings and compassion knows no borders.
By Enrique on January 13, 2010, at 7:35PM
January is usually such a dull time of year, so it's nice to have some inconsequential and highly amusing stories going on this week. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reminded us that our elders have a different relationship with the word "Negro" than those of us born in the post-Vietnam era. Mark McGwire further depressed the value of the 1987 Topps rookie card I own by admitting he took steroids. NBC's predicament over Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien has gone mainstream. Throw in that ridiculous Packers/Cardinals game, and 2010 has yet be boring.
But that's not all! The state of California, author of some of the most irresponsible budgets in U.S. history, is so desperate for revenue it's contemplating the unthinkable – legalizing and taxing weed. It was only a matter of time before a government's desire to tax overwhelmed its desire to police personal behavior. Let us rejoice and be glad.
It is so weird seeing the Republican Party become the PC police. Back in my college days I used to enjoy talking about race with conservatives more than liberals because conservatives never called you a racist… until now.
So Harry Reid, majority leader of the Senate pointed out that Barack was a light-skinned black man with no Negro dialect, thank you captain obvious. Are we really going to call this racism because if that is the case then I guess I'm a racist because I agree that Obama has lighter skin tones and is well-spoken. Being that I'm younger than Harry I would have replaced negro dialects with "Ebonics" and maybe stated that he's no Wesley Snipes when talking about skin tone but let's face it, if Obama talked like Sharpton and looked like Wesley Snipes, he would not be your president.
Black people that I know rib on Obama about his language all the time. They are dying to see him reelected just so he can be more "black." They realize that he has to speak the way he does. They realize whites are the minority.
When Republicans try to compare this to Trent Lott they are missing one important factor. Trent Lott should have never stepped down. He was praising a guy at his 100th birthday. The troubles Lott was speaking of could simply mean taxes, he didn't say blacks. It was a tragedy that Lott had to step down over a birthday comment and the Republican Party would be better off today with Lott at the helm instead of his replacement and Terri Schiavo's adopted doctor Bill Frist.
Frankly, Reid should follow Dodd's lead and retire before Nevadans get rid of him in November.
Nothing is scarier than scared individuals. Because of the unsuccessful attempt of the Christmas bomber, some politicians want to have full body scanners. In addition, rules are being made to where people can't get up if their plane is going to land in an hour. It is annoying enough that I can't bring liquids on a plane. It is getting to the point where I wonder is it even worth flying anymore?
Anyone that has a small child knows that flying is already a pain in the ass. If my daughter cries an hour before landing I can't feed her? If I have to take a shit really bad, I have to go now go in my pants? Is this really going to stop a terrorist? Any terrorist with a half a brain would probably just blow a train up or a stadium where the security isn't as tight.
Planes are the safest form of travel. The best way to fight terrorism in the skies is to have an educated public. When I fly and I see a suspicious person, I now have my eye on them. If they try to take my plane, I'm going down with a fight. Based on 9/11 I'm not waiting for their demands to be met.
So why are we so afraid? Why do people lock their doors as if a burglar can't figure out how to get in? Why do people feel the need to own tons of guns when one is suffice enough to make me not want to mess with them?
If it means sacrificing a few hundred so that I can live my life with liberty and pursue happiness, I'd rather do that than have my body strip searched. Eventually, you have to draw a line. Eventually you have to say I'm willing to die so that I can live free. Isn't that what the troops are doing? The sad thing is that Washington politicians from both parties tend to agree on scaring the bejesus out of us.
By Enrique on January 7, 2010, at 12:00AM
Hope you had a fear-free holidays, dear readers. Unfortunately, it's a new year and time to resuming our usual panicking. In the past few weeks, the so called War on Terror has suffered a few notable setbacks. On Christmas, an aggrieved Islamic radical named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up an airplane, and succeeded in blowing up his junk. In Iraq, the U.S. released an alleged terrorist who allegedly has the blood of American troops on his hands, in an alleged hostage swap for some poor British bastard that everyone's denying. A suicide bomber in Pakistan killed 96 people at a sporting event. Another suicide bomber killed half a dozen CIA agents in Afghanistan, devastating the agency's counterterrorism capabilities in the region.
Not surprisingly, former VP Dick Cheney had something very helpful and highly nuanced to say about President Barack Obama's semantic approach to our twilight struggle against Islamic evildoers. Apparently, Dick is troubled by Obama's avoidance of the phrase "war on terror," saying the president's word choice makes Americans less safe. Well, you'd expect him to say that, wouldn't you?
At the end of the Clinton administration, the nation was both prosperous and peaceful. Within eight short years, the country lay in ruins, having accumulated more debt from 2001 to 2008 than it had in the entire prior history of the nation, thanks to massive deficit spending. America mortgaged its future by borrowing from the Chinese to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, corporate welfare, and massive increases in military-industrial-complex spending in conjunction with wars both necessary (Afghanistan) and unnecessary (Iraq). By the end of 2008, 47 million Americans were without health insurance, and America's reputation as a beacon of hope, freedom, and human opportunity lay in tatters due to human rights abuses lawyered away as necessary evils in a war on terror that to date has failed to kill or capture Al Qaida's spiritual leader, Osama bid Laden. The country's dependency on foreign oil, the profits from which fund the violent misdeeds of extremist Muslims, inexplicably increased during the past ten years despite fossil fuels' unmistakable link to global warming. 9/11 and the presidency of George W. Bush created what I believe will be known as the Lost Decade, a no-man's land between the end of the twentieth and beginning of the 21st century, a calamitous dark time which was created both by the 9/11 attacks and the cynical misuse of the public trust in the wake of those attacks, in order to pursue a radical conservative agenda that has brought the United States perilously close to going the way of Rome.
The election and inauguration of Barack Obama marked the end of the Lost Decade. Obama's presidency, now barely a year old, has both been fueled by and suffered from the overwhelming, pent-up frustrations and hopes of an American public utterly bewildered and exhausted by the spiritual and economic battering endured by their nation during the incompetence, greed, moral decay, and upward wealth-redistribution that characterized the Lost Decade. Today's Republicans no longer resemble even a bad self-parody of their noble origins as the party of Abraham Lincoln. Instead, they are a minority freak show stuck stubbornly in the 20th century, seemingly unaware of or refusing to accept their responsibility for the calamities of the Lost Decade, dominated by evangelical religious fanatics, warmongers, and big-business interests who operate in an alternate reality dubbed "truthiness" by Stephen Colbert. In this fact-challenged universe, Obama is a fascist-socialist-Muslim carpetbagger born in Kenya, trying to pull a Hitler on the American people, and the complicit co-dependency of Congressional Republicans in foisting the Bush disaster on our nation is, like any good revisionist history book of the old Soviet era, conspicuously absent. No longer interested in governing, the self-appointed raison d'etre of today's GOP is simply to oppose all Obama policies regardless of their objective merit. A backlog of critical, transformative legislation essential to the salvation of our democracy's economic and moral core – addressing climate change, financial and banking system reform, ending our dependence on oil, further economic stimulus to avoid a jobless economic recovery, diplomatic initiatives across the world – is all stalled in Congress due to Republican efforts to derail meaningful health care reform at any price.
Not to say that Obama and the Democratic party haven't earned their place in this rotting stew. The Obama administration, after an early sprint of dizzying policy achievements in the first half of 2009, seemed to fall asleep at the wheel and only woke up in the summer when fringe GOP-affiliated groups staged town hall protests against health care, relying on good old fashioned inflammatory and dishonest propaganda. Democratic members of Congress, unlike their disciplined Republican counterparts, are about as easy to organize as a herd of cats on LSD -- and the president has seemed content to stand by and supervise aloofly as the archaic, stupid mess of the legislative process has been vomited all over a horrified public who, facing a collapsing economic infrastructure and 10% unemployment, cannot understand why Congress seems gifted at only one thing – fighting amongst its members for political power at the expense of our citizenry.
I recently read an article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31surrogate.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper) about a court battle over legal rights for a gestational surrogate mother. The term "gestational" denotes that the woman in question had agreed to carry a child for another couple, and is not genetically related to the child. In this case, the couple is the woman's gay brother and his husband (they legally married in California), whose sperm was combined with anonymous donor eggs. The woman gave birth to twin girls, and subsequently decided she wanted to keep them. The judge found in her favor and awarded primary custody, stating that he saw no difference between this case and one where the surrogate was genetically related. That conclusion was crucial because there was a signed contract between parties, which was ruled invalid since it was found to be in conflict with New Jersey state law. This case raises numerous ethical and legal questions, none of which are easily answered. What establishes someone as a parent? When an agreement is struck in which one waives parental rights, are there ever circumstances where that agreement can be set aside? What role, if any, should gender play in establishing parenthood?
Not long ago, parental status was a simple matter. A woman who gave birth was obviously the mother, and her husband was the father. Their names were placed on the child's birth certificate, and that was the end of it. Births out of wedlock rose a great deal, but along came DNA testing to largely solve that issue. There are still some states with very archaic laws on the books that hold a husband responsible even if his wife cheated and the kid isn't his (which we won't get into because this is about people fighting FOR parental status), but overall legal parenthood has been a pretty straightforward concept. Enter surrogacy.
Increased infertility combined with the desire of many gay couples to experience parenthood has led to a surge in surrogate parent arrangements. These come in several combinations. Since anonymous contributions don't create any legal hurdles, we can exclude those from discussion. That leaves us three classes of people to consider: biological parents, contractual parents, and unrelated surrogates. Let's take a look at each using this case as an example.
By Enrique on December 30, 2009, at 8:31PM
I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on the writer. Everybody wins.
With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
