Opportunity that is, to take advantage of the disaster to pursue a political agenda. As though the Republican party has not pursued enough shameful policies and tactics in the last two years, they are now delving into a deeper part of the abyss.
Today, the House of Representatives rejected a spending measure that would have provided disaster relief for the victims of recent natural disasters - notably Hurricane Irene. In fairness, many of those who voted against the measure were Democrats who protested that not enough funding was available to the victims. However for the House to pass anything Republicans must carry most of the vote and enough Republicans joined Democrats for this bill to fail. Unfortunately the motivation of the Republican bloc was somewhat different than their Democratic counterparts. Whereas Democrats did not vote for the bill because it didn't provide for the victims, Republicans rejected it because it didn't offset that limited funding with cuts elsewhere. That's right America, Republicans will only help those in need if they can find a way to take money away from others in need.
As disgraceful as this is, the hypocrisy of it is just as appalling. Certainly even those who believe in small and limited government should recognize that if government has any responsibility at all it is to help those who have been struck by calamity, but now we have abandoned even that principle. Now all we care about is cutting funding. Somehow it seems a little late for that. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out, "We never paid for tax cuts for the rich. We never paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Ms. Pelosi has a point, the only time that we need to offset spending with cuts is when the spending benefits Americans in need. When spending is for outrageously expensive foreign wars or to pad the wallets of the wealthiest Americans we can do it at will. In other words, spending only needs to be offset with cuts when the spending is being done by a Democrat. And when that Democrat wants to spend money to help those in need then it is acceptable to use those people as hostages to extract concessions.
The Republican party has swung so far to the right that those running the show represent a fringe minority with no ideas for how to govern, no vision for America's future and no empathy for their countrymen. Despite being a small minority of the party's elected members, these radicals have monopolized the national conversation and forced party leadership into uncomfortable positions with their ferocious stupidity and tenacious refusal to compromise. They have exacerbated America's suffering since their election and now, when some in our nation need help recovering from a hurricane they are willing to use those people as hostages to get even more of what they want. Unfortunately, more of what they want is more of what is bad for our nation.
Next year Americans will be faced with two fundamentally different versions of how to run our country. Neither group has all the answers and our country would be well served if both groups would be more willing to compromise and answer tough questions about the future of our nation. But one party - even if their ideas are not perfect - shows empathy and vision. The other party offers us the failed policies of the past and refuses to help their countrymen.
If the world's greatest country cannot find the money to assist those in need that is indeed a problem. But this is not an issue of can or cannot. It is an issue of will or will not. And those pulling the strings in the Republican party will not vote to aid Americans in need.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Obama's line in the sand
It's hard for me to really imagine that Obama has drawn a line in the sand in his negotiations with Republicans. The man is a moderate Republican as far as I can tell and he's already shown his willingness to concede too much in negotiations, delivering poorly-timed short-term spending cuts at a time when the economy needs money.
Nevertheless, apparently the president took a stand today, telling reporters that he will veto any debt deal that does not include raising taxes on the rich. I hope Obama means it. America hopes Obama means it. Deficit reduction should still be a secondary priority but since our priorities are misplaced and we seem unconcerned with putting Americans back to work, we might as well try to fix the problem we have chosen to address. Deficit reduction is going to take serious entitlement reform - something the president offered today - but it is also going to take higher taxes on the wealthy. Why Republicans are intent on protecting people whose low tax rates do little or nothing to contribute to job growth is beyond me. Warren Buffett is pleading with the government to raise taxes on the wealthy. Would Berkshire Hathaway really have to lay people off if his tax rate were higher? It seems unlikely since he is doing everything in his power to get Congress to tax him more.
Somehow - despite all the polls showing Americans believe the rich should pay more, despite all the evidence that low tax rates for the super rich is doing nothing to create jobs - Republicans are intent on protecting the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. It's somewhat mind-boggling.
Obama's initiative is a good first step. The president needs to force Republicans to back down from positions that will undermine exactly what they want to do - cut the deficit. However, Obama needs to show further leadership on entitlement reform. Social Security and Medicare both need revamping. It would be nice if Obama were willing to put in place a long-term plan to raise the eligibility age.
Still, I applaud Obama's efforts. Despite the fact the deficit reduction is a misplaced priority, it is still the priority and if we are actually going to cut the deficit, we will need both more revenue and less spending. Today the president showed a willingness to address both of those things while simultaneously forcing Republicans to defend positions that are not only politically unpopular, but bad for our country. Let's hope that the president's stand today forces some serious reevaluation by Republicans. It would be a good day for America if that were to be the case.
Nevertheless, apparently the president took a stand today, telling reporters that he will veto any debt deal that does not include raising taxes on the rich. I hope Obama means it. America hopes Obama means it. Deficit reduction should still be a secondary priority but since our priorities are misplaced and we seem unconcerned with putting Americans back to work, we might as well try to fix the problem we have chosen to address. Deficit reduction is going to take serious entitlement reform - something the president offered today - but it is also going to take higher taxes on the wealthy. Why Republicans are intent on protecting people whose low tax rates do little or nothing to contribute to job growth is beyond me. Warren Buffett is pleading with the government to raise taxes on the wealthy. Would Berkshire Hathaway really have to lay people off if his tax rate were higher? It seems unlikely since he is doing everything in his power to get Congress to tax him more.
Somehow - despite all the polls showing Americans believe the rich should pay more, despite all the evidence that low tax rates for the super rich is doing nothing to create jobs - Republicans are intent on protecting the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. It's somewhat mind-boggling.
Obama's initiative is a good first step. The president needs to force Republicans to back down from positions that will undermine exactly what they want to do - cut the deficit. However, Obama needs to show further leadership on entitlement reform. Social Security and Medicare both need revamping. It would be nice if Obama were willing to put in place a long-term plan to raise the eligibility age.
Still, I applaud Obama's efforts. Despite the fact the deficit reduction is a misplaced priority, it is still the priority and if we are actually going to cut the deficit, we will need both more revenue and less spending. Today the president showed a willingness to address both of those things while simultaneously forcing Republicans to defend positions that are not only politically unpopular, but bad for our country. Let's hope that the president's stand today forces some serious reevaluation by Republicans. It would be a good day for America if that were to be the case.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
HPV and Politics
Here's a secret - I think Rick Perry is a doofus. He doesn't believe in evolution or global warming which means that he is either a fool or completely beholden to fools. But Mr. Perry's record on science is not 100% flawed. It seems, however, that his opponents are wrong on every issue.
Recently, Mr. Perry has come under attack for - among other things - his decision to require teenage Texas girls to be vaccinated against HPV.
You may read that and think - as I did - wow Rick Perry, you've really surprised me. It is a good idea to use a safe drug to vaccinate middle school girls against an STD that causes cervical cancer.
Conservative critics of the idea say that it is just another example of government overstepping its bounds. Maybe they have a point. It's not like the government requires students be vaccinated against other illnesses before starting school, and even if they did, parents should be able to choose whether or not they want their children to have viruses that cause cancer.
Sure, maybe vaccinating children against STDs, like giving them condoms, leads to sexual promiscuity, but the alternative, abstinence training, doesn't prevent promiscuity, pregnancy or STDs. So even if you are against anti-sex, you should still be pro-good decisions...like preventing HPV.
To me this is actually a silly issue. Parents should be able to choose if they want their children to be vaccinated against HPV. Unlike say, the flu, you can't contract HPV simply by sitting next to someone in class. Why any parent with a daughter would want their child not to be vaccinated is baffling to me, but I'm not a parent. People should have that choice.
To me, this simply illustrates, once again, that the Republican party doesn't really care all that much about people. HPV causes cervical cancer. Inoculating against it simply prevents the problems associated with the virus. Should it be mandatory? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact that many Republican candidates are on a crusade against it is problematic. Michelle Bachmann has already praised Phyllis Schlafly as the most important woman of the century. It is thus no surprise that she also is against women's health.
Vote Republican in 2012, vote for cervical cancer.
Recently, Mr. Perry has come under attack for - among other things - his decision to require teenage Texas girls to be vaccinated against HPV.
You may read that and think - as I did - wow Rick Perry, you've really surprised me. It is a good idea to use a safe drug to vaccinate middle school girls against an STD that causes cervical cancer.
Conservative critics of the idea say that it is just another example of government overstepping its bounds. Maybe they have a point. It's not like the government requires students be vaccinated against other illnesses before starting school, and even if they did, parents should be able to choose whether or not they want their children to have viruses that cause cancer.
Sure, maybe vaccinating children against STDs, like giving them condoms, leads to sexual promiscuity, but the alternative, abstinence training, doesn't prevent promiscuity, pregnancy or STDs. So even if you are against anti-sex, you should still be pro-good decisions...like preventing HPV.
To me this is actually a silly issue. Parents should be able to choose if they want their children to be vaccinated against HPV. Unlike say, the flu, you can't contract HPV simply by sitting next to someone in class. Why any parent with a daughter would want their child not to be vaccinated is baffling to me, but I'm not a parent. People should have that choice.
To me, this simply illustrates, once again, that the Republican party doesn't really care all that much about people. HPV causes cervical cancer. Inoculating against it simply prevents the problems associated with the virus. Should it be mandatory? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact that many Republican candidates are on a crusade against it is problematic. Michelle Bachmann has already praised Phyllis Schlafly as the most important woman of the century. It is thus no surprise that she also is against women's health.
Vote Republican in 2012, vote for cervical cancer.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
A Day Never to Forget
I had Ms. Barksdale first period for economics and I was in her class when we heard the news. A plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers. To a high school freshman in Mississippi this news was stunning and overwhelming, but I was completely unable to comprehend what it meant. In a state of confusion rather than one of anger or fear, I went with my class to Ms. Lacey's biology classroom. Ms. Lacey had a television and we watched live as the second plane crashed into the second tower. The image will be seared into my memory for the rest of my life.
Ten years later I still feel stunned and overwhelmed. I now feel anger and fear and a host of other emotions as well. The attacks of September 11 represent the lowest of what humanity is capable of and the heroic events following those attacks represent the best. The world changed forever that day and the new reality is one that I still grapple with daily.
I need not implore you never to forget 9/11, you could not if you tried. But on the 10th anniversary remember to say a prayer for all of the victims, all of the heroes and all of us in our great nation. God Bless America.
Ten years later I still feel stunned and overwhelmed. I now feel anger and fear and a host of other emotions as well. The attacks of September 11 represent the lowest of what humanity is capable of and the heroic events following those attacks represent the best. The world changed forever that day and the new reality is one that I still grapple with daily.
I need not implore you never to forget 9/11, you could not if you tried. But on the 10th anniversary remember to say a prayer for all of the victims, all of the heroes and all of us in our great nation. God Bless America.
Friday, September 9, 2011
The Myth of Science
The western tradition of science, like many of the other great things about western culture can be traced back to ancient Greece. Thanks to the Greeks we have been blessed with, among other things, democracy, an abundance of cool words, nude statues, the movie "300" and of course, science. Much of what the Greeks passed down to us is awesome, but science, like the Iliad, is nothing but a myth. Let's take a (very) brief look at the history.
Though the Greeks were very smart, they really didn't get science too well. For starters, they thought there were only four elements: Earth, Wind, Fire and Water. Of course, today we well know that there is a fifth element; scientists are still unsure what that element is although there is a general consensus.
Speaking of general consensuses, there also exists among those silly scientists a consensus that the Earth is getting warmer and that human activity is playing a large part in that warming. Initially, I thought this was great as I am all for tropical weather. But now I'm hearing about all these possible consequences and I find myself getting nervous. Rising sea levels, unpredictable and calamitous weather and the extinction of wildlife. Oh my!
So I have been relieved recently to see that the entire field of Republican candidates - with the notable exception of Jon Huntsman who is doing everything humanly possible to challenge the stereotype of Republican insanity - says that climate change is a hoax or a fraud or perhaps just that the science isn't sound. Phew...I can breathe easier now that I know the scientists of today, just like the ancient Greeks, don't know everything.
Unfortunately, the words of Republican candidates, while they reverberate powerfully with the nation's fringe, cannot actually disprove scientific research. The world is getting warmer and human activity is absolutely playing a role in that warming. The dire forecasts and predictions may not be forgone conclusions and they may even be more severe than the reality that awaits us, but there is no doubt that we are harming mother nature.
The Republican opposition to knowledge extends beyond the damage we are doing to the planet and into other realms of sciences as well - do I LOOK like a monkey - but the denial of scientific evidence that our planet is getting hotter due to our misdeeds is going to haunt our country if we let this silliness continue. America should be taking steps to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy now. Oil gazillionaire T. Boone Pickens understands this, why doesn't Rick Perry?
Were I to go around spreading the myth that the sun revolved around the Earth I would be considered a fool and rightfully so. Why then is it not only acceptable, but encouraged (by some) to spread a similarly stupid myth about the condition of our planet. After all, that myth has much more far-reaching consequences for our economy, our country and our species than any ludicrous story about the sun revolving around the Earth.
Sensible people are concerned. Half of the American government refuses to enact policies that will spur future economic growth and help save the planet because they refuse to accept basic facts. Why that is the case is a question I cannot answer, but it scares the living daylights out of me to imagine a president incapable of understanding basic facts.
Though the Greeks were very smart, they really didn't get science too well. For starters, they thought there were only four elements: Earth, Wind, Fire and Water. Of course, today we well know that there is a fifth element; scientists are still unsure what that element is although there is a general consensus.
Speaking of general consensuses, there also exists among those silly scientists a consensus that the Earth is getting warmer and that human activity is playing a large part in that warming. Initially, I thought this was great as I am all for tropical weather. But now I'm hearing about all these possible consequences and I find myself getting nervous. Rising sea levels, unpredictable and calamitous weather and the extinction of wildlife. Oh my!
So I have been relieved recently to see that the entire field of Republican candidates - with the notable exception of Jon Huntsman who is doing everything humanly possible to challenge the stereotype of Republican insanity - says that climate change is a hoax or a fraud or perhaps just that the science isn't sound. Phew...I can breathe easier now that I know the scientists of today, just like the ancient Greeks, don't know everything.
Unfortunately, the words of Republican candidates, while they reverberate powerfully with the nation's fringe, cannot actually disprove scientific research. The world is getting warmer and human activity is absolutely playing a role in that warming. The dire forecasts and predictions may not be forgone conclusions and they may even be more severe than the reality that awaits us, but there is no doubt that we are harming mother nature.
The Republican opposition to knowledge extends beyond the damage we are doing to the planet and into other realms of sciences as well - do I LOOK like a monkey - but the denial of scientific evidence that our planet is getting hotter due to our misdeeds is going to haunt our country if we let this silliness continue. America should be taking steps to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy now. Oil gazillionaire T. Boone Pickens understands this, why doesn't Rick Perry?
Were I to go around spreading the myth that the sun revolved around the Earth I would be considered a fool and rightfully so. Why then is it not only acceptable, but encouraged (by some) to spread a similarly stupid myth about the condition of our planet. After all, that myth has much more far-reaching consequences for our economy, our country and our species than any ludicrous story about the sun revolving around the Earth.
Sensible people are concerned. Half of the American government refuses to enact policies that will spur future economic growth and help save the planet because they refuse to accept basic facts. Why that is the case is a question I cannot answer, but it scares the living daylights out of me to imagine a president incapable of understanding basic facts.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Muslims in the Heartland!
It's a scary prospect. If they hadn't found bin Laden in Pakistan I'd have bet he was in Oklahoma or some place. If not bin Laden then at least his al-Qaeda followers, slowly undermining America with Sharia Law.
That is both the silliest and saddest thing I've seen in quite some time. The idea that the Great Plains is under attack by some unseen Muslim threat is all kinds of amusing, and yet the fact that there are some in this country who believe that America is under assault by Islamic law is a sad commentary of the fear mongering that has undermined true American values.
Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion (unless that religion is Protestant Christianity), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (unless that religion is Islam, or Judaism or Catholicism...you get it).
For whatever reason, the more diverse America becomes, the more determined some people become to make it Christian. I'm not here to bash Christianity, nor am I here to defend Islam. Some horrible things have been done in the name of both religions and yet billions of people all over the world live peaceful, productive and altruistic lives under the creed of each.
Just as the first amendment protects the freedom of religion, so too does it protect the freedom of speech. And so bigots nationwide are allowed to slander Muslims and lump them all together into convenient and scary terrorist cells. However, they are not legally allowed to bar Muslims from being Muslims - whether that means disallowing a mosque near Ground Zero or banning Sharia law in Oklahoma.
America is a nation of tolerance. It has made us great and it will continue to make us great. Throughout our history we have had spasms of racial and other paranoia and fear against Jews, Catholics, Communists and many other groups. These unfortunate reactions have impeded the growth of our great country and dimmed the light of democracy and freedom that shines from our beacon. However they have never taken America off the right path in the path and nor will they now.
The fear of Muslim extremism is as real as the threat of Muslim extremism. We would be ill-served by ignoring or denying that threat. We are just as ill-served by eschewing our values and denying Muslim Americans the same rights that we ourselves enjoy. That kind of anti-Muslim extremism simply encourages more Muslim extremism - at the same time we commit a moral injustice, we also foster the conditions for further atrocities.
All Americans regardless of race, religious creed, social status, sexuality, gender or whatever other category we can use to differentiate ourselves from others - deserve the same basic rights as the white Christians in Oklahoma. When we deny people those rights we undermine everything we have built in America for the past 200 years. We owe ourselves more than that.
That is both the silliest and saddest thing I've seen in quite some time. The idea that the Great Plains is under attack by some unseen Muslim threat is all kinds of amusing, and yet the fact that there are some in this country who believe that America is under assault by Islamic law is a sad commentary of the fear mongering that has undermined true American values.
Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion (unless that religion is Protestant Christianity), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (unless that religion is Islam, or Judaism or Catholicism...you get it).
For whatever reason, the more diverse America becomes, the more determined some people become to make it Christian. I'm not here to bash Christianity, nor am I here to defend Islam. Some horrible things have been done in the name of both religions and yet billions of people all over the world live peaceful, productive and altruistic lives under the creed of each.
Just as the first amendment protects the freedom of religion, so too does it protect the freedom of speech. And so bigots nationwide are allowed to slander Muslims and lump them all together into convenient and scary terrorist cells. However, they are not legally allowed to bar Muslims from being Muslims - whether that means disallowing a mosque near Ground Zero or banning Sharia law in Oklahoma.
America is a nation of tolerance. It has made us great and it will continue to make us great. Throughout our history we have had spasms of racial and other paranoia and fear against Jews, Catholics, Communists and many other groups. These unfortunate reactions have impeded the growth of our great country and dimmed the light of democracy and freedom that shines from our beacon. However they have never taken America off the right path in the path and nor will they now.
The fear of Muslim extremism is as real as the threat of Muslim extremism. We would be ill-served by ignoring or denying that threat. We are just as ill-served by eschewing our values and denying Muslim Americans the same rights that we ourselves enjoy. That kind of anti-Muslim extremism simply encourages more Muslim extremism - at the same time we commit a moral injustice, we also foster the conditions for further atrocities.
All Americans regardless of race, religious creed, social status, sexuality, gender or whatever other category we can use to differentiate ourselves from others - deserve the same basic rights as the white Christians in Oklahoma. When we deny people those rights we undermine everything we have built in America for the past 200 years. We owe ourselves more than that.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Pick your favorite loonytoon
Mine is either Marvin the Martian, the Tasmanian Devil or Ron Raul. Each has his own unique appeal. Unfortunately none of them are leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination - though I submit that Taz would be a sure thing to unseat Obama.
Let's review the three loonytoons that are gathering the most attention:
1) Mitt Romney is a man of principles. Seriously, he believe in any and everything whenever it suits him best. The man passed a successful (and right-leaning) healthcare law in Massachusetts and then ran away from it when Obama passed a similar law for the nation. Mitt Romney couldn't distinguish himself from Teddy Kennedy in the early 90s, now he is comparing himself to Sarah Palin and Rick Perry. My gut tells me that Mitt may be a smart guy, but experience shows me that Mitt believes whatever he thinks is en vogue. Right now, it's en vogue to flaunt your stupidity, so Mitt - like his compatriots - looks pretty dumb.
2) Making Mitt look reasonable by comparison is Texas governor Rick Perry, a man who - somewhat like Romney - was a Democrat two decades ago. Unlike Romney, Perry only flip-flopped once. Now his "conservative credentials" are rock solid - the man does not believe in global warming and called Ben Bernake treacherous for trying to spur economic growth. I don't know about you but I don't want my president to accuse those who are trying to stimulate the economy of treason. I also just can't get on board with people who are either too stupid to understand science or willfully choose to ignore it because they're catering to people who are too stupid to understand science. I'm talking to you too Mitt Romney.
3) The Tasmanian Devil is a dark horse but the latest Fox News poll shows him creeping up on third place. As endearing as I find Taz, I feel like the language barrier would be a real problem when trying to address the nation or meet with other heads of states. George W. was enough of a babbler for me; I don't know if I can handle Taz. Also, think about how much it would cost taxpayers to clean and repair the White House after Taz lived there.
4) Michelle Bachmann is perhaps the ultimate Loony Toon. Mitt Romney believes whatever you want him to, Rick Perry actually believes a lot of stupid things, but Michelle Bachmann not only believes the garbage, she practices it. Michelle's family accepts Medicaid money to run a clinic that "heals" gay people through faith. It says a lot about our nation when this qualifies as medicine, but that's a whole other issue. The real problem is that Michelle Bachmann espouses these views. Bachmann is also referred to as the Tea Party's darling which tells you all you need to know about her ability to help the economy. For more on that, check here.
The Republican party has been short on sanity for quite a while, but the field of goons running for president would probably be better of if the Tasmanian Devil was a real candidate. He may not improve the field but he certainly wouldn't dilute it either.
If there is going to be a Republican president, we all better hope it is John Huntsman, or maybe Barack Obama since he's a pretty right of center guy himself.
Let's review the three loonytoons that are gathering the most attention:
1) Mitt Romney is a man of principles. Seriously, he believe in any and everything whenever it suits him best. The man passed a successful (and right-leaning) healthcare law in Massachusetts and then ran away from it when Obama passed a similar law for the nation. Mitt Romney couldn't distinguish himself from Teddy Kennedy in the early 90s, now he is comparing himself to Sarah Palin and Rick Perry. My gut tells me that Mitt may be a smart guy, but experience shows me that Mitt believes whatever he thinks is en vogue. Right now, it's en vogue to flaunt your stupidity, so Mitt - like his compatriots - looks pretty dumb.
2) Making Mitt look reasonable by comparison is Texas governor Rick Perry, a man who - somewhat like Romney - was a Democrat two decades ago. Unlike Romney, Perry only flip-flopped once. Now his "conservative credentials" are rock solid - the man does not believe in global warming and called Ben Bernake treacherous for trying to spur economic growth. I don't know about you but I don't want my president to accuse those who are trying to stimulate the economy of treason. I also just can't get on board with people who are either too stupid to understand science or willfully choose to ignore it because they're catering to people who are too stupid to understand science. I'm talking to you too Mitt Romney.
3) The Tasmanian Devil is a dark horse but the latest Fox News poll shows him creeping up on third place. As endearing as I find Taz, I feel like the language barrier would be a real problem when trying to address the nation or meet with other heads of states. George W. was enough of a babbler for me; I don't know if I can handle Taz. Also, think about how much it would cost taxpayers to clean and repair the White House after Taz lived there.
4) Michelle Bachmann is perhaps the ultimate Loony Toon. Mitt Romney believes whatever you want him to, Rick Perry actually believes a lot of stupid things, but Michelle Bachmann not only believes the garbage, she practices it. Michelle's family accepts Medicaid money to run a clinic that "heals" gay people through faith. It says a lot about our nation when this qualifies as medicine, but that's a whole other issue. The real problem is that Michelle Bachmann espouses these views. Bachmann is also referred to as the Tea Party's darling which tells you all you need to know about her ability to help the economy. For more on that, check here.
The Republican party has been short on sanity for quite a while, but the field of goons running for president would probably be better of if the Tasmanian Devil was a real candidate. He may not improve the field but he certainly wouldn't dilute it either.
If there is going to be a Republican president, we all better hope it is John Huntsman, or maybe Barack Obama since he's a pretty right of center guy himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)