Rep. Kucinich One of 39 Dems to vote "Nay"

Hot on the heels of the landmark health care reform bill being passed through the House of Representatives, I was a little surprised to hear that Representative and former presidential candidate (my preferred candidate, actually) Dennis Kucinich was one of the 39 Democrats to vote "Nay" on the bill. I really like Dennis Kucinich as a representative, and probably always will, but I disagree with him on this one.

I will admit that he is correct to say the bill is flawed. Much like the Obama bailout, there are some big issues with the bill, and how it will be executed when it turns to law. Kucinich believes the watered down public option that is offered in the bill will not be able to compete with the insurance companies currently in place, and he may be correct. He is right to say that a single payer system should be our ultimate goal, and we should look to countries like Canada, England, Ireland, and (*gasp*) France for possible models. That being said, letting this bill fall apart in the house and end up not getting passed is much worse of an idea than passing something that has a public option.

I would fully support and expect a nay vote on a bill that didn't offer any public option at all, but this does. Putting a public option of health care in operation is the one of the most important parts of the bill, as any law that establishes a public option can later be strengthened, even if gradually. In the America we live in, which is still being controlled by the far-right, despite President Obama's best efforts, it is outstanding and infinitely remarkable that we are able to get anything resembling a public option passed. This is not perfect, and is quite far from it, but it can be a foundation for eventually catching up with the other industrialized nations in quality of health care protection. Kucinich is still my guy, but he needs to look at the bigger picture.

A triumphant return!

There was a time when I was updating this blog regularly, but I was churning out crap. Then, right when I decided to break the schedule, I stopped doing it. Not having written since February, I remembered this and decided I was frustrated with myself for not keeping up. The political climate in this country has been quite exciting this year, and politics are my thing. I have things to say, and nothing can put a cork in the verbal vomit I occasionally indulge in. So here I am again, and this time feel free to send me hate mail if I go a week without updating.

During the campaigns, there is a sort of unquantifiable level of excitement. Although I was far from active in them, the little time I did spend canvassing and phone banking was the most enthralling of my life as a liberal. There was a profound certainty that I was on the right side, and that I was somehow making a difference. Whether it was Obama in late 2008, or Mike Quigley for Congress in early 2009, I was absolutely positive that if they were elected, things would get a lot better. I guess I'm like every other American in that way, with a profound naivety when it comes to our political leaders. I'm not the type of person who will often quote conservative pundit George F. Will, but in this case it is appropriate. In the June 2nd, 2008 issue of Newsweek (which is sitting in my bathroom magazine rack), Will said: "Americans are not cynical about politics. They are presidential romantics. Hence they suffer serial disappointments." I think we're all guilty of that.

Both of my candidates were elected, which is a positive. I was very excited in both instances. I can't say that I have been necessarily disappointed too heavily in either of them. Obama's first one hundred days were a triumph, and although he had a bit of a hiccup around summer time, I feel like lately he has been coming into his own as president, and that things are beginning to move in a positive direction. The economy is getting better, although its an uphill battle, and things are looking up.

Quigley hasn't been in the news much, being that he is only one representative among 435, but when he did make the news, it was something that irritated me profusely. I have no problem with people breaking party lines if the situation sees fit, but Quigley seemed to make a bad judgment call in his willingness to break party lines over issuing subpoenas Senators Dodd and Conrad. If we're going to start investigating senators, which we should, there are financial scandals on both sides that need addressing, not just a one sided investigation that so clearly has a big GOP stamp on it. Its not to say I'm completely dissatisfied with Quigley as a result of this, but it makes me wonder.

On a separate but probably more important note, the health care bill passed the House today. Kudos to Nancy Pelosi. Although nothing is a done deal, and it may yet have to pass again if any changes are made in the Senate. I have to say that I'm optimistic, though, and looking forward to the ability to get health insurance. Its tough being a starving artist to begin with, let alone a starving artist that can't go to the doctor if he's sick.

The Stimulus, and, The Fightin' Fifth.

It was my intention to make this blog into something I would do with regularity, but life kind of got in the way. I went to Australia and thus didn't have time to write at length about politics, and only ended up making like two "real life" posts over at my livejournal (http://www.livejournal.com/~asilentmovie) though I have been kind of addicted to twitter as of late (http://www.twitter.com/applyliberally) but I'm trying not to be one of those people who is constantly tweeting every half an hour.

Since I last wrote, Obama was elected (yay) and sworn in (yay) and has had a little over a month to do stuff. I'm really pleased with the way things are going, better than even I had hoped. Its hard not to be thrilled with the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and the promise to close Guantanamo, and the anti-torture mandate. At first I was skeptical about the way the stimulus was sounding, but now that it has passed I'm more pleased than displeased with it. It is still a flawed bill because of the Democrats attempts to "reach across the aisle" but it is better than I could have hoped for from what I expected to become one big pandering experiment.

Today I spent a few hours phone banking for Mike Quigley, who is running in the Congressional primary in Illinois' fifth district to take Rahm Emanuel's seat as representative. I kinda came across him as a candidate mostly through twitter. I knew of him from the Cook County Board of Comissioners, which he has been on for ten years or so, but it got me interested in the race. After doing a little research, I decided I liked the candidate. He seems to have a good head on his shoulders and I can't resist a good opportunity to be all political active and whatnot.

Anyway, wrapping it up. More soon I'm sure, but I'm not going to give myself a deadline. Last time with the Wednesday & Sundays thing I kind of felt self-pressured, and I don't want to write too much uninteresting garbage.

Bonus Reading: AIG Wastes Bailout Cash, and Gets More As Punishment

AIG Gets More Bailout Cash

There's an article from the Washington Post I saw and thought would be interesting to you all. Another reason for me to have a problem with the bailout.

Fisticuffs--- Obama vs. McCain, and Maher vs. Religion

With the second presidential debate having just wrapped up, I felt so inclined to share my thoughts briefly. I feel that in the general public perspective, it will come across as a stalemate. John McCain came across aggressively, and Obama dodged the attacks quite well, but McCain had the tendency throughout the debate to pull factoids out of his ass, most notably on taxes, which lead to Sen. Obama having to spend a good portion of the debate going "Actually John, that's bullshit."

For me, though, the debate boils down one portion. When asked about health care for Americans, McCain called it a "responsibility" and Obama called it a "right." All though McCain wasn't all too specific on what he meant in his opinion of health care being a responsibility, i.e. responsibility for who? But it was important for Obama to acknowledge that he believes health care is a right for every person, not just a privilege.

Also something I want to touch on, not pertaining to debate, is that I saw Bill Maher's documentary "Religulous" on Monday. I have been an atheist since middle school, and being that we are a pretty small minority, it always makes me happy to see other people that share my perspective when it comes to religion. There are times when I'm more docile, but movies like this help invigorate my anti-religious streak. Definitely got me in the mood to read some Dawkins. If you haven't seen the doco, I recommend it, no matter your religious persuasion. If you're an atheist, its great fun, and if you're not, its good to know what you're up against.

That's An Affirmative

A recent article in Newsweek comparing Judge Clarence Thomas and Governor Sarah Palin inspired me to write a bit about my opinions on affirmative action. On the off chance you are not quite aware on what exactly it is, it is basically giving preference in applying for schools and other institutions such as careers to minority people for the sake of promoting diversity. It is considered to be a generally liberal stance to take to support affirmative action, but one I have a disagreement about.

Racial equality and civil rights in general are issues I hold to a special level of importance, but I have a fundamental issue with getting an advantage in getting a job or getting accepted into a school based on your race, or anything else. On the surface it strikes as a good option for encouraging diversity in different areas of the work force, but two key problems surface in my eyes.

The first of these is the simple fact of one person getting preferential treatment because of race. A non-minority individual can miss out on an opportunity, even if they are more qualified for it, because of affirmative action. This is discrimination just as any other, and is counter-productive to the cause.

More importantly, though, is the stigma that goes along with minority students with affirmative action. As alluded to in the Newsweek article, students who were accepted into colleges because of affirmative action will always be treated as though they are not smart enough, and received their position merely as a handout. It is an unjust position to be in when they are likely as smart and as accomplished, because of the possibility of getting into school this way. This creates further discrimination that is counter-intuitive to the purpose of promoting an equal and diverse workplace. I would not want to get admitted into a school solely because I am an Irish-Dutch-Scotch-German-French Canadian-American, as I wouldn't want to deal with the unjust treatment that would surely follow.

Fair Weather Conservatism, or, Bailing Out the Big Boys

700 billion dollars. Is that a number you can ever comprehend? That is the number that the Republicans had been pushing for in this now failed plan to bail out the failing financial institutions which have been crippled by the stock market. That’s roughly a little more than $2,000 dollars per person in this country of roughly 300 million people, and the “conservative” party wants to use it to bail out companies that were led down their current path by no one other than their own recklessness in investing.

I have two major things to point out that are wrong about this plan. The first of which is the fact that this is 700 billion dollars. Where is this money coming from? We have no surplus—we are, the last I heard, trillions of dollars in debt and will likely end up getting the kind of money for a bailout plan from a large loan from China that will have to be paid back with significant interest. The Republicans are allegedly the conservative party who believe in a small government, minimum spending, and non-interference, and yet somehow they are willing to support a move that is obviously a nanny-government sort of policy that helps companies that figuratively dug their own graves. This is just another sign that the fundamentals of the Republican Party are simply not sound, and that they wave a banner only while it suits them. What they are truly concerned about is putting money in the pockets of the all ready wealthy, not with the size of the government or a reduction in spending.

The second point, and perhaps the one that should be most obvious, is why are we bailing out these companies? If we are going to invest 700 billion dollars into rebuilding our economy, it ought to go to the citizens. Could you imagine what you could do with an extra $2,000 dollars? Hell, lets cut it in half, and say $1,000. The fundamental reason that our economy is suffering is because the people do not have the money to spend. When money is not being spent, everyone suffers. One of the many reasons I believe in a higher minimum wage among other things is that a lower-to-middle class family that has more money will spend more money, and the upper class people who own the businesses benefit in turn from more money being spent, much moreso than they would lose from having to pay their employees more money. It gets a little complicated, of course, I’m not crazy about the idea of getting an enormous loan from China to give to people that will likely spend it at places like Wal-Mart, full of Chinese-made products that will cause the money in turn to return to China while simply accumulating more debt, but I have a hell of a lot more sympathy for the common person who accumulates massive debt because they need to in order to have a place for their family to live, a roof over their heads, than I do for major companies who are careless investing. I can’t be the only one who is sick of the trickle down economics bullshit, and the conservative hypocrisy in general.

The Founding Heathens?

I just finished reading J.R. Norton’s lovely, well-written, and incredibly accessible book “Saving General Washington,” which juxtaposes the insane rhetoric of the Bush white house and the conservative movement in general with the philosophies of George Washington and the other founding fathers.

I am not generally the kind of political junkie that feels the necessity to back up all of my beliefs and ideas with those of the founding fathers. They too were fallible people and made some mistakes, so taking the side of the founding fathers is not necessarily always the good one. An obvious example that I will point out anyway is slavery, which is a stigma that necessarily hangs over the viewpoints of the founders. Though there are some among them who opposed it (Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, among others) it is still something needed to consider when we sing the praises of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson.

The book is not so much about proving liberals right. They did not universally favor a large federal government, but there are interesting comparisons. Thomas Jefferson, though a slave-owner, was a populist who believed in the government serving the will of the people. At the time, he favored a small government, as he feared the authoritarianism of a government that would be allowed to grow too large. Conversely, John Adams was a federalist who favored a larger federal government and yet was in many ways a rich elitist. The boundaries between left and right were not quite so clear back then, and many of the ideas we associate with opposite sides today would go hand in hand at that time.

That being said, there are some concrete issues discussed in the book that we could point to from conservatives that are in complete contradiction of the founding principle. These are important principles that the founders were right about, and things that the Bush conservatives are shitting upon.

The founders talked about the separation of church and state, something that they found to be of extreme importance. A lovely quote on the subject comes from John Adams, who said, “Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.” Another interesting point is Thomas Jefferson condemning a group of Pennsylvanian Presbyterian ministers with “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” This strikes me as an important quotation that sort of sums of the separation, as Jefferson, a deist who held a personal belief in God, condemned the priesthood for their tyranny, and believed strongly in the separation, allegedly having, through correspondence with those that were writing the constitution, pushed for the inclusion of the separation.

Another common misconception is that the founding fathers were a bunch of Christians. False. There were certainly Christians among them, such as Washington himself and Alexander Hamilton, who were Episcopalians. (You may know them today as that crazy church with the female priests and gay marriage). John Adams was a Unitarian, which is similar to Deism, a believe system held by Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin. The latter of which, on Jesus of Nazareth, expressed “some doubts as to his divinity.”

This is just a small sampling, and I hadn’t intended this post to become a book review, but… its damn good. Rather than summarize the aforementioned book, though, I recommend that anyone with any interest on the subject of comparing Bush policies to the policies of the American founders check out the book. There’s more than the separation of church and state… Other fun issues like isolationism, which I will get to on a future date.

Palin in Comparison

To quote Jim Morrison, fallen front man of the Doors, “People are strange.” John McCain, after openly criticizing Senator Obama’s supposed “lack of experience,” he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Her experience is limited to being mayor of a town of about 9,000 people, and a year and a half as governor of Alaska, one of the least populated states in the country (47th out of 50). She is, in every sense of the term, a right wing whacko. Palin, an evangelical Christian, believes that God had a hand in making her governor. She’s a hunter, a hockey mom, etc. The worst part? People are falling for it.

I wasn’t around to comment about the political scene in 1984, when incumbent Republican President Ronald Reagan was running against Walter Mondale, vice president during Jimmy Carter’s hugely underrated presidency. For this ill-fated run, Mondale’s vice presidential candidate was Geraldine Ferraro, a woman. It didn’t work for Mondale. The ticket won a single state, Mondale’s home of Minnesota, as well as Washington D.C. Somehow, though, the Palin choice has the media portraying women as being universally jumping behind Palin.

If you listen to generic talk radio, and moreso the conservative hate mongers like Limbaugh, the listeners enthusiasm makes it seem like they are completely fooled by it. She is a woman, therefore she is for us, and we should all vote for her because it is so great and historic and oh my god like totally she’s hot too right? Whatever.

She’s anti-choice. She’s a homophobe. She’s a religious extremist that does not respect the separation of church and state. Worse than her terrible stances on the issues, though, is that she is simply a corrupt liar.

By now, you would probably have heard about what is lovingly being referred to as Troopergate. The basics of it are that Palin pressured the powers that be into firing Walt Monegan, Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner, for refusing to fire Mike Wooten, Palin’s ex-brother-in-law. Wooten was engaged in a custody battle with Palin’s sister, and being the good conservative that she is, she tried to overstretch her abilities as governor and force Monegan to fire him. So much for executive responsibility, huh?

Similarly atrocious, Palin pressed charges against Bush’s White House for putting polar bears on the endangered species list. The bears are in serious danger, but Palin claimed they couldn’t be put on the list because it would interfere with oil drilling.

Palin, previously being a supporter of the now infamous “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, is now featured in McCain ads as being opposed to the bridge. At a speech given to troops being sent off to Iraq, she told the troops that the people they would be fighting were responsible for 9/11, though it is now common knowledge that even the Bush administration has admitted that Iraq and Hussein had nothing to do with it. When asked in a television interview on CBS, “What is your opinion on the Bush doctrine?” her response might as well have been a “Durrrrr.” She had no idea, and only after the interviewer explained it to her, was she able to push out a nonsense answer that didn’t even answer the question.

So we’re dealing with an idiot, a liar, with little experience, terrible stances on every issue, who doesn’t know the most basic things about foreign policy and modern history. Oh, and she’s left the country once. So have I. I have as much foreign policy experience as Sarah Palin. Come November when I go back to Australia, I will have twice as much!

I hope that people aren’t really this stupid… but… they did elect Reagan… twice. And Bush 41. And Bush 43… twice. Oh god, all hope is lost.

Oh, and cheers to Keith Olbermann. He just donated a hefty amount to the Alaskan Special Olympics (a program Palin cut the funding for), one hundred dollars for every lie she has told in the past week or so. A great man doing a great deed. Hip hip!

Sleeping With the Enemy

As it happens every election cycle, this one in particular has caused a lot of general friction between people of opposing political viewpoints. This is not to say that the tensions aren’t always there to some degree, but an upcoming election always amplifies the bad blood. A good question about the rivalry between left and right is whether or not it is right? Should we always play nice?

Not long ago, former president of the National Rifle Association, Charlton Heston died. Heston’s image for us on the left was one of a right wing gun nut, and understandably so the reaction to his passing was mixed. I count myself among the people whose immediate reaction to hearing the news of his death was to grin from ear to ear. The reaction on the right wing was to pretend to be taking the high road. On the O’Reilly Factor, Billo the Clown had a field day with holier-than-thou comments calling into question the left wing, and I’m sure there were a few references to the “liberal media bias.”

It wasn’t long afterward that our favorite senator, Ted Kennedy, was diagnosed with a brain tumor. The reaction to this was much the same among the far right as it was for Heston’s death among the far left. I’m sure they were pleased, and notably Michael Savage on his hate fest he calls a radio show used a Dead Kennedy’s song in conjunction with some “jokes” about cancer and Kennedy.

I question, though, whether or not it is wrong at all to take as extreme a view as wishing death upon political opponents. It is not as if we are ourselves causing their deaths, and the fact of the matter is that in our perception, people like Charlton Heston, and the recently-diagnosed-with-brain-cancer Robert Novak echo views that stand in the way of liberty. Guns threaten our safety. Conservatism lets people starve and only puts money in the pockets of big business. The conservative movement is full of people who don’t want every person to have health care. The people that reflect on being poor as being a terminal illness. Surely there is the opposite view on the other side, and perhaps should be, but either way I contend that these people are our enemies. What do I care if they shed a tear when Ted Kennedy passes away? Just hope they don’t expect anything from me when they croak.

Even on a less extreme level than death to the opposite side, many of us count a few conservatives among our friends. I am not one of them. Though I have close friends who identify themselves as progressives who can still enjoy the company of an occasional right wing nut job, this isn’t the case with me. I am certainly a bleeding heart at my core, and believe in tolerance, but the most important philosophy to have is “tolerate all except the intolerant.” I have a few friends who consider themselves moderates, and a few more that are simply entirely apathetic about politics (though it pains me), but I find it difficult to have a good time with a right winger.