"Yes we can" was the collective shout of American in November as we elected our first black president on his eloquently spoken platform of change. Six months later, where is this change we were promised?
The government continues to withhold information regarding the ongoing wars from the public, torture continues of suspected terrorism detainees, potentially ground-breaking new environmental laws continue to get watered down by fat congressmen and public healthcare reform continues to be depressed by the special interests of the insurance and medical industry lobbyists. I thought the democrats were the people's party but every day that passes they seem to be more and more like the republicans while the republicans have moved so far right that the center is a distant dot on their horizons. Where is has our left-wing party gone?
Nothing seems to symbolize this lack of change more than the wars. Like many Americans, I had big hopes that Obama would bring diplomacy back to our international politics. With his gift of rhetoric, who better? Yet six months into his adminitration both wars continue with no end in sight. Their price tags continue to soar into the trillions and nothing has changed in the American mind-set regarding their true cause the hipocracy of us fighting them over there.
We as a society preach the wonders of democracy but pay it no more than this simple lip-service. As a Peace Corps volunteer I have seen first-hand the positive effects we as Americans can have in developing countries by bringing them technology, knowledge, and training. We go to the poorest of countries around the world with goals of promoting the goodwill of the American people and creating an interchange of ideas, knowledge and skills. When we leave, we hope the local people with whom we spent the past two years working will be able to create sustainable income-generating activities, speak English, better manage natural reserves as well information databases. If the Peace Corps had half the funding that either one of the wars have, I can gaurantee that in five years we would not need to worry about another bombing from Arab extremist groups ever again.
Instead, we invade their holy lands and set up permenant bases in their countries - either on land or at sea, continuing the very imperalistic behavior that enraged and fueled these groups to begin with. We bomb their homes year after year but have yet to hear a single story on the news about rebuilding them much less their vital infrastructure. Nor do we hear about Haliburton installing cutting-edge technology systems and training the locals in their use. My brother is in the Army National Guard and was called to serve in Iraq last year, when will the Army Corps of Engineers be called to serve?
Will we ever learn from history or will we just keep repeating it? Honestly, what choices are we leaving these people? How is what you doing different, Mr. Obama? Because honestly, I fail to see it.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Did all Conservatives Flunk History and Civics?
How many times do I have to be subjected to the stupidity of conservatives? With the recent nomination of Sonia Sotomayor all the republicans undies are up their collective butts once again on the issue of "activist judges." I even heard one man on the radio (NPR Talk of the Nation May 20, 2009) say that we definitely don't want a judge on the Supreme Court who makes decisions based on fairness but rather follows the letter of the law because we have a legislative branch that can change the law if we believe it to be unfair. The same man declared that liberals believe that constitution to be a "living document" open to their interpretation rather than a set-in-stone law of the land. So, once again, I feel the need to provide a little lesson in history and civis for those stupid Americans out there (you know who you are).
First off, the Supreme Court is essentially made up of nothing but activist judges, on both sides of the political aisle. Arguably, that is their exact jobs... to be activists. Their constitutional responsability. The conservatives, you see, like to think that we still have a government for the people and by the people because to these corporate fat-cats (and those who still cling to the unrealistic dream that they too may some day join those ranks) the government is representing them. Unfortunately, the reality is much different.
All too often the politicians in the legislative branch of government make laws that promote their own interests (or careers) and that seek only to protect the profit margin of their campaign backers, not the average person. When the average person gets caught up in these laws, which they really have no hope of changing, they rely on the courts to protect them. It is the job of these judges to say that a law is not constitutional or that it is not being applied fairly in all cases. If a case has made through the lower levels of circuit and appeals courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, then the judges there have a constitutional responsability to decide if the law is applying correctly in that case or if the case presents an argument for why that law may not be constitutional. Is that not activism?
It is easy to complain when this works against your personal ideals, but would they be so quick to complain if the Court overturned Roe v. Wade? That would basically be a decision based on the moral values of the right, would that not be activism? At one point in time our elected representatives passed laws to enslave and later on segregate blacks. If not for a few activist judges who decided that these laws were not constitutional, despite these themes not being explicitly covered by the constitution which also happened to be written during the time of slavery in America, would Barrack Obama be president?
That is the beauty of the American government (and probably the only beauty), that it is based on a living constitution, yes living, which our forefathers had the foresight to leave intentionally vague and open to interpretation as they realized that times, circumstances and ideals would change over the course of history for this country. That is why they only placed one law, treason, into it and created a system to revise it as needed. It did not say that all white men were created equal, but that was the way it was interpreted for almost two hundred years and now even women can be seen as included "men" in that single sentence. All thanks to the fact that we accept the constitution as a living, flexible document open to interpretation.
The fact is that these "activist judges" have a constitutional mandate to keep the other two branches of government in check. To prevent the small population of those with power from trampling over the rights of those without it, to be social and moral activists if you will, whom have no other defense in our government. In fact, you can argue that it is there responsability to protect us from our government.
First off, the Supreme Court is essentially made up of nothing but activist judges, on both sides of the political aisle. Arguably, that is their exact jobs... to be activists. Their constitutional responsability. The conservatives, you see, like to think that we still have a government for the people and by the people because to these corporate fat-cats (and those who still cling to the unrealistic dream that they too may some day join those ranks) the government is representing them. Unfortunately, the reality is much different.
All too often the politicians in the legislative branch of government make laws that promote their own interests (or careers) and that seek only to protect the profit margin of their campaign backers, not the average person. When the average person gets caught up in these laws, which they really have no hope of changing, they rely on the courts to protect them. It is the job of these judges to say that a law is not constitutional or that it is not being applied fairly in all cases. If a case has made through the lower levels of circuit and appeals courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, then the judges there have a constitutional responsability to decide if the law is applying correctly in that case or if the case presents an argument for why that law may not be constitutional. Is that not activism?
It is easy to complain when this works against your personal ideals, but would they be so quick to complain if the Court overturned Roe v. Wade? That would basically be a decision based on the moral values of the right, would that not be activism? At one point in time our elected representatives passed laws to enslave and later on segregate blacks. If not for a few activist judges who decided that these laws were not constitutional, despite these themes not being explicitly covered by the constitution which also happened to be written during the time of slavery in America, would Barrack Obama be president?
That is the beauty of the American government (and probably the only beauty), that it is based on a living constitution, yes living, which our forefathers had the foresight to leave intentionally vague and open to interpretation as they realized that times, circumstances and ideals would change over the course of history for this country. That is why they only placed one law, treason, into it and created a system to revise it as needed. It did not say that all white men were created equal, but that was the way it was interpreted for almost two hundred years and now even women can be seen as included "men" in that single sentence. All thanks to the fact that we accept the constitution as a living, flexible document open to interpretation.
The fact is that these "activist judges" have a constitutional mandate to keep the other two branches of government in check. To prevent the small population of those with power from trampling over the rights of those without it, to be social and moral activists if you will, whom have no other defense in our government. In fact, you can argue that it is there responsability to protect us from our government.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Is that really news?
The 24-hour news wires were abuzz this week with trying to predict what type of dress Michelle Obama would wear when she met the Queen. Would she wear her standard sleeveless number or something more conservative? When she finally did meet the Queen, she should reserve herself to only a couple sips of tea and a few bites from a cookie... enough to be polite but not over-indulgent.
Come on people. In a world with several wars and violence in the middle east, genocide in Africa, a global economy on the colapse and the world's environment that continues to test the adaptability and resolve of countless species (including us)... is that really the best news to cover?
How about we just trust the first lady to wear something classy and comfortable, as any first lady would in such a situation. And why don't we allow her to not waste food while entire societies are starving, let her finish whatever she decides to accept. Then maybe we could turn out attention to the more pressing matters of the day.
Come on people. In a world with several wars and violence in the middle east, genocide in Africa, a global economy on the colapse and the world's environment that continues to test the adaptability and resolve of countless species (including us)... is that really the best news to cover?
How about we just trust the first lady to wear something classy and comfortable, as any first lady would in such a situation. And why don't we allow her to not waste food while entire societies are starving, let her finish whatever she decides to accept. Then maybe we could turn out attention to the more pressing matters of the day.
God Bless the Bush and the Republicans
In an interview on CNN this week, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) boldly proclaimed that the lack of another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 was the direct result of President Bush's poicies on the war and the treatment of Guantanamo detainees. As a public service, I would like to help you, Mr. McConnell, with some fact checking...
- The first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center occurred in February 1993, 7 years before the October 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole and 8 years before the September 2001 attack. Does that mean that it was Clinton's policies that kept us 'safe' all that time?
- From September 2001 to September 2006, 'Al Qaeda has directed, financed, or played a role in 30 fatal operations in 12 countries causing 2500 casualties including 440 deaths' (Rand-MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base). In fact, the rate of fatalities from terrorist activities for the 59 month period following 11 September 2001 is 250 percent that of the 44.5 month period preceding and including the 9/11 attacks (adjusted for differing lengths of time). Other statistics suggest a 167 percent increase in average monthly rate of terrorism incidents. Further, a fair portion of the increased activity is related to the war in Iraq (but not all). Taking Iraq out of the picture, there is still an average increase in the monthly rate of terrorism fatalities of more than 10 percent for the post-9/11 period. Still, Iraq is undoubtedly a result of the Bush 'war on terrorism' as it is so often linked by the republicans. Therefore, its direct impact on terrorism should be considered. Taking the war into account, the increase in average monthly terrorism-related fatalities is actually 75% for the same time period. Thanks for keeping the world safer Bush (not). (http://www.comw.org/pda/0609bm38.html)
Sen. McConnell went on to discuss how the democratic 'spending' bill is laiden with budget proposals for programs 'completely unrelated' to the economic situation, and therefore should not be legislated at this time. Well, let's put aside the erroneous assumption right now that the entire government should come to a screetching hault and 100% of our attention turned to the economy (because we all know the rest of the countries needs will patiently wait as dig ourselves out of this republican-created mess). These programs to which he referred he identified as energy, healthcare and the budget.
It is exactly this narrow-focused approach to the world that got us into this mess. This failure to see how A+B=C, to foresee the impacts of today's actions on tomorrows society will only dig us deeper into the hole. If you want to get people to spend money, try a novel concept... rather than give money to your corporate fat-cat croanies, try getting the average American employed such as through creating innovative new jobs in renewable energy industries (but then what would the oil barrons like the Bushes do? - Not to mention all those terrorists funding their attacks on us through their oil sales to us.).
And maybe we should create new jobs in the healthcare industry while ensuring that every American has access to quality, affordable healthcare... another novel concept especially in a time when Americans are losing their jobs (and health insurance coverage) at increasing rates. And finally, and this is a biggy, why should we not attempt to wrap all stimulus plans up in the annual budget? I mean, I fully understand that for the past 8 years we operated under a cloud of Bush secrecy where we never really new how much his policies, such as the war, were costing the American people - that is until he left and we finally got the bill. But we finally have a president who recognizes that he works FOR the American people, so let's go ahead and put all these stimulus plans in the budget so that we can actually plan for the costs.
And let's stop giving the president so much grief about the bill he is running up. The only diference between him and Bush in that regard is that Bush just kept all on the down-low for 8 years and left us with sticker-shock in the end. I much prefer to know what's coming, thank you Obama.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Obama reverses Bush abortion-funds policy
Mathew Lee and Liz Zidoti of the Associated Press wrote of Obama's reversal of 8 years of conservative, religious right policies regarding woman's reproductive decisions around the world. In response, the following was added by two congressman...
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directiveforces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."
I cannot believe the blatant hypocrisy of the religious. Let's follow their logic for a second here. In doing so, I would have to ask the following: Why is it OK for us vegans to have to pay taxes that support the torture and slaughter of billions of animals every year through government subsidies and handouts to the meat and dairy industries not to mention grants to "scientific" researchers? Why is OK for us environmentalists to pay taxes that support government bailouts to the auto industry as well as subsidies and tax incentives to big oil? Why do us pot smokers have to pay taxes that support a bloody, ineffective and non-scientifically founded prohibition on the drug?
My point is, stop pissing and moaning about how unfair life is every time you don't get your way. Moreover, stop painting liberals as they spoiled brats trying to push 'their' agenda on the rest of the world while you try to shove your religion down my throat. If you want the rest of society to play by your rules, maybe you should start to do so as well!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Hope!?
The honeymoon lasted all of about a week for me. Though I still try to remain optomistic that the election of Barack Obama as our next president signifies a change in American policy both domestically and abroad, recent news has left me fearful that he will not be so different afterall.
The Associated Press in an article today informed us of President-elect Obama's desire to offer part of the $700 billion bail-out package to American auto-makers, that's in addition to the already approved $25 billion that Congress has gifted them in order manufacture more fuel-efficient cars so as to increase their competitiveness globally.
What the fuck!!!! Despite my liberal-leaning ways and socialist values, I do believe that in some cases the market should be left to decide the fate of companies. For decades, the U.S. auto industry ignored the consumer demand for fuel-efficient cars, even going as far as to lobby against CAFE standards and California propositions for no-emission vehicles. The reaped in profits gained from duping the public into believing that they had a 'right' to own and drive Hummers and F150s and that only sissies would buy a hybrid.
No the economy has crashed and only recently have oil prices come back down from record highs of $4/gallon. People cannot afford to buy new cars, much less fill their tanks (regardless of the price of gas) so the auto giants are falling into bankrupcy because they cannot unload their bohemoth vehicles. Like so many a Republican, they now see the light, they have found God - so to speak - and born again environmentalists.
So let's all be good Christians and forgive them for the past ingressions for they knew not what they were doing. Let's turn the other cheek and save them from the consequences of their poor business decisions. How can we be so cruel as to allow all those CEOs and COOs to lose their million-dollar homes and be forced to buy a mere $500,000 home. We mind-as-well kick them out on the street. Sorry, I think not! Fuck the greedy, corporations. Let them fall, hard, on their big, fat asses!
America needs to inspire and fund innovation, these corporations and the bastards that run them have only proven that - when given the opportunity - they will only turn the heads to the desires of the majority of consumers while brainwashing the stupidest in an effort to maximize their profits regardless of the cost to the taxpayer (whether be in bailouts or in the environmental remediation of the pollutant-belching monsters). Fuck them all with the tailpipes of those left-over Hummers.
Read the articles at:
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_obama)
The Associated Press in an article today informed us of President-elect Obama's desire to offer part of the $700 billion bail-out package to American auto-makers, that's in addition to the already approved $25 billion that Congress has gifted them in order manufacture more fuel-efficient cars so as to increase their competitiveness globally.
What the fuck!!!! Despite my liberal-leaning ways and socialist values, I do believe that in some cases the market should be left to decide the fate of companies. For decades, the U.S. auto industry ignored the consumer demand for fuel-efficient cars, even going as far as to lobby against CAFE standards and California propositions for no-emission vehicles. The reaped in profits gained from duping the public into believing that they had a 'right' to own and drive Hummers and F150s and that only sissies would buy a hybrid.
No the economy has crashed and only recently have oil prices come back down from record highs of $4/gallon. People cannot afford to buy new cars, much less fill their tanks (regardless of the price of gas) so the auto giants are falling into bankrupcy because they cannot unload their bohemoth vehicles. Like so many a Republican, they now see the light, they have found God - so to speak - and born again environmentalists.
So let's all be good Christians and forgive them for the past ingressions for they knew not what they were doing. Let's turn the other cheek and save them from the consequences of their poor business decisions. How can we be so cruel as to allow all those CEOs and COOs to lose their million-dollar homes and be forced to buy a mere $500,000 home. We mind-as-well kick them out on the street. Sorry, I think not! Fuck the greedy, corporations. Let them fall, hard, on their big, fat asses!
America needs to inspire and fund innovation, these corporations and the bastards that run them have only proven that - when given the opportunity - they will only turn the heads to the desires of the majority of consumers while brainwashing the stupidest in an effort to maximize their profits regardless of the cost to the taxpayer (whether be in bailouts or in the environmental remediation of the pollutant-belching monsters). Fuck them all with the tailpipes of those left-over Hummers.
Read the articles at:
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_obama)
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Enough Single-Track Mindsets Leading Our Country Please...
I just read in the morning paper that republican VP candidate Palin is making comments indicating that because McCain is the only man to have "fought for us" in life and death situations, that he is the only one qualified to lead our country. Shit, please. I don't care if you were in the military or not. For some people the military provides the only or at least the best option for lifting themselves out of the current socio-economic situation. For others service may be an implicit family tradition. Regardless, it is exactly that single-track mentality of the republicans who think that military force is the only way to protect our country, serve our country, help humanity and spread democracy that has put it into a two endless wars. As a Peace Corps volunteer I take offense to the notion that I am somehow not serving my country in any manner equally important (an arguably more, though considerably less dangerous) role.
I live overseas, far away from my friends and family. I have had to adjust my lifestyle to meet government restrictions from both the U.S. and my host country not too mention the lack hundreds of daily conveniences we take for granted in America. I endured days on end of sickness and fatigue because in the end I know that the work I am doing truly is spreading good will toward all of humanity, spreading democracy and positioning America as a powerful force for good in the world. Moreover, I do it all for considerably less benefits than our soldiers receive because all they talk a big game, in the end the republicans could care less about spreading good will toward man and creating a peaceful, prosperous global society. All they care about is keeping themselves and their campaign contributors rich.
So, Ms. Palin, be careful with your petty chides toward Obama and Biden for their lack of military service. Afterall, I have yet to hear any stories from "service" to our country. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the American population who has served their country in non-violent but equally important means. They are your teachers, your scientists, your stay-at-home mothers, your social workers, your doctors, the environmentalists fighting to keep us healthy and the Peace Corps volunteers giving up everything to do what the politicians will only talk about. In short, Ms. Palin... bite me.
I live overseas, far away from my friends and family. I have had to adjust my lifestyle to meet government restrictions from both the U.S. and my host country not too mention the lack hundreds of daily conveniences we take for granted in America. I endured days on end of sickness and fatigue because in the end I know that the work I am doing truly is spreading good will toward all of humanity, spreading democracy and positioning America as a powerful force for good in the world. Moreover, I do it all for considerably less benefits than our soldiers receive because all they talk a big game, in the end the republicans could care less about spreading good will toward man and creating a peaceful, prosperous global society. All they care about is keeping themselves and their campaign contributors rich.
So, Ms. Palin, be careful with your petty chides toward Obama and Biden for their lack of military service. Afterall, I have yet to hear any stories from "service" to our country. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the American population who has served their country in non-violent but equally important means. They are your teachers, your scientists, your stay-at-home mothers, your social workers, your doctors, the environmentalists fighting to keep us healthy and the Peace Corps volunteers giving up everything to do what the politicians will only talk about. In short, Ms. Palin... bite me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
