The Wright Affair

So I'm sure by now most of you have heard some of the comments made by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These comments had anti-American flavor to them, and some were racially charged. Jeremiah Wright is a black man. He was the leader of a predominantly black church. He seems to harbor a lot of ill will against the United States for what it has done to black people throughout history. This was part of him now infamous "god damn America" sermon, in which he condemned the country for trying to play the role of God, and letting its black population down.

These comments have been reproduced and misrepresented completely. This is not a defense of what he said, because I feel that in his position of religious leadership, what he said was not only stupid but overstepped his bounds. I don't mean to convince you that the "mass media" has taken this story and purposefully mangled it to attack Obama. No, I don't subscribe to those common lines of thinking, that although popular, are conspiracy theories none the less.

This is simply an argument that Barack Obama should be left out of the matter completely. People in America are hearing these comments, and condemning both Wright and Obama at the same time. Obama is being thrown under the bus, his national poll numbers are going down, and he's being crucified by competitors for what his former pastor said. His former pastor. Give me a break.

To me, Jeremiah Wright can be accurately compared to that crazy uncle or grandpa that all of us have encountered at one point or another. You love that uncle or grandpa, because theyre family. Sometimes they might say something stupid, or racist even, but you never hate them. You don't hate them because you know that despite their flaws, they are good people with good intentions. You realize that just because they say something doesn't mean you need to believe it. You realize that you are your own person with your own beliefs, and you move on.

The same thing happened to Barack Obama. Jeremiah Wright was a close personal friend of his. Wright baptized Obama's children for gods sakes, the two were close. Now Republicans and fellow Democrats are attacking Obama for not trashing Wright and leaving him in the dust? I don't know about you, but I have more respect for Obama knowing that he wouldn't ditch someone he considers close to family just because of a few dumb remarks. Obama said that he didn't agree with Wright, but that he would remain with the congregation. Bravo.

What Wright said is no reflection on Obama's own individual character. It tells us nothing about how Obama feels regarding race in America, and it tells us nothing about the sort of people Obama associates himself with.

If we really need to spend this much time analyzing off color remarks made by a Democratic hopeful's former pastor, perhaps the degradation of this race is worse than I previously thought. America.....Im sorry I mean God, save us all.

Huh?

Recently, a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton, Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) suggested a novel, new method of guaging success in the primaries--tally up the electoral votes in states won!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?fta=y

Is there anyone reading this who can explain to me the tortured logic that would lead people to believe that winning electoral votes in a primary (where they make no difference at all) translates to winning electoral votes in the general election? Obviously the candidate who wins the primary goes on to win the general election. In fact, all twenty-four Democratic and Republican primary winners went on to take the white house, excepting only the twelve who lost. So clearly, primary performance is an indicator of general election performance.

Take a state like Texas, for example. Clinton won (narrowly) in the popular vote in that state's primary election on March 5. So, obviously, she will win Texas in the general election, right?

Frankly, no. Stephen Colbert could not have been more accurate when he said that the winner of the Texas Democratic primary would win Texas "unless there's a Republican candidate." I'm sorry, but no Democrat is going to take Texas in the general election--so why is being able to win it in a primary such a big thing?

Primary performance is no indicator whatsoever of how a candidate will perform in the general election. For one thing, it represents only the wishes of people who are registered members of the party itself (except for some states that hold open primaries, in which one need only be a registered voter). For another, it doesn't take into account a candidate's appeal to moderates or the other party--something that Hillary is sorely lacking.

The only reasonable explanation for why she wants to look at the primary victories as if they were the electoral college is that she's getting desperate to appear the frontrunner, when she trails Obama in just about every other category--including delegates, which is the only one that counts.

So, Senator Clinton, stop whining because the Democrats choose Barack Obama over you. I know it's hard for you to accept that, but that is just how politics works. Stop trying to show that you won in the electoral vote so far, because it only highlights that you've come up short where it really matters--the delegates.

Tibet

As many of you may know, history is in the making in Tibet. A huge movement for the secession of Tibet from China, with the Dalai Lama at its head, is currently protesting vigorously for the freedom of Tibet. China has replied to the peaceful protests with police and military force, trying to "put down" the rebellion and maintain a state of order.

Unfortunately, the unfolding events are difficult to get information on, due to China's control of its news sources. China has been blocking news reports referencing the conflicts from CNN and other non-Chinese stations from being viewed by its citizens. There has been a large amount of conflicting information coming from the area, where international news sources have not been allowed. There have been between 10 and 100 protestors killed (the Chinese government claims 10, members of the Free Tibet movement claim 100), and between 12 and 48 people were arrested at one time for blocking the entrance to a United Nations building (again, the discrepancies are from different numbers reported by the government and the protestors). Which numbers are right? Maybe neither. It's probable that both sides have either exaggerated or downplayed the numbers, but the true statistic definitely lies between the two.

What is this conflict about, you may ask? I asked the same thing when I first heard about it. Here's a simplified version of the issue, which of course is quite complex: The Tibetans want to be an independent state. The area is currently under Chinese control, and the residents say that the Chinese government has been oppressive and has violated their human rights. The government, of course, claims it is merely trying to maintain order and keep the peace. But this conflict's roots are not deep, and the movement is young. This is because Tibet was a fully independent nation up until the 1900's. China claimed Tibet as its own in 1914, saying that they were unified since they had both been under Mongol control in the past and therefore were homogenous. Tibet ignored the claim and continued to rule itself, until 1949 when China invaded. So it is not a surprise that the Tibetan people are chafing under Chinese rule, as they do not have the same interests and are a vastly different culture.

This issue is especially important now, as China is hosting the 2008 Olympics. It is necessary for the country to have a good international opinion. Also, protestors have threatened to interfere with events such as the running of the torch if China does not agree to go into talks with the Dalai Lama. This rebellion has cast a shadow over the Games, and it is in China's best interest to either come to terms with the protestors or beat them into line before the Games begin.

It is the spirit of America to support rebellion and popular opinion. Our nation was born in a bloody war, seperating from a government that it deemed oppressive and against its interests. If a group of people is fighting the same cause that we fought over 200 years ago, isn't it right to give them our support?

Support for the protestors can also be born from merely having sympathy for fellow people of the world. China is guilty of huge amounts of human rights violations, no matter whose statistics you go by. They rule with an iron fist and control countless aspects of their people's lives, all in the interest of the country. But shouldn't the real interest of a government be to protect and serve its citizens, not to improve the country's wealth and power at any cost?

If you support the people of Tibet, the least that you can do is take a few seconds and sign the following petition. Broad international pressure is required to make the Chinese government act humanely, and that pressure can be administered by a large amount of ordinary people like you and me.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/tibet_end_the_violence/32.php?cl=65739871

If you support the Chinese government, you don't have to so anything. Because if the world just sits by and watches, China will brutally force the Tibetans back into compliance like it has so many other discontented groups of citizens in the past.

"Sicko" Review

So the other night, I watched "Sicko," the documentary about healthcare by Michael Moore. I was expecting a great documentary, due to the popularity of Moore and the number of awards he has won. And I got even more than I expected.

First of all, I would like to say that I supported a universal healthcare system before I watched the movie. What I was really looking for were some facts and statistics to back up my ideas, rather than the simple belief that healthcare is something that everyone deserves, no matter their income level, like education and protection by the law.

But the film was focused much more on individuals and their experiences with the healthcare systems in the USA and abroad, which were actually quite interesting. A lot of people have had bad experiences with the American system, including employees of big insurance companies. These accounts were quite moving, as they exposed how greedy and profit-driven the companies really are, as employees would get bonuses for turning down the highest number of customers' claims. There were also people who were victimized by the system, and had lost loved ones or been sent into poverty due to the greediness of the HMO's.

There were some statistics, however. A lot of them were interesting, such as that the USA has 50 million people (about 1/6 of the current population) living without healthcare. That the USA is ranked #37 in the coverage of its citizens, below small and poorer countries (France being #1). Some of the statistics were so outrageous that I did not even believe them, such as when Moore states that the US's infant mortality rate is higher than in most other industrialized countries. I looked up the fact later, and it is true that the US is rated below all developed nations but Latvia in the number of children who die in their first month of life.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html

After I discovered this, I appreciated Moore's work much more. He showed some very shocking facts, which show how poor the health of our nations really is compared with countries with socialized health care. He also showed the perspective of Candians and British citizens and doctors, to refute the claims that socialized healthcare is poor, slow, or bad for doctors.

And perhaps my favorite part of the movie was when Moore points out how many things in this country are already socialized. Americans' irrational fear of socialism, and how it will lead to *gasp* communism seems to be one of the main blocks of universal health care. But so many things are already provided by the government, such as police, firefighters, libraries, education, and the postal service. These are things that are deemed necessary for society and as rights for citizens, yet they could easily be privatized. So why is it that health care doesn't make the cut for the list of government-provided services?

The only negative I could find with the film was that Moore glorified universal health care more than it probably deserves. He made it seem as if it was a perfect system, praising Cuba for having socialized health care, and made it seem as if it was better to live in Cuba than in the US. As I said above, I support government-run health care, but I don't think it's a perfect system. Everything has some pros and some cons, and even if socialized health care is better than privatized, that doesn't mean it is perfect.

All in all, this is a great movie and I highly recommend it. It is quite depressing at parts, but it's both thought-provoking and entertaining. And as it is said in the film, this issue isn't a partisan one. Even members of the Conservative Party in Canada and Great Britain support universal health care, as it is a basic human right. If we can unite behind universal suffrage, equal protection under the law, and equal education, why not health care?

Governor Richardson endorses Barack Obama

I'll try to keep this one short. Today, New Mexico Governor and former presidential candidate Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama. The endorsement was highly coveted by both the Clinton and Obama camps, as Richardson is one of the more influential figures in the Democratic Party who had yet to endorse a candidate.

My congratulations go out to Governor Richardson, for finally deciding he could not stand on the sidelines any longer, and solidly endorsing a candidate. Thus far, a number of the big name Democrats--former vice president Al Gore, Speaker of the House Nanci Pelosi, and recent presidential candidate John Edwards to name a few--have declined to take a position for Obama or Clinton, due to their desire to let the primary process play itself out. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic nominee will not be chosen by pledged delegates--the closeness in public opinion polls and primary results between the two has made it progressively less likely that one candidate would win enough pledged delegates to put them within a stone's throw of the 2,025 threshold. So, it has come down to the superdelegates and influential party leaders to choose the nominee.

Unfortunately, they have proven reluctant to do so, mainly because of the closeness of the race between the two Senators. This is unfortunate because as long as there is no solid coalition forming on the side of one candidate, the Democratic will leave the convention as fractured as it will be upon entering it. Its time for the party leadership to take a stand for one candidate, end this senseless feuding between two people with essentially the same beliefs, and start getting ready for what could be a tough general election. Democrats, it is time to make up your minds.

I could write another essay on this, but I promised to keep it short.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21cnd-endorse.html?ref=politics

The Fight Goes On, and On, and On, and On....

We've had a little break in the primary action as of late, and its given me a chance to take a step back and think about what's really going on in the Democratic Party right now.

Two very unique candidates are battling it out for the right to run for President, not the right to BE president, but just to have the chance to run. They are spending millions upon millions of dollars, making 4-5 speeches per day, traveling all across the country, giving countless interviews, and having their entire lives recorded by the national media. Why are they doing all this? Why would they subject themselves to such sucky conditions? Why won't one of them just give up already?

We haven't seen a primary election cycle like this in decades. These two really couldn't be closer right now, whether it be in the public opinion (Hillary now holds a small lead in national polls) or delegate count (which Barack currently controls). They both think that they have the people on their side, like they are what is right for this country. What they don't realize is that they are slowly destroying their chances at a victory in November, when it really counts.

As the democrats have been fighting it out for months and months in the primaries, in the media, John McCain has been rallying the troops, securing the base. The democrats are attacking each other and convincing America that the other isn't right for the job, while John McCain is convincing everyone that he is right for the job. All I've seen lately covering the race is negative press regarding each of the democrats, press that the American people are reading and keeping in the back of their mind, information they will remember in November.

The Republicans have the right idea. They came together and selected a candidate early, and now all he has to do is secure all of those Republican votes, with no one within his own party trying to prove he's an idiot, or incompetant. Even worse for the democrats, no one in the Democratic party is focusing on McCain either. They are devoting so much time to the primary election that they have lost sight of their ultimate goal, to put a democrat in office. And this isn't necessarily a fault of Democratic America, they just can't make up their damn minds.

It is time to make a decision. This needs to come to an end. If the American people can not choose between the two, then Democratic leadership must. It is time to act, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore. It is time to pick which horse you're going to ride into the fall and kick the other one out. Only the Democratic Party leadership can (through private conversation) nudge one of these candidate out of the race, and they NEED to do it, if the Party has any chance of winning in November. If it doesn't happen directly after the Pennsylvania primaries in April, McCain will continue to gather support, and the democrats will continue to attack each other.

There's a saying I heard one time that "The Democratic party has a strange way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Well, If the democrats can't make up their minds soon, this may be the case once again in 2008.

Florida, Michigan, and Hillary Clinton

You know, I am just sickened by the dispute in the Democratic party over the Florida and Michigan primaries. Remember back when the DNC decided to strip them of their delegates for scheduling their primaries too early, and no one really cared? Seriously, I don't remember anyone complaining that the people in those states had lost their voice in the democratic process. But now, all of a sudden, people have realized that those delegates could have made the difference at the convention, and are all of a sudden complaining about the nullification of their results.

The facts are thus: in August of 2006, the Democratic National committee decided that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada would be allowed to hold primaries/caucuses before February 5, to slow down the packing of the early primary season. In spring of 2007, the Florida General Assembly voted to hold the primary on January 29, a week before the date set by the party. Michigan also set its primary for mid-January, due to the opinion that the DNC rule gave the four states unjust importance in the process. In August 2007, the DNC decided to strip Florida of its delegates within 30 days. It did not do so, and so the delegates were stripped. Michigan managed to keep their delegates all the way until December 1, when the DNC officially stripped its delegation as well. Following these decisions, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other candidates removed or tried to remove their names from the Michigan ballot, and tried to get off of the Florida ballot as well, in a show of respect for the rules of the party. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd both decided to remain, to demonstrate respect for the people of the states. All candidates agreed that they would not campaign in either state--including Senator Clinton.

Not surprisingly, most of the complaining about this whole mess is coming from the Clinton camp, which has found itself against a wall that it never could have foreseen last fall. Now, with the nomination getting further and further away from her, and ever closer to Senator Obama, she is getting desperate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1206036634-4naVLUR96ihfinrGOTeHHg

Maybe I just read all the wrong articles in the, oh, seven months between the DNC's decision to strip Florida's delegates (only 4 months in Michigan), but I don't remember Senator Clinton complaining that they had lost their vote in those states until she realized that she probably will not get the nomination without them. (Her earliest opposition to this came on January 25, when the early primaries did not go as she had planned.) Now, however, her campaign has taken the position that "Michigan is populated by people, not numbers, and those people need to have their voices heard in this process,"* and she actually went to the state recently to campaign to have the results from the January 15 primary count...even though her principal competitor, Barack Obama, wasn't even on the ballot.

Now, in Florida I can almost understand the desire to count the delegates according to the results of the January 29 primary. All candidates had agreed not to campaign in the state, and therefore no candidate had an unfair advantage, right? But what about all the eligible voters who decided they would not vote in this primary because it didn't count? Their voices would not have been heard anyway, so the only way to have a truly fair election in Florida would be to have a primary do-over (which would also be a bad idea--more on this later.)

But try as I might, I cannot find any justification for Clinton's argument that the Michigan primaries were fair, and should be counted due to the January 15 results, other than the fact that she knows that Obama would get no delegate because he was not on the ballot. How can you possibly claim it was a fair primary if the current front runner wasn't even an option, especially while saying that everyone has a right to their vote? What about all the ones who would have voted for Obama had he not decided to remove himself from the ballot, in honor of the Party's rules? Again, if you want a truly fair election, you would move for another primary in both those states.

Okay, so counting the votes as they happened on the original dates is out of the question. So why not have a primary do-over? Well, it's not that simple. First of all, another primary costs a lot of money, that frankly has better uses elsewhere. Second, and more importantly, it sends a message to all the states that if you break the rules of the party, it won't really matter. This will end up being a huge problem, as it will clear a way for future rules violations in the future, because if your votes will count anyway, why not risk it to make your own state a little more important? This year, with the delegate count so close, and all the media attention on Michigan and Florida, they would appear just as important as any of the first four states anyway. Not a great way to punish rule breakers--in fact, it ends up punishing the states that actually honored the party's decision. The way I see it is this: the DNC set a clear rule. Florida and Michigan chose to violate that rule, knowing that it would result in the stripping of their delegation. You're upset now that your votes don't count? That's called "tough love."

The third option is to divide the delegates from both states evenly between Obama and Clinton. This is by far the fairest option to the other 48 states, plus all the US territories, that obeyed the party rules and held their primaries on or after February 5 (unless they were Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina). The effect on the delegate count is essentially zero--since each candidate has the same amount tacked onto their delegation, there is no net change in the difference between pledged delegates. This would, however, bring the lead candidate nearly two hundred votes closer to the 2,025 needed for the nomination, which would help that lead candidate to win over the support he needs.

Because, lets face it, this primary battle has gone on too long. We have as the current front runner, Senator Barack Obama, who leads in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote. Senator Clinton trails, but not by enough. However, her time is running out, and she will have to win big in the few remaining states (especially Pennsylvania). Unfortunately for her, it is looking less and less likely that she will win by enough to make the kind of gains in this area that will allow her to to say she's caught up to him (unless Florida and Michigan are counted as they stand...), and will thus be forced to rely on the superdelegate vote that will likely go with the candidate with more delegates--Obama.

I don't have a problem with Hillary herself. Whatever people say about her, I believe she is genuinely committed to the causes she fights for, particularly health care. However, she is behind, by a significant margin, in the delegate count, and it is very unlikely for her to catch up. So why is she staying in? She's close enough to Obama that the party leaders can't simply ask her to exit the race, with a fair amount of delegates not yet apportioned, and she is not going to drop out on her own because that's not how she is. She is becoming desperate for the nomination, and that is causing her to launch a progressively more negative campaign against Senator Obama. If she fails to get the nomination, her negative campaigning will come right back at Obama during his race with (presumptively) Senator John McCain. McCain himself is currently not clawing at others within his own party, who presumably share many of the same ideals, he is preparing for the general election. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are still attacking each other, and unless one drops, they will continue to do so right until the convention in August, where the superdelegates will likely be the swing votes.

I doubt that Hillary will be able to make up the gap in pledged delegates in the few remaining contests (although this is a presumption on my part). So, she will be going into the convention, behind in pledged delegates, but relying on the top Democratic Party figures to give her the nomination. What if they do? What if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, even if she didn't win the vote of the Democrats of America? She will be going into general election season as a tainted nominee, a nominee chosen by party insiders as opposed to the people. She will be going against John McCain, a strong candidate with great appeal to moderate voters. If this scenario occurs, and she loses the general election, the Democrats will have blown this golden opportunity, amidtst painfully low public opinion of George Bush, a tired war in the Middle East, and a deepening *recession,* to take the presidency and accomplish their agenda. This disastrous party infighting, the controversy over lost votes, and potentially a candidate who did not truly win will end up destroying the Democratic party. As one who tends to lean liberal, I, as well as many others, will be upset if the Democrats lose in November because of this fight. This is a glorious opportunity, but instead of rallying behind a candidate, the party is in the midst of petty squabling, between two candidates who have policies that are 95% the same. A lot of people will lose faith in the party, if it cannot rally now when so many Americans want change. This needs to stop now.

So, Senator Clinton, stop running against Barack Obama and start running for the Democratic Nomination. Stop viciously attacking the man who may well become the nominee, partly since it will hurt him in the general election, but partly since it will hurt you too. Stop trying to find a way around Democratic Party rules for Florida and Michigan, and endorse the wishes of the party you represent.

Because, as we all know, in the general election, there is no do-over.


*http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Primary-Scramble.html?scp=1&sq=promoted+the+idea+in+a+statement%2C+saying%2C+%22The+best+outcome+is&st=nyt

You know, I always got the impression that the reason we created a separation of powers in our government to begin with was to encourage discussion and reasoned debate about issues before jumping to a decision. I always got the impression though that cooperation wasn't GWB's strong suit. However, I persisted in the hope that somewhere there were people who had his ear, who weren't simple yes men, and who at least had some sort of debate before a decision was reached.

Today, I finally lost that hope, as I read one of the articles in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/world/middleeast/17bremer.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

In a nutshell, L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the top civilian commander in Iraq at the time of the invasion in 2003, announced to the President and his aides that he was completely dissolving the Iraqi army. This news was a surprise to most of the staff, and was not discussed with any of the President's closest advisers, with the exception of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Not even Colin Powell, the secretary of state, was consulted--a step that one would think to be very wise. Powell considers the order a large mistake, and when he asked GWB's national security adviser Condi Rice for an explanation, she responded:

"I was surprised too, but it is a decision that has been made and the president is standing behind Jerry's decision."

There was no more debate on the matter.

I am going to be honest. I am ashamed that something like this was allowed to happen, that the president can surround himself with subordinates who value loyalty to the president than to their true employers, the people of the United States. His advisers failed to act in any sort of advisory capacity, and this has possibly changed the course of the Iraq war for the worse over the past five years. Admittedly, much of the blame resides with Dubya himself, for putting his agenda before his duty as president, but I personally would have expected his advisers to take a more active role in his policies, and prevent him from making blunders of this degree.

Was dissolving the Iraq army a mistake? Ostensibly, the purpose was to rid the country of the remaining Baathist institutions, as a sign to the Iraqi people that America was committed. However, this has turned out to be a colossal misjudgement, as it placed the security of the entire country in the hands of American soldiers, while the infrastructure of the Iraqi army was destroyed, leaving our troops quite alone. Now, faced with the prospect of withdrawal, the United States will soon be struggling...to create an Iraqi army...

What thought process lead to the notion that this was a good idea? It can be easily argued that the more the United States did to shake up that region...well, the more shaken up it would become. (In math terms, this equation looks something like 1=1.) Anyone with common sense could have seen this coming! Whats more, if Bush had taken the time to consult important people before agreeing to this, then the army might never have been dissolved, and we could have been working with the Iraqis from day one to crush the resistance. (This is not to say that invading in the first place was the right decision. It wasn't. However, once we had stormed in, you would think that the president could make the effort to run the war right.) Here's a bright idea--why not use Iraqis to rebuild Iraq? Because they were part of an institution begun by Saddam Hussein? Sorry, George, but next time plan it out before risking American lives.

Fortunately, with less than a year to go, and the Democrats in control of Congress, there won't be a next time.

LIke President, Like Cabinet

Alphonso R. Jackson, the current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), has been under criticism the last couple of days, jepordizing his leadership as a cabinet member. It is said that Jackson secretly channeled hundreds of thousdands of dollars of government money to personal friends in New Orleans and the Virgin Islands. This is just the icing on top of his cake of corruption.

As if this were not enough, Jackson and other senior HUD officials exchanged emails in which they talked about taking away federal aid from Philadelphia housing chief Carl R. Greene. Senators such as Christopher J. Dodd and Bob Casey, as well as myself, are disgusted with these actions that undermine the public's faith in government officials. It seems that from the beginning of the Bush administration public confidence in our government has been greatly decreasing, mainly due to bad decisions and shady dealings.

These actions only restate the obvious: the fact that we need someone to bring change in the next election. So to Bush and all his cabinet members, being lame ducks, don't try anything fancy in your last couple months in federal office, like redirecting federal money away from helpless Katrina victims to your personal friends. What you did Jackson, is quite shocking, but like I said, like president like cabinet.

Surge in Oil Prices-- When Will it Stop?

Has anyone besides me felt as if oil prices have just kept rising? Let's take a look at the facts. Back in 2003, oil was under $25 a barrel, but ever since the August of 2005, it has raised from $60 dollars a barrel, then to $75, (there was a brief interval when it dropped to $50/barrel, but that was because of pure economic luck--Bush took advantage of it and said he had decreased oil prices); and now, now ladies and gentlemen, we're at over $100 a barrel. You could pretty much say the Saudis are having a field day.

Just this past summer at a student forum, I was given the opportunity to talk with students and professors from Dubai. Surprisingly, I found out that many oil-rich Middle Eastern countries are rising prices on purpose; they know that the American people will blame their president, not the countries themselves. But c'mon, are we really to blame? Think about it. Just last week Bush said, "Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?" when when a reporter mentioned the possibility of pumping gas for $4 a gallon. Mr. President, be realistic. I know you think the American people are a bunch of clowns who tap-dance just like you at press conferences, but sometimes you just take it too far.

Anyway, we'll have to wait and see if the economists are right about the gas prices. It's safe to say that they will be, especially with many of them having predicted the big R word back in mid-2007 (Bush's reply: "Huh? What? What's the R stand for?"). But one thing is certain, our country needs an economic savior, and fast.

Heated FISA Debate Leads to Closed Session

The House of Representative has been debating proposed revisions to FISA and other Federal surveillance laws recently. After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush starting using the National Security Agency to track phone calls, emails, and all other types of communication of suspected terrorists outside the United States.

The problem is that the program allows this warrantless wiretapping to take place even if one of the communicating parties lies within the United States. Bush has argued that they aren't spying on the American people, just making sure that the government has intelligence of any suspected terrorist activity. Many are outraged, however, feeling that NSA overstepped its bounds and has violated the 4th Amendment and FISA, the federal surveillance legislation.

Anyways, the debate right now is whether to protect privately contracted communications companies who complied with Bush's wiretapping program from lawsuits by those who feel slighted. The Republicans feel as though the companies should be given "retroactive immunity" but many Democrats think the companies should be open to any type of lawsuit in order to protect the rights of the American people.

The debate has become so heated, that Republican Whip Roy Blunt asked for a closed session of congress to take place on Thursday, March 14th so that confidential information could be presented on the floor. Such a closed session has not taken place since 1983, and it means that the American people will not have any knowledge of what is going on inside the House chamber.

Call me crazy, but I think this might actually be a step in the right direction. How many citizens actually care about what House members are saying on the floor? What people care about is results, and if this closed session can lead to a resolution of the issue, I think people will be satisfied.

It's important that Congress remains connected with the people, but this is an isolated event, and since confidential information needs to be discussed, I really don't see any other option. A few Democrats are opposed to the idea of closing the House on Thursday (cough cough Kucinich) but for the most part, they agree that it needs to take place.

That being said, I'd really like to know what's being said in that historic session. Maybe I could call Bush and ask him to wiretap it for me. He'd probably go along with it. Who cares if it's illegal.

More on this to come as it develops.....

UPDATE!! The Democratic version of the bill passed in congress today. Those who were in the closed session last night are reporting that not much was accomplished in terms of moving towards a workable compromise. President Bush has already promised to veto the legislation, which follows the Democrats idea of not providing immunity to the communications compaines. Even in private, it seems like Washington can't get anything done these days....

Rod Parsley: One Man's Personal War With Islam

It was one thing for Presidential hopeful John McCain to accept the endorsement of John Hagee, the evangelical leader who heads a 19,000-member church in San Antonio and called Catholicism "the great whore" back in late February.

But it's even worse accepting the endorsement of Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who is definitely no historian. According to Parsley, "Allah is a demon spirit. America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed...Are we a Christian Nation? I say Yes." Well of course, Mr. Parsley, a majority of our country is Christian based, there's no denying that fact. But to say that the founding of our country was based on exterminating Islam? I'm sure the Founders would have turned in their graves if they had heard that.

Let's bring back some real US history, going all the way back to 1797. A section of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary reads as follows:

As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on Christian religion, as it has itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; And, as the said states never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religion opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So there you have it. I'm not sure if the Reverend knows much about history, but we shouldn't bug him too much about it. After all, pissing off the Muslims won't do him too much harm--more than half the Islamic population already hates the US anyway, why not make it a little bit more. Besides, his narrow minded brain might explode.

Gov. Elliot Spitzer: G-O-N-E

Yes, that's right New York Governor Elliot Spitzer resigned today after much scrutinity relating to his involvement with a prosititute ring. There are four more words that I would like to say regarding this and four more words only:

I LOVE NEW YORK

(and as my man Forest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about that.")

An Open Letter to Geraldine Ferraro

Hey, Geraldine Ferraro, I have a question for you. You've said in the press that this Presidential campaign is "very emotional" for you. You support Hillary Clinton, which is completely understandable. Its been a while since you were the first ever woman candidate for Vice President when you ran with Walter Mondale in 1984, but you still like to stay involved. Recently you've said that you feel Hillary has been a victim of a very "sexist media." So here's my question. How will you respond to this "sexist media?"

Racism, you say?

Great choice. Here's what you said last week.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
-Geraldine Ferraro

You're right, Geraldine. Barack has obviously based his entire campaign on courting the black vote. People only actually care about him because he's black. It's not like he has viable ideas, most of which are almost exactly the same as your girl, Hillary's. I actually applaud you, Geraldine. You're smarter than almost everyone in the United States. What an accomplishment! While all of us ignorant fools are out being duped by a black candidate, or just being excited about the future of this nation (regardless the next President) you're able to stay above the fray. Admirable.

Even better, Hillary doesn't feel that what you said was so bad after all.

Both of us have had supporters and staff members who've gone over the line and we have to reign them in and try to keep this on the issues. There are big differences between us on the issues -- let's stay focused on that.
-Hillary Clinton

Looks like you're going to be able to stay on the campaign trail. Even though an Obama advisor was recently forced out (and rightly so) for calling Hillary a "monster" apparently racial slurs such as yours aren't grounds for dismissal. Who cares if you offend the African Americans of this nation, right? They're opinions probably don't mean much to you anyways.

Gov. Elliot Spitzer: P-I-M-P

Governor Elliot Spitzer admitted to his senior administration officials today that he had been involved in a prostitute ring. While he was not a ring leader, he was linked to the ring as a client.That's just great. One of this fine country's 50 governors enjoys "having a good time" with a prostitute. To make matters worse, the man is married. He's MARRIED.
Oh well, I guess if his wife is smart she'll move out for a little while and make him sweat (unless she's like Hillary Clinton). My first advice to you Elliot is to resign, admit you were wrong, apologize and hope you don't get food thrown at you while you walk down the street. My second advice, move out of the state, if not the country because let me tell you, if I was a citizen of New York, I would probably throw a hamburger or maybe a milk shake at you. My last advice, get plastic surgery, it's probably over kill but if you really want to get away, than it's necessary. 

Unfortunately that's not how American politics works. He'll either deny it happened or just apologize. Then, his political people will spin this until it looks like the prostitute took advantage of him. The government of New York will probably put him on trial to make it appear as if they're angry, but he'll get off. Then he'll serve out the rest of his term at which point he will be turned over to the people. Here is where the real justice will be served, New Yorkers are tough and they aren't going to like this guy making their state look bad. Finally Spitzer will most likely loose the election and I will be proud of every New Yorker. You see Elliot, you can say in your inaugural address, "We must transform our government so that it is as ethical and wise as all of New York" but New Yorkers will expect you to live up to it. Well who needs  ethics anyways, right? I mean its so overrated and I'm sure that your personal decisions weren't involved in that upper statement, right? Of course. Nice try but the people of America and New York just won't buy it. Hope that prostitute was worth it!

Illusions of Grandeur

Surprising nobody, Ralph Nader, an Independent from Connecticut has once again entered the Presidential race. He has run for President five times, and never really gotten any major support. He's got a drab personality, and usually only focuses on one or two issues during his campaign. He's got no shot, and he knows it, yet he continues to waste people's money running for President every single cycle

Why? Some might say that he just wants to bring important issues to the table. They argue that he wants his environmental agenda to be recognized by the major candidates, and is entering the race to do just that. I used to think this way, but not any more.

That strategy only works when the major candidates feel that they need to win the third party's constituency in order to take the election. The fact is that they don't. Ralph Nader doesn't have nearly the influence that he once did, which at its height really wasn't even too much. The American public just doesn't care any more, Ralph. We don't view you as some sort of Indpendent hero, fighting for the people and the environment. America is in the process of the most exciting election cycle in a hundred years, and you just couldn't resist sticking yourself in it. Its about you this time buddy. It's all about promoting your own name, not the issues.

And this is coming after you likely cost Al Gore the election in 2000. You think you might have learned by now, that you hurt more than you help. You lean to the democratic side, yet you constantly jeopardize their chances to win nailbiting elections. Yet you don't stop, and you never will. Because its not about the issues Ralph, its about you. And it always will be.

Let me be the first of the American people to let you know. We don't care.

Obama wins Wyoming

Major news outlets are reporting that Barack Obama will win the Wyoming caucus today.

The delegate split is as follows:
Obama: 7
Clinton: 5

This marks the first primary since Hillary Clinton's big night on March 4th, in which she won both Ohio and Texas.

Barack Obama has now won 29 of 43 states that have been decided thus far. He has been dominant in caucuses, however, winning a commanding 12 out of the 13 caucuses that have been decided. Attention now shifts to the Mississippi primaries on March 11th.

Bush Vetoes Anti-Torture Bill

You couldn't make this up if you tried.

Today George Bush vetoed a bill that would prevent the CIA from using interrogation techniques many consider to be torture. One of the methods that the bill would have outlawed, waterboarding, includes strapping the prisoner to a board and pouring vast amounts of water into their breathing passages.

Bush said that the bill "would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror." Really, Mr. President? Torturing foreign suspects is a tool in your war on terror? To hell with the Constitution and morals of this country, right?

Both houses of Congress passed the bill, but as we all know, Bush knows best. We can only hope that Congress overrides the veto, but don't count on it.

John McCain-Superstar, or So He Thinks

John McCain kept President George W. Bush waiting at the White House Wednesday. Call me crazy, but that's just ridiculous. Granted McCain had won the Republican nomination for President the day before, but he kept the President of the United States waiting for him. Need I remind you John McCain that you are still just a Senator from Arizona. You are a war hero, an honorable guy I'm sure, but come on as a military man you should know all about respect. Show the Commander in Chief some. Sure, he's a lame duck. Sure, he's unpopular, but he's still the President. For once, I'm on your side George.

Boneheads of the Week: Florida and Michigan

Dear Florida and Michigan,

You broke the rules. The DNC told you that you couldn't hold your primaries before the approved date on February 5th, but you didn't listen. No, you felt as though you're states were too important to be grouped together with all the riff raff on Super Tuesday. The DNC even warned you. They told you that if you moved your primaries before February 5th, your delegates wouldn't be seated in August.

But you didn't listen. No, you passed legislation that mandated your primaries be held before the rest on Super Tuesday, so that your state could have more influence. The DNC was mad, sure, but they gave you another chance. They told you that if you repealed the legislation and moved your primaries back to where they were supposed to be, they wouldn't penalize you. You had months and months to consider what you were doing, as well as the consequences.

But you didn't listen. You went ahead with your primaries against the rules of the DNC, and they punished you, just like they said they would. Your delegates aren't going to be seated at the convention. You took away the vote and voice of your people, not the DNC. Don't complain that your people are being disenfranchized, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, you were the one that allowed this.

But now you argue that the DNC is at fault? You say that your delegations "will be seated" no matter what? If you wanted to have any say in this election, you would have followed the rules, just like the rest of the states.

But no, you're too important for that. And now you're mad, fighting mad. Do you hear that sound, Florida and Michigan? It's me playing the worlds smallest violin.