Palin Quits for some reason

(This is the longest video I could find of her speech, but it seems to start halfway through. I'll update if/when I find a better one.)

Sarah Palin resigned from her position as the governor of Alaska on Friday. In today's 24-hour news cycle this story has already run its course, and can hardly qualify as breaking news. And yeah, it's Sunday, a day we usually reserve for fun stuff. Still, I'm not sure if I want to sit back and let this story pass me by without throwing in my 2 cents. As Cenk Uygur pointed out:

No one announces good news late on Friday before Fourth of July weekend. That is someone who is trying to bury bad news as much as possible.

That being said, it's time for Lefty's to weigh in on this unusual story.

The question that seems to be on everybody's mind this weekend is "Why?" Why is she doing this? Clearly her recent press conference hasn't been much help (Personally, I can never understand what she's talking about).

Rumors of some looming, career-ending political scandal have been making waves around the blogosphere. Bloggers like Cenk have been leaning toward this explanation for the decision, and Palin's attorney's has struck back at the media, particularly Alaskan blogger Shannyn Moore for asserting that this is true

Bill Kristol had an interesting take on it:

If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today? It's an enormous gamble - but it could be a shrewd one.

After all, she's freeing herself from the duties of the governorship. Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues - and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska. I suppose she'll take a hit for leaving the governorship early - but how much of one? She's probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico lieutenant governor in charge.

Strange as it may be, I'm inclined to agree with Kristol. It may seem strange for a potential 2012 presidential candidate to quit in the middle of her first term as governor, especially one who was already planning on not running for re-election in 2010. This would essentially leave Palin with all of 2.5 years of experience as governor running against an incumbent president. But remember, this is Sarah Palin, whose political instinct led her to decide not to prepare for an interview with CBS's Katie Couric. This, and other unconventional decisions, are the subject of a recent Vanity Fair piece which recounts McCain campaign staffers' horror stories about working with Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin's behavior of late have not been those of someone ready retire from the spotlight. After encouraging her daughter to become a national advocate for abstinence, making an appearance at a major Republican fundraiser, and engaging in a feud with late-night comic David Letterman for much longer than was likely necessary, I am inclined to believe that we will be hearing much, much more from Sarah Palin in the future. This is not someone about to be engulfed in scandal. If anything, the governorship was interfering with her four-year long presidential campaign. Mark my words, Sarah Palin is running for president.

All aboard the atheist bus!

Fear not, fellow Domers and South Bend residents! Transpo has cast aside it's godless ways!

I can't believe I missed out on this, but apparently an organization known as Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign ran a series of ads on South Bend's Transpo buses last month. The campaign came to a close last week, followed promptly by a Transpo board decision to never allow this happen again.

The campaign purportedly planned to have ads similar to the one above proclaiming, "you can be good without God" on the city's buses to coincide with the religious controversy surrounding Obama's visit to Notre Dame. (for more details, here's a couple of articles from some blog)



No such luck for the IN Atheist Campaign, as the board conveniently waited until the commencement ceremonies were over before authorizing the ads. Too bad, since, as a Notre Dame student, I would have enjoyed the added variety to Observer Viewpoint wars, and I definitely would have liked to see atheist buses as a fun counterpoint to abortion trucks.




According to Transpo board chairman Chip Lewis, the company has accepted ads from religious groups in the past so, to be fair, they decided to run the ads in the month of June.

This will no longer be the case, since as of June 23, Transpo's new policy will deny ad space for the promotion of "cigarettes, churches, politicians, guns or porn."

Of course with atheism, secularism, etc. already rising to become one of the largest minorities in America, one has to wonder whether bus ads are even necessary for their cause.

Happy Independence Day!!!

Greetings Comrades,

Just wanted to wish everyone a safe and happy 4th of July!  I've got to head out to join the festivities with my pals soon, but I thought I would post this little piece by Thom Hartmann, it's quite fitting for today:

Who Signed the Declaration of Independence

By Thom Hartmann

A dozen of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were politicians, doctors or ministers. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers. Ben Franklin was hard to define. I always called him the ADD one - 36 different careers in his life. He was in his 80s; Jefferson was 33 - about the average age - some of them were in their 20s.

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence were the most idealistic and determined among the colonists, while the conservatives of their day said America should remain a colony of England forever. These liberal radicals believed in both individual liberty and societal obligations; they were not Libertarian nutcases.

A nation must care for the lives of its own. Guaranteed liberty and ensure its citizens' happiness - a word in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution - a radical concept that had never before appeared in any nation's founding documents. The signers wrote in the Declaration, "We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." 

And it was a simple statement of fact. The day they signed that document each legally became a traitor and was sentenced to death for treason by the legal government that controlled their lands and their homes. As Ben Franklin pointed out, they stood at a point of no return, and "Indeed we must all hang together", he said, "Otherwise, we shall most assuredly hang separately." 

John Hancock signed his name. He said he was signing his name large enough that the king can read it without glasses and now double the reward. The reward, the king had put a £500 reward on John Hancock's head for sedition. What happened to John Hancock from signing the Declaration of Independence, just six months later his newborn daughter died from complications of childbirth arising from his wife's fleeing the oncoming British army. Although the richest of the founders, wealthy by the standards of the day, he would hardly qualify as rich by today's standards. 

He founded no dynasty. No foundation today dispenses money. John Hancock's legacy: our nation.

Robert Morris, who signed it, from Philadelphia, lost his entire shipping fleet, wiping out his modest fortune. Thomas Nelson of Virginia ordered his own home destroyed because it had been taken by General Cornwallis as headquarters. He died in poverty at the age of 50 as a result of signing the Declaration of Independence. William Ellery of Rhode Island lost everything as a result of signing the Declaration of Independence, as did Virginia's Carter Braxton, Benjamin Harrison, Pennsylvania's George Clymer, New York's Philip Livingston, Georgia's Lyman Hall, and New Jersey's Francis Hopkinson.

The British destroyed New York's Francis Lewis's property and threw his wife into such a hellhole of a jail that she died two years later. Three of South Carolina's four signers, Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. and Arthur Middleton were captured by the British and held in a filthy unheated prison and brutally tortured for over a year before George Washington freed them in a prisoner exchange. George Washington, who refused to allow the American soldiers to torture the British, he said we will not sink to their level.

New Jersey farmer John Hart's wife one died shortly after he signed the Declaration of Independence and his thirteen children were scattered among sympathetic families to hide them from conservative loyalists. He never saw them again, dying alone and wracked with grief 3 years later. 

Altogether seventeen of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were entirely wiped out by the war they declared and died in poverty. New Jersey State Supreme Court Justice Richard Stockton took his wife and children into hiding after he signed the Declaration but conservatives loyal to the crown turned him in. He was so badly beaten and starved that he died in prison. His home was looted and his wife and children lived the rest of their lives as paupers.

Altogether nine of the men in that room died. Four lost all their children as a direct result of putting their names to the Declaration of Independence. Every single one had to flee his home and after the war 12 returned to find only rubble.

After the war was over and the conservatives had fled to Canada and England, the survivors of the new American nation met to put into final form the legal structure of the nation that they had just birthed.

It was not to be a nation of cynical selfish Libertarians who believe the highest value is "individual freedom and independence from society" where the greatest motivator was greed.

It was not to be a kingdom ruled by a warlord or leader.

It was not to be a theocracy where religious leaders made the rules as had been the case in several states, particularly Massachusetts.

And it was not to be a feudal nation ruled by the rich.

This new nation, the United States of America, founded as a result of the sacrifice that these men and women, these families, that today we can take back to its ideals as Benjamin Franklin told Philadelphia's Mrs. Powell as he was walking out of the constitutional convention after they had pulled together the Constitution in 1787. She said, "What sort of nation has been conceived?"

Ben Franklin: "It's a Republic, madam, if you can keep it".

Progress on Healthcare

As the debate has been raging on about healthcare reform with many forces lining up to try and prevent any public option I'm pleased to see that it looks like some progress is being made in that respect.

Democrats have been working on a HELP (Health, Education, Labor & Pensions) committee bill to reform our broken healthcare system.  The first working version of this bill was a joke.  It cost over $1 trillion, HAD NO PUBLIC OPTION, and still left millions uninsured.  Though, it looks like thanks to some reliable polling showing overwhelming support for a public option, many Democrats have begun to realize that the time is now to get serious about this.  The Democrats on the HELP committee got to work on a much better package.  The new version of the HELP bill is almost half the price of the first, coming in at about $600 billion.  It INCLUDES A PUBLIC OPTION to compete against private insurers, and requires employers to pay a fee for each employee they have if the company does not provide insurance to their employees.  Businesses of 25 employees or less would not be subject to this provision, so no, this would not be an impediment to small business and local entrepreneurs.  Most importantly in my opinion, this bill would cover approximately 97% of all Americans.  Wow.

And better yet, all 13 Democrats on the HELP committee have pledged to vote for this bill.

I'm glad to see leaders in the Democratic Party responding to the wishes of the people and pursuing real healthcare reform with a strong public plan (too bad our actual majority leader is still a pussy).  We also have a great leader on this issue in Bernie Sanders, (I-VT).  Where Harry Reid doesn't have the balls to discuss how to effectively move progressive legislation through the Senate, Sanders does.

"I think that with Al Franken coming on board, you have effectively 60 Democrats in the caucus, 58 and two Independents," Sanders said in an interview with the Huffington Post. "I think the strategy should be to say, it doesn't take 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster. And if somebody who votes for that ends up saying, 'I'm not gonna vote for this bill, it's too radical, blah, blah, blah, that's fine.'"

"I think the idea of going to conservative Republicans, who are essentially representing the insurance companies and the drug companies, and watering down this bill substantially, rather than demanding we get 60 votes to stop the filibuster, I think that is a very wrong political strategy," Sanders added.

Sanders goes on to discuss the foolishness of caring too much about bi-partisanship.

"I think it would be great if we could have 100 senators voting for this, but what is important is the product that you get, not bipartisanship," Sanders went on. "So we should ask Republicans to support it. If they choose not to they do so at their own political risk. The focus should be on a strong bill trying to get Republican support rather than a weak bipartisan bill."

I think there has been some real movement on this issue in the last couple of weeks in terms of Democrats voicing their strong support for a public option.  This is good news.  But don't think for a second that because we gave the Democrats significant majorities in Congress, or because we put Obama in the White House, that this problem is going to solve itself.  The insurance companies are going to do everything in their power to stop this, and all we can really do--what we must do--is call and write our representatives, and the president, until they're sick of hearing from us, and tell them that we will not settle for any candyass bipartisan bill that doesn't create any real change, and real change includes a public plan.

There are a few conservative Democrats who are on the fence, or may oppose such a plan.  But like Sanders say, that's tolerable as long as they are pressured into voting for cloture and not going along with any Republican filibuster.

So get on the phone with your representatives, and let's make this happen!

Democratic Senators Against the Public Option:

Sen Mary Landrieu D LA 
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? No 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-5824 | Fax: 202-224-9735
Web: http://landrieu.senate.gov/ 

Democratic Senators Undecided on the Public Option:

Sen Evan Bayh D IN   ...All Indiana Students, even if you're from out of state, this is YOUR Senator! Call him!!!
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-5623 | Fax: 202-228-1377

Web: http://bayh.senate.gov

Sen Max Baucus D MT
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-2651 | Fax: 202-224-0515

Web: http://baucus.senate.gov

Sen Mark Begich D AK
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-3004 | Fax: 
Web: http://begich.senate.gov 

Sen Michael Bennet D CO
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-5852 | Fax: 
Web: http://bennet.senate.gov 

Sen Robert Byrd D WV
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-3954 | Fax: 202-228-0002
Web: http://byrd.senate.gov 

Sen Maria Cantwell D WA
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-3441 | Fax: 202-228-0514
Web: http://cantwell.senate.gov 

Sen Thomas Carper D DE
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-2441 | Fax: 202-228-2190
Web: http://carper.senate.gov 

Sen Kent Conrad D ND
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-2043 | Fax: 202-224-7776
Web: http://conrad.senate.gov 

Sen Byron Dorgan D ND
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-2551 | Fax: 202-224-1193
Web: http://dorgan.senate.gov 

Sen Dianne Feinstein D CA    ...What the hell, Senator!?!  You're from freak'n California!!!  Get with the program!
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-3841 | Fax: 202-228-3954
Web: http://feinstein.senate.gov 

Sen Blanche Lincoln D AR
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-4843 | Fax: 202-228-1371
Web: http://lincoln.senate.gov/ 

Sen Bill Nelson D FL
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-5274 | Fax: 202-228-2183
Web: http://billnelson.senate.gov/ 

Sen E. Benjamin Nelson D NE
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-6551 | Fax: 202-228-0012
Web: http://bennelson.senate.gov/ 

Sen Mark Pryor D AR
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-2353 | Fax: 202-228-0908
Web: http://pryor.senate.gov 

Sen Harry Reid D NV
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-3542 | Fax: 202-224-7327
Web: http://reid.senate.gov/ 

Sen Jon Tester D MT
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-2644 | Fax: 202-224-8594
Web: http://tester.senate.gov/ 

Sen Mark Udall D CO
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-5941 | Fax: 202-226-7840
Web: http://markudall.senate.gov 

Sen Mark Warner D VA
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-2023 | Fax: 202-224-6295
Web: http://warner.senate.gov 

Sen Ron Wyden D OR
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Don't know 
Contact information:
Phone: 202-224-5244 | Fax: 202-228-2717
Web: http://wyden.senate.gov/ 

Update:

Just removed Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) from this list, she is on the HELP committee and is now public with her support for the public option.

Sunday Evening Tunes

As you're all relaxing on this warm summer evening, here's a fitting video for your enjoyment.

Sure, I poked fun at everyone in the last post, but clearly this guy was a major influence on society.  This hilarious/disturbing video that I'm sure many of you have seen proves the level of MJ's celebrity perfectly.  Beats making license plates, I guess.

Sunday Funday!

There was so much insanity in the news this week it makes doing a Sunday Funday feature almost redundant as one can really just skim the week's headlines for endless inspiration for laughter or tears.  

My better angels are advising me not to go there, but this is what I have to say to that:

Yes, it's been a bad week to be famous/infamous.  First, the passing of our beloved Farrah, immediately followed by the King of Pop/Everybody's favorite babysitter, and then Billy... yes, Billy Mays!  Say it ain't so!  When I do laundry later this evening I'm going to pour an extra cup of OxiClean in the wash for our fallen homie.  Oh... and did I mention it was discovered this week that the Governor of South Carolina is an outcall escort, or something like that? 

Rest in Peace, celebrities I haven't heard of in years.  Oh, btw, anyone hear what's been going on in Iran while all these super cool people were dying?  Yeeeah...

Many Sundays we feature the ever hilarious Marry-Bone-Kill survey, where you're given three awkward choices and you have to decide who you would marry, sleep with, or kill.  (To choose marry, means you'll never sleep with them, and to choose bone, means just one isolated night of hot sleazy passion, so no, you can't kill two birds with one stone when you choose "marry").  

Given this week's trifecta of tragedy I was thinking maybe an MBK necrophilia edition?  But no, that's too tasteless even for me... So instead, since it's the Lord's day and all, and to give one tiny ounce of respect to the deceased, this week's contest is now Marry-Bone-Kill-Resurrect!!!  That's right.  Rather than choosing to off one of this week's contestants, you get to choose who you'd rather Marry, Bone (both assuming the contestants were still alive) AND who you would choose to resurrect given the actual circumstances.  

The contestants:

So there it is... Have at it.  Your choices (with explanations to your reasoning) are much appreciated in the comments.  Have fun!  And meanwhile, I think maybe I'll go find a confessional...

UPDATE: We're sorry Ed, you are not forgotten!!!

California: Take 2

An idea I have been discussing for some time, which I believe originated from reading on a blog somewhere, is that the only way to save California from fiscal and political collapse is to have a constitutional convention and retool the entire process by which the state governs itself.

Many of you aren't from California, so let me outline a couple key problems with our state.  First of all, we're practically bankrupt.  Secondly, it's almost impossible to fix... as a 2/3 vote is required to pass any tax increases or to even pass a budget.  This is incredibly stupid, as it gives the minority party basically all the power in budget/tax negotiations, and means that we haven't passed a budget on time in... well, I don't even know.  The legislature can't change this, because it's in our freak'n constitution.  And basically our voters are idiots, who think this is a good idea.  They don't want to pay more taxes, yet they don't want the state to go belly up.  I'm not saying it's necessarily one or the other, but giving 1/3+1 of our representatives control over this process is just asking to get nothing done.  And so, we'll have to resort to the ballot initiative process, again, if we want it changed.

Every single election, California has a series of ballot initiatives (e.g. Prop 8) which go before the voters.  Most people don't even understand what they mean, yet they vote on them, and the ones that pass don't just become law--they become constitutional amendments.

In short, the way we govern the state of California is essentially the same way winners are picked on American Idol.  The ignorant masses read a paragraph-long summary about something they don't understand, and then vote according to whatever they think will piss off Simon the most (in this case, Simon being our state politicians).  It's a fucking train wreck.  The process came about years ago after a period of notorious corruption in California politics.  The ballot initiative process was supposed to be a way for the public to put a check on their elected officials if they were getting out of hand.  It sounds good, but in reality it's a disaster.

Maybe this makes me sound elitist, that I don't think the average Joe is smart enough to know how to write freak'n legislation... but really; that's why we have representatives to begin with!  When representatives get out of hand, the check the public has on them is a general election!  Of course, that's practically useless too these days, as our State Assembly/Senate districts are so gerrymandered that it's essentially useless to run a candidate from another party against the incumbent.

California's gubernatorial election is in 2010.  Would I like to see a Democrat win? Sure... but in reality, it doesn't matter who wins, Democrat, or Republican... because the system is inherently broken.  Democrat Gray Davis was booted from office because of the same problems the Governator is now experiencing, proving my point perfectly.  The one (only?) candidate who has announced so far is Gavin Newsom, current mayor of San Francisco.  He's an interesting guy who has made some real progressive reforms in the city (universal healthcare for one).  I'll be paying close attention to his evolving campaign, but in all honesty I will vote for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who declares his/her support for a Constitutional Convention to reform our broken state.  Short of that, I'll settle for a detailed and comprehensive proposal for fixing the major problems at the root of the system (here's a good start)--which unfortunately, may have to come down to more f-ing ballot initiatives.

I set out today to do a bit of research on this topic, and maybe submit an op-ed.  Guess I should have done that months ago when I first wanted to, because the Times beat me to the punch.  So instead I settled for this brief rant, and point you to that Times piece, and also this outline of what the Constitutional Convention process might look like, by repaircalifornia.org.

What are your thoughts?  An over reaction, or is this a necessity? 

Boycott Rockstar?

Did you know...
that infamous radio shock-jock Michael Savage (aka Michael Weiner) is the father of Russell Weiner, the founder and CEO of Rockstar?

I guess this has been common knowledge for a while, but recently facebook has taken down a facebook group calling for a boycott of the popular beverage and late-night study assistant and suspend the account of the group's creator, Charles Tsai. (see "Facebook Group Highlighting Michael Savage/Rockstar Connection Censored") This was in response to threats of a lawsuit from Rockstar's lawyers. After having his facebook profile removed twice, he has continued fight to the blogosphere. You can read more about his story here.

A similar threat was sent to several blogs that have been supporting the boycott including Alternet.org , Bilerico.com, and wiqaable.com. Here's an example of one of the letters:

Mr. Savage is not affiliated with Rockstar in any manner. Alternet.org’s use of the article to tie Rockstar to Mr. Savage’s statements is wholly improper. Not only does it place Rockstar in a false light, but it constitutes defamation, both of which are objectional.

The offices of Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro, also demanded an "immediate public retraction of these statements and an apology in substantially as conspicuous a matter on AlterNet.org as the defamatory statements were published."

It appears that Tsai, Alternet, and various other boycotters made an honest mistake when they misinterpreted a quote from Weiner that has since been removed from Rockstar's website.

"I was very fortunate to have been raised by two of the leading herbalists in the world, Dr. and Mrs. Michael Weiner, Ph.D. ... From my earliest walking days, I remember exploring the jungles of the South Pacific on expeditions with my parents. ... My family has taken that spirit and experience - their lifetime journey - and developed the most complete, most unique, most powerful, and most honest energy beverage ever created: RockStar."

- CEO Russell Goldencloud Weiner

One could look at this quote and come to the conclusion that Michael Savage and Janet Weiner invented the formula for Rockstar and thereby are co-founders of the company, as Tsai apparently did. I guess coming to this conclusion constitutes defamation these days, at least as far as facebook is concerned.

The fact of the matter is that Rockstar's founder and CEO, Russell Weiner, is Michael Savage's son, and the CFO of Rockstar, Janet Weiner, is Michael Savage's wife. Rockstar and Savage Productions share the same mailing address and street address. These are facts, and illuminating these facts does not place Rockstar in a false light, nor is it defamation. Michael Savage may very well have nothing to do with the operation of the company, but Rockstar's customers, myself included, should have access to the facts and be allowed to decide themselves whether those facts make them uneasy about purchasing Rockstar's products in the future.

There's a new boycott page on facebook now. Let's hope they don't take it down.

------------------


Here's some of Michael Savage's greatest hits in case you were curious:











And here's the famous one that got him banned from the United Kingdom


Now, I think banning him from countries is taking it a bit too far, but I don't need to be giving his family my money, so I'll settle for a boycott.

Note to Rockstar's lawyers: I'm not promoting the boycott on this site. I'm just talking about it. And as a former Rockstar consumer, I will also be boycotting your products. Don't sue me.

"The Party of Family Values"

In an interesting twist to the story of South Carolina's missing governor, Gov. Sanford gave the stunning announcement in a news conference today that he was not hiking, not writing, but rather, spending some time with his international lover in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  Apparently, this woman was a close friend he met 8 years ago who became much more than a friend last year.  It appears he actually freely made the decision to announce this after 5 days of intense contemplation (leaving his family alone on Father's Day).  

While I think his honesty and bravery to face the press is admirable, the fact remains that we have yet another Republican leader (see Ensign, Vitter, Craig, et al.) who preaches the merits of faith and family values within the Republican Party in front of the camera, while actually committing the most unfaithful act possible when the public isn't watching.  My point isn't that Democrats are better in matters of family values, but that, like in patriotism, no party has a monopoly on family values.  Hopefully we will no longer have to deal with holier-than-thou Republicans claiming a moral high-ground simply by virtue of their political affiliation-.  Hopefully we won't hear any more Republicans comparing President Obama to Hitler or the anti-Christ, or telling the public that "Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama" or any other candidate.  Hopefully we can actually start talking about policies like health care that are truly helpful for families, rather than voting for politicians who claim to have these "family values."  

Here's an interesting excerpt from an interview with Sanford from Religion & Liberty; I will refrain from pointing out the self-evident hypocrisy:

The religious views of candidates and their support among various faith traditions played a big role in the 2008 presidential race. Is this a good thing?

It is. But I don’t know if it was more window dressing than not. Obama had Rick Warren speak at the inauguration, and then got some guy of another persuasion to give the benediction. I don’t think you want it as an accoutrement. I think that you want it to show up in policy. In other words, conversation is certainly an important starting point. It can’t be the ending point.

When it’s convenient, many politicians say they can’t bring their own religious views to bear on important issues because they represent all the people. What’s your view?

I don’t agree with that. What people are sick of is that no one will make a stand. The bottom line in politics is, I think, at the end of the day to be effective in standing for both the convictions that drove you into office and the principles that you outlined in running. And that is not restrained to simply the

Governor Mark Sanford speaks at the 2003 Carol Lighting Ceremony.

world of Caesar, it applies to what you think is right and wrong and every thing in between. Now we all get nervous about the people who simply wear it on their arm sleeve to sort of prove that they’ve got that merit badge. But I think the Bible says, “Let your light so shine be fore men that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father that’s in heaven.“ Hopefully, by the way in which you act. The way in which you make decisions. They’re going to see that some thing’s there. I would also say the Bible says in Revelation, “Be hot. Be cold. But don’t be lukewarm“ [Rev. 3:15]. And there’s too many political candidates who walk around completely in the middle—completely in neutral. With regard not only to faith, but with regard to policy. And that’s what people are sick of. Everything’s gotten so watered down. So I have people come to me frequently saying, “Look, I voted for you. In fact, I completely disagree with you on these different stands over here. But at least I know where you stand.“ And so I would say it’s a mistake to confine one’s belief to only matters of government. If you have a religious view, it’s incumbent upon you and it’s real to have that. The Bible talks about the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithful ness, self-control. There ought to be certain things that are clearly observable by your actions. I remember when I first gave a Christmas address, a candle lighting event on the state house capitol. And people were freaking because they said, “You can’t say Jesus.“ I said, “Look, I’m not trying to offend anybody. But if that’s my personal faith, I can say what I want to say. I’m going to say what I want to say.“ I’m not going to be rubbing anybody’s face in it. But I say you can’t dance around that which you really believe. And so I’d say we need people who are more bold in taking stands on all kinds of different things.

Greetings from Nicaragua! (photos to come)

¿Que pasa, Lefties?

This is Henry, reporting from Masaya, Nicaragua, a city about 40 minutes outside of Managua, the capital. Masaya is where I have been living and working for the past 10 days. The city has the same population as South Bend, our dear home, but looks quite different in many ways.

First, you should know, that Nicaragua is not India. Interestingly, in terms of raw numbers, they are ranked nearly the same in poverty (wikipedia). But the problems that plague the two nations aren't identical. In my short time here I have gotten a small taste of what impediments must be surmounted and what intervention can be done successfully. For those of you who know me well, it is impossible for me to ignore the macro dynamics and big picture for this situation.

I'm working for a Nicaraguan NGO named Alternativa, which deals with small businesses and microfinance. We try to assist people who need working capital or business training to get off the ground. It has oddly been helpful having experience with College Democrats and the Obama Campaign, because we are constantly dealing with organizing trade cooperatives (shoemakers, craftsmen, various artisans) and trying to help people reach their common goal. Enthusiasm and energy are also requisites in development work.

Nevertheless, the question of what is working in development constantly presses our minds. I cannot help but think back to discussions in my Central American Development course, with Prof. (& fmr. VP of Honduras) Luis Cosenza. The difficulty with development is often about sustainability.

• Is it right to industrialize and inject capital into a society just so the PPP/capita rises?

• What about the environmental damage that is caused when every country in the world tries to imitate the industrial revolution?

• What about the vicious consumption of resources that could leave future generations without necessities?

• What about the rat race that pushes the poorest countries even further down and creates animosity and rivalry amongst poorer nations?

• Is the work we are doing contributing to a lasting improvement that will outlive our presence/money?

As development workers, we ask these types of questions daily with every move we make. It is not enough to help lift specific individuals from poverty if the consequences are worse for the entire human race. However, there is hope.

Education and health are two fields that have been making incontrovertible, meaningful progress in the developing world. Another angle, dealing with skills training and microfinance, is beginning to pick up steam. In an era that is searching for answers to development outside of (or in addition to) the traditional IMF/Washington Consensus model, it is the NGO community that is innovating and discovering solutions.

I'll be sure to keep you all updated as I go along.

Take Care,

Henry "Enrique" Vasquez
Masaya, Nicaragua



PS- Anyone who would like to chat in Spanish come August, I'll be ready...

Frank moves to decriminalize marijuana (again)

Congressman Barney Frank filed a bill last week to decriminalize marijuana in the United States. The legislation would reduce the penalty for the drug's public use to a $100 fine and eliminate federal penalties for possession of less than 100 grams (approx. 3.5 ounces)

"Our courts are already stressed and our prisons are over-crowded. We don't need to spend our scarce resources prosecuting people who are doing no harm to others"

The bill resembles a similar initiative that voters in Frank's home state of Massachusetts approved last November. Frank introduced similar legislation with last year's failed "Make Room for the Serious Criminals Bill".

Frank's new bill likely won't pass but it comes on the heels of shifting public opinion on the issue.

A CBS poll in March found that a majority of Americans (58-31) opposed outright legalization, with 7% approval under the stipulation that the drug could be taxed for other projects.

But a Zogby poll last month came to the opposite conclusion with 52% in favor of legalization and 37% opposed.

With the public seemingly evenly split, maybe it's time for some serious discussion in Washington of our nation's drug policies?

And, no, this doesn't count as a serious discussion.

President Obama's Press Conference: Iran, Healthcare, etc.

For those who missed it, or have lives and aren't following cable news in the afternoon like me...  Here is President Obama's press conference from today.

Discuss in the comments...

ATTN: Democrats - Don't F*ck This Up!

I hope everyone enjoyed the first official weekend of summer, and to all the dad's out there, a happy belated Father's Day to you!  I just spent the weekend up at my dad's place and also visited some more of my family in L.A.  It's always nice to take some time to relax and appreciate the blessing that it is to have friends and family in our lives who are safe and healthy.  For this reason, and especially when we encounter times in our lives when we aren't fortunate enough to be able to say this, the issue of having quality healthcare for ourselves and our loved ones is one that everybody can relate to.

For decades now we have known that healthcare in this country is a problem.  Yes, we have some of the best doctors and technology in the world at our disposal, but too often these resources are only available to the fortunate among us who have great health coverage.  Even still, often times the access to such resources for those with insurance still results in a burdensome healthcare bill that severely cripples a family's finances.  Others with no healthcare put off seeing a doctor until their condition has gotten worse, resulting in a lower quality of life for that person, lower productivity for their employer, a higher cost to treat that patient, and if the condition is life threatening this delay only lowers the patient's odds of survival.

For decades now we have also been told the following by Democrats: "Give us a Democratic majority in Congress/put us in the White House, and we will finally be able to achieve affordable, universal healthcare for every American" . . . "Healthcare in this wealthiest country in the world should be a right, not a privilege" . . . and so on.  The Clinton administration tried to deliver on these promises in 1993, yet ultimately failed.  Though, Clinton had to deal with a much different political climate in that day--a more conservative country still deeply entrenched in the Gordon Gecko "greed is good" philosophy of the Reagan era.  Clinton's second term faced a Republican congress, and so once again began the campaign promises for another decade: "Give us back Congress and we will fight for universal healthcare."

Well Democrats, we listened this time.  As healthcare prices skyrocketed over the last many years, and Americans watched grossly exaggerated Reaganomics and neo-conservative hubris crash & burn, we got it.  First we backhanded the Republicans in congress in 2006 in an attempt to put the brakes on George W's crazy train, and when that wasn't enough we kicked the crap out of John "get off my lawn!" McCain and widened your majorities in both chambers of Congress.  Simply put, my dear Democrats, THERE IS NO EXCUSE IF YOU FAIL TO DELIVER ON HEALTHCARE NOW!!!

Now I'm pretty sure the House Dems can get this done, and it's really going to come down to the Senate Dems. Maaayyybe there's one or two of you who can justify not voting for a public option because of your constituencies... though I really doubt it considering that 72% of the American people support a public healthcare plan.  72-FREAKING-%!!!  

... 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed ... with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats.

Now some of you know I don't have a whole lot of tolerance for Blue Dogs much of the time, but I really do understand the binds that some of them find themselves in.  But let's get something straight here.  Blue Dogs glowingly refer to themselves as "centrist" Democrats, meaning they are supposedly where the middle of the country is at on most issues even if that means they're to the right of the Democratic base.  Well I've often called bullshit on this argument as being a false premise in that the country is not more to the right on many issues, but at no other time has it been more easy for me to do so than now.  Democratic Senators, if you don't support a strong public option for healthcare you are not a Democrat, you are not a Blue Dog, you are a freaking rightwing Republican!  Public, universal healthcare is not just a goal for the Democratic base, but 72% of the American people.  You do not get to call yourself a centrist if you desire to fling yourself into the 20% minority that is opposed to public healthcare.  The party isn't run by the DLC anymore (They should really be called the D-LLC, as in limited liability corporation, ha-ha... no?). 

This isn't 1993 anymore.  And if the Democrats act like it is, and pull the same Republican-lite crap that they did back then at a time when the public is now demanding strong, structural change, they will have failed the American people.  If this happens, once again the Dems will start losing elections because people won't be able to tell the difference between the party that's supposed to fight for the little guy and the party that stands for business interests.  They'll scratch their heads like it's 1994, and then tell us, "Send us back to Congress so we can fight for real healthcare reform!"

More on the polling in the chart above, at fivethirtyeight.com

UPDATE 6/23:

Thank you, Mr. President.  Now will the Senate follow the president's lead?

Helpful Advice from RFK

I thought I'd post this speech by Robert F. Kennedy on the GDP. In this bad 

(yet improving?) economic climate, I think it's important to remember that there is 

more to America than our economic prowess.