Free Liberal Press

Calling Bullshit: Part 1

2010-09-23T11:10:00.003-04:00

My Congressman, Chris Lee (R-NY), tweeted not long ago that the GOP's Pledge to America (reminiscent of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America) would create jobs, and control spending. I think it's time we called Bullshit on this whole "out of control spending" thing.

Here's why: Republicans in Congress (particularly the House) have been whining and pissing and moaning for months about the Stimulus spending, because they claim that the National Debt is going to crush our future.

My question to Congressman Lee and all other Republican Congressmen: Where the hell were you when President Bush was asking for hundreds of billions of dollars in off-the-budget-book spending for the unnecessary war in Iraq? According to CostofWar.com the war in Iraq has cost the American taxpayers (the ones you are all so suddenly concerned about) almost $750 Billion. BILLION.

Yes, the National Debt is crushing us all. President Obama, at least, wants to waste money trying to stimulate the economy. President Bush, the one you are all sycophanting to, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars by giving it to Halliburton and Blackwater.

So, Republican House members, either stop the hypocrisy, or simply shut up, because let's be honest, you have no problem whatsoever with out of control spending when it's to people you like, like large corporations and defense contractors. But you seem to have a very large problem with out of control spending when it puts little people to work.

American Religious Indecency

2010-09-05T18:22:00.002-04:00

I find myself extremely troubled by the reactions to the Islamic Cultural Center which will be built not far from where the World Trade Center stood. One of the most troubling things about it is how completely unsurprised I am at the furor.

I remember hearing the Republican rhetoric following the attacks of September 11, when many Americans were asking why we were attacked. The speculation was rampant, but the overarching theme was that the terrorists hated out freedoms.

I remember that the speech California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made at the 2004 Republican National convention, which included this little tidbit:

[President Bush] knows you don't reason with terrorists. You defeat them. He knows you can't reason with people blinded by hate. They hate the power of the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. They hate the liberating breeze of democracy. But, ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America's decency. (Emphasis added)

Religious freedom was part of the right's trumpeting - one of the things about America that was so great, but pissed so many people off, even enough to cause them to attack us openly on our own soil.

The idea the Republicans were trying to get through was that people from theocracies like Saudi Arabia, where religion is mandated, adherence to the aspects of religion is enforced by law (under the penalty of death for some offenses), hated the idea of a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Muslim and a Hindi all living together in peace, free to worship their interpretation of a deity in whatever fashion they so chose, without the threat of persecution by the Government. That, Republicans said back then, is what made us so great, and made them so primitive.

Given the attitude that the right expressed would make one find it peculiar with the vicious outrage that has accompanied the proposed Islamic Cultural Center.

The project's stated mission purpose, as listed on its website, is to promote interfaith dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. That sounds fine, doesn't it? The promotion of religious and cultural understanding? Isn't cultural understanding that trait which the Republicans were so quick to endorse when it suited their purposes?

The project has been condemned by "patriotic" Americans as many things, including offensive to the families of those lost on 9/11, that it would somehow serve as a trophy for the radicals who attacked on 9/11, that it would be a Trojan-horse, serving as a rallying point for radical Muslims to attack the United States from within, and more. Speculating on the ever-increasing paranoia of those people who, until the proposed center was discovered by Fox News, defended religious freedom and tolerance as one of our greatest strength, will be left for the highly-paid talking heads. Instead, I choose to look at it from another perspective, and I invite you readers to consider this perspective as well.

I am of the opinion that the Islamic Cultural Center will be a monument to those who died as a result of radical extremism. And, perhaps more to the liking of the right, it will serve as an enormous insult to the terrorists who, motivated by their hatred of our religious tolerance, would be incensed by the idea of an Islamic-sponsored center devoted to the promotion of religious tolerance. The terrorists, who bastardize the religion of Islam in hopes of spreading theocracy like the Soviet Union once did Soviet-style communism, would be infuriated with the knowledge that other Muslims were seeking to preach the gospel of peace and understanding.

The community center would be more effective offensive weapon against The Narrative than any monument, or even the rebuilding of the Twin Towers, even if it looked like this:

So why do I find this not very surprising? Well, it is hardly the first time Republicans have shown their willingness and ability to warp and distort things to achieve their ends. Unity of the American people means political disaster for Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections. The only way they can succeed is with wholesale division of the American electorate.

The cultural center being proposed will serve as a beacon of religious understanding and tolerance. And right now, that is something all Americans sorely need.

Apologies

2010-09-05T15:55:00.002-04:00

Apologies to my loyal readers (all three of you). My absence has been regrettable, but some of you know, I will be getting married in just under one month, and so much of my free time has been occupied with details regarding that event, and so I haven't been able to tend to this hobby quite as often.

But I will attempt to change the frequency of my posting. I will be posting some long-overdue thoughts on the Ground Zero "mosque" in a few moments.

Who Would Jesus Exclude?

2010-04-27T19:44:00.002-04:00

Religion has never been my strong suit. I consider myself a spiritual individual, but my actual religious beliefs are something of a mixed bag. I identify myself as a Unitarian Universalist, but in the UU tradition I have developed my own spirituality.

That being said, I was very disappointed by the story in today's Politico that 40 retired military chaplains are urging President Obama, Secretary of Defense Gates and Congress en mass to abandon their efforts to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule.

The chaplains claim that, "[a] change in the military policy would force chaplains into a moral conundrum, they said, “whether they are to obey God or to obey men."

I take issue with this on two grounds.

First, I reject the idea that tolerating homosexuality in any circumstances puts servicemembers in a place where they have to choose between God and man, at least not any more than on a daily basis. Religious freedom and tolerance is one of the principles this nation was founded upon. Catholics and Jews, Muslims and Hindus all live and worship God as they understand God in this country every day, each believing their interpretation to be the correct one. Servicemembers of those religious sects fight side by side with each other to preserve the freedom for all Americans to continue to worship their deity, sacrilegiously as it may seem to the other sects. No soldier or sailor claims that because, as a Catholic, they are fighting to allow Jews to be Jewish, that the military is asking them to choose between serving God and man. So why should they so claim that tolerance towards homosexuals will cause this conundrum of faith?

My second issue is with the belief that a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be discrimination against the Christian chaplains. That the chaplains would claim that the end of discrimination would then result in discrimination towards them is an irony worthy of anecdote. I wonder what their response would be if it were pointed out to them that gay servicemembers have been discriminated against for many years to protect their sensibility.

It's time for the military to abandon its arbitrary policy which says that who one love automatically makes them an unworthy soldier, subject to the dishonorable discharge otherwise reserved for those who commit crimes. Being gay is not equal to being derelict or traitorous, and it's high time the military abandoned its self-imposed moral imperative and allow perfectly worthy and capable Americans to serve their country, and protect us all from the threats America faces.

Reviews of Democracy: The Federalist XVII

2010-03-30T22:43:00.002-04:00

I read Federalist 17 this evening. It's not one of the more known issues of the papers. It was written by Hamilton, and it was an examination of the arguments against a centralized Federal government.

The one quote that really stuck out to me was a paragraph in there about how loyalties tend to be more localized:

It is a known fact in human nature that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object. Upon the same principle that a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large, the people of each State would be apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments than towards the government of the Union;...

This of course was written in the late 18th Century, a time when communication was at its most primitive. There was no means of instantly communicating, or even on a time delay, by means of telegraph wire. Post was delivered entirely by hand, transported by courier or by convoy. A letter sent from Massachusetts to Georgia could take weeks, even months, to arrive. In a famous example, the Treaty of Ghent was signed in December 1814. A few weeks later, the United States and Great Britain fought the Battle of New Orleans, because news of the peace had not had time to reach the battlefields.

Transportation was no better. Trains would not come for another fifty years or so, and so horseback riding, whether actually riding the horse or riding in a horse-drawn carriage was the only way to travel long distances, making most long-distance travel impracticable for the vast majority of Americans.

With low- or no-tech communications, and travel a burden, it makes sense that all politics were local. It makes sense that a person living in Buffalo would see a politician in Washington, D.C. as only slightly closer than if the politician lived on Mars.

I'm curious to know how Hamilton, the composer of this issue of the Federalist Papers, would interpret local loyalty on today's American. After all, the world can be circumnavigated in an airplane in little more than a day's time. The state farthest to the west, Hawai'i, can be reached from Washington in a mere 12 hours, formerly the travel time on horseback from Buffalo to Syracuse.

Further, post now takes a fraction of the time it took in Hamilton's day. Say what you will about the Postal Service, but its efficiency cannot be denied (though I will never understand their definition of a large envelope).

I grew up in the great state of Rhode Island. I have lived in Western New York for five years now, coming up on six. I now consider myself a transplanted New Yorker, and, despite my allegiance to the Red Sox, do think of myself as a New Yorker more than a Rhode Islander.

But despite my self-description at the state level, I am an American. Hamilton's belief, as I interpret that passage, is that Americans of the 18th Century were more concerned with their local identity than their national identity. For those lucky enough to travel abroad, I assume the average Virginian or Pennsylvanian would identify as an "American," but when traveling within the national borders, they would identify by their state.

It may just be because it is late out, but I cannot place in my mind the time that this came to a close, when we all became more Americans than New Yorkers, Rhode Islanders, Virginians, South Carolinians, et cetera. Maybe it was when technology shrunk the world a little, and we were no longer bound to the place we grew up by an inability to go anywhere else.

Reviews of Democracy: The Federalist X

2010-03-27T20:27:00.002-04:00

Tonight I read The Federalist 10, ironically on the same day that Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin encouraged the Teabaggers to keep the country as divided as possible.

The Federalist 10, written by James Madison, is described on its Wikipedia page as, along with Federalist 54, the most famous essay of the entire set. This particular one spoke specifically about the dangers of factioning.

I've always found it odd that Madison would rail against Factionalism when the Federalist Papers themselves were essays written by one faction, the Federalists, in opposition to another faction, the Anti-Federalists, both strongly advocating their views of the new Constitution.

Some of my favorite passages from this essay are, no doubt, the favorites of many historians. For example:

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

I find it so fascinating that, while writing this in the late 18th century, a man like James Madison would be able to make such broad, yet accurate, generalizations. These exact actions were taken by despots of the 20th century in the infancies of their respective regimes.

Further, Madison made another very keen and, dare I say, Nostradaman prediction later, with reference to the corruptibility of those chosen to govern the new Union:

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations,. which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

How fascinating to suggest that this would be so, when we stand here, almost 225 years after this composition, watching some of the most vehement factional infighting the country has seen since the Civil War came to a close.

Some have argued that partisan politics is good, because it keeps one side from being the only one heard. I have always agreed with this statement, but with the caveat that, partisan politics for the sake of partisan politics is self-defeating. There are Republicans out there that feel that the size of the government is legitimately growing beyond its intended scope, but they recognize the need for some changes, and are not fundamentally opposed to it just because liberals are in support of it. But that does not appear to be the majority of the conservative (read: Republican) party at current. At present, Republicans seem to be opposing liberals for the sake of opposing liberals, and not on ideological grounds.

I think James Madison would be very disappointed in the hyperfactionalism we seem to have fallen into these days... And I think he would say it's time for enlightened statesmen to take back control.

My Letter to the Republican Senators

2010-03-25T13:39:00.002-04:00

Not to suggest that I didn't just completely waste my time, but I just sent a letter to all 41 Republican U.S. Senators. It was a letter asking them to stop playing politics with my health.

As I said, I don't expect it to do any good, but I was banging my head against a wall for a good cause. I urge you, all four of my readers, to do something similar. The text of the letter is below:

Dear Senator:

I write to you today in support of the President’s Comprehensive Health Care Reform, currently before the Honorable United States Senate.

My name is Joshua Dubs, I am an attorney living in North Tonawanda, New York, which is situated between Buffalo and Niagara Falls, New York. In the interests of full disclosure, I am a registered Democrat.

My question to you, Honorable Senators, is why do you believe I do not deserve affordable healthcare, as your staunch and not-wholly explained opposition to the President’s Health Care bill suggests?

Due in no small part to the economy, after graduating from the University at Buffalo Law School in 2008 and passing the Bar in June of that year, I was forced to open my own solo law practice, because I was unable to secure employment in either the private or public sector. Furthermore, I have a chronic illness known as Crohn’s Colitis, which is by no means a debilitating condition, but does require regular doctor’s visits and inpatient procedures.

While in Law School, I was able to purchase health insurance through the University. After leaving law school, I was dropped from my plan, and found myself without any coverage. However, because of my preexisting condition, I found myself in a bit of a spot. Without any employment which would provide me group benefits, and knowing that I would not be able to go on my fiancée’s insurance until after we get married (in October 2010), I discovered that if I did not acquire health coverage, and quickly, I would find myself in a great deal of trouble when it came time to enroll in my wife’s insurance.

Therefore, I purchased insurance as a small businessman (so small, in fact, I am my only employee). I now pay almost $200.00 per month for coverage for only myself, in which I have a very high deductible, no prescription drug coverage, no preventative care, and no mental health care. The President’s health care reform bill would allow me to avoid two of these problems: First, by being able to purchase public coverage, my premiums would likely decrease, or at least, my benefits would increase, as I would now be able to acquire group coverage as an individual. Second, my preexisting condition would no longer mandate that I pay for health care that is no good to me, except in that it maintains continuous coverage, which would prohibit my next insurer from denying me on that basis.

This is my story, and this is the reason I support the Health Care Reform. The bill is not perfect, as the President has stated. I believe him, and I wish the bill had gone even further. But, as most of you would agree, I assume, the Health Care System is ineffective in its current form, and causes more problems than it solves.

I understand that there is a great deal of politics involved in the decision whether or not to support Health Care Reform, and I respect that. As members of an organized political party, you desire electoral success, which you feel will be less likely if the President is successful in his endeavor to reform the health care industry. But must your desire to reclaim leadership of Congress come at my expense? Your supporters worry that health care reform will be abused by fat, lazy welfare mothers of ten children. But while abuses of any system cannot be avoided, should those hard working Americans, like myself, suffer as a result?

I am not a constituent of yours. But I am a concerned American, and a concerned small businessman who is desperate for help that only the government can provide (and only the government can provide it, because it is not in the best interests of insurers to help me… That is just the nature of business which I understand and fully support).

I respectfully urge you to support the President’s health care reform, for the good of your constituents, and of all Americans.

Sincerely,
~Joshua E. Dubs, Esq.
North Tonawanda, New York

Reviews of Democracy: The Federalist I

2010-03-23T22:11:00.002-04:00

I'm a student of history... I majored in it in College, and I still enjoy studying it. I've been often known to recite the quote "History repeats itself," or another incantation of it: "Woe is (s)he who fails to learn from history, for (s)he is doomed to repeat it!"

In doing some independent research, I was compelled to take a copy of the Federalist Papers out of the Public Library. And after reading the introduction, I started reading the papers.

And to share any revelations I came across, I decided to bLog about my favorite passages in the various issues of the Federalist.

And it did not take me long to find a very compelling set of quotes in Federalist I that ironically, I think, speaks volumes about the level of debate this country has fallen to. In his very first publication, Alexander Hamilton wrote this:

I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least if not respectable - the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wish and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude of society.

Sound familiar at all? Hamilton continues a few sentences later:

And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.

This sounds like an argument against organized political parties to me. And far be it for me to accuse the Republicans of playing this card only, I think the Democrats do it plenty themselves. Where I think the Republicans of today's politics went off the rails is in their steadfast and unwavering opposition to anything the Democrats themselves attempt to do. While the Democrats attempt to incorporate Republican ideas - even if for the sake of saving face - the Republicans seem to be good for nothing if not an opportunity to slap away the outstretched hands of the Democrats.

Hamilton concludes the paragraph thus:

Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

It's interesting to me that Hamilton predicted and warned against a blind adherence to ideology in American politics, lest it become a struggle of epic proportions, circa the Crusades.

I think that every member of Congress should be forced to read The Federalist I and have it tattooed to their forearm that, if politics is treated like an exchange of nuclear weapons, the outcome will be similar: Nobody will win, everyone will lose, and the only casualties will be everyone.

Republican Reconciliation Rules

2010-03-21T11:40:00.003-04:00

With all the talk of this oddball Reconciliation procedure, I started to look into what it was and its history. After doing some research, I think I have figured out the Republican Reconciliation Rules are, and I wanted to share them with you, my readers (all, like, five of you).

Rule 1: Reconciliation is acceptable if you are giving tax cuts to the wealthy. (See: The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.)
Rule 2: Reconciliation is acceptable when screwing Seniors by allowing Medicaid to take more of their assets (See: Deficit Reduction Act of 2005)
Rule 3: Reconciliation is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE when attempting to give lower- and middle-class Americans Health Care. (See: This year's Health Care Reform).

It is not a terribly surprising prospect, given that Republicans are using the same cloture-busting tactics that they condemned when the Democrats were doing it to prevent the confirmation of ultra-conservative Federal judges (to the point where Republicans threatened to take the "filibuster" (cloture rule) away. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been for Republicans had they done so...

Anyways, I just found it interesting that defeating Democrats was an acceptable use of Reconciliation, while being defeated BY Democrats is an unacceptable use of Reconciliation. Interesting indeed.

The Daily Show Sticks It

2010-03-18T07:36:00.004-04:00

Once again, the Daily Show just gets it, and demonstrates with satire what the Republicans and Teabaggers are all really thinking.

I give you the Daily Show on the Health Care Debate Endgame:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Health-Con1 - The Mediscarening

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Reform

The money quote is found at about 6:25:

"I would rather die of a curable disease while hopeless, than live healthily in the post-freedom hellscape envisioned by this bill!"

And there you have it, folks. Opponents of this bill seek to do two things: First, they want to beat the President at something (anything, really), and Second, to keep tens of millions of people from having health insurance.

American Generosity: How Far Does it Go?

2010-03-13T19:38:00.005-05:00

As the debate about the President's health care reform seems to be drawing to a close, I have found myself having more discussions with conservatives about what is wrong with the idea of Universal Health Care.

Laying aside the fact that the President's health care reforms do not amount to Universal Health Care (unfortunately), I would like to just explore a couple of the more troubling justifications for opposing this.

The main crux of one of many conservatives is that it should not be their responsibility to provide health care for everyone else. When I ask them simply, "why not?" I am frequently told that they have worked hard their entire life, they have never asked the government for anything except for national defense, and therefore they should not have to pay into a system that gives to those who don't work as hard.

I find this reasoning fallacious for several reasons. First, many of these conservatives are the same ones who claim that America is the most generous nation in the world, in that American citizens are always ready to lend a hand to a neighbor in need, be that neighbor be foreign or domestic. If this is true, it is striking to me that these generous Americans, who donate liberally to their local food banks, Red Cross chapters, and/or volunteer their time as firefighters, would oppose helping their neighbors who are unable to afford health care.

The second reason I disagree with the train of logic is that despite their lifetime of hard work, insurance premiums continue to increase at a rate far beyond normal inflation. This means that even hard workers will feel an unfair extra financial pinch, because, while their wages will only increase at market rate, the increase in insurance premiums will take more and more of their hard-earned income.

The third reason is that conservatives' assumption that universal health care will only benefit fat, lazy people (let's face it, they're suggesting minorities), will be the recipient of free health care benefits, which will give them even fewer incentives to work for a living. This is false on two fronts: With the economic collapse that came at the end of 2008, millions of Americans found themselves unemployed. This was not a phenomenon, it was a widespread cataclysm. Suddenly, not only were lower class, poor Americans seeking a handout from the government, but middle and even upper class Americans found themselves without the means to support themselves and their families. Insurance companies, for many years, have discouraged people from purchasing individual, personalized health care plans by having the premiums so high that they will subscribe to boiler-plate, mass-plans through their employers. But now, many Americans had no employer, and therefore were left to either purchase expensive individualized plans, or simply live without health insurance. If an accident or sudden illness occurred, those people were forced to simply go broke.

I take major issue with the idea that we, as Americans, are simply unwilling to help our neighbors. When a good Samaritan stops on the side of the road to help a stranger change a flat tire, that Samaritan does not ask the stranger "what's in it for me?" When a family donates excess canned goods to a local food bank, they do not do it because there is a tangible benefit for themselves. They do it because there are people who are without a basic staple for life. They do it because they do not know if and when they will ever need to visit a food bank for sustenance.

For conservatives to harbor an attitude that nothing will ever happen to them is irresponsible. If this economic downturn has shown Americans anything, it is that no industry, no job, and no health benefits, are ever safe. Likewise, conservatives may claim that, should anything happen to them, they will just "sort it out" is also irresponsible. From their position of employment with benefits, it is easy to say that they would be willing to lose their home and sacrifice their credit in the event a tragedy strikes, but when the eventuality strikes, words no longer bear meaning.

Arguments about personal responsibility aside (that's another argument conservatives love to interject, but I will save that for another posting), health care is simply a staple of humanity. It is something that all people need and should have access to. If Americans are truly a generous people as we are all fond of claiming, then we should all be leaping at the chance to ensure that no child, no middle class American fallen upon hard times, no senior citizen, no person who finds themselves victims of circumstance, should ever wont for the ability to heal from their wounds or sicknesses. If our desire for unnecessary consumption overtakes our compassion for our fellow man, than I firmly believe the terrorists have won, for they have proven that we, as Americans, only look to benefit ourselves, to the detriment of all others. And such selfish attitudes never lead to happy places.

Pat Robertson, God's historian

2010-01-13T16:08:00.001-05:00

Unless you live under a rock, you know that yesterday, a massive earthquake hit just off the coast of Haiti. Needless to say, Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world, was absolutely devastated, and initial reports say that hundreds of thousands of people are dead or missing.

Cries of support are just pouring out of everyone with a voice, with massive campaigns not only coming from the usual sources, but also from social media. A massive Twitter campaign is contributing thousands of dollars to the relief effort.

But one person has taken it upon himself to explain why this terrible thing happened to one of the countries who needed it the least.

The "Reverend" Pat Robertson, on his television ~~sermon~~ show, stated earlier today that:

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about. They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it’s a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another..."

You heard it here, from the man who has regular conversations with the Man Upstairs. God has forsaken Haiti because they made a deal with the devil in exchange for their freedoms, sandwiched in between pleas for people to help.

This, by the way, is the same man who suggested that Hurricane Katrina was God's response to the pro-choice law.

I would now like to address Pat Robertson directly.

"Reverend" Robertson, on behalf of every civilized human being on the planet, please please PLEASE shut the hell up. Suggesting that a Carribean black people made a deal with the devil to overthrow their white masters is beyond arrogant, beyond offensive, beyond tasteless.

I understand you believe that God speaks through you, and that it's His alleged will that you should impose your morality on others (which, by the way, is what the Taliban are attempting to do in Afghanistan and Pakistan). But by claiming every natural disaster is God's vengeance for views in opposition to yours is in direct contradiction to just about every tenet of the New Testament. You should know that, you are a "Reverend" aren't you? Or are you a "Reverend" in the same way Dr. Dre is a "doctor"? Even I know that, and I am not religious!

In conclusion, "Reverend," the tragedy that befell upon Haiti yesterday is an unmitigated disaster, and millions of innocent lives, the lives of people who never did anything to harm or offend you (except, apparently, apply to the devil 150 years ago, give or take, for their god-given freedom), are going to be adversely affected by this. Things are bad enough for them without you shoveling your holier-than-thou, God-Hates-Fags, right-wing bullshit atop them. Furthermore, the more you suggest that Haitians are in league with Satan, the less your followers are likely to want to contribute to the disaster relief.

Respectfully (even though you don't deserve respect - mine or anyone else's) yours,
~Josh

All that being said, if you would like to actually help the people of Haiti, I urge you to go to RedCross.org.

Money is still more important than, well, anything

2009-12-17T11:44:00.004-05:00

Republicans continue to amaze me with their lack of consideration towards the larger goals in life. Yesterday, Republican Governor of Texas Rick Perry told a crowd that Al Gore had gone to hell, to raucus applause. He then told the crowd that global warming-combatting legislation should be opposed, because "the costs to our children, to our grandchildren, are going to be staggering."

Governor Perry and most of the Republicans in the Federal government are missing the damn point, and it is frustrating me.

The costs are going to be staggering to our children? Well, what is worse, turning over debt to our children and our grandchildren, or handing them an uninhabitable planet? Because whatever truth is in the claim that it will be financially unjustified to fight global warming is moot. Without a planet capable of sustaining life, what will the costs to our children matter?

Governor Perry is exhibiting that ignorance that the Republicans are clinging to not only regarding environmental legislation, but also health care. That the costs are just too high. Well, you know what costs are also high? Our children not having drinkable water, not having food, not having breathable air, and not having the ability to get medical care.

I would like to ask Governor Perry myself, along with people like Senator Lieberman whether the money in their pockets right now is worth selling our children and grandchildren out in the future? Because that is what they are doing, by opposing health care reform and opposing environmental protection legislation.

And when global warming causes the seas to rise, decimating Florida, New Orleans, Washington, DC, not to mention Hawaii, Australia, Sri Lanka, Great Britain and more, do you think the children there will be thinking "well, at least I have my money?"

And when a mother, who can't get proper healthcare because the premiums have increased to a level where she can't even afford basic health insurance through her employer, watches her child die, do you think she'll be thinking "well, at least my child won't be burdened with the debt of his medicine?"

And when the climate alters the meteorological status on the planet, causing stronger and more frequent hurricanes, larger, longer and more widely-spread droughts resulting in huge crop shortages for an ever-increasing global population, do you think your children, hungry, will be thinking "thank god the Congress didn't burden me and my children - if I live to have children - with the financial responsibility of saving myself and everyone else?"

No, Governor Perry. No, Senator Liebermann. So, I sincerely hope you enjoy your pockets and your political warchests, coated with the gold provided by those who stand the most to lose if you support the effort to save us all. Our suffering will be on your heads, our children's shortened futures will be your responsibility. But as long as you and your friends are wealthy now, in this lifetime, I guess it's all well worth it.

Let Justice Be Done

2009-11-22T16:40:00.003-05:00

Several days ago, the Obama administration announced its intention to haul five 9/11 conspirators, including the man who brags about being the mastermind, to New York City - mere blocks away from the place they tried to take our spirit - and put them on trial for their crimes.

As a liberal, an attorney, and a civil libertarian, I cannot be more pleased by this decision.

The old doctrine of holding these criminals without charge, indefinitely, flew directly in the face of one of the very reasons this country broke off from Great Britain.

The Obama administration's decision to hold these people accountable for their crimes is a victory for America, and a victory for American jurisprudence. There must be a reckoning. There must be punishment for these criminals (I won't even call them terrorists, they're simply criminals), but after they have been given a first class ride through the American justice system they want so much to tear down.

Some people argue that bringing the criminals to New York City, a city still feeling the effects of the attack eight years later, will be offensive to New Yorkers. But I actually think that, psychologically, New Yorkers would be more offended not to have the opportunity to judge their attackers.

Others argue that New York City will become a target for terrorists who wish to free their bretheren on trial. To this I argue, the presence of these criminals in New York City will not, in my opinion, make New York City any more or less a target than it already is.

Furthermore, I like the decision to try them in New York City. The Federal Courthouse is not far from Ground Zero. And thus, the criminals can be constantly reminded that they tried, and failed, to drag America down.

It is time that these criminals get what's due them. It's time to show them what a fair, and honest trial. And after they are convicted, it will be time to send them to prison for the rest of their natural lives, never having been able to bring America down.

A Veteran's Day Post

2009-11-11T21:40:00.002-05:00

I didn't serve in the Armed Forces. So I have a special place in my heart for those who did.

To all of you who ever served in uniform, you have my thanks.

My personal struggle with global warming.

2009-11-09T10:54:00.000-05:00

When it comes to politics, I am very liberal. I wasn’t always this way, but now I am always leaning to the left. I have always voted democrat and probably always will. I don’t bother investigating a local candidate based on their merits, I just vote for the democrat. Why? Well I figure the democrat is more liberal then the republican and therefore is more likely to share my viewpoints. I am pro-choice. I support gay-marriage. I support government spending. I support big governments. I not only support minimum wage, but think minimum wage should be raised. I am against censorship. I support the estate tax and higher taxes in general. I’m against the war in Iraq and I’m against torturing anyone, terrorist or otherwise. About the only liberal view I don’t have is for welfare. And I can support welfare in certain circumstances; I just think the money is better spent on government programs.

I am by far the most liberal member of my family, close or extended. I am probably the most liberal person among my friends. In fact, I am pretty sure if you took 99 random people off the street and put them in a room with me, I’d be the most liberal person in the room.

Well, now that’s over. Whew! I can move onto what I really want to talk about. The reason I feel the need to prove my “liberalism,” is because I want to talk about global warming. Whenever I bring up the topic of global warming and express my doubt over its authenticity, people scowl at me. “Oh,” they say, “You’re one of THOSE aren’t you? One of THOSE that just won’t listen to the truth. Well, all smart people KNOW it’s the truth. You’re just being ignorant.”

But I’m not. I am just trying to have an open mind. I always wondered what I would do if I saw a liberal senator, representative or president doing something I strongly disagreed with. Would I speak out? I hope so. I feel as a liberal, I would have a responsibility to speak out against it. It doesn’t mean anything if I speak out against a conservative. Same way it doesn’t mean anything if a conservative speaks out against a liberal. They do that all the time. It’s nothing special.

The reason I pitched my “liberalism,” is because I have EVERY reason to believe in global warming. I have no hidden agenda. I have no party loyalty. I have no axes to grind. Based on my other beliefs, I SHOULD believe in global warming.

And I did. I believed global warming was a real and present danger. I believed it until I read a book called State of Fear by Michael Crichton. State of Fear is actually a fiction mystery who-done-it, but Crichton uses the fiction to make a case against global warming. Now, Michael Crichton clearly does have an axe to grind. He is an admitted conservative and frankly he fights against global warming a little too hard. But after reading the book, even I had to admit that Crichton had two very legitimate points.

First, his weaker point is that not ALL scientists believe in global warming. I think even Crichton would have to admit that MOST of them believe global warming, but it’s not the slam dunk everyone would like to pretend it is. Second, and his much more interesting point to me, global warming is much less about a concern for the environment and much more about fundraising. Environmental groups use the fear of global warming to accomplish their goals.

Some conservatives use fear to get things accomplished. “We don’t want another attack like 9-11, so vote for me instead of the other guy.” They can also use these fears to get money, power, and support. Even though I am liberal, I am not so naïve to believe that liberals don’t use the same strategy.

Crichton points out that the attitude of global warming changed. Originally, it was only about the globe getting hotter. Environmental charities and lobbies noticed that they were getting a lot more money during the summer then they were during the winter. WHY? When it’s 100 degrees outside, you might say to yourself “Wow, those scientists were right about global warming. It is freaking hot. I better donate some money to charities to stop this global warming.” But when it’s below zero outside and your car is buried in 10 feet of snow, you’d probably say, “Where is this global warming they were talking about? It’s freezing out here. Heck, I could use a little MORE global warming because it’s too damn cold.”

So they changed the meaning of global warming. Instead of just the planet getting hotter, they changed it to the planet experiencing more extreme weather conditions. It worked great. Now they were getting money year round. It’s always been hot in the summer. It’s always been cold in the winter. We’ve always had hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorms. But now people thought it was because of global warming.

So, as much as I hated to do it, I had to begrudgingly admit that Crichton had a point. But did this mean global warming wasn’t true? Maybe they were making it seem more extreme but that doesn’t necessarily mean global warming is a complete falsehood. What is the truth and what is the lie? And more importantly, how could I discover the truth? I am not a geologist, environmental engineer or weatherman. I couldn’t go outside and do some experiments to discover the truth. I am completely at the mercy of people smarter then me or at least people who have a different area of expertise.

But I was determined. After all this is the age of the internet. I am sure I can find something to discover the truth. Let’s just type “global warming myth” into Google and see what we come up with.

Here we go. There’s a book about the “Global Warming Myth.” I am sure I can find some answers there. It’s published by living waters company, who have brought us great books like “You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can’t make him think” and “Intelligent design vs. Evolution.” Oh Crap. Well let’s keep looking.

Here we go. Powerline.com says global warming is a MYTH! Let’s see what else they have to say: “The only person greater then Sarah Palin is Dick Cheney. We should torture these terrorists. Rush Limbaugh is one of the greatest broadcasters of all time.” Shoot! Is there anyone out there who doesn’t have a political axe to grind? Can we just have the truth please?

You know what I finally decided. It’s not worth it to stand against global warming. Even if it is a TOTAL lie, it’s a lie that gets people to care about the environment. That’s a lie I can support. It’s not worth being scowled at like a baby-killer. I don’t want to be “one of THOSE” people. I don’t want people to think I’m ignorant. People always make their assumptions without hearing me out. They KNOW that global warming is true. Why? Are they geologists, environmental engineers or weather people? No. They saw it on the NEWS! In fact, they saw it several times. And the media never lies to the public.

Frankly, I’d rather take a stand on a different issue.

So yeah, what the hell. Global warming is real! We’re turning the planet into a god damn microwave! The polar ice capes are melting like ice cream in an oven! The sea level is rising so fast we’ll be underwater in no time! Winters are getting colder! Summers are getting hotter! Hurricanes are getting bigger! Animals are dying! And not just the ugly ones, the cute ones are dying too! Freak out! In fact, go rent “The day after tomorrow” and “Waterworld,” and freak out some more! And it’s all because of Global Warming! Just make sure that while you’re freaking out, you make sure to donate lots and lots of money to environmental groups!

I believe global warming is real, not because I’m a liberal, but because an open mind just isn’t what it used to be.

Bad Teacher

2009-11-09T10:42:00.000-05:00

Stick with me on this one. Let’s say that a young writer (younger then me at least) came to me for coaching on writing a book. Let’s say I say to him: “Student, I want you to write at least 1000 words every day for the next month. Don’t worry if it’s good or not, just go and write me 1000 words a day and I’ll read it. That means you should write 30,000 words by the next time I see you.” So a month goes by and the student comes back to me and says, “Sean, I tried to write 1000 words a day but I was just too busy. I tried to write a 1000 words a day and sometimes I did, but some days I was running around getting other things done and I just couldn’t write 100 words. So I wrote 20,000 words and I’m sorry I couldn’t bring you 30,000 words. ” Now which one of these two answers makes more sense to you?

1) Sean: “Student, I am very disappointed with you. I told you to write 1000 words a day. You are a loser. You are lazy. You’re no good. You’ll never be a successful writer. You only wrote 20,000 words! I told you to write 30,000 words. You know what, this next month I want you to write 2000 words a day to make up for all your slacking and laziness. Next time I see you I want you to bring me another 60,000 words.”

2) “Student, I am disappointed that you didn’t hit the goal I set for you, but maybe I set the goal a little too high for your schedule. I am very proud that you still managed to find time to write 20,000 words in a month. I am also very proud that there were days where you found time to write 1000 words a day and nobody is perfect, you can’t be perfect every day. How about this next month, you shoot for a more realistic goal. Try to write 700 words a day, so next time I see you, aim to write 21,000 words in a month. That seems more realistic and is still a good goal.”

If the answer isn’t already plainly obvious, the second answer is a more productive, constructive and overall better answer then the first one.

The reason I ran this scenario was because it was something I discovered about myself when I was reading this book The New Mood therapy by David Burns. He pointed out that sometimes you have to dare to be mediocre. Sometimes it’s better to lower your expectations about yourself instead of constantly raising them. When I read that, I was immediately reminded of my struggle with writing a book. In real life, I was the student and the teacher, except in my role as the teacher, I gave the first answer.

I would set a goal to write 1000 words a day for a month and see how I did. Most days I would successfully write 1000 words a day, but sometimes I would be too busy and I wouldn’t get any writing done. Then at the end of the month I would beat myself up just like the first answer: “Sean, You are a loser. You are Lazy. You are no good. You’ll never be a successful writer. This next month I want you to write 2000 words a day to make up for all your slacking and laziness.” Here comes the guilt, the lethargy, and the depression. Worst of all, I wouldn’t write another word of my book.

When I read that chapter and my eyes were opened, I actually laughed at myself for how stupid my logic was. I couldn’t write 1000 words a day, what made me think it would make it better to punish myself by trying to write 2000 words? Does that make any sense? No. I wouldn’t hold someone else to that standard. Why would I hold myself to a different standard? Sometimes it is better to lower the standards you make for yourself.

Agenda before Country

2009-11-08T13:19:00.002-05:00

I just read this on the AP Wire... GOP officials say Dems put agenda ahead of country. Apparently, Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), thinks that the Democrats, in (narrowly) passing a sweeping health care bill, are ignoring the constituency. (And he would be an expert on that, being a leading House Republican. But I digress.)

As I stated in my article Throwing Wrenches, the American public DOES want sweeping health care reform, including a public option. By trying your best to block it, Congressman Pence, YOU are putting agenda ahead of country.

Thank you, honorably members of the House of Representatives, for doing your part in getting us some decent health care. Now, on to the Senate to do the same.

When Holiday Sales Attack!

2009-11-05T21:04:00.004-05:00

Last weekend was Halloween... A party holiday, it was originally a Celtic celebration of the end of the summer, it's now a secularized tradition in which American children are taught to pretend to be someone they are not and beg for candy from strangers.

But I digress. The day after Halloween, once a day to recover from the candy hangover after enjoying the previous night's booty. Now, it has become the new starting pistol on the Christmas season.

I had noticed that in large box stores like Target (since I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart), Christmas decorations made a small insurgency in the aisles adjacent to the Halloween decor. It annoyed me, but I had no idea that it was the tip of the iceburg. Not 12 hours passed before the Christmas advertisements came rolling out on television.

It's not surprising to most Americans, that Christmas has been getting earlier and earlier, but it wasn't until this year that someone put it into an interesting perspective for me.

This year, I decided to take my frustration out in a unique way, by creating a Facebook Page in protest of it. It has quickly gained popularity, 200+ members in a few days. One of the members made a comment that really resonated with me. She said that she "hate[s] how our culture can't pause in their great race to accumulate THINGS to GIVE THANKS for the people in their lives and the wonderful blessings they do have."

This made so much sense to me... And this isn't a criticism of Capitalism, because Capitalism only goes as far as it's allowed to go. This is a critique of the American attitude.

The American public has willingly thrown off the time to recollect, to celebrate our love and thankfulness... Which then dulls our senses to those things we are thankful for. Which then leads to fewer people doing things for which anyone should give thanks. It's a vicious cycle, or as we say in the legal community, a slippery slope.

For those who remember what Christmas is actually supposed to celebrate, the commercialization was bad enough, but now the commercialization seems to be edging its way into the other holidays, too. I suppose it won't be long until Labor Day signals the start of both school and the start of Christmas, too.

The worst part of it all is that, because we, as a culture, have allowed Christmas to ooze its way into the importance that is a holiday to give thanks, a holiday meant to celebrate our Veterans, and now even Halloween, there is no stopping it, and I can't think of any ways to turn it back. All I can do is what I've been doing, silently protesting it, and refusing to put up my Christmas decorations or do any Christmas shopping until after I have given thanks for the previous year's ups and downs. And suggest that other people, do, too.

Throwing Wrenches

2009-11-02T20:32:00.003-05:00

Joe Lieberman, the most Republican democrat since Zell Miller, came out recently and stated that, if the Senate brings forth a bill to reform health care that includes a public option, he would do everything he can to block it. This cloture-blocking threat (I won't call it a filibuster, since that is NOT what a filibuster is), is in stark contrast to the last time Lieberman, back then swinging to the left, visited the subject (major props to Arianna Huffington for her article).

So Joe Lieberman, the politically-switch hitting Senator from Connecticut, is holding any hope for health care reform completely hostage. Meanwhile, he's eating up what's left of the Democratic good will in the Senate (what, with opposing the Democratic candidate for President and all), and ignoring polls that say that Americans want a public option. Who *is* Senator Lieberman listening to? Well, I have my theories.

Hartford, Connecticut is well known to be the insurance capital of America. Senator Lieberman, in his career, has taken over $1 million from the Insurance Industry, another $1 million from health professionals, and more than $600,000 from Pharmaceuticals. As a result, it comes as little surprise to me that Senator Lieberman opposes health care reform if it challenges the insurance companies' god-like power over the lives of its customers. After all, less profit for the insurance industry means less campaign money coming in.

I'm still confused as to why Senator Lieberman doesn't simply come out of the closet and admit that he is what he is - a Republican. He's obviously subscribed to those values which the Republicans seem to be holding most dear - opposing anything the Democrats want to do.

The Balloon Boy Phenomenon

2009-10-20T09:29:00.002-04:00

The outrage over the Balloon Boy incident seems to be ramping up. Now the authorities are preparing to file charges against the father for filing a false report. But what are the charges REALLY for?

They are for duping us all... They are for pulling the wool over the eyes of every American who watched the live helicopter-feed coverage on CNN and Faux News and MSNBC. The charges are going to be filed for deceiving the drama-hungry American public. Everyone loves a good villain, after all.

The problem is that, despite the fact that the plot was exposed, the media bubble burst (pun notwithstanding), the family is getting exactly what it wanted... More media exposure. They were pitching a reality show? Well, now they'll probably get it. I already see the Fox Network's advertising blitz for the Balloon Boy show, in which the crazy father, cautious but meek mother, and two unwitting accomplice children engage in whacky adventures which, if not televised, would probably bring the wrath of the state's Child and Family Services agency.

This is what normal Americans strive for now, and it is incredibly sad. We all used to want to be famous movie stars, now we all want to be flash-in-the-pan reality stars. And this desire is a sycophantic cycle in which the networks willingly put things on television which offend the senses and good nature, and we watch these shows to be disgusted by the subjects. But we still watch them, and the advertisers pay good money to keep the shows going.

And it's happening... The Octomom, who, while on welfare, got expensive therapies in order to have eight kids to add to her already-large family, and why? Because Jon and Kate and *their* eight kids have a reality show, which means she will get one, too.

It is unfortunate that Americans have set their sights so low, that no longer do people want to famous for virtues or for heroics, but instead for being the person who will one day be referenced on a VH1 decade recap.

In the end, the only one who will make out well from the Balloon Boy incident, Jon and Kate's anecdotes, and the Octomom chronicles, are the many therapists who will be called upon to sort through the issues that those poor children have developed as teenagers.

And then, they will all get THEIR own reality shows, and the cycle will continue.

Mr. President, the Nobel Laureate

2009-10-09T11:47:00.003-04:00

Well, the Republican anti-Obama machine revved up to a new level this morning, when it was announced that the Nobel Peace Prize was being awarded to President Barack Obama. That the President of the United States, the Representative-in-Chief of the United States to the rest of the world, was being awarded a nonpartisan, international recognition for his work on bringing peace to the world should be a reason to celebrate and be proud of the country, right?

WRONG! "For What?" asks Drudge Report. Fox News, under the headline announcing the President's award, ran an editorial piece berating the accomplishment. This, in my opinion, is further proof that the Republicans and conservatives have determined that if they can't have the glory, nobody should.

When I woke up this morning, and saw the wires announcing the award, I was a little confused. I agree that the President has not been in office long enough to necessarily merit such an award. But as I thought more and more about it, it made sense to me that Obama get the award.

The United States, still a Superpower, has spent the last eight years imposing its will upon those who opposed us. Remember, international opposition to the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq led to lambastings. Freedom fries, anyone? The removal of anything remotely "French" from the American staple was a means of punishing France for exercising its right to free speech, a right we were purportedly trying to bring to the people of Iraq. (Nevermind that French Fries are actually of Belgian origin.) In the short time that Obama has been in office, he has single-handedly changed the diplomatic landscape, taking the U.S. from an "us-or-them" mentality to a mindset of cooperation and prevention.

Some of the arguments I have heard against Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize is that the U.S., under his leadership, is still engaged in two large-scale military conflicts. While this is true, neither conflict were of his making, neither were begun with his support or consent (nor were his support or consent requested or required), and therefore the blame for those conflicts cannot be held over his head.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is, in my opinion, an international recognition that the United States is no longer seeking status as the overbearing relative, determined to pound the others into submission using economic or even military means. Talking is the new fighting, negotiating is the new threatening in this administration. And as a result of less sabre-rattling and less warhawking, the world will inevitably be a more peaceful place. This attitude change took place in the short time Obama has been calling the shots, and therefore it is not premature, in my opinion.

Furthermore, Republicans need to, simply, shut up. Their celebration of America's failures and revile of America's triumphs is growing old quickly. They cheered at America's defeat at the IOC and now show distaste at America's President being awarded an international recognition for bringing peace to the world. That all sounds so familiar... Oh, right:

Who Will Buy Your Goods After the Apocalypse?

2009-10-05T19:17:00.002-04:00

Unlike some liberals (::cough::MichaelMoore::cough::), I don't hate Capitalism. My defense of capitalism, in fact, sometime makes me seem almost like a Republican, in fact. But, unlike a Republican, I do not consider Capitalism to be an institution as holy as the Bible, infallible and omnipotent.

Capitalism, to me, seems to be too short-sighted to truly survive, and as a Capitalist, I fear for its future. Capitalism in its current form seems more concerned with short-term gain than with the long-term future of humanity. And I'm sure that we can all agree, whether we're Democrats or Republicans, that without human beings, Capitalism wouldn't stand much chance. After all, who would buy a store's goods after the apocalypse?

Which is why I am very disturbed with the developments that are coming to life about the Bush Administration's attitude towards Corporate Capitalism. And this isn't even necessarily a criticism of the Bush Administration, at least, not chiefly. It's a criticism of the corporations themselves.

This past Sunday on 60 Minutes, a story about Coal Ash was broadcast. The crux of the story is that the Coal Industry, America's last true natural resource stranglehold, had been stored literally to the breaking point. And when the point broke, over a billion gallons of toxic sludge flowed like a mudslide into Roane County, Tennessee. Oddly enough, that wasn't the disturbing part. The disturbing part was the Lobbyist, interviewed by Leslie Stahl, and his opposition to further government regulation of Coal Ash and its storage.

The main crux of the argument articulated in the 60 Minutes segment was that further regulation would drive up costs, which would then be passed on to consumers. Coal provides an estimated 50% of America's electricity, which means that if there is a 100% increase in the cost of production, theoretically the price of electricity would increase 50%, right? Now, being a new homeowner myself (thank you, $8,000 first-time-homebuyer tax credit!), I am painfully aware of the high cost of energy. A 50% increase in price would certainly hurt.

The question for me, however, is, at what point does our health and the health of our children, loved ones, friends and neighbors, overrule the possible - even probable - inconvenience of increased costs? When does Capitalism get trumped by a desire to stay alive and healthy?

I'll stick with coal, because the tangible sludge left over as a byproduct is not even the half of the problem with coal. Coal is the dirtiest means of creating power in the world, responsible for an estimated 41% of carbon dioxide emissions. Global warming owes its life to coal power plants. But yet the coal industry's main argument, at least as it was on display in last week's 60 Minutes, is that doing things any other way will cost American consumers more money.

As a good Capitalist, this argument makes sense. But the fact that I'll have to spend more money is being used to help dissuade me and all other Americans from lots of things. Some examples:

- The Health Care Reform packages are being demonized as horrendously expensive, and despite the fact that Americans would be guaranteed medical insurance, coverage when they need it, and taking the insurance companies' hunger for larger profits out of the equation, that it will cost a lot of money means that it should not happen. How many people have to die before money stops being a factor in giving people health coverage?

- Automobiles are responsible not only for more greenhouse gas emissions, but also for the consumption of irreplaceable natural resources, namely, oil. Environmentalists have been arguing for years for increased fuel efficiency standards, standards which would have made the Hummer extinct. But it would also have saved immeasurable amounts of oil and reduced the environmental impact. The amount of money that the auto industry would have had to expend in R&D to make such things possible lead the auto industry (not to mention the oil industry) to argue that the costs would have been so prohibitive that the only way to subsidize the research would be to pass the cost on to the consumer. But how much global warming do humans need to experience before money takes a backseat to saving ourselves?

As I said, I am a Capitalist... But if Capitalism does not look forward, past the end of this fiscal year, the Capitalist system will doom itself. Without affordable health care, even if it is government-funded, American consumers will not have any money with which to buy the goods Capitalist companies are trying to sell them. Meanwhile, Americans, who cannot afford health care, are sickened by water wells contaminated by Coal ash, they will not have the money with which to pay for even less expensive electricity. And if pollution leads to global warming, which could lead to a massive global crop failure, millions of people will die of hunger, and then who will be there to buy those goods?

Corporations need to remember, if they burn down a town to make a quick buck, there will be no more people there to give them their next buck. Shortsightedness will lead to the demise of our way of life. And as a good Capitalist, I don't want to see this happen.

If we can't have the Presidency, NOBODY can!

2009-10-03T17:46:00.000-04:00

The Republican Party, still bereft of any actual ideas or constructive dialogue to interpose on the many varying issues facing this country, continues to shout incoherently at the top of its collective lungs just for the sake of hearing its own voice.

The latest criticism against President Obama is that, despite the economy, the new unemployment figures, the war in Afghanistan, and the health care debate, the President took a day out of his busy schedule of converting the country to an Islamic Socialist Government to fly to Copenhagen to lobby the International Olympic Committee to bring the 2016 Summer Olympics to the United States. The objective journalists at Fox News articulated Obama's trip well.

After Chicago was defeated in the first round of balloting, the Republican pundits danced in the streets, assumedly not because they had a true problem with Chicago being honored with the 2016 Summer Olympics, but because President Obama wanted it, and didn't get it.

The Weekly Standard proclaimed "Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!" but then took it down, probably because they realized how asinine the title of the post was. The post itself is still there, but it no longer proclaims glee over America (I'm sorry, it wasn't America, it was Obama) lost the Olympics. TPM covers it all very well.

This is so frustrating for me, not only as a Liberal, but as an American. This is why politicians are a punchline. The Republican party, once a conservative party intent on keeping government small, taxes low and the military well-equipped and trained, now exist as the party of static.

The Republicans are not contributing to the solutions to this country's problem, they are simply trying to knock the President down. We haven't seen this type of blatant, unprofessional gerrymandering since Nancy Kerrigan had her kneecap busted in by her jealous rival.

In my last post, I described the Republican Party as the Party of No. This is further proof. I have not heard any argument from any conservative commentator that the Olympics would have somehow been bad for America or America's image. The celebration of Chicago's defeat is expressed in the President losing at something. Does this sound familiar to anyone? If you said that it sounds like that bully at school whose policy was "if I can't have it, no one can!" you would be right.

The Republicans, bitter that the Democrats won 60 seats in the Senate and have a large lead in the House of Representatives, and that their Presidential candidate was so soundly beaten in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, have taken on the persona of the younger sibling who wants whatever toy the elder sibling is playing with.

The most amazing thing to me is how blatantly obvious this is, and how the Democratic strategists and pundits are not picking up on it. The Republican talking points read like a bad Ad-Lib booklet, in which all the Republicans have to do is insert whatever policy is on the President's agenda this week, and they oppose it. I'd be willing to bet if the President called a press conference to announce his belief that the sky was blue, the Republicans would oppose it. This is not how our elected officials should represent us. This isn't even how grown people should act!

Opposition for the sake of opposition is the wrong mindset, and all conservative pundits and Republicans who subscribe to it should be deeply ashamed of themselves

The Party of No

2009-09-27T14:02:00.007-04:00

I'm concerned that the Republican Party has been replaced in leadership by people who share mindsets with three year-olds. Their favorite word seems to have become "no."

After President Obama was elected the 44th President, and the Senate looked like it would attain a 60-seat majority, with a majority in the House of Representatives, the Republican strongholds began writing their playbook. This playbook was not a script by which their concerns could be articulated, it was not a script by which compromises could be reached, nor was it a script by which the Republicans could mount a respectful opposition to those issues Republicans hold most dear. No, it was a script to mount a stallwart, hard-headed opposition to anything and everything the Democrats wanted to do.

Four days before Obama was inaugurated, Rush Limbaugh, the spiritual leader of the Conservative religion, famously quipped on his ~~sermon~~ radio show that he hoped Obama would fail. At the time, Limbaugh was talking about the stimulus package. It didn't matter that the stimulus package was actually a Republican idea, nor did it seem to matter that the economic mess was largely thanks to irresponsibility and lack of regulation under a Republican presidential administration.

After stabilizing the economic mess that President Bush left us all, and pulling the American auto industry out of the morass of bankruptcy, and saving tens of thousands of auto industry jobs (including those jobs which rely on the auto industry), President Obama turned to the task of ensuring that the American Health Industry would stop taking advantage of common, middle- and lower-class Americans. Needless to say, the Republicans went right to work undercutting the President's issue.

The attitude was again demonstrated when Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said, in a phone conference with the Teabagger Protesters, that if the Republicans successfully defeated Health Care Reform (which, by the way, meant that if the Republicans were successful in keeping 30 million Americans without adequate health insurance), it would be Obama's "Waterloo", a reference to the famous battle that led to Napoleon Bonaparte's downfall and exile.

Hearing all of these unconstructive promises to beat Obama, Reid and Pelosi without any suggestion of compromise or even discussion reminded me of another interview I heard.

I hail from the great state of Rhode Island, though I now live in Western New York. In 2006, Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Senator who took his seat after his father, Senator/Former Governor and famous Rhode Islander John Chafee passed away in 1999, lost a reelection bid to now Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). After losing the election to Senator Whitehouse, Senator Chafee went onto the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and revealed some very disturbing but revealing things about the Republican mindset.

In the interview, Chafee told Jon Stewart that the Republicans, even as the party-in-power, were obsessed with beating down their opposition party. "Fight the Democrats" was the chorus they apparently sang. Opposition to this mindset was not tolerated.

Then, this weekend, I read a story that Bill Clinton believes the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that dogged him is dogging Obama. But I disagree. It's a vast right-wing conspiracy to be sure, but it's much simpler than that. It's a vast, right-wing conspiracy of no.

The Republican party has, since Obama took office, become very good at saying "no", but haven't gotten very much else done. In fact, other than doing things to forestall the Democratic efforts to do ... well, anything, the Republicans have not done much else. There is no Republican plan to grant health care to the millions of Americans who can't afford it. There is only a plan to stop any Democratic plan.

The Republican party is doing everyone, including its own constituency, a great disservice by acting like a pissed-off toddler, fighting off Health Care reform like a child fights off bathtime. If you don't like this health care plan that the President is proposing, how about doing something old-school... Propose your own, then come to a compromise in which everyone wins a little, everyone loses a little. Take a page from the last moderate Republican in the Senate, Senator Snowe, and talk instead of holding your breath until you turn blue. Because you're all making fools of yourselves, and you're keeping 30 million people in fear for their lives.

2009-09-27T10:39:00.002-04:00

This is a followup to my last post... Today's Doonesbury sums my thoughts up very well.

The Personification of Evil: Ad Nauseum

2009-09-23T10:31:00.003-04:00

Adolf Hitler is the personification of evil. Sometimes I wonder why he is the only one whose name is cited when someone wants to label another as evil. Josef Stalin, after all, is estimated to have been responsible for the death of tens of millions of people. Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge, ordered the deaths of all educated peoples in Cambodia and ordered a purge of all cities, forcing his people into agrarian slavery. But despite the existence of 20th Century dictators who were just as evil as Adolf Hitler, he seems to be the embodiment of anything people don't like.

Hitler has been cited by both members of the Right and the Left during this decade to describe the President in power. First, it was used to described George W. Bush, now it is being used to describe Barack Obama.

I have never been comfortable with the comparisons between Hitler and the American Presidents. While I argued on many occasions that the policy towards Iraq followed by the Bush Administration eerily paralleled the policy Hitler had towards Poland in 1939, in that the invasion was based on false pretenses. But that is where the comparisons should stop.

The fringe Right accuses Obama of being Hitler-esque in his economic policies, nationalizing the auto industry and the banks. This is a gross overdramatization of what the President actually has done, and a clear sign that the public never paid attention in history class.

Hitler did not nationalize the German auto industry. He created it. It was then free to run as a private entity. Cars were not the right or privilege of all Germans, it was a company from which they could purchase cars.

In addition, Obama did not nationalize the American auto industry. The auto industry bailout orchestrated by the Obama administration was a voluntary offer of government assistance. The car companies (one of the Big Three American auto manufacturers, Ford, declined to take any bailout money) were offered money to help prop them up, and two companies took it. However, unlike the bailouts of the Bush Administration, Obama's bailout included conditions. The car companies were not required to follow these conditions: they had the option to decline the money, as Ford did.

The bank bailouts did represent a massive unrestricted bailout, which gave taxpayers a huge stake in the outcome of their stock values. This, however, was not Obama's bailout; The Bush Administration, particularly industry insider and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered large, unrestricted checks to these companies. So if any accusation of Hitler-esque socialism is due here, it would not be due to described Obama.

President Obama is no more the second coming of Hitler than President Bush was. When Obama opens concentration camps and forces the execution of an entire people, he will be like Hitler. When Obama uses the military might of the United States to conquer other countries and impose his values upon them, he will be like Hitler. When Obama engages in ethnic cleansing, he will be like Hitler. Until that day, he is nothing like Hitler was, and thank god for that.

So to the fringe Right, who think Obama has done all these things: Please think before you speak.

First Post

2009-09-21T19:44:00.002-04:00

Hello there, everyone.

Welcome to the Free Liberal Press, a bLog for commentary from the liberal perspective. This bLog will be a place for me to add my two cents to the many and varying political and sociological arguments out there.

This bLog will demand a certain etiquette, too. I welcome all perspectives and arguments, but everything must be done with a level of respect for all points of view. Despite my love for free speech, I will enforce this rule strictly, of both my left-wing and right-wing friends and readers.