Thursday, January 29, 2009

Say Anything

I sat down to read the stimulus bill that Barack Obama and the Democrats drafted anticipating to be outraged at how much money we were going to throw away at unworthy and hopeless causes. I mean, if the Republicans can grandstand about how my child's grandchildren will be paying for this in the oh-so-distant future when all we need are a few tax cuts for multi-million dollar businesses and people who make more money than them, then how could I not be offended by the irresponsibility and partisan politics?

But, alas, I am not. While the amount of money is staggering, I do not see one area that I don't think the government should be supporting. Here is a breakdown of where the money is going:
  • 54 billion towards energy, including investments in a smarter electrical grid and grants to make government building more energy-efficient
  • 16 billion towards science and technology, including agricultural, biomedical, and engineering research
  • 90 billion towards modernizing roads, bridges, transit and waterways
  • 141.6 billion towards education
  • 24.1 billion for healthcare, including health information technology and research
  • 102 billion for those workers hurt by the economy, including job training and continuation of benefits for the unemployed
  • 91 billion to be distributed to state and local governments to preserve vital jobs and keep Medicaid afloat
  • The remaining money is tied into tax cuts for working families

Opponents to the bill have thrown out bits and pieces of misinformation about too much money being spent on birth control ("It won't stimulate the economy, but it might stimulate something else, te-hee!) and not enough being spent on infrastructure (Only 3% of this bill will be spent on roads! - actually it's 3.6% for roads and 11% on all forms of transportation). If this griping and bellyaching won't work (and it won't), they just go back to old standard. That's right, they make shit up.

Republicans said that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report indicating that the majority of the spending in this bill will not take effect until 2011. Unfortunately for the Republicans, this report does not actually exist (nice try, Senator McConnell). But that didn't stop the left-wing media from mentioning it continuously this past weekend.

This piece of legislation fulfills campaign ideas and proposals that helped get Obama elected. I understand that some Republicans feel they must put up some sort of resistance in order to keep their Rush Limbaugh Fan Club card and to be able to say "I told you so!" if these measures don't work, but the people voted for Obama to enact these things whether they like it or not.

Barack Obama, in an attempt to be cordial and respectful, tried to convince the Republicans to let him follow through on this proposal. But now he must take charge, and as Lloyd Dobler did as the keymaster, tell the raving lunatics, "YOU MUST CHILL!"


Friday, January 23, 2009

Two Roads Diverged in a Wood...

I was blown away by Barack Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday. Others have been critical because he did not deliver a policy speech - this is like picking lint off an Armani suit - but I was impressed because he made it point to do specific things during his speech.

First, Obama took his opportunity in front of the world to say that it will be difficult and that personal sacrifices will need to be made by all in order for the United States to live up to the promise of our charter. He also said that there are no easy solutions or fixes and that the road back to prominence will be steep. And now every time when something goes well or better than expected, he will look like a genius.

The ability to under-promise and over-deliver is a critical part of every salesperson's routine. And since a politician is nothing more than a salesperson, it should not be surprising that Obama has this technique down. He practiced it well towards the end of his campaign and he reaffirmed it in his prose on Tuesday.

And then on Wednesday he immediately put it into practice by issuing an executive order against torture, putting a freeze on the salaries of the White House staff, restricting gifts to White House aides and executive branch officials, and cracking down on the "revolving door" practice - where government staffers quickly moving into lucrative private sector jobs lobbying the government. The latter fulfilled a campaign promise. (Obama pledged that "no political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointees will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.")

Not everyone will look at these as positives, but the majority of Americans do. And by knocking all of that out before 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, he casts a favorable light on himself and his administration.

Second, Obama took the opportunity to illuminate the differences between he and his predecessor. In a particularly muscular and stern part of his address, he lambasted President Bush and his administration. He said:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expediencies sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Obama swiftly dismissed the bravado-filled tenure of Bush and Cheney by slapping them upside the head with history of peace during dangerous times. He rebuked their argument of action with no boundaries in an effort to keep American citizens safe. There are certain lengths to which we should not have gone because there was no imminent danger - only a pervasive fear started by terrorists and kept alive by our government.

Not since Reagan's 1981 inaugural speech has there been such a fiery retort to the outgoing crew. Obama one-upped the "The Great Communicator" because he didn't rely on politics as usual. He established the politics of the future.

Robert Frost wrote:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Obama just started down the path less traveled. We will have to see if it makes all the difference.

Monday, January 19, 2009

There Is an Old Illusion - It Is Called Good and Evil

Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, recently wrote a piece titled "10 Things That Bush Got Right." I realize that Barnes is a biased journalist - he was one of the only Republican pundits to predict a McCain victory in the days leading up to November 4th, he wrote an homage to Bush called Rebel-in-Chief and he is a huge proponent for the war in Iraq - but he did make an interesting claim that peaked my interest. Barnes wrote: "Along with use of secret prisons and wireless eavesdropping...[enhanced interrogation of terrorists] saved American lives. How many thousand lives? We'll never know."

Barnes insists that Bush was correct and justified to revoke the freedoms that our country is emblematic of in the world community because this stopped terrorist plots to kill Americans. And if you don't believe that, you should believe that because we listened in on phone calls, read private emails and tortured valuable information out of prisoners who were not charged with any crime whatsoever, we were able to deter terrorist attacks that were in the works.

In a farewell address, Bush counted off four terrorist ploys that were prevented due to the work of his administration and the policies put in place. A lot of media outlets took this at face value because there has not been terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/01 and these matters are classified intelligence information that we do not have access too. However, of the four he listed, none of them were past early planning stages or being concocted by people of legitimate ability and connections. If this is what you are going to hang your hat on to claim an effective and successful legacy, you would think that you would want to provide better evidence and examples than can be dismissed by a smug Keith Olbermann on in a five-minute piece on Countdown.

Whether or not there has been an significant work done by the Department of Homeland Security is disputable. I am sure that you can find many reports (as I have) that will vindicate Bush to some degree. But there are just as many that will indicate that Bush and his policies have been ineffective and have advanced the cause of those who want to do us harm.

For instance, investigative journalist Ron Suskind has reported that many CIA analysts believe al-Qaeda leaders have declined to attack the United States for strategic reasons, not because of the Bush administration's counter terrorism policies. Moreover, a 2006 National Intelligence Estimate "found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

Bush has said on several occasions that history will redeem his presidency, but only the future can actually redeem him. The United States must repeal all of his policies and methods and fall into a constant state of fear and attack in order to justify the blatant human rights violations that he perpetrated on others and the unnecessary damage that he caused.

He claimed he was the good fighting evil, but there is no good and evil - there are only things men do and things men do not do. Moral certainty is an oxymoron, whether you are Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush.

Monday, January 12, 2009

To Make a Pledge of any Kind Is to Declare War Against Nature

Teenage pregancy decreased dramatically from 1950 (96 per 1000 women aged 15-19) to 2000 (49 per 1000 women aged 15-19).* The reason for this big decline has been fodder for debate, with one side claiming that this rate is down due to abstention from sex and the other asserting that the rate is down due to better education and access to contraceptive devices.

Teenagers having sex, rather than teenage pregnancies or abortion, is viewed as the problem in the United States. We have chosen to try to stop that problem rather than try to stop the potentially disastrous outcomes from a completely natural act. State and federal legislators continue to push abstinence-only plans, try to cut funding to public helath clinics and attempt to make it illegal for public health clinics and schools to teach the proper use of and distribute contraceptive devices to teenagers without their parents consent. They do all of this despite the fact that only 1% of all minor adolescents who use sexual health services indicate that their only reaction to a law requiring their parents' involvement for prescription contraception would be to stop having sex.**

What is obvious to most of us who have been teenages is that these methods do not work. A large federal study just uncovered that teens who pledge to remain abstinent until marriage are just as likely to engage in premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence. The frightening part is that these who vow to remain chaste are significantly less likely to use condoms or other forms of birth control.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of bith control that is quite striking."

My son is only three so I shouldn't have to worry about this for a while, but I can draw a parallel to riding a bike or playing sports. These are potentially dangerous activities and I wouldn't even consider letting him partake if safety requirements and precautions weren't in place. Similarly, I wouldn't want my son to be ill-prepared and at-risk when he becomes sexually active.

Telling my son not to do something is futile more often than not. Apparently that behavior will continue for a long time to come and I am not willing to let him risk his future cavalierly because I am too uptight, pious or frightened.

And yes, everyone deserves to raise their children their own way. I just want parents to consider all of the angles and look at the statistics before they make a choice.

The title quote comes from Mark Twain.


*National Center for Health Statistics, "Births to Teenagers in the United States, 1940-2000," National Vital Statistics Report, 2001, Vol. 49, No. 10.

**Jones, RK, et al., "Adolescents’ Reports of Parental Knowledge of Adolescents’ Use of Sexual Health Services and Their Reactions to Mandated Parental Notification for Prescription Contraception," Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005, 293(3):340–348.