Falling From Grace: Obama's Tax Cut Compromise

So, I've been generally disappointed with the President for some time now.  He gave us health care that largely supported the status quo, and while 30 million americans will now be forced into the health care system, and premiums may decrease for 100 million more, the benefits are largely in favor of the major health care organizations, not to mention without a public option there is still very little competition to ensure that prices don't continue to increase astronomically.

Then he back tracked on Repeal of DADT.  Then he dropped the close of GitMo.  Then he conveniently kicked the can on Afghanistan.  Now we've got a finance regulation bill, that does little to curb the already rampent abuse.

In 2002 George Bush had all but eliminated the major regulations in place to protect our economy from this kind of recession, passed sweeping $3 trillion tax cuts aimed predominantly at the wealthy, and sent us to war.  in 2008 we hired a guy to fix all that... you'd think by now he would have gotten to one of those three.  (oops, sorry I suppoose he did "end" the war in iraq...unless you count those 50K troops still there...details).

So we've gotten a lackluster president at best, and suddenly he's pissed at us.  Sorry buddy, that's not how this works.  You want our support, you do what you were elected to do, and pandering to the Republicans wasn't just low on our list, it really wasn't there.  So you'll have to excuse us if we are kinda pissy right now.

Anyway, lets stick to this Tax Compromise and lets explore whata just happened.  Unemployment benefits are about to lapse.  Tax cuts for everyone are about to lapse.  The only one of those two that was an issue was Tax Cuts.  You know how I know that unemployment was not an issue?  simple.  If Republicans vote against extending unemployment, who loses?  DUH!  Republicans would face enormous backlash.  So, really, they were going to cave on that issue, they were just playing games.

So what happened, they took a position everyone knew they were going to back down from, and Obama caved... Yeah, perfect opportunity to hang the republicans out to dry and Obama caved... This is politics 101, I'm not saying that it's right to extend unemployment, I'm saying it was going to happen, period.

So let's explore what the Republicans got for being dicks.  They got the tax cuts for their wealthy supporters AND they got to vote yes on unemployment which will help them politically.  What did Democrats get?  they lost on tax cuts when they were right, and they got unemployment benefits they were going to get anyway.

How is this a win for both sides?  The democrats should have eaten the Republicans' god damn lunch!  This should have been a HUGE win for the democrats!  They should have gotten their unemployment AND stuck it to the Republicans on tax cuts.  Here's the message "Republicans hold your employment benefits hostage so they can kick back millions to wealthy donors."  WHO THE WAS GOING TO WIN THAT ARGUMENT?!

So no Mr. President, I'm not pissed that you are compromising, I'm pissed that you are giving them your f***ing lunch money on issues you not only can win, but on issues where you are guaranteed a win!

On a side-note the NONPARTISAN Congressional Budget Office predicts that extending the tax cuts would increase the deficit by $700 Billion over 10 years and $4 Trillion over it's lifetime (if fully extended).

Oh and if you are currious about the economic impact of the Bush Tax cuts, only about 7% of those tax cuts came back as increased revenue to the federal government, the other 93% was taken entirely as debt so we could give handouts to the wealthiest Americans. (See "Why We're Liberals" by Eric Alterman)

Just so we are all aware of who won, here were some of the people who opposed this compromise that have come out in just the past 24hrs.

On The Left:
The AFL-CIO
Former DNC Chair Howard Dean
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) - Conservative Democrat
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.)
Steve Hildebrand, Deputy National Director of Obama's Presidential Campaign

On The Right:
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

So, you're compromises is pretty much universally disgusted by the left, including at least one high profile conservative Democrat, and at least one Republican.  So no Mr President, we will not shut up while you seed control of the government, policy, and our economy future to a party that was voted out of office 2 years ago, and wasn't even re-elected (in the senate) a month ago despite your miserable failure as a President.  It baffles me the extent to which this President seems to completely disregard his responsibility to this country by continuously handing over decision-making power to the people who f***ed it up in the first place!

Here is a depiction that seems to represent my anger (and the anger of a lot of other people: see comments on Huff Po)

Step-up Mr. President or step-aside and let us elect a real liberal in 2012.  As it is I wont be voting for this president in the primaries, and I'm certainly considering doing something I've never done before: Campaigning for the other guy just to prove my point.

Common Sense

UPDATE (12/08/10):
The following people have now also come out against the compromise.

On the Left:
Rep. Barnie Frank (D-MA)
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) - Also suggesting he may not support the president's re-election
Keith Olberman (Anchor - MSNBC)
Arianna Huffington (Founder of Huffington Post) - Not that I like her

On the Right:
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) - Has also promised to Fillibuster if it comes up for a vote
Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) - Though she clearly doesn't understand what the compromise actually does (who's shocked by that?)

(Side-Note: I would like to take this opportunity to say, I never thought I would see the day when I would agree with Michelle Bachman on ANYTHING!  I am truly disgusted by this turn of events and it should suggest just how far the President has fallen.)

In addition, VP Joe Biden was hounded by House Democrats at a meeting today held in the hopes of rallying support.  The following reps expressed serious concerns, and will likely oppose the deal:
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Rep. Chris Wan Hollen (D-MD)

So far the only people to openly support the deal are a handful of people who have kept their mouths shut because they know it is a bad deal, Speaker Pelosi, The President, His Staff (who are really the only people making the case for the compromise), and Sen. Mitch McConnell.  Not exactly the company the president should be seeking right now.

If you ask me, whatever political capital he had left, is now gone.  Whatever good faith he maintained with the base that he has spent 2 years ignoring is now gone.  The voices in favor of a primary challenger are growing stronger, and this compromise will haunt him for the rest of his first term.

UPDATE (12/10/10)
Bernie Sanders Quasi-Filibusters on Friday
Though he is not preventing any legislation from being considered or being voted on, he will be spending the entire day talking, reading letters from constituents, and otherwise educating people on the truths behind this deal.

Some interesting facts:
The extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy affect < 5% of the US population
The estate tax affects < 0.3% of the US population (only affects the mega-rich)

Furthermore, Obama now claims that these cuts will not create a single job in the US.

So let's review:
Extending the Bush tax cuts will...
NOT create a single job;
cost $700 billion over 10 years;
that will be almost entirely borrowed (93%); and
affect < 5% of the US population.

IF you are interested in who is opposed to the deal, the tally of Democratic votes in the House is 68-11 against the compromise


And I'm supposed to be rewarding the president for a 2-year extension just to get 13 months of unemployment benefits?  How about no...
 
In Short: Democrats may filibuster in the Senate, and more than 25% of House democrats have vowed to vote no.

What The F*** Has Obama Done So Far?

In honor of this new website promoting Obama's achievements, I'd like to point all the things he has FAILED to do while in office that he should have been doing.

(1) Failed to repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
(2) Failed to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act
(3) Failed to have a public option included in the Health Care Bill
(4) Failed to beat back a Democratic-sponsored amendment to the Health Care Bill attacking women's rights
(5) Failed to remove and replace key Bush-era officials controlling (suppressing) science policy
(6) Failed to pass comprehensive Climate Change legislation
(7) Failed to discredit and brush off the Tea Party
(8) Failed to defend the left-wing and mainstream media from Republican/Fox Noise attacks
(9) Failed to exit the war in Afghanistan during the first term of his presidency
(10) Failed to close the Guantanamo Bay prison
(11) Failed to forcefully respond to the Texas Textbook Massacres
(12) Failed to restore protective regulations on corporations
(13) Failed to prevent 3 Big Banks from absorb all their competitors and creating a de facto monopoly
(14) Failed to realize that its a bad idea to mess with the tax code
(15) Failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform
(16) Failed to protect latino citizens from racial profiling

Just generally failed to turn the country in a more liberal direction (the mandate he was given in 2008)
During his presidency Republicans have gained ground in nearly every area they have put up a fight.

Honestly, I plan on voting against Obama in the Primaries in 2012.

I still haven't decided if I will vote for him in the general,

Common Sense

Media Malpractice: Fox News Rejects Pro-DADT Repeal Advertisements

But they are totally fair and balanced right?  It's not like they are trying to push an agenda.  Who would ever suggest such a thing...

Huffington Post

Common Sense

TeaBaggers: Polls Show Tea Party values are NOT shared by "average" Americans

There's a shock!  Where the hell was this information 18 months ago?  Where was this information last summer when the media across the spectrum was treating the Tea Partiers like the God-sent representatives of the people?  Where the hell was this information when it could have been of some use?!

As far as I'm concerned this is just more evidence of the extreme cowardice of the left-leaning media.  They have become so unjustifiably afraid of being bashed by Fox Noise, that they are no longer doing their jobs!

Exibit A: NYT Investigation of incoming GOP Senator drops AFTER election

Exibit B: Tea Baggers are NOT "average" Americans

Two articles that could have been damning to the Tea Party Republicans, and we don't hear about it until after the damage has been done.

WTF!

Common Sense

Texas Priest Hires Hitman to Kill Child who Accused him of Abuse

Apparently these are the moral people we are supposed to emulate...

There isn't really anything to say about this.

Huffington Post

Common Sense

The Vatican: Condoms are A-OK*

The Vatican has loosened the leashed on it's sad, ignorant flock today.  For the first time, the Vatican has sanctioned the use of condoms, but so far, only as a means of combating HIV.  Apparently, they believe that it is the lesser of two evils.  I still don't see how the rubber shield is evil, but I suppose in the brainwashed mind of the Christian person, it makes perfect sense.


Huffington Post

All mocking aside, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the Vatican to the 20th century.  Perhaps sometime soon they can join us in the 21st century, though I'm not holding my breath.

Common Sense

Religious Right: "It's more patriotic to kill the enemy than to save fellow soldiers"

Christian Right Activist Blasts Medal of Honor as 'Feminized'

Click Here

Moral teachings from the Religious Right: We should only honor those soldiers who kill others, not those who save others.

Is there anything less Christian?

Common Sense

Media Malpractice: Watching the News Today

I was flipping between the news channels today, and I thought the contrast was pretty intense.  It's always a pretty clear contrast between the three channels (MSNBC, CNN, and Fox), but it was particularly apparent today, because of the upcming election.  Here is what was on:

I started on MSNBC:
Andrea Velez Mitchel was interviewing the President of the AFL-CIO about the Pensylvania candidates, and what he thought of them.

I got bored so I flipped to CNN:
Fareed Zakaria GPS was on, and he was talking about how to get our economy moving again.  He crafted an excellent argument about how we have to start funneling money into R&D and putting people to work in the new information sectors, and stop trying to replace the sectors like manufacturing that are disappearing.  He suggested we spend 6% of GDP on R&D, which is about what we spend on the military right now.  How are we going to pay for it?  an Innovation tax on consumer goods, because as fareed notes, consumerism and credit is what got us into this mess, so this tax does anything to slow consumerism in this country, he thinks that is a good thing.  Overall, I liked what he was saying!  No big surprise there, the guy is a genius.

Commercial break, so I flipped over to Fox:
(1) "Did a TV station in Alaska controlled by the liberal mainstream media try to steal the election from Miller?"
That was the first thing I heard.  So, just to be clear, MSNBC is interviewing interests groups, CNN is talking about fixing the economy and new business sectors, and Fox is airing conspiracy theories to try and get their candidates elected.  Wow...
(2) Shortly after that, they aired a segment about "mail bombs" showing up in airplanes.
How transparent!  2 day before the election, ratchet up the terrorism rhetoric so you can win votes off of people's fears.  Seriously, Fox has no f***ing shame!!  this is why I don't feel bad for voting Democrats straight down the ballot this year.  This is trashy!

So then I channel surfed for a while, before returning again to Fox News (I pretty much just went in reverse order this time):
Still hammering that "mail bomb" campaign, although I did learn that the pundit who was pushing the fear angle was none other than Megan Kelly.  That woman needs a muzzle... YES, I'm insinuating that she is a B****.

Then I switched back to CNN:
They had taken a break from FZ GPS and were siring the international news.  There were some attacks in the middle east.  And then they talked a little bit about how they were the best political team on television.

At that point my gag reflex kicked in and I switched back to MSNBC:
They were talking about whether or not Obama was going to follow a Clinton model of running things, now that the Republicans are probably going to take over the House (I'd like to point out that the election has not happened yet, so this is media malpractice in and of itself!).  I don't remember the guest they had on because it is silly and speculative, and even if it is true, the media must take some complicity in the Democratic loss this year for basically parroting the Fox News propaganda about this election for the past 18 months.  We all know that the media has incredible electioneering power, which is why they should stay out of it.

In summary
MSNBC: Why are groups supporting certain candidates, and how is Obama going to govern after the election.
CNN: Fareed = awesome
Fox: (1) conspiracy theories, (2) bombs on planes, (3) crazy blonde woman.
Anybody else noticing a difference?

Anyhow, I figured I would share that.

The Failder of the Haters... I mean Failure...

This is something I picked up off of my friend Sumi's facebook page!

FAILDED?

It's kinda funny that the haters always end up making signs with misspellings on them.  I wonder if there is some kind of relationship there between education and hatefulness.  Someone should do a study on that.

Election 2010 Predictions

No Races:
23 Republican Seats
38 Democratic Seats

Republicans Will Hold 
Safe Republican Seats: 23 (Non-Races) + 21 (Easy Victories) = 44

Alaska: Miller (Tea Party Republican) - currently tied with Murkowski, both leading the Democrat by 6 points.

• The only reason that Miller will win is because people tend to vote by party, as opposed to voting for a candidate.  It is unlikely that many of the voters are smart enough to know that Murkowski was their last senator, and that she is a Republican also.  Most of them will just see the "R" next to Miller, and vote for him.
• Even with Republicans splitting the vote between two candidates the Democrat is behind by a significant margin.  There is just no chance of a Democrat winning in Alaska.

Alabama: Shelby (R) - currently leading by a 2:1 margin


Arizona: McCain (R) - currently leading by 19 points


Arkansas: Boozeman (R) - currently leading by 19 points


Florida (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Rubio (R) - currently leading Crist (I) by 15, and the Democrat by 23



Georgia: Isakson (R) - currently leading by 18


Idaho: Crapo (R) - currently leading 2:1


Iowa: Grassley (R) - currently leading by 25

Kansas (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Moran (R) - currently leading by 42

Louisiana: Vitter (R) - currently leading by 13

Missouri (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Blunt (R) - currently leading by 8

New Hampshire (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Ayotte - currently leading by 9

North Carolina: Burr (R) - currently leading by 13

Ohio (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Portman (R) - leading by 17

Oklahoma: Coburn (R) - leading by 42

South Carolina: DeMint (R) - currently leading by 40

• Apparently the good people of South Carolina don't mind sex scandals as much as the people of other states.  Why am I not particularly surprised.

Utah (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Lee (R) - currently leading by 26

Kentucky (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Bunning (R) - currently leading by 5

Republicans Will Pick Up
Indiana (Democratic Incumbent Retiring): Coats (R) - currently leading by 17

North Dakota (Democratic Incumbent Retiring): Hoeven (R) - currently leading by 42

Democrats Will Hold
Safe Republican Seats: 38 (Non-Races) +  8 (Easy Victories) = 46

Connecticut (Democratic Incumbent Became VP): Blumenthal (D) - currently leading by 8

Delaware (Democratic Incumbent Retiring): Coons (D) - currently leading by 18

• I'd like to point out that the media is making it sound like O'Donnell actually has a chance in this race.  She is behind by 18 points!!  She has no chance of ever winning in this race, so why are we even talking about her in the first place?

Hawaii: Inouye (D) - currently leading by 30

Maryland: Mikulski (D) - currently leading by 18

New York 1: Schumer (D) - currently leading by 41

New York 2: Gillibrand (D) - currently leading by 18

Oregon: Wyden (D) - currently leading by 18

Vermont: Leahy (D) - currently leading by 33


Democrats Will Pick Up
Nothing!

Deciding Contests (GOP 46, DEM 46, 8 Close Races)

California: Boxer (D) - Currently leading by 3 (within the margin of error)

• I've said it before and I'll say it again, this happens every year and Boxer always ALWAYS comes out with a win.  In her first election (1992) she won by 4.9%.  In the last two elections she has had anemic opponents and has won by 10% (1998) and 19% (2004).  Against a household name like Fiorina, of course it will be close, but she is still going to win.
• I would also like to point out that California does elect moderate republicans from time to time, like Arnold!  however, Fiorina is CLEARLY not moderate.  The only reason she is doing well is because she, being a business person herself, enjoys the support of businesspeople in the state who are quite powerful.  But it's still not enough to get past the fact that she has allied herself with the likes of Sarah Palin and John McCain.

Nevada: Reid (D) - currently down by 1 (within the margin of error)

• It is ridiculous to think that Reid, the leader of the senate, would lose to Angle, the Tea Parties most psycho talker.  There are people here who I know will vote for her, but still I think most of them are doing it out of party loyalty and not because they actually agree with her views.  If there were any sort of justice in the world, she would never win.

Colorado: Buck (R) - currently up by 3 (within margin of error)

Illinois: Giannoulias (D) - currently down by 1 (statistical tie)

• As if the Republicans are going to win Obama's old senate seat.

Pennsylvania: Toomey (R) - currently in a statistical tie with Sestak

• The democrats are going to be punished for Specter's defection.  Even though Sestak already beat Specter, it wont stop the Republicans in the state from being pissed about his party switch.  Republicans are going to take this state back.

Washington: Murray (D) - currently leading by 2

• Washington tends to be relatively liberal, so I think it's fair to err on the side of the democratic candidate in this state.

West Virginia: Manchin (D) - currently leading by 2

• Very blue collar, so traditionally this would be a strong liberal base, but that has moved somewhat rightward.  I think it's still a pretty strong democratic base.

Wisconsin: Feingold (D) - currently down by 6

• Feingold is an institution in democratic politics and I'd be surprised if he lost.

SUMMARY

Strong Republican: 46

Republican Toss-Up Victories: 2

Strong Democratic: 46

Democratic Toss-Up Victories: 6

Final Senate Balance: 52 Democrat, 48 Republican

Realistically, I think this have been the historically stable balance for either party.  60-40 was never going to be stable, and I think everyone on both sides assumed the pendulum was going to swing back to the middle.

Racial Politics: "The Roots of Obama's Rage"

Conservative ideologue and "author" Mr. D'Souza has surpassed even his own shameless, hateful rhetoric and taken it to a whole new level of straight up racism.

In his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," D'Souza uses Obama's support of his father to paint the president as an angry, anti-colonial, kenyan national.  This was subsequently parroted by Newt Gingrich, who was forced to pull back much of his statement and has since been somewhat silent on the national scene.  As one might expect from the media obsessed only with politicians and not with the truth, most stations neglected to mention that his words come almost verbatim from D'Souza's book.  The media moved on to another topic without even mentioning the horribly racist pages from which the quote was taken.

I usually take these books as what they are.  Trashy talking points and ignorant sensationalism thrown together in some neo-con media machine trash-mill with a famous name slapped on the cover.  Seriously, I think they have manuscripts laying around where all you have to do is insert a famous name and whatever group is out of favor (muslims, socialists, communists, etc.) and you've got a conservative bestseller.  And the conservative masses do their job.  They go out and eat this crap up like the mindless drones they are.

Anyway, I digress.  What is different about this book for me is that it's no longer just mindless conservative drival touting economic policies that don't work, mainstreaming religious extremism, or justifying trillions of dollars in war spending.  This is just good old fashion racism.  There is just nothing else you can say about it.

Let's break it down:

Obama is angry (Rage was a pretty good word, I'm sure they will be keeping that in their manuscript pile for the next time a black person gets elected president):  This WREAKS of "angry black man."  I mean, when has Obama EVER gotten angry?  has anyone ever seen him blow up at anyone?  has he ever lost his temper in an interview?  Is there ANY evidence what so ever that he has ever been anything other than cool and collected?  No, exactly the opposite.  Try reading Game Change, and you'll realize that Obama's cool, collected attitude probably does mask his irritations better than most, but never has he ever gotten close to anger, much less "rage."  Contrast that to the Republican candidate in 2008 and maybe you'll get a clue.

Obama is anti-colonial:  WELCOME TO THE 21st century... oh wait, no, your still about 200 years behind.  Colonialism has been out of vogue since about the 1800s.  In fact, we had a whole revolutionary war about that I'm pretty sure.  Does the US still engage in "colonial-esque" activity.  Yeah sure it does, but I'm pretty sure just about every liberal (and most conservatives for that matter) are categorically opposed to that kinda thing.  So why is it suddenly a pejorative when Barack Obama is anti-colonial?  Maybe Mr. D'Souza has it in with an undercurrent of American pro-colonialists the rest of us have never heard of before.  Or maybe he's just a d-bag.

Obama is Kenyan:  whether D'Souza was using it as a descriptor "kenyan anti-colonialism" or just accusing the president of being Kenyan all together, it's trash.  In the second instance he is lying through his teeth, which I think everyone should be opposed to no matter how much an ignorant conservative redneck you may be.  He's not a Kenyan, he's an American.  Get over it you xenophobic d-bags.  The first instance is slightly more sinister.  It's meant to point out the "he's not one of us" message that the conservatives have been pushing since Nov 3, 2008.  It plays on our Xenophobia in the same way that "illegal aliens" and Obama's middle name play on our xenophobia.  So what is it conservatives?  is he muslim?  or is he Kenyan?  or he both?  or is he a Socialist, Maoist, Communist, Muslim, Kenyan??  is it even possible to be all of those things? (the correct answer is no, but heaven forbid a neo-con would have stayed in school long enough to learn the differences)

To put it simply, this book is trashier than usual, and as such worthy of scorn.  Another truly sad development is that it is now #2 and #4 on the Amazon.com bestseller list.  What is the world coming to where we eat up trashy, racist, zenophobic garbage like this and thinks it's legitimate.  There were actually people commenting on the book who thought it was a biography of Barack Obama!!  How did we become that stupid as a nation where people think a radical conservative would write a biography (or at least one that wasn't clearly tainted with lies and misinformation) about a democratic president?

There is ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance.  The latter seems to define today's conservative movement.

Just Plain Wrong: Single Lady 7 Year Olds

This is disturbing, disgusting, and all around offensive... Yet you can't tear your eyes away from it.  What on earth is wrong with us when we find this kind of crap entertaining!!  And what on earth is wrong with us when we think it is ok to have 7 YEAR OLDS dancing like this???  So wrong!

Watch:

Vezi mai multe video din Sport

The Nomination of Elena Kagan: Rubber Stamp to the Obama Agenda

In her meetings on the hill today, Elena Kagan, will be meeting with Sen. Mitch McConnell.  McConnell, Minority leader in the Senate, is "worried" that Kagan will be a rubber stamp for the Obama agenda, and intends to grill her as to whether he current position in the administration will unduly influence her decision making.  Alright, while that may sound legitimate, it is ridiculously unrealistic, and it's just plain stupid.  Here's why:

1) She probably agrees with the administration on most of the major issues.  If she agreed to work for them, one can assume that she agrees with them!

2) She would not have been picked if she did not agree with the president on the major issues!  DUH!  NO ONE realistically expects a president to choose a nominee who doesn't agree with their point of view.  Clinton picked staunch liberal jurists, Bush II picked hardcore conservatives, and all those presidents whose justices ended up being different than they had hoped were disappointed.  No one sets out to pick a justice who will disagree with them down the line.  So are we supposed to be surprised that Obama picked someone who shares his judicial philosophy and will thus vote in favor of his positions on the court?

3) Doesn't it seem somewhat hypocritical for the republicans to make this claim when they picked rank and file neo-cons for their recent court picks?  John Roberts was the brain behind the Bush victory in 2000, and has always been a staunch ally to the administration.  Wouldn't that be an equally worrisome sign?  but I didn't hear the neo-con forces crowing about his ties to the administration.  Or consider Samuel Alito.  He is as close to Scalia as today's conservatives get, he is a party line thinker, and he develops jurisprudence out of his political beliefs.  This doesn't suggest that he might be a rubber stamp to ANY republican administration??

4) She's only 50!!  She will be 56 when Obama's term expires, that leaves her with another dozen plus years to have an opinion.  It's extremely short sighted for republicans to have a problem with her just because they think she will support the president.  Justices are lifetime appointments and she will be on the court LONG after Obama has left office.  So, you need to be asking deeper questions if you have a problem with her.

Common Sense

Sweet Justice: Mojave Desert Memorial Cross, Stolen

Perhaps you recall a recent dust-up (primarily reported by the one and only Fox News) of a cross in the mojave desert, that memorializes the veterans of foreign wars.  It's a pretty random sight, but the ACLU filed suit claiming that it was a violation of separation of church and state because it was on federal land.  The bitter Supreme Court battle resulting in a 5-4 decision in favor of the leaving the cross standing.  A Not so surprising outcome considering the conservative leanings of the current court.

In what can only be described as an act of cosmic justice against the arrogance the Religious Right, the cross has been stolen.  While I sympathize with the veterans groups involved in this fight, there was an easy fix to this entire problem.  Simply don't use religious symbols in war memorials.  Since we are NOT a Christian nation, crap like that is bound to offend someone, and you reap the rewards of your arrogance in believing that it wouldn't.

Though I feel slightly bad that many veterans will be hurt by this story, I could not help but laugh at the irony of this situation.  The Religious Right spent years defending this cross in court, only to have to lopped off in the middle of the night.  Now that is what I call sweet justice winning out in the end.

(Also, please enjoy the fact that the fox news writer on this story appears to be so angry that he might have an aneurism at any moment)

Common Sense

The Nomination of Elena Kagan: Opening Salvo from the GOP

As expected, The Grand Old Party has begun to opposed the nomination of Elana Kagan for SCOTUS.  This shouldn't be surprising in the partisan climate of the senate, but here are the first two GOP law makers to come out against her nomination.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the arch-conservative leader of climate change deniers, wasted only 6 hours before officially announcing his opposition to Elana Kagan.  6 hours?!  yeah, that was a fair judgement.  I thought the Republicans couldn't read that fast, at least according to the likes of Michelle Bachmann, who wanted 3 months to read the Health Care Bill.  This is also the same Senator who refused to even meet with now sitting justice Sonia Sotomayor.  So, no one should be surprised.

The Senator's reasons for opposing her nomination are either incredibly either incredibly one dimensional or he is just making stuff up to justify his political posturing.  I wouldn't be surprised by either.  Inhofe claims that he is opposing her nomination because she kicked military recruiters off campus when she was Dean of Harvard Law School.  She did so because of the military's discriminatory policy toward gay and lesbian service members.  She also joined an unsuccessful law suit against the Soloman Amendment, forcing college campuses to keep their military recruiters of risk losing federal funds.  Apparently this makes Kagan "Unfit to serve on the nation's highest court."  If anything, it seems to me that she is MORE fit to be on the court because of her opposition to discrimination and federal control of higher education.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking member of the judiciary committee, also appears to be hedging his bets against Elana Kagan.  According to the same article, Sessions has refered to Kagan as an "activist," who will be difficult to confirm due to her lack of a judicial record.  If she doesn't have a judicial record, how on earth could he know she would be an "activist" judge?  (we'll skip the process of defining what an "judicial activist"really is for the time being)  At any rate, let's address the issue of experience.  What is the real difference between being a professor (or Dean) at a Law School and being a judge?  And how does that relate to the Supreme Court?

First question.  Being a professor in any capacity is about CREATING knowledge and building new interpretations that might provide a better understanding of the law, while being a judge is about APPLYING knowledge only when questions are brought before them (often dealing with statutory law rather than constitutional law), with the power of interpretation being almost exclusively held by the appellate courts. In short, professors are PROACTIVE in legal interpretation, while judges are REACTIVE in judicial interpretation.

Second question.  It should be pretty clear how this relates to the courts.  Unlike normal judges, justices on the supreme court are probably closer to law professors than they are to the traditional judge.  Justices on the supreme court make sweeping and binding interpretations about the constitution.  Even though they are reacting to an issue brought before them, they have tremendous control over which issues to grapple with in a given year, in the same way that professors will choose a field or sub-field in which to write about.  This is also the level of the judiciary where law is CREATED (and it is created, anyone who says only the legislature "creates" law is a fool who doesn't properly understand the constitution or our government).  The appellate courts also create law, but most of their major decisions are reviewed by the Supreme Court, thus making this court the final arbiter on the creation of new and binding law.

Therefor, a law professor may actually make for a better more proactive Justice on the supreme court.  Her experience as a creator of knowledge is likely to result in more creative and innovative decisions, her experience in government suggests she will have a strong grasp of constitutional principles as they relate to governmental powers and authority, and her lack of experience as a judge frees her from the dogmatic procedural programming that, while helpful for a judge, may not be helpful for a Justice.

Common Sense

Leave The Ivory Tower Alone: KKK at UT

The University of Texas has refused to rename a dorm named for William Simkins, a notoriously racist law professor at UT from the early 20th century.  Apparently, he used to espouse racist views during his classes and suggested that "Negros" should not be allowed in classes where there were lots of women.

While I agree that his comments were despicable, they were absolutely no different from the views of most other Americans at the time.  If we are going to rename this building why not rename EVERY building named for someone who lived during slavery?  Jefferson would disappear from campuses everywhere.  As would about half of all the names on buildings around campus.

We all recognize slavery as a moral atrocity from history, but these people were honored for their dedication and service to the school, not their social views.  Simkins may have been a D-bag, but he served the school and offered his time and life to education (even though he may have failed to provide it objectively at times).  He is still worthy of praise for that service.  He should not be crucified for social views, especially views that were mainstream at the time.  One of the most difficult tasks of any good historian is not to judge past figures by today's moral standards.  Otherwise, EVERY historical figure would be found wanting.

Everyone should chill out on this topic and remember that you don't need to get the school to change the name in order to draw attention to the topic.  In fact, keeping the name might offer a valuable learning experience for the students who live in that dorm if someone had the motivation and ingenuity to use it.

Seriously people, leave higher education alone.  Our minds are always 10-20 years ahead, but our campuses are about 10-20 years behind.  Change takes a little bit longer for us, but it always happens.  Be patient.

Common Sense.

Sarah Palin: National Day of Prayer and US Law

In reaction to the dust up over the National Day of Prayer, Sarah Palin made the not-so-surprising claim that this was yet another conspiracy to turn the country away from it's spiritual roots.

Check it out:


So, let's talk about why Sarah Palin is stupid (as if a discussion is even necessary at this point).

1) The nation was founded at a time when the presence of God was an assumed reality.  However, the country was not founded on religious ideals.  It was founded on the ideals of freedom (which includes the freedom to choose a religion and freedom from forced religious observance).  Hence the use of God in the founding documents is not a statement of a national belief in God, so much as it is a statement of a historically assumed fact.  At the time most of the founding fathers owned slaves, and slavery was an accepted norm for the time.  Should we also return to that tradition?  certainly not, and Sarah would probably agree with us there.  What Sarah is really saying is that we should pick and choose which "founding assumed truths" we are going to return to, and that her choice is the only one that makes sense.  Sorry Sarah, that's not democracy, and no matter how large a majority you build around that ideal it is still unconstitutional.

2) Discussion of history?  I'm sure that most academics, and probably even more Americans in general would love to have a discussion about the historical significance of religion.  However, NDOP is NOT a discussion.  Nothing about it is intellectual in any way.  If we are going to have a discussion, lets have a discussion.  But let's not pretend that a national day of prayer amounts to a discussion of religion, rather it amounts to national observance and preference for religion.

3) The protest against day of prayer is some people attempting to impose their views on the rest of us?  Actually you've got that backwards.  A national day of prayer imposes a religious view on America that does not exist.  As much as 12% of the population has no religious conviction, and I would guess that a staggering majority hold only loose religious convictions. So really, a national day of prayer is YOU attempting to impose your religiosity on the rest of US.

4) Payer is NEVER equality.  One of the arguments made over and over in support of the NDOP is that no matter what faith you are, everyone can pray to whatever they believe in.  Well, Atheists and non-traditional deists don't pray, and they don't believe in a "higher power."  So, actually they are left out, and forced to watch their country recognize and impose preference for religion over non-religion.  That is STILL unconstitutional, because people have the right to believe NOTHING and to have the view respected and supported by their government.

Now lets get back to Sarah's belief that the law should be based on the bible.  This is actually a topic that was addressed by Richard Dawkins in his work, The God Delusion.  The vast majority of Christians believe, as Sarah Palin does, that US law should be based on the bible.  It never ceases to amaze me how people who demand religious freedom, can be so cavalier in depriving it from others.  The use of the bible as the foundation for US law would be a clear establishment of national religion, because it would prefer biblical (Judeo-Christian) religion over ALL other religions and non-religions.  This is such a clear violation of the constitution that it's almost embarrassing that I have to explain it.  It is borderline treasonous!  We have a large group of politicians lead by Sarah Palin actively working to subvert the constitution and over 200 years of U.S. law!!  Sorry Sarah, there is no conspiracy against religion here, but you certainly seem to be conspiring against the rest of us.

Common Sense

The Supreme Court: Elena Kagan for Associate Justice

There is nothing in politics like an election year appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  The only way this could get more divisive would be if it were a presidential election year.  Though, Obama did make a very practical choice under the current circumstances.  Here is my take on the nomination:

THE GOOD:
1) She is a Moderate, and is expected to be able to bring together coalitions among the liberal and conservative justices.  Though I'm not sure where that will come from, considering the block of four staunch conservatives.  Basically, everyone is saying she can manipulate Kennedy.
2) She is VERY well qualified.  She has served in just about every sector of the legal profession from a private firm to academia, then to the White House, then back to Academia where she served as the Dean of Harvard Law School, then back to the White House.
3) She has exceptional credentials.  Princeton, to Oxford (Masters), to Harvard Law.
4) She is NOT a sitting judge.  Seriously, it's about time we got away from only hiring our SCOTUS justices from the circuit bench.
5) She is a WOMAN!!  The historic nomination of a second woman will bring the total count of women on the court to 3 out of 9 total.  Hopefully, future presidents will follow his lead and continue to nominate women.  I wouldn't be opposed to a court of 9 women!

THE BAD:
1) Obama is replacing the last of the great liberal powerhouses in any branch of government with a moderate.  In a time when conservatives are nominating and electing the fringe, replacing a mega-liberal with a left-leaning moderate continues the courts slide toward the disastrous conservative decisions like Citizens United.  Another moderate makes it more likely that there will be more guns on the streets, more religious entanglement in government, and less freedom for under-protected groups.  I understand that Obama is a moderate, but he should also be protecting the balance of the court, not helping the neo-con buttheads do irreparable harm to the constitution.

Overall,
I give this nomination a "B+", solid and well thought out, but still not great.  We continue to wait for our liberal Scalia.

Common Sense

On Religion: Child Molestation and the Bible

Everyone is once again up in arms over the scandal of child molestation in the church.  Apparently, the past 2000 years of repression and violence by the religious across the world wasn't enough to get people angry, but maybe this will wake people up to the fact that religion is probably not a good idea.  I'm not holding my breath.  Being of a spiritual family I reiterate that I am referring to organized religious observation, not personal spirituality.  The former involves dogmatic in-groups, out-groups, and group think which inevitably leads to prejudice and violence.  The latter is personal, and entirely dependent on the will of the individual.

At any rate, let talk about child molestation.  I was reading this article about the how "hurting children" was handled in the bible.  They refer to a few various passages in Matthew.  Here is a sampling:

If you do not become like children, you'll never enter the kingdom of heaven ... Whoever humbles oneself like a child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ... Whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes me ... " (Matt 18:3-5)

"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt 18:6)

One can, however, avoid this "eternal fire" by cutting off one's body parts that might damage a child (Matt 18:7-9)

Yikes!  The average reader will immediately imagine that God is particularly wrathful when it comes to the hurting of children (though many atheist authors from Dawkins to Hitchens have explained how the instinctual over-protection of children can also be explained biologically).  What the average reader will not know is that this language is not uncommon in the bible.  The bible is in fact a violent book full of maiming, killing, and genocide for various crimes (many of which have fallen out of favor even by the most ardently religious individuals).

What I find particularly stupid is how we immediately go to the bible for guidance, as though it is the definitive word on whether something is good or bad, and then having found something that mentions children, we immediately apply it's teachings.  How about just using some common sense?  Children, especially those who have not yet hit puberty (the biological point of sexual preparation), will not respond well to sexual encounters, especially those with individuals in a position of power over them.  Psychological research suggests that this can have life-long consequences, including depression and suicide.  Doesn't that sound like a better reason for thinking this is a bad idea?  Think about it, God tells me not to vs. you are HURTING the child and possibly destroying their life!  which sounds more convincing to you?

What is particularly disturbing is that we are ignoring the more pressing concern here.  We are happy to place 100% of the blame on the priest (who should really know better than to take advantage of the power and responsibility vested in them).  But what about the parents whose blind religious belief resulted in them vesting complete and total faith in these priests?  No other individual responsible for raising and protecting children is given that much blind faith.  From nanny cams to Parent-teacher associations, we seek to control all other individuals who have power over our children.  why not priests?  my contention is simple.  The parents of these children who trained their children to respect the authority of the church above all else are complicit in this form of child abuse.  They psychologically tied their children's hands, leaving them vulnerable to abuse, and then they believed (with no good reason) that the priests would not take advantage of that.  We need to spread the blame around a little bit more.  It's not just priests, it's ignorant "god-fearing" parents, who leave their children defenseless against a predatory priest.  There is plenty of blame for both!

Common Sense

Racial Politics: SB 1070's New Crime: Breathing While Brown

There are two issues in the new immigration law in Arizona (SB 1070): Principle and Practice.

I will accept that the law does not allow police to just run around and pick up brown people off the street corner and accuse them of being illegal (though the practice of at least one sheriff seems to contradict that statement as we will see).  However, there are still problems.

In principle the law allows police broad discretion to use their prejudice to determine who might be here illegally.  When they pull me over and demand to see my liscense, which I have forgotten at home, am I going to be accused of being an illegal?  No, because I have pale skin and I speak excellent english.  Would my father be accused in the same circumstance?  probably, even though he speaks impeccable english, he has dark skin.  Would me grandmother?  most likely yes, because even though she is a citizen, she looks hispanic and she speaks soft english (but still fluent).  the problem is that even though each of us is a citizen, the police would be responsible for deciding which is more or less likely to be a citizen and make an accusation accordingly.  Thus, my problem.  My citizenship status, or that of my family members, is not decided by the police, and they have no right to accuse me of not being a citizen without cause.  And not having a driver's license on me is NOT cause.

In practice it appears that all the fears were warranted.  Today, Huffington Post reported that a Phoenix sheriff when on a crime sweep and rounded up 89 criminals 61 of which were illegals.  seems kinda strange that 61 of your 89 would be illegal.  If you are just rounding up criminals regardless of their status and with no prejudice why would such a large proportion be illegal?  Unless you are stupid enough to subscribe to the myth that illegals are here to commit crimes against us, this should make you question whether the cops were really out to find people they suspected of being illegals.

If you really believe any of the following you might be a little bit racist:
1) illegals are here to commit crimes against americans
2) illegals commit more crimes than other people in their communities
sorry to tell you but neither is true.  most illegal immigrants are here to find a peaceful life where their children can become successful and wealthy and live the American dream.

Looking to the future.  This whole debate has dug up issues from English as the National Language in Alabama to racist comparisons in the US House to censorship in schools.  Clearly this is a great law if it has such great affects.

Common Sense

Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: How to Destroy a Republican Senator.

Usually it makes me smile when a self-righteous republican gets outed as a gay man (there are so few republican women that the probability of one of them being a lesbian is pretty low).  Lindsey Graham being accused of being gay is only slightly less amusing for me.  Not only because he seems like a decent guy and senator, but because it's almost like watching the kids in Lord of the Flies go crazy and kill the fat kid.  You wish that we were civilized enough not to kill the weaker members of the pack, but the GOP proves that we are not.

This seems to be just another example of the infighting going on in the GOP, but also it reveals that when you want to discredit a republican all you have to do is insinuate that they are gay.  It may or may not be true (Lindsey Graham seems like he could definitely be gay), but the point is that the insinuation is enough to make national news.  The GOP really thinks they are not homophobes and bigots?  I'm sorry, but if your whole strategy is to destroy someone's career by stoking fears that they MIGHT be gay, thats textbook homophobia.

On to a deeper point, lets say Lindsey Graham is gay.  If you've seen the movies Outraged (which you should watch to gain some perspective on the subject of closeted republicans) or Gay Republicans, you know that being gay on capitol hill is common for either party.  The republicans even have very open gay supporters.  So, why are they attacking their own people?  for the extreme anti-gay religious right?  for a voting block of a few million people?  As they say in Outrage, the gays make the capitol run on time.  In my experience the gays really do influence everything.  From the stereotypical gay fashionistas to the powerful mega-lesbian CEOs and senior business women.  Those are just stereotypes, gay men and women come in all shades in between those two extremes, but the point is YOU can't live without us, so why are you taking us on?

Common Sense

On The Environment: Drill, Baby...Spill?

There is plenty of hoopla streaming across the national media regarding the recent oil spill, and I couldn't help but notice a few rather interesting contradictions.

1) The big name "Drillers" from Palin to Steele haven't said a word.  Palin did however take time to point out that she too was part of an oil spill from the Exxon, and so she sympathizes with the families of the oil rig.  Thanks Sarah!  now how about some action.  Don't just say "I went through that too" and then continue to advocate policies with disastrous consequences (isn't the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time... I knew she was insane).  How about you actually advocate policies that don't cost billions in clean up costs and even more in irreversible natural loses.

2) Everyone is up in arms about the impending environmental disaster ... except 83% of fox news online viewers who when asked whether this disaster should result in a scaling back of oil drilling in the gulf responded "No, off shore drilling is necessary to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  Drill, Baby, Drill."  It seems impossible to argue with that logic ... unless you have an ounce of basic intelligence.  First of all, drilling off the coast will only fractionally decrease our dependence on foreign oil reserves.  In fact, if we were able to immediately draw out all of the oil off the coast it would last about 5 years.  Thats not reality.  Reality is that working at full capacity, the best we could hope for is that we would meet less than 1% of world demand.  Since we only just opened up the coastal oil fields, and rigs cost $2 Billion and ten years to build, you do the math.  even our kids wont see our oil production at full capacity.


Now the question is, are we really willing to sacrifice our environment for a fraction of 1% of the market?  apparently the answer to these selfish neo-con thugs is yes.  And in 300 years when all the oil on earth runs out (assuming we survive that long) they can look forward to cleaning up the giant mess they made.  but if they have their way we wont survive that long.  we'll barely make it to 2050, at which time we wont have much of a planet left.  Thanks neo-cons.


3) where is the righteous indignation about "oil rig safety" that accompanied the disaster in the West Virginia Mine collapse?  Everyone is more interested in making this about Obama's energy policy (Fox News, HuffPo).  So, coal mine collapses, it's a labor issue, but if an oil rig explodes it's an issue of energy policy?  And where is the coverage of the 11 people who died on the oil rig?  I couldn't turn on the TV a week ago without hearing about the miners who died in WV, but I actually had to dig to find any mention of the oil rig crew.


Lesson learned?  1) GOP leaders are hypocrites.  2) Fox news viewers are selfish and more interested in driving their cars than perpetuating our planet past 2050.  3) The media grabs onto the first story line that causes controversy and pushes it till it's dead (or till all the people are dead).


Common Sense

Return of the Blogger

So, I just spent the last 4 months writing, defending, editing, and submitting my Master's Thesis.  Now that it's over and graduation is growing near, I have time to dedicate to blogging again.

It is also worth mentioning that one of my colleagues today informed me that she reads my blog and finds it amusing.  Thank for the support Mary. =)

So, where to begin?  there is just so much that has happened in the past 4 months that demands a little common sense.  Stay tuned...

Practice Non-Religion: Non-Religious Generation

Here is an interesting, but overwhelmingly ignored poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.  According to this new poll almost 80% of our generation do not actively practice religious observance.  Most still believe in an afterlife (why wouldn't you?  it's a safe assumption), but that doesn't translate into attendance at religious ceremony anymore.

My question is, why was it buried in a corner the Huffington Post?  A dramatic shift like this should be front page news for weeks.  What do we get instead?  Tiger Woods and an angry Orca.  Those are not useful topics of conversation.  sad?  yes.  lessons to be learned?  yes.  useful to the general public?  no.

What this article should spark is a debate on the nature and relevance of religion to public policy and the future of our nation.  I would never deny the fact that our country is overwhelmingly religious (for the moment), and that religion is protected by the constitution (just as we should be protected from it).  However, this poll should suggest that religion as a form of political power is a dying power, and will be irrelevant in the near future.  It should also be a lesson to conservatives who like to hang their hat on the "religious nation" or "Christian nation" mantel.  We may be a religious nation now, but that might change when millennials start to dominate public and private life.

I can only hope that this poll represents a permanent shift that signals the end of religious domination in our lives and our country.  Too many wrong have been committed and too much progress halted because of religious intransigence.  It is up to this non-religious generation, to make sure the future is a little bit brighter for all Americans, not just the faithful.

Common Sense

Neo-Con Agenda: Mount Vernon Statement

Today conservatives reaffirmed their fundamental belief in constitutional principles which they have spent the past 50 years undermining at every chance.  The truly ironic part of the Mount Vernon Statement is that only two of the 5 principles they present can actually be located in the constitution.  The remaining three are neo-con principles that have evolved over the past 50 years as today's republicans rested control of their party away from classical conservatives and limited government conservatives.

Here are the "Constitutional Principles" that the neo-cons have decided to stand for:

(1) It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
(2) It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
(3) It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
(4) It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
(5) It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

Alright, so to be fair the first two are definitely constitutional principles, but lets not pretend the republicans EVER respected those principles.  Republicans have been all to happy to expand the size and role of government under their rule.  Take for instance George Bush.  On the economic front, he used to tax policy to pump money directly into the bank accounts of the rich, which by all realistic measures caused the enormous over-growth of our economy that resulted in the enormity of the economic crash of the past 2 years.  on the social front, he was happy to support the regulation of sexual practices (sodomy, which was only overthrown thanks to the liberal leanings of the court) and marriage.

As for individual liberty, I'm not sure who gets the liberty.  Certainly not gays, minorities (who are being denied higher education thanks to conservative intervention in admissions policies), women (who may soon lose control of their bodies), or the non-religious.  So who exactly gets liberty in conservative america?  oh yeah, straight white religious men.  That doesn't really sound like a good thing to me.

The second three are not even constitutional principles.  The free market was always separate from the constitution, because economic policies are irrelevant.  It was only in the 1950s during the Red Scare that liberty, democracy, and free markets were associated as a means of alienating the communists.  There is nothing necessary about Free Markets, it simply happens to be the most fitting form for our economy and also the most effective, but that is irrelevant to a discussion of constitutional principles.

Advancing freedom is also found no where in the constitution and involving ourselves in the affairs of others has ALWAYS been a suspect practice and one that has hurt us in the past.

I don't think I even need to note why family, community and neighborhoods would be irrelevant to the framers of the constitution.  As for faith, the government was never meant to defend faith it was meant to stay out of it and defend itself from faith.

Notice how the last three look a whole lot like a laundry list of policy pandering to the three powerful constituents of the republican party: Social conservatives, economic conservatives, and war hawks.  Republicans, lets not pretend that this has anything to do with going back to constitutional principles, it is a bold faced attempted to pander to your base.  Nothing more.

The results of today's declaration are nothing more than a reaffirmation that Republicans will continue to abuse the constitution to push their power-hungry agenda of religious extremist, military domination and oppression of the world, and economic incompetence.

Common Sense

Neo-Con Agenda: Why it's too early to count out the Dems

Let's be frank, a lot can happen in the next 7 months before the elections and the republicans are not up by THAT much in most districts.

I watched a show on MSNBC, and they have all but given the house to the GOP (I would remind you that it's still 7 months away).  However they were squabbling over whether the Senate would stay in Democratic hands.  They even put Nevada, home of the Majority Leader, as a likely GOP take over.  I've seen those polls.  Reid is down by 9 points to either challenger, but again, lets be frank, he's been busy.  He hasn't rolled out a robust re-election campaign yet, so lets assume when he does that he picks up 5 points.  that makes a a 4 point game, which is most polls falls just shy of the margin of error.  The real question becomes can the democrats change the message in time to make up those 4 points and then grab some extras to spare.  I say, yes, they will.  and here is why:

(1) In the past 7 months the economy has gone from bad to worse and then from worse to still bad but not spirally out of control.  Taking my cues from the most recent economic news, everyone was bummed out that we lost 20,000 jobs instead of the 5,000 we expected.  come on!  20,000 is still better than 700,000 losses.  At the same time we went from 10.2% unemployment to 9.7%, a drop of half a percent.  Not bad, huh?  well don't expect the media to catch onto that.

The reality is that the economy is poised for a rebound.  The Dow is on solid ground compared to where it was last year, the employment numbers suggest we are on the brink of job growth, and every economist worth their expensive degrees is saying the worst is behind us.  Me prediction:  Unemployment will drop slowly until May/June, when it will fall sharply (if most companies are like my university than that will mark the end of their current hiring freeze, and they will begin to take some chances).  I tentatively suggest that by August we are at 7.5 to 8.0% unemployment.  Guess who is going to get the credit for that?  And don't forget the president's new job plan.

(2) Health care will be yesterday's news.  Assuming the democrats take care of health care immediately, by the time the elections role around people wont be as angry about it.  The Republicans will still try to use it as a weapon, but it wont make a lot of sense since most of it wont take effect until 2011, well after the elections.  So the facts wont support the republican position and lets all remember that the public ha about a 3 month memory when it comes to politics.  Prediction: Health care won't be a big issue on election night 2010.  Exit polls will say that the economy, jobs, and social issues will be the big issues, because that is always what people say, despite the fact that statistics show Republicans often vote against their economic interests.

(3) Incumbent democrats haven't started "running" yet.  Republicans have been running for 2010 since November 5, 2008.  Democrats have been trying to govern.  Just as Reid will pick up points when he kicks his campaign into high gear, so too will other democrats.  Between now and the summer, I would expect some small changes in the numbers with republican leads shrinking but staying solidly outside the margin of error, but starting in June I would be very surprised if those leads don't disappear with at least a few Democrats pulling into the lead.

So here is my over-all predictions:

(1) Democrats will hold both houses

(2) Republicans will pick up 2 seats in the senate (57-43)

(3) Republicans will pick up between 10 and 20 seats on the house (246/236-188/198)

This election is NOT 1994.  Will the republicans win back some seats, yes of course.  The only reason the congress swung so far to the left was because Democrats were VERY motivated in 2008.  That and Obama managed to pull a lot of informed moderates and uninformed fair-weather voters toward the democrats who were seen as the inevitable victors.  The Republicans will pick up seats because the congress will be working it's way back toward a comfortable equilibrium, not because their policies win over any credibility.  How could they?

Common Sense

Sarah Palin: Fire Rahm Emanuel

Let me start by saying I am not at all a fan of Mr. Emanuel.  Most of the time I find him smug, unpleasant, manipulative, and crude.  further, being that he is chief of staff, much of the blame for a lousy first year can be laid at his feet as much as Obama's.  However, I think Palin is, at best, exaggerating the severity of his crime if she thinks he should be fired for calling other Democrats retarded when they were threatening to jump on the anti-health reform band wagon.

The fact that Palin wants him fired for using the word "retarded" isn't what pisses me off about this situation.  What pisses me off is that she is using her child's tragic disorder as a means for grabbing the media spotlight once again AND for furthering her extremist neo-con agenda to bring down the administration.  I think that is reprehensible and she should be ashamed.

Now, lets be clear, what he said deserves a swift and serious response.  I would agree that there is a similar sentiment surrounding the work retarded and the n-word.  both are justifiably offensive and should be avoided in civilized daily conversation.  However, this is an opportunity to smack some sense into Rahm, not fire him.  The movement to fire him is tantamount to more of the same neo-con bullcrap, that they have been throwing at all of Obama's nominees, appointments, etc.  They need to get over it and stop trying to throw everything including the kitchen sink at the guy for screwing up.  Admonish him sure, but Obama isn't the one losing credibility because he throws a temper tantrum every time someone doesn't single-handedly save the economic turmoil left by failed Republican policies or isn't able to keep himself from using bad language.  Not that the neo-cons have much credibility these days among people with any semblance of common sense.  Most of their constituents are so stupid they still think Obama is a racist, socialist foreigner.  Plus, since when do republicans give a damn about vulnerable groups?

But by all means, let's keep feeding the ignorance and pandering to the anger of stupid people.  Way to go GOP, really raising the bar on that one.  Sarah, the guy screwed up.  Admonish him, then get over it and do something constructive with your time instead of using your children for political gain.  perhaps an education campaign would be a better use of your time than destroying out political system.  just a thought.

Common Sense

Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Child Abuse and Family Structure

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is now pointing to a recent government study in an attempt to provide proof that children living in non-traditional households are more likely to be abused than those who live in the nuclear family with both biological parents.  A 10 minute perusal of the document only serves to demonstrate that once again NOM missed the point, and, worse yet, grossly over exaggerated their case.  In their effort to discredit gay parents and tear down these families, this is an excellent example of this countries need for better education in basic math.  Let's examine a couple points.

(1) This study is of primarily heterosexual relationships.  Doesn't it seem somewhat intellectually dishonest not to recognize that gay and lesbian parents are purposefully denied access to a supposedly stabilizing institution (Marriage) and then punished them because they fall into the less stable category?  Of course they do!  If gay people could get married there would be no point to be made here because some would fall into each category, so really, this has nothing to do with homosexuality and shouldn't be used as a referendum on anything other than family structure.  IF ANYTHING, this is proof that gay people should be allowed to marry so their children would have a more stable household (since any kind of married parents are better than single with partner apparently).

(2) The problem is Single parents who live with their partner (what might be considered the only gay relationship category on here), but the problem is that there is another problem to be noted here.  The number of incidents of abuse in these relationships is about 33 per 1,000.  BUT here is a wrinkle, most of those incidents are perpetrated by the BIOLOGICAL parent, and not the partner.  In fact, in EVERY type of relationship 87% of the time it is the biological parent who is the perpetrator of abuse.  So, I guess that means the whole biological aspect of this argument doesn't hold much water.  So that really only leaves the married part.  Further support for gay people getting married!

(3) Now, lets talk about some statistics.  Children living with single parents and their partners are about 8 times more likely to be abused (33.0 incidents as opposed to 4.0 per 1,000).  However, those of you with half a brain already picked up on the HUGE omission in this argument.  33/1000 = 3.3%.  Translation.  Only 3 in every 100 children in these relationships are abused.  In strict statistical terms, this means there is probably a HUGE probability that this correlation isn't very strong and that there might be other factors.

For example, The same study finds that children with unemployed parents are about 2 times more likely to abuse their children, and three times more likely if they are not even in the labor force.  Why isn't this a referendum on unemployed parents?  Children in low SES families are 5 times more likely to be abused.  Why isn't this sparking a war on poor parents?  Children in families with 4+ children are twice as likely to be mistreated than those in families with 2 children.  Why aren't we talking about limited the number of births?  This is just three examples that I could find in 5 minutes.

(4) Finally, if you look at basic statistical scores (Appendixes), it looks pretty clear that half the stuff they are reporting isn't statistically significant by even the more relaxed research standards.  This begs the question, why is this being reported at all when it might not even be significant?  and why aren't people up in arms about this stuff?  (because they don't understand any of what I just said most likely)

Common Sense