Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue their verbal sparring match this week, begun at last week's CNN-Youtube debate. After Obama pledged to meet with the U.S.'s "enemies" with no set preconditions during his first year in office, Clinton called his statements "naive" and "irresponsible". This goes to show that Hillary Clinton is more of what we do NOT need in Washington. She is by-the-books pure politician, devoid of necessary reforms to the way our government does things.
If we are not at war with Venezuela or Iran, whose leaders Obama would seek to meet with as president, they why are they considered our "enemies". Sure, our nations are ideologically opposed, but does that stop us from talking with them? They are, after all, major players in their respective regions and on the world stage. Would frank conversation not be better than traded threats and insults? Senator Obama is not naive for seeking this route, no. Rather, he is seeking to bring a not-so-new, but apparently forgotten approach to easing foreign relations. After all, did U.S. and Soviet leaders not meet during the Cold War?
Barack Obama's supposed inexperience in the political realm does not hurt his ability to lead as president, but rather helps it. Clinton is firmly entrenched in the political machinery of Washington, while Obama remains the driven newcomer to the stage. He is passionate, charismatic, and intelligent. Even though he is only a first-term Senator and does not have Clinton's experience, he has that instinctive knack for leadership. People will trust and follow him, much more so than with Hillary. She has many decisions to account for, such as voting for the Iraq War and being the largest recepient of health-care lobbyist money. Her public persona is delicately crafted, while his image is upfront and earnest. In short, Clinton is just another old politician, and Obama promises us something new: hope.
Maybe if enough of you take heed of this, the right person for the job will get the nomination.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Representing Kansas or...We Need A Lot of Help
Just the other day, Congress approved their latest annual spending bill, in which they fortunately restore Bush cuts to local law enforcement agencies. These were among the many cuts restored by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, most of which were beneficial. However, they did not go nearly far enough, as the so-called "Tiahrt Amendment" was still attached to the bill. Named for Kansas Republican Todd Tiahrt, it restricts the sharing of gun trace data among law enforcement. Apparently, Republican dogma is more important to Tiahrt than protecting communities and prosecuting criminals. He probably twists it into some kind of restriction on our 2nd Amendment "rights", which he and many others misconstrue greatly.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does NOT give the right to bear arms to citizens as individuals, that is not what it was meant for. The actual text states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is talking about the right of the states to have armed militias, or what we now call the National Guard, or even the United States Army. Back then, a militia was necessary for the young to fight off any would-be invaders, such as Great Britain. Furthermore. the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles defines the phrase "to bear arms" as meaning to serve as a soldier or do military service. The Second Amendment does not give each of us to own guns. Even if it did, Tiahrt is nearly incompetent if he believe sharing trace data from guns used in violent crime would infringe on that right.
Speaking of incompetent Kansas legislators, Senator Brownback, on his foolish quest for the Republican nomination for President, has resorted to the annoying automated phonecalls that so many of us hate. Brownback apparently does not understand that nothing will help him compete with the money and support of a Giuliani, a Romney, or even a Thompson. He is wasting our time and money by fighting a losing battle against these political giants, when he should be in Congress, voting on bills that may actually have some relevance. While I in no way support Brownback and his right-wing agenda, one good thing could be said about the man, and that is that he is big on the Darfur issue. Maybe if he were back in the Senate where he should be, something could be done about it. Give up on the presidency now Sammie, you can't play with the big boys yet.
Kansas needs some new blood in there, representing us. Remember that come next year.
In other campaign news, it would seem that Republican candidates are wary of the CNN-Youtube format that the Democrats were subject to this last week. Could they be afraid of the Youtube generation? The one thing that politicians dance around, Republicans and Democrats alike, is actually answering the questions posed to them. However, while the Democrats successfully did that during their Youtube debate, and managed to get very little said on how they would be different, the Republicans have got a lot more to answer for. Their support for the war and for the use of torture, their views on healthcare and the environment, people are going to be a lot more outspoken and angry with them.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does NOT give the right to bear arms to citizens as individuals, that is not what it was meant for. The actual text states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is talking about the right of the states to have armed militias, or what we now call the National Guard, or even the United States Army. Back then, a militia was necessary for the young to fight off any would-be invaders, such as Great Britain. Furthermore. the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles defines the phrase "to bear arms" as meaning to serve as a soldier or do military service. The Second Amendment does not give each of us to own guns. Even if it did, Tiahrt is nearly incompetent if he believe sharing trace data from guns used in violent crime would infringe on that right.
Speaking of incompetent Kansas legislators, Senator Brownback, on his foolish quest for the Republican nomination for President, has resorted to the annoying automated phonecalls that so many of us hate. Brownback apparently does not understand that nothing will help him compete with the money and support of a Giuliani, a Romney, or even a Thompson. He is wasting our time and money by fighting a losing battle against these political giants, when he should be in Congress, voting on bills that may actually have some relevance. While I in no way support Brownback and his right-wing agenda, one good thing could be said about the man, and that is that he is big on the Darfur issue. Maybe if he were back in the Senate where he should be, something could be done about it. Give up on the presidency now Sammie, you can't play with the big boys yet.
Kansas needs some new blood in there, representing us. Remember that come next year.
In other campaign news, it would seem that Republican candidates are wary of the CNN-Youtube format that the Democrats were subject to this last week. Could they be afraid of the Youtube generation? The one thing that politicians dance around, Republicans and Democrats alike, is actually answering the questions posed to them. However, while the Democrats successfully did that during their Youtube debate, and managed to get very little said on how they would be different, the Republicans have got a lot more to answer for. Their support for the war and for the use of torture, their views on healthcare and the environment, people are going to be a lot more outspoken and angry with them.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Another Subpoena or...Let Us Hope They've Got the Gravitas
Ah, another day, another Congressional subpoena. This time, it's Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove. Not to necessarily namecall, but Rove is sneaky, slimy, and underhanded, and he's got this coming. If he goes the way of other loyal Bushies and ignores the Judiciary Committee, he should recieve the maximum punishment for contempt.
Mr. Rove has been called upon to testify on matters relating to the firings of nine Justice Department attorneys for political reasons. These firings, and the use of the Justice Department as a political tool, are among the many Bush abuses of authority that have been uncovered. While Attorney General Gonzales claims the firings were performance-based, a good majority in Congress believe otherwise. This is not a partisan issue either, as Republican Senator Arlen Specter has been very outspoken against Gonzales. Do Bush and the AG not realize that these attorneys represent nine families to support, or do they just not care? While these issues I'm sure have already been covered, as this saga started a good while ago, it is still very important to remember how and why the Administration is attempting to deceive the public.
I, for one, sincerely hope that Congress has the guts to do whatever is necessary to investigate the deceptions of the Administration, and to do something about it. They cannot be allowed to get away with things that would land others in jail. I want to see Alberto Gonzales behind bars, if not Bolten, Miers, and even Rove. Bush must not be allowed to intervene with the investigations either, because it is the duty and the responsibility of Congress to have oversight powers when the executive branch is acting illegally and against our Constitution. Checks and balances were created for a reason, lets use them.
Alberto Gonzales, what can be said about you that hasn't been said about members of the Nazi Party? The Attorney General is either stupid or naive enough to believe that Congress would not catch his lies and distortions. The things he has said and done during his time in this position are such that the public would rather have seen him out of a job than nine other U.S. attorneys, no matter their "performance". His statement calling the Constitution of the United States of America "quaint" alone would be reason enough to keep him out of government. Also, his plan to circumvent the Geneva Conventions by labeling those captured during our two wars "enemy combatants" is despicable and inhumane.
These sidesteps around our legal system and our human rights leads right into the travesty that is Guantanamo Bay. The prison there should be shut down, with any so-called combatants either placed in prisons within the U.S. if there is actual evidence against them, or if there is not, shipped back to their homes and given whatever we can to apologize. Many held there are guilty of no crime and have done nothing to harm the U.S. or its citizens, yet they are treated as less than human, put through "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) that if administered to any normal criminal here, would bring down a huge public outcry.
One man in Guantanamo, a Sami al-Hajj is guilty of nothing more than being Muslim, Arab, and a cameraman for Arab-language TV news station, al-Jazeera. Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and others within the Bush Administration have characterized al-Jazeera as a propaganda station, championing al-Qaida and demonizing the U.S. This is far from the truth. In fact, al-Jazeera is even less of a propaganda station than U.S. networks, especially Fox News. And lets face it, its hard to make the U.S. look good in a region where they are invading, bombing, and killing tens of thousands of civilians.
Anyways, back to the prisoners at Camp X-Ray, they should be afforded every protection in the Bill of Rights. Now I know some of you are going to say that they aren't citizens, and that they're the enemy, blah blah blah. The legal rights as defined in our Amendments do not extend only to citizens, but to all those under the authority of our justice system. That means those prisoners, even being foreign nationals have rights to habeas corpus, and to a fair and speedy trial. If we're so great and so morally strong, we can't just ignore the founding documents of our country. Otherwise, "the terrorists" have won.
Mr. Rove has been called upon to testify on matters relating to the firings of nine Justice Department attorneys for political reasons. These firings, and the use of the Justice Department as a political tool, are among the many Bush abuses of authority that have been uncovered. While Attorney General Gonzales claims the firings were performance-based, a good majority in Congress believe otherwise. This is not a partisan issue either, as Republican Senator Arlen Specter has been very outspoken against Gonzales. Do Bush and the AG not realize that these attorneys represent nine families to support, or do they just not care? While these issues I'm sure have already been covered, as this saga started a good while ago, it is still very important to remember how and why the Administration is attempting to deceive the public.
I, for one, sincerely hope that Congress has the guts to do whatever is necessary to investigate the deceptions of the Administration, and to do something about it. They cannot be allowed to get away with things that would land others in jail. I want to see Alberto Gonzales behind bars, if not Bolten, Miers, and even Rove. Bush must not be allowed to intervene with the investigations either, because it is the duty and the responsibility of Congress to have oversight powers when the executive branch is acting illegally and against our Constitution. Checks and balances were created for a reason, lets use them.
Alberto Gonzales, what can be said about you that hasn't been said about members of the Nazi Party? The Attorney General is either stupid or naive enough to believe that Congress would not catch his lies and distortions. The things he has said and done during his time in this position are such that the public would rather have seen him out of a job than nine other U.S. attorneys, no matter their "performance". His statement calling the Constitution of the United States of America "quaint" alone would be reason enough to keep him out of government. Also, his plan to circumvent the Geneva Conventions by labeling those captured during our two wars "enemy combatants" is despicable and inhumane.
These sidesteps around our legal system and our human rights leads right into the travesty that is Guantanamo Bay. The prison there should be shut down, with any so-called combatants either placed in prisons within the U.S. if there is actual evidence against them, or if there is not, shipped back to their homes and given whatever we can to apologize. Many held there are guilty of no crime and have done nothing to harm the U.S. or its citizens, yet they are treated as less than human, put through "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) that if administered to any normal criminal here, would bring down a huge public outcry.
One man in Guantanamo, a Sami al-Hajj is guilty of nothing more than being Muslim, Arab, and a cameraman for Arab-language TV news station, al-Jazeera. Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and others within the Bush Administration have characterized al-Jazeera as a propaganda station, championing al-Qaida and demonizing the U.S. This is far from the truth. In fact, al-Jazeera is even less of a propaganda station than U.S. networks, especially Fox News. And lets face it, its hard to make the U.S. look good in a region where they are invading, bombing, and killing tens of thousands of civilians.
Anyways, back to the prisoners at Camp X-Ray, they should be afforded every protection in the Bill of Rights. Now I know some of you are going to say that they aren't citizens, and that they're the enemy, blah blah blah. The legal rights as defined in our Amendments do not extend only to citizens, but to all those under the authority of our justice system. That means those prisoners, even being foreign nationals have rights to habeas corpus, and to a fair and speedy trial. If we're so great and so morally strong, we can't just ignore the founding documents of our country. Otherwise, "the terrorists" have won.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
First Day or...Bad Place to Start
Well, what a day to enter the world of blogging. There's a lot of things happening in this crazy, mixed-up world of ours. Hoping to help sort them out, and to find some creative outlet for myself, I have start this blog. I can't make any promise on how often I'll update, or even presume that it will be quality material. Doing my best, thats all I can do.
As you can tell from the title, I'm coming to you direct from the Mighty Midwest, Kansas to be exact. Yes, I am in a place where the average person still believes that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9-11 attacks, and are proud to count themselves among the 30% still supporting our President.
Speaking of Bush and Iraq, the Commander-in-Chief attempt to rally the faithful around the war by trying to explain to us that al-Qaida and al-Qaida in Iraq are intimately connected, and that we should be in Iraq to fight those terrorists. Either he really is that ignorant or it is an attempt to decieve the American public. Really, either option there is a scary one. What President Bush said is a dramatic falsehood. Not only are the al-Qaida's two seperate organizations with two seperate command structures and resources, but al-Qaida in Iraq is, in reality, an incredibly small faction in the war-torn country. The statistics show that among the over 19,000 "insurgents" that U.S. troops have captured, only about 160 of those were members of al-Qaida in Iraq. The group's operational strength is estimated to be at about 1,200 foreign nationals, Arabs who were angry that America, under the Bush Administration and its various influences, would be presumptous enough to attempt to push its imperialist foreign agenda on one of their sister nations. That is opposed to the millions of Iraqi nationals, citizens of a sovereign nation, who want a violent, murdering invader out.
Now sure, much of the violence is factional, with various groups striving for political power. But those fighters that simply want the U.S. out of their affairs can't be blamed, can they? It would truly be better for all of us if the United States withdrew its troops from Iraq in a timely and mannered fashion. There are things we need to do before we leave, but nothing that is not managable. We are not going to do any "nation-building" in a country that doesn't want us even in their region of the world.
Whew. That was a tiring little rant. Sorry if I seem long-winded. There is actually some good news today...well, maybe. Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, the members of the Bush Administration that refused to answer subpoenas from Congress are close to being held in contempt. The House Judiciary committee approved the motion, and it will go to a vote in among the whole House. The possible sentence for this crime is one year in prison and a $1000 fine. If you or I refused to answer a subpoena, you know we'd be doing time, so why should a member of the Administration be any different? Aren't they supposed to uphold our laws? Now, as with Libby, Bush would be likely to commute their sentences or pardon them, but if worse comes to worse, Congress should absolutely bring down the big I: impeachment. Too long have Bush and his ilk flaunted the Constitution and our laws. They should have to answer to them, just like any other citizen. The illegal actions of the Administration are numerous, and they should be held accountable.
I know you Bush-supporters would argue that other presidents have done the same, Democrat or Republican, but should past wrongs prevent us from punishing illegal actions now? Where would we be without our ideals of justice and responsibility? We cannot allow the Administration to get away with circumventing the very foundations of our government, just as much as you wouldn't let a murderer go free because someone in the past got away with it.
I must now bid you all a fond farewell. Good luck out there, and may we speak again soon.
As you can tell from the title, I'm coming to you direct from the Mighty Midwest, Kansas to be exact. Yes, I am in a place where the average person still believes that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9-11 attacks, and are proud to count themselves among the 30% still supporting our President.
Speaking of Bush and Iraq, the Commander-in-Chief attempt to rally the faithful around the war by trying to explain to us that al-Qaida and al-Qaida in Iraq are intimately connected, and that we should be in Iraq to fight those terrorists. Either he really is that ignorant or it is an attempt to decieve the American public. Really, either option there is a scary one. What President Bush said is a dramatic falsehood. Not only are the al-Qaida's two seperate organizations with two seperate command structures and resources, but al-Qaida in Iraq is, in reality, an incredibly small faction in the war-torn country. The statistics show that among the over 19,000 "insurgents" that U.S. troops have captured, only about 160 of those were members of al-Qaida in Iraq. The group's operational strength is estimated to be at about 1,200 foreign nationals, Arabs who were angry that America, under the Bush Administration and its various influences, would be presumptous enough to attempt to push its imperialist foreign agenda on one of their sister nations. That is opposed to the millions of Iraqi nationals, citizens of a sovereign nation, who want a violent, murdering invader out.
Now sure, much of the violence is factional, with various groups striving for political power. But those fighters that simply want the U.S. out of their affairs can't be blamed, can they? It would truly be better for all of us if the United States withdrew its troops from Iraq in a timely and mannered fashion. There are things we need to do before we leave, but nothing that is not managable. We are not going to do any "nation-building" in a country that doesn't want us even in their region of the world.
Whew. That was a tiring little rant. Sorry if I seem long-winded. There is actually some good news today...well, maybe. Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, the members of the Bush Administration that refused to answer subpoenas from Congress are close to being held in contempt. The House Judiciary committee approved the motion, and it will go to a vote in among the whole House. The possible sentence for this crime is one year in prison and a $1000 fine. If you or I refused to answer a subpoena, you know we'd be doing time, so why should a member of the Administration be any different? Aren't they supposed to uphold our laws? Now, as with Libby, Bush would be likely to commute their sentences or pardon them, but if worse comes to worse, Congress should absolutely bring down the big I: impeachment. Too long have Bush and his ilk flaunted the Constitution and our laws. They should have to answer to them, just like any other citizen. The illegal actions of the Administration are numerous, and they should be held accountable.
I know you Bush-supporters would argue that other presidents have done the same, Democrat or Republican, but should past wrongs prevent us from punishing illegal actions now? Where would we be without our ideals of justice and responsibility? We cannot allow the Administration to get away with circumventing the very foundations of our government, just as much as you wouldn't let a murderer go free because someone in the past got away with it.
I must now bid you all a fond farewell. Good luck out there, and may we speak again soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
