Obama and Clinton back Iraq Pullout Deadline
May 18, 2007
Wow.
It takes a lot for most politicians to be explicit about something. Anything. These two are definitely no exception. The strange similarities between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton’s stances on Iraq continue, but they took a turn for the better yesterday. Instead of dancing around the idea of having a firm date for US troop withdrawal like they did in the past, both of them voted yesterday to set a 31 March 2008 for US troops to be out of Iraq. While it is sad that these two candidates are some of the last to have some Iraq sense knocked into them, this is actually a good sign for anti-occupation efforts.
What Congress is Doing
March 20, 2007
Here are a couple examples of alarming things that were happening during the Bush Administration that we did not know or would never have found out about until we had Congressional Oversight:
FBI Abuses of Spying - This should send chilling reminders of COINTELPRO
Attorney General firing judges who pursued corruption investigations against Republicans
Here are a few things that could possibly have been prevented if there had been Congressional Oversight before this year:
Patriot Act
Warrantless wiretapping
Secret monitoring of Bank Accounts
The Democrats are now the Majority Party in the Senate and the House of Representatives, due to the result of the elections this past November. Now that they have been in for a couple of months (they were elected in November 2006 but not officially sworn in until 4 Jan 2007), you are beginning to see some differences in how things are working.
The act of exposing and acting as a check and balance within the government is called oversight (when done by Congress, it is Congressional Oversight). That is something we haven’t seen since 2000. What this means is that there is now one branch that can look over the shoulder of the other two. There is someone there to hit the brakes on crazy or dangerous governmental intentions. There is a way now for people to be able to see what is happening in our government and not be stonewalled in the name of national security or not needing to know.
A concept key to how our government works is called Checks and Balances. This basically means that each branch of government (in the U.S., the branches are: Executive (President), Legislative (Senate & House), Judicial (Supreme Court)) has a way to keep the other branches in check and keep power evenly balanced between the branches. If all three branches of government are operating checking and balancing one another, no one branch should dominate the other two. When this is not case, it can lead to terrible things.
Since 2000 when G. W. Bush took office, we have been experiencing governance without checks and balances. The Republican-led Congress laid down for whatever the Republican President said or demanded. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which installed Bush, also sat by idly. That changed with the 2006 election, and now we have a situation where there is a Republican President and a conservative Supreme Court, but there is a Democratic House and Senate, meaning that we are no longer effectively a one-party system.
This is important to understand because understanding how and why things happen the way they do is key to understanding how to make things happen in ways that we want. I believe that we are only scratching the surface when it comes to all of the shady stuff we may find out about that has been going on over the past 6 years. I am also afraid that it will take longer for the Democrats to undo what it only took the Republicans 6 years to do. Thank God they have started down this long road.
So the next time that you or someone asks, “What’s this Congress doing?” You can say, “Their Job.”
Categories
Politics
Democrats
Republicans
Congress
2007 State of the Union: A Translation
January 24, 2007
Here is my real-time analysis of G. W. Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address. This is a shortcut for anyone that did not watch the speech on TV or listen to it.
First, an omission. He did not say a word about Hurricane Katrina. That made me so upset that I nearly shed tears.
Madame Speaker…
This actually started well. Hearing this reminds me of how historic it is for Rep. Nancy Pelosi to be the Speaker of the House, the most powerful woman ever in the United States Congress. I wonder if Mr. Bush was sincere in his words to her during his opening remarks.
Decisions are hard, and courage is needed…The will to face difficult challenges…Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities…
These guarded statements are said to try and disarm his opposition within the Democratically-controlled Congress. What these statements basically mean is, “I will give lip service to working together, but expect nothing different out of me and my administration.”
3 Economic Reforms that deserve to be priorities…Balance the Federal Budget…We can do so without raising taxes…What we need is spending discipline in Washington…Earmarks…Entitlements…Commitments of Conscience…Fix Medicare and Medicaid, and save Social Security…
This was the first “meat” of the speech. He spit typical conservative banter about “fiscal responsibility,” and it is simply banter because this administration has been arguably the most fiscally irresponsible administrations in history. A key example of this irresponsibility: Iraq. The “we can do so without raising taxes” part is consistent with Bush’s insistence on cutting taxes while we are at “war,” something that has never happened before.
The stuff on “earmarks” is a joke because those will not go away any time soon since Republicans and Democrats use them all the time.
Conservatives use the term “entitlements” to deceive people. They need to do this so that they can make you feel bad about the government doing things for you. They play up this farce so that people feel bad taking things from the government that they select & elect. Funny how there was no mention of corporate entitlements in the form of war profiteering or the Bankruptcy Bill a.k.a. the worst piece of legislation since the Patriot Act (which a certain person voted for, and that really bothers me).
The future of opportunity requires that all of our citizens have affordable and available health care…For all other Americans, private health insurance provides the best option…Standard Health Insurance Tax Deduction…Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care available to all Americans
I don’t even know why this man fronts like he wants all Americans to have health insurance. If so, he would at least put a dent in the 40+ million people who don’t. He and his friends still think it is a bad idea to realize Universal Health Care through what’s called a Single-payer system. Basically, single-payer means that only one party negotiates for the price of health insurance and services: the government. Every citizen would then have their health costs covered through what they pay in taxes. This would result in higher taxes for the citizens, but those increased costs probably would not add up to the amount that people overpay for health services every day, month, and year. The idea of trying to get everyone to go private is as ridiculous as the privatize social security plan that he had a while back (and still has). This is also consistent with the way that the “war” in Iraq has been privatized. These pro-business, anti-citizen types always think private is the answer so that they can take money away from public institutions and services.
Extending hope and opportunity in this country requires an immigration policy that is worthy of America
I won’t say much on this. I think that Bush’s guest worker idea sounds a whole lot like new school indentured servitude. For those that don’t know, this was the precursor to slavery in this country. I do not think that the parallel is coincidental.
Reduce gasoline usage by 20% in the next 10 years…
How??? His mandatory fuel standard statement was weak at best, especially in the midst of his administration and its energy policy.
Global climate change…
He can’t say global warming because that does not exist. So rather than being a flip-flopper (we know how much he hates those), he has decided to use a different term: global climate change. This is his backwards way of admitting that there is a problem. I guess a small first step is better than no step at all. Is the next step for him to watch this?
To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to the enemy…
This was the opening statement to his surprisingly long section on Iraq, Iran, and foreign policy. There was too much B.S. here to sift through. Take a look at some of our analysis to get an idea of the truth. Suffice it to say that this strategy is questionable at best.
Darfur…Fight AIDS on the continent of Africa…Dikembe Mutumbo…
He really mentioned Darfur? That’s a surprise. Too bad he didn’t refer to it as a genocide. Again, I guess a small step is better than no step at all.
It is sad, but the “fighting AIDS in Africa” phrase is being rendered absolutely meaningless. It gets paid so much lip service that people forget that there are actually humans living on the continent of Africa who exist for reasons other than making someone feel good being a philanthropist.
Categories
Politics
Foreign Policy
State of the Union
Taxes
Darfur
So-called “War on Terror”
The Weekly Dream: Decisions, Decisions
October 20, 2006
Question of the Week: What determines how you vote?
I have been involved with The SuperSpade from its inception. And for all the political issues and topics we discuss, for all the awareness my brother Garlin brings everyday, one thing has eluded me: What is my “voting process?” With the upcoming elections, I believe this is extremely relevant.
I am all for civic duty, but when I turned 18, I noticed that voter education in this country was weak. First, most Americans do not understand the structure and intricacy of our governmental system. Don’t believe me? Ask anyone on the street whether America is a democracy or a republice and explain the difference. This is problematic for obvious reasons. If we do not know how the system works, then we do not know who does what.
Secondly, the media throws around a hodge-podge of issues and scandals, but there is not a scale or any mechanism I am aware of in order to evaluate and make sense of it all. To me, politics is like a high school popularity contest. This results in decisions being made based on sensationalist issues like abortion or gay marriage, in the wrong (i.e. presidential) race.
I find business far more interesting than politics, because I know that is who runs America (if you don’t believe me, look at the laws, but that is another debate). Furthermore, I hate being knowingly lied to, so politics is not high on my list. If we want to improve voter turnout, we should empower people with the tools and the process to make good political decisions. That way, voting does not just feel like an fruitless exercise. In addition, we must teach people how to leverage their votes and make the system work for them. Voting is just the starting point for civil involvement. Although Garlin may be better equipped to discuss this more thoroughly, I will share a few of my thoughts as to making better political decisions.
One Man, One Vote
First, understand the basics of our government: separations of powers, the Constitution, etc. You do not need to be an attorney, just know who does what. For instance, a lot of people voted for Bush because of his faith based movement or his stance on abortion. What he believes is fine and dandy, but those issues are not within his sphere of influence. Take abortion or gay marriage. Those are not issues for the federal government, those are state issues (according to the Supreme Court). Another example is how we blame Bush for the state of the country. While he is responsible for a good portion of the mess we are in, the real fault lies with our lame duck Congress. Bush’s job is to execute the mandates of the Congress. Congress approved and re-approved the Patriot Act. Congress has allowed the country to be sharply split among partisan lines. It is much easier for you personally to hold your state representatives accountable than to hold Bush directly accountable. But because in the aggregate, we do not understand the system, we are taken in by rhetoric.
Second, understand what issues are relevant to the particular office. This will tell you why you should care about a particular political race. In business, people are evaluated only on those things within their immediate sphere of control. It should be the same in politics. That way, I can hold my congressman or state legislator or mayor responsible for the relevant issues, things he can and should control.
Third, look at the candidates and yourself and where you stand on the pertinent issues. This will take a little sleuthing, but I suggest that you look at a wide variety of informational sources before forming an opinion. Because the truth is often in the middle.
According To Me
What you begin to realize is that your vote alone gives you one thing: The right to complain. True power in politics is attained either through people or profit. Either you have access and influence with a large audience or you got Microsoft money. Our Founding Father’s did this by design, as they were extremely afraid of ignorant factions and tyranny by the majority. Thus, only individuals with access to the most resources could attain the heights of political power. So, to overcome this inherent obstacle, we must pool our interests and resources together (read: lobby, organize).
Closing
This is how the game seems to me, right or wrong. But I am sure if you follow these instructions, at least you have a skeleton to make your vote more of a conscious decision. And once consciousness comes, accountability cannot help but follow.
Happy Voting.
Truth and Peace,
Steven M DeVougas
Categories:
Politics
The Weekly Dream
The State of Your Union
January 31, 2006
Tonight was the continuation of an American tradition in which the elected executive stands before the whole of the remaining two branches of government and delivers their thoughts and visions on and for the Nation. It is a good opportunity to listen to what the president has to say about America: what do do they care about? What do they want to do? What have they done?
G. W. Bush had a few main points tonight, which included:
1. Isolationism = Defeatism
2. Democracy everywhere is the future
3. Building on existing domestic momentum
That is what he said. Here is what it actually means. We will approach this line-by-line, with parallel translation of rhetoric.
G. W. Started out paying respect to Coretta Scott King, who passed on today. That was a good move, but it was also probably the highlight of the night. “Act in a spirit of goodwill and respect.” “Isolationism leads to danger and defeat.” “We seek the end of tyranny in the world…democracies replace resentment with hope…” Mentioned Zimbabwe among non-democracies “Terrorists chose the weapon of fear” “The US will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil” “Clear plan for victory” in Iraq “Iraq: 3 years to sovereignty…we are winning” “The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home” Responsible Criticism vs. Defeatism “Keep our word…stand behind the American military” “Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law…” America wants to be “the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran” Patriot Act: “same tools used to fight drugs and crime” Spying: “appropriate members of Congress kept informed” “Roosevelt, Kennedy rejected isolation and retreat” “I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent.” The Special-Interest problem can be tackled with the Line-Item Veto “Keeping America competitive requires affordable Health Care…Strengthen Health Spending Accounts…Make coverage portable” “America is addicted to oil…Advanced Energy Initiative…Replace 75% of Middle Eastern oil dependence by 2025″ “American Competitiveness Initiative” Work with Black churches to fight AIDS There you have it.
G. W. Used this in reference to the heated, partisan tone of recent Washington debates (Patriot Act Extension, Alito Confirmation Hearings, Domestic Spying Inquiries). What this really means is “Democrats need to stop making noise. Get down or lay down.” It means that conservatives don’t want any disagreement, regardless of its merit (more on this below).
This is how G. W. Began his foreign policy section. This is a challenge to those of us who feel that domestic matters outweigh foreign affairs. Isolationist is conservative code for “having one’s priorities in logical order.” Is it “danger and defeat” if you care more about someone else’s house than your own family’s well-being? Of course not: it’s stupid.
This was how G. W. Justified his *Offensive Democracy* foreign policy approach. Research has shown that “fighting them there so they don’t fight us here” holds as much water as a spider web. What does tyranny mean? It can be summed up in two words: unchecked leadership. America was designed to protect against such a thing, but with all three branches compromised, that protection has disappeared. As for democracy replacing resentment, is there resentment in American democracy? That’s another spider web full of Kool-Aid.
The African continent made an appearance this year. The last time the Earth’s source was mentioned by G. W. was when he lied about Iraq getting weapons of mass destruction from Niger. I don’t think this mention will stir as much reaction.
This is the first nominee for Line of the Night. BushCo has pedaled fear and propaganda in order to justify their foolish, selfish policies, including [but not limited to] the Patriot Act and the Domestic Spying program and the so-called “War on Terror.”
More code for “isolationism” being bad. See above.
This is the second nominee for Line of the Night. All I can say about this is this: when the “clear plan” is made “clear” by not “clearly” defining success, then is it really that “clear?”
Sovereignty? G. W. Still hasn’t figured out what sovereignty means. What government is sovereign when it is supported, financed, and protected by another government. And “we are winning?” See above for an explanation on why you can’t win when you don’t know what winning means or looks like.
This is a feeble attempt at defining winning. Any idiot knows that when a “war” is “over,” the troops will come home. This is simply an empty, rhetorical, admission of the obvious.
G. W. has touched on this before. Responsible criticism might as well mean total, blind agreement. Anything less is defeatism in the eyes of conservatives.
The “keep our word” part is the same as the “stay the course” B.S. that we’ve been hearing since the election of 2004. It means “I [and my backers] am too damn hard-headed to see my flawed actions and decisions of the past, and I refuse to change my tactics in spite of my mistakes.” It is an unfortunate reality that we meddled in and broke Iraq. Oh well in my opinion. I would much rather see resources expended in the Gulf Coast than the Persian Gulf.
The timing of this statement is matched only by its irony. We are amid scandal and corruption in Washington, yet the President is calling for “the rule of law” in other nations. Apparently Americans can be above the law. Well, Americans WITH MONEY (read: Republicans) can be above the law.
This is laughable considering that we will likely be invading Iran in the near future. Whether they were free or democratic, they would get invaded.
This is how G. W. introduced his case for renewal of the controversial Patriot Act. There is plenty on this blog that makes our opposition to this clear. Black people should fear and reject anything similar to the “tools used to fight drugs and crime” that have led to such grave injustices as racial profiling, disproportionate Black male incarceration, and systematic Black disenfranchisement.
More attempts to justify “Terrorism Surveillance.” What defines “appropriate?” Why wasn’t the “appropriate,” appointed FISA Court informed?
Sprinkle of rhetoric here about why “isolationism” is bad. We’ve already covered why that’s just plain dumb.
This oxymoron is the third nominee for Line of the Night. This means the the legislature should “responsibly” withhold money from important domestic affairs to reward the wealthy. Permanent tax cuts would be as irresponsible as permanent tax increases. Since one cannot predict future occurrences, tax policy should be periodically, organically evaluated.
Never seen a President that didn’t want a Line-Item Veto, so that’s nothing new. The question is, would he really, really do something about lobbyists if he had one? I doubt it.
The first and third phrases sound decent enough to me, given that I want the ultimate in affordable, portable coverage: Universal Health Care. The second phrase is one that I have a problem with. This point, nestled between two decent ideas, is part of G. W.’s Ownership Society message. The problem is that 45 million Americans don’t have Health care and cannot afford it, another would not be able to afford or understand HSAs as proposed. The beauty of Universal Health Care is that is based on a simple notion: you need health care, you get it, period. HSAs are no more than funnels leading to the pockets of HMOs and Insurance companies. Do not be fooled.
This is actually a good idea. Increase research in ethanol and zero-emission coal power is a good thing. However, I can’t imagine BushCo’s oil buddies letting this kind of thing actually result in lower oil consumption.
Again, another good idea in theory. Doubling our commitment to natural sciences, permanent research tax credits, encouraging more math & science in secondary education, all good stuff. I just hope they don’t use No Child Left Behind as the model for implementation.
Black folks came up again at the end. This marks the first time I had ever heard a White Republican cite statistics on AIDS in Black America. While I am happy about that (it is a step in the right direction), I am worried that the Black church path is a flawed one. BushCo has coaxed the Black church into supporting him on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and he may be at it again. I would not trust these guys, as a fear that they are more concerned with gaining votes that saving Black lives.
Please share your thoughts and reactions to the speech and my reactions.
– Sent using Windows Mobile 5.0
GDGII
www.TheSuperSpade.com
Partisan equals Brain Dead
January 24, 2006
The New York Times Psychology section is arguably its most interesting section. They had a great story today about an experiment that measured the mentality of extremely partisan people. I always thought that people who did things based solely on political party alliances were less than intelligent, but now I have some data to back me up.
From the article:
–
Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain’s pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.
–
This, in and of itself, is neither a big deal nor surprising. Whenever we hear or read something we enjoy/agree with, we experience pleasure. Whenever we interact with the opposite, we are unhappy about it. This is all well and good, but these thoughtless reactions have potentially catastrophic implications when in the heads of the violent or the influential. It is important that we elect to public office individuals that will think before they act. It bothers me when I see votes in Congress that fall strictly on party lines (the most recent example being the Senate Judiciary Committee’s recommendation in favor of Samuel Alito. A more infamous example of voting without thinking was the vote to pass the USA Patriot Act in 2001. The problem with this thinking (or lack thereof) is clear: acting blindly will never lead to positive outcomes. We need to have representatives in government that are willing to think critically about all of the issues in front of them, if for no other reason than the fact that they represent the hearts and minds of thousands of thinking people who make up their constituencies. It is our responsibility as voters and civic participants to eliminate such individuals from our government. To find who would be eliminated based on this idea, start by going to Project Vote Smart to review the voting records of the politicians that represent you.
If I was going to vote for someone who would only vote the way that party leaders (or any special interest for that matter) dictate, then there would be no use for representative democracy at all. All decision making in this situation would map to the opinions those who spoke for whatever special interest was hot at the time. That is brain dead. Then again, so is a partisan voter. Don’t be that person.
1984
December 24, 2005
The Oakland Tribune wants people to send them your used “1984″ books. “1984” is a book by George Orwell that essentially predicts that one day there will be no such thing as privacy. Unfortunately, that day may have already come.
I already sent my copy. I would love for every politician to read it. But realistically, can I expect them to read this book when they didn’t even read the Patriot Act before signing it in 2001?
Did You Ever get the Feeling you were Being Watched?
December 24, 2005
Boing Boing has a way to test wheter your email is being watched by the government. I suggest trying this, but you probably already know the answer to the question (1984 anyone)?
Patriot Act: 6 More Months of the same
December 22, 2005
UPDATE: The extension is now 5 weeks.
–
The Senators are still politicians, they can’t help that. They have passed a compromise that will extend the Patriot Act in it’s present form by 6 months, with the idea that when they reconvene in January, they will iron out all the differences that divided them almost to the point of letting the Act expire on 31 Dec 2005.
Personally, I would have liked to seen this ridiculous abomination expired, dead, and gone, never to rise again. But I have high expectations. We will have to continue to watch this closely to make sure that not too much caving goes on during the next 6 months.
More on the Senate’s Rejection of Patriot Act Extension
December 20, 2005
The Senate again held its ground in its rejection of extending the Patriot Act. This is another step in the right direction since their first action. This could lead to a stand-off between the Senate and the White House. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says that if the Patriot Act is suspended for just 1 day, we are vulnerable. Here is a quote from his Washington Post op-ed piece:
“Congress must act now or risk bringing terrorism prevention to a halt.”
I applaud the Senators who stood for Civil Liberties and did not buy in to the rhetoric of fear. We will see if they continue to do so.
