About me: I am a proud member of the LGBT community. My partner’s name is Frank, and we’ve been together since 1993. I have a passion for researching demographic and population trends, especially how those trends affect the political scene. I am a rock-solid Democrat with strong liberal political views. If you’re Rush Limbaugh, you may not want to read my comments, lest your blood will probably be boiling when you’re done. While my schedule can sometimes be a little hectic, I will try to post some comments at least once a week.
August 9, 2009
Vacation
I apologize for the long break in between postings, but I have been out of town on vacation and have recently returned. And now, here is my posting on the issue that has been on the minds of many Americans and the hot issue, this hot summer:
Healthcare Debate
I’m going to go ahead and come right to the point, first thing: Healthcare needs to be fixed. It does not need to be ignored. President Obama has proposed a solution to the many problems of our healthcare system. But the right-wingers have already started their brainwashing campaign with full force.
Polls are showing support for the President’s healthcare plan declining. So it looks like the greedy players in the healthcare industry are making headway. This reminds me of the 1990’s when then First Lady Hillary Clinton proposed a fix to our healthcare system. But her plan threatened the likes of insurance companies and drug manufacturers who have been profiting heavily from people like us, and they began a well-funded campaign to try to distort the truth about her plan. The campaign worked, the American people turned against Ms. Clinton’s healthcare plan, and it was shot down.
Here we are, once again, with the conservative political machine in overdrive. I have received email after email in my inbox bashing President Obama’s plan. They will not rest until the gullible American people are turned against it. But we need something done about healthcare in America now, not later. We spend more money on healthcare than any other country, but our quality of care is below that of many other industrialized nations. Over 40 million Americans have no health insurance coverage. And many Americans can’t afford the medications they need because of outrageously high drug prices. And even worse, the number of people who file for bankruptcy because of the high medical bills associated with a major illness or medical procedure continues to rise.
I must confess that Obama’s plan is not the exact plan I would like to see being put into place because it does not go far enough. It is, at least, a step in the right direction. But what really needs to happen is for profit to be taken out of the equation in the healthcare industry. This means that pharmaceutical and insurance companies need to be eliminated. The drug makers know they have us where they want us. They make the products that will either save our lives or make us feel better, and they can charge whatever they want for them. We have no choice but to pay their price or be sick or die.
As for insurance companies, what we have is an organization whose function is to charge as much as they can (in the form of premiums) but then find whatever loophole they can find not to provide their service (“Sorry, but that’s not covered.”). I can’t think of any other business that’s like this. Can you imagine going to the UPS store and paying to have a package delivered, and then after they have your money they tell you they don’t have to deliver your package because it weighs an odd number of pounds and it’s Wednesday?
The only way we can win the war on high medical costs is to take the profiteers out of the game and replace them with an organization that is not for profit: the government. And here come the “boos” from those who have heard such horrible things about Canada’s system. Of course you’ve heard bad things about Canada’s system (e.g.-long waits for medical procedures, etc.) because that’s what the insurance and pharmaceutical companies and other profiteers want you to hear. The truth is, Canadians are happy with their system, and those infamous long waits are rare. Canadians can go to the doctor (whichever doctor they choose), pick up their medications and have medical procedures done without paying a cent. It’s all government-funded.
We need a system where our health is in the hands of people who want us to be well, not people who want us to stay sick so we can keep giving them more our hard-earned money. And while Obama’s plan does not take this necessary step, I am still supporting it because it at least takes a step in the right direction.
July 25, 2009
Comparing Democrats and Republicans
I have oftentimes gotten into disagreements with people when comparing Democrats and republicans. I’ve had a lot of people tell me that there is no difference between the two. But I beg to differ.
While there are some conservative Democrats from Southern and Midwestern states, for the most part Democrats believe that ALL Americans should have the same rights. That means that gays, lesbians, straight people, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists are all seen as equals under the law, when it comes to opportunities in the workplace and in the extension of Constitutional rights.
On the other hand, republicans, for the most part, feel that the bible should replace our Constitution. Instead of having the freedom of religion, we should all follow the principles of the Christian faith. That means gays and lesbians being treated as second class citizens because we simply want to be who we are. It means discrimination against Jew, Muslims and people who practice other faiths by having only Christian holidays (such as Christmas and Easter) being recognized on the government’s and other employers’ calendars. And it means forcing religion down atheists’ throats.
Being a Democrat means caring about other people besides yourself. Democrats want economic policies that help people who truly need help. Democrats believe in tax policies that impose a higher level of taxation on the wealthy (i.e.-the people who can afford it) and ease the tax burden on the middle class and the poor (i.e.-the people who need their money for things like food and shelter). They also want to provide help to people who have lost their jobs, are disabled, have no medical insurance or have two or more part-time jobs and are still struggling to make ends meet.
The republicans, however, want to help those who are already doing well for themselves. They want to extend tax breaks to the very wealthy and make the poor have to dip into their grocery funds and pay the bulk of the taxes. They don’t like programs that help the unemployed, disabled, uninsured and working poor (people who need help the most). It’s like a bus driver assisting a twenty-five year old, healthy, young man descend the steps as he exits the bus, and then watching a frail, tottering, elderly lady nearly fall down the steps without even offering to lend a hand. That’s what it means to be a republican.
Also, Democrats believe in scientific research and energy technology that will move us forward and prepare us for the future. The republicans prefer to take us backwards, continuing to utilize old technologies and keeping with old ideas and principles. And I’ve noticed something interesting the last time I was driving my car. It’s kind of ironic that you put the gear next to the letter “R” to make the car go backwards, and you put it next to the letter “D” to make it go forward. I thought, “Wow! That is the perfect comparison to our two political parties in America.”
July 14, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor’s Confirmation Hearings This Week
President Obama’s pick for Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, is before the Senate Judiciary Committee, this week. If she survives this round of questioning, the full Senate will then vote on whether or not to appoint her to the U.S. Supreme Court. If confirmed, she will become the first Latina to serve on the nation’s highest court.
She is already being criticized about a comment she made in a speech at the University of California, Berkeley, Law School, in 2001. She said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” But she defended that statement during the hearings on July 14 by saying, “I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system. I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have.”
She explained that her words were misunderstood. “I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without a doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging,” she said. “I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience.” (See the article on CBSnews.com)
These proceedings should be very interesting because Sotomayor is, of course, more liberal than republicans would like in a Supreme Court nominee. However, if they grill her too hard, they will appear racist to Latino voters, the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S. population. And with the Democrats having a 60-member majority in the Senate, I would say that Sotomayor should coast easily to confirmation (unless she trips up badly during the hearings).
July 5, 2009
Sarah Palin Resigns as Alaska’s Governor
In case you were partying too hard to catch any news over the 4th of July weekend, Alaska Governor, and 2008 republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, announced on Friday, July 3, that she will be resigning, effective July 25. The Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell, will then take over as the state’s top executive. Had she not resigned, Palin would have completed her first term as Governor at the end of 2010.
Many political pundits have speculated as to why she has decided to resign. In her statement to the press, she said she did not plan to run for re-election as Governor in 2010, which she pointed out would put her in a “lame duck” status. “I thought about how much fun other governors have as lame ducks,” she said. “They maybe travel around their state, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas international trade missions. I’m not going to put Alaskans through that”
She also mentioned how her children “voted” in favor of this decision, with “four yeses and one ‘Hell, yeah!’”
So why did she make this decision? Is she leaving politics altogether? Or is she running for president in 2012? Her unsuccessful run for Vice President in 2008 brought forth a lot of criticism and jokes about her and her family. She very well could be doing this to take her family out of the limelight so they can have a somewhat more normal life. If this is the case, while I strongly opposed her and her far right political views during campaign 2008, I would certainly commend her for putting her family first.
However, there are those who believe that her motivation is a major political scandal that has not yet come to light, and she is leaving office to avoid being disgraced before a national audience. As a matter of fact, her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, is threatening legal action against bloggers and news organizations if they publish “defamatory” material against Ms. Palin. He specifically mentioned Shannyn Moore, a liberal Alaska blogger, for “claiming as ‘fact’ that Governor Palin resigned because she is ‘under federal investigation’ for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing.” (See the article from CBS News.)
If her resignation is to free up her schedule to prepare for a presidential run in 2012, many political analysts believe that voters may view her as a “quitter” for not completing her full term. But others point out the challenge she would face running the state of Alaska and also campaigning in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, which would require quite a bit of travelling back and forth. Her schedule would now be freed up to campaign, go to republican party dinners and fundraisers, and become educated about the issues.
But my first question is, “Why does she need to become educated about the issues?” The presidency is not an exam where one has to cram for it just before taking it. A good candidate for President of the United States already knows about the issues through his or her experiences in politics and life. That is one of the key reasons Ms. Palin was not a good candidate for Vice President, in 2008.
And then there is the “Troopergate” scandal. Just months prior to her vice-presidential run, Ms. Palin had forced the resignation of Alaska’s Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, due to “performance-related issues.” Monegan alleged that it was actually because he would not fire a state trooper named Mike Wooten, who was also Ms. Palin’s ex-brother-in-law and had been in a bitter divorce and custody battle with her sister. During campaign 2008, some of Palin’s former allies described her as “vindictive.” This is not the type of personality we need in a president.
And during her resignation speech on Friday, she said she was quoting Gen Douglas MacArthur when she said, “We’re not retreating; we are advancing in another direction.” But it was actually Maj. Gen. Oliver Prince Smith who said it. This further reflects her incompetence. If she does run for president in 2012 and wins the republican nomination, that would be the biggest gift her party could give to us Democrats. We would probably see the end of the republican party.
June 30, 2009
President Obama Meets with Gays and Lesbians
The New York Times has an article about a meeting that President Obama had with members of the LGBT community. After seeing this article, I am a little more hopeful that the President will work with us. But he still needs to deliver on some of our issues within the next year before I lose faith in him.
Norm Coleman Concedes to Al Franken
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of Senator-elect Al Franken. And Norm Coleman has decided to do the right thing by conceding instead of dragging this whole mess even longer (there had been talk that he might take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court). But this has gone on long enough, and I can’t imagine that Coleman could ever have expected to win his legal challenges. The republicans are crazy if they expect us to believe that they truly felt they had a shot at this one. We know they were simply stalling to keep the Democrats from having that magic number of sixty in the Senate. But now Franken can take his rightful seat. Here is an article from CBS News about Coleman’s concession.
June 28, 2009
Unrest in Iran
Things are starting to get really scary in Iran, now. The Iranians have reported that they have arrested eight British Embassy employees for their alleged role in the post-election protests. This will probably become President Barack Obama’s biggest foreign policy challenge, as the Iranian government is blaming the U.S., Britain and other western countries for fueling the protests.
In case some of you have not been following this story and unaware of what is going on over there, here it is. A couple weeks back, presidential elections were held in Iran. The current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been a major problem for the west in his pursuit of a nuclear weapons program and sent shock waves around the world when he said that Israel should be “blown off the map.” His opponent, Hossein Mousavi, is popular with younger Iranians and the well-educated with his platform of reform and political and social freedoms.
The official results gave Ahmadinejad a landslide victory, but there were many accusations that the election was fixed. One issue is how quickly votes were being reported. Usually, with their paper ballot system, results trickle in hours after the polls have closed. But this time, there were huge block of votes being reported immediately upon poll-closing. Then there were some precincts reporting more votes than there were people living there.
Mousavi’s supporters have been demonstrating, calling for a new election, but now the Iranian government is cracking down on the protesters. Many of them are being detained, and some have been killed. President Obama had, at first, been cautious in his response to the Iranian government (after all, he had been talking about reaching out to Ahmadinejad, with hopes of talking some sense into him). But now I’m sure he realizes the seriousness of the situation there.
And with the big news story now being the death of Michael Jackson, the world isn’t watching Iran as closely, and their government has stepped up its crackdown on the demonstrators. There are reports of torture, and one cleric has called for the executions of some of them. And now the arrest of British Embassy staff members is leading me to ask, “What’s next?” Will Americans be detained next? This could end up being Obama’s hostage crisis.
If george w. bush were still in the White House, the United States would probably not be at risk. I’m sure bush and Ahmadinejad would become friends, as they now have something in common. They could just sit back over a bottle of whiskey and compare notes on how they stole their respective elections.
June 16, 2009
More on Barack Obama and LGBT Issues
Well, he’s done it again. President Barack Obama is giving us more reason to doubt that he will deliver on his promises to the LGBT community. During his campaign, Obama said he would work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act if he were elected president. He was elected president, but he is now defending the act in federal court.
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, and it provides for non-recognition of same-sex marriages by the federal government, and it extends to the states the right not to recognize such unions performed in other states. DOMA is now being challenged in court as unconstitutional (which it most definitely is). But the Obama administration is defending the act, saying that they are required to do so, as long as the law is on the books.
But President Obama is also required to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The underlying foundation for DOMA at the federal and state levels, as well as the various constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions in many states, is religious belief. By preventing us (gays and lesbians) from legally marrying the person we love, we are being forced to comply with the principles of other people’s religions. Therefore, DOMA and all of the various states’ constitutional amendments are in conflict with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and, of course, unconstitutional.
President Obama needs to uphold his principles of non-discrimination that he talked about during his campaign and stop defending DOMA. The political website PolitiFact.com considers this a “Stalled” promise (you can read more about it at www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises). But this has now hurt my rating of President Obama’s performance. At the point of his 100th day in office, I gave him a 9.9 on a scale of 1 to 10 (but this is partially because I was comparing him to his predecessor). But now, as I examine his performance as stand-alone, without any comparison to george w. bush, and considering his broken and stalled promises, I have lowered that rating significantly to a 6.0. Below, you will find the White House memo where Barack Obama proclaims June 2009 LGBT Month. The question is “Does he mean what he says in the memo, or is he just giving us a load of crap?” We’ll see in coming months.
