Young Politics

Americans and Taxes

2011-09-20T20:20:00.000-04:00

So Obama finally released his jobs plan. Here are the basics. Lots of tax cuts, mostly for small businesses, and a good amount of spending on things like schools and infrastructure. Sure to be gripe-inducing on both sides, but ultimately it looks like a winner. That said, all that matters in this bill is the part at the end indicating it will be fully paid for by whatever fiscal plan results from the debt reduction super committee's meetings and hearings, which Obama says must include revenue increases, which Republicans say they will oppose at any cost. And the American Jobs Act becomes yet another footnote to an issue as old as America itself: taxation.

I know you don't want a history lesson, so suffice it to say our founding fathers were against the idea of taxation without representation. Not taxation of any kind. Sure, some had views from the fringes of the spectrum. Some of whom would probably fit in today. (I'm picturing Joe "You Lie!" Wilson in a powdered wig.) And most saw taxes as strictly a state, not federal, issue. But, as a whole, the framers viewed the ability of a country to determine and carry out its own system of taxation as a noble and necessary component of independence.

Times have certainly changed. Our founding fathers would probably have a hard time recognizing things like the federal income tax or the power of the Federal Reserve. They also probably wouldn't be familiar with the concept of off-shore accounts or the clout held by modern corporations. But this is the world in which we live and with which we must deal. America's tax policy should reflect these modern realities in order to provide the most effective, efficient, and equitable system of taxation for our citizens and corporations. We need to look forward, not back, in order to make America economically stronger.

As much as I disagree with the Tea Party's message of revisionist history, I also find myself at odds with Obama's partisan tactic of frequently singling out millionaires and private-jet owners. He is above this. While he should try to fire up the base and appear tough, he should also avoid appearing divisive. This approach will offend and alienate those whose contributions our nation's coffers sorely need. However, he is right- the tax code needs to be reformed in part so that more of the wealthiest citizens and corporations in this country truly pay their fair share. Those with the ability to help have the responsibility to help. There is nothing un-American about that. And if certain citizens or corporations try to resist paying their fair share, they should be called out for it. But it should be from a position of civic duty and not as a dictate from the masses.

The tax code is one part of this economic mess that both parties may have some level of agreement on. It is far too complex, indefensibly bogged down with redundancies and unnecessary loopholes. Members of both parties recognize this important fact and it seems like a rare opportunity for compromise, and on the economy no less. This is what Obama should be focusing on. His bill is a step in the right direction, but he needs to actually sink his teeth into something long-term and systemic in order to take down our long term debt and revenue problems.

If Obama truly wants to reach the pantheon of great presidents, he will find a way to bridge the gap between the super-rich and influential and the rest of the country instead of widening it. The help of every American is needed right now. A significant and symbolic way for the president to get this message across is to push for lasting reform of the tax code.

Read my lips: No new (posts about) taxes.

The Democratic Dilemma

2011-08-24T19:45:00.003-04:00

As much as I try to defend President Obama, I would be lying if I said I didn't expect more from him. Not so much in terms of results, but in terms of his approach to the presidency. The DC status quo seems to have lumbered on and Obama either can't or won't seriously confront it. The worse things get, the safer he plays it. This is a common and destructive (both for the country and the party) theme among Democrats when they are in control of things.

The Democratic party is heterogeneous and diverse. This is great, but it also causes problems. Democrats in office today represent a scattered cacophony of voices and as such require a strong (and popular) executive presence in their corner, filtering all the different voices into a singular message. This is necessary, politically speaking, when Democrats are in power. It also helps keep the country stable, if not strong. President Obama is not filling this role as well as he could.

Obama came into office swinging. First, he pushed for and got the stimulus package (which, while huge, history will record should have been much larger, at least large enough to be effective for more than one year and produce sustainable, job-creating results). Then came health care. While he did try to garner bipartisan support at first, once it became clear that wasn't happening he rammed it through, for better or worse.

But then came the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans cleaned house because they had a consistent, resonating message (as they usually do) and Democrats, backs to the wall, fled in different directions (as they usually do.) Since then, Obama has found it necessary to either compromise or capitulate on numerous domestic and economic issues, depending on how you look at it. Instead of standing up to the Tea Party bullies formed by his election and first two years in office, he is appearing to cave to their demands. (He may not think he's caved, and who knows what really happens behind closed doors, but I think it's safe to say this is the public perception.)

I can't solely blame Obama, though. He probably had scores of advisers telling him after the midterms that the only path to reelection was to appease the other side, or "a shift to the center." They were wrong.

In times of crisis Americans want their president to be firm and decisive, not unsure and quick to compromise. Moderate voters (the ones that matter) are more likely to overlook your questionable political views if you come off as a decisive leader than they are to overlook your indecisiveness (perceived as weakness) even if you agree with them ideologically. In short, what America seems to want right now is a commander-in-chief, not a negotiator-in-chief.

When Obama needed to be strong, clear and decisive (Bush tax cuts, debt ceiling, financial reform, etc.) he ceded ground to the other side and got nothing in return. This severely hurt his image, especially with moderates and those of us who agree with his agenda. The public perception of the president's leadership and handling of the economy will be the only thing that matters in 2012. Obama's attempt to pacify the Right has only emboldened it and now he risks losing the credibility of authority heading into an election year. This, coupled with a still-struggling economy, could prove fatal for his reelection chances.

Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook. Obama needs to speak from the heart, defend his policies, explain himself and his decisions more clearly and reconnect with everyday Americans. The GOP is quite adept at churning out candidates who meet this description (See: Rick Perry.) Americans need to know that the president is in control and he is looking out for us. Obama has it in him to deliver this message before November 2012, but he needs to avoid the classic Democratic pitfalls of the past and stop doing what his handlers tell him is safe.

Style vs. Substance

2011-07-12T19:17:00.002-04:00

I've been sensing a disturbing trend in American politics today, one that I am not the first to notice or discuss. That trend is the rapid disappearance of bipartisanship, cooperation and rationality in our political system. I know, I've said this before. And I'm aware that the same slimy tactics being used today- smear campaigns, harsh rhetoric, stubborn grandstanding, claims of illegitimacy- have been used for centuries. But they seem, at least in the modern era, to have become so much the norm that they have replaced common sense and now threaten the long-term stability of our country.

Maybe it's our 24-hour news cycle that requires every story be a huge one or the economic mess bringing all the freaks out. Maybe it's a changing political climate that rewards sound bites and craziness or conservative fervor colliding with a left-leaning president. No matter how you slice it, the American political environment has seen better days.

The fact that a routine increase in our nation's debt ceiling has become a controversial, explosive issue with undertones of global economic collapse should be evidence enough that things aren't working right in Washington. This is a motion that usually carries with little debate, and literally could not be further from the top of the list of America's immediate priorities. Opposing it vehemently, or requring it be tied to spending cuts, is dangerous and nothing more than a symbolic gesture to voters who don't follow the boring minutia of Washington business- which, up until this year, included raising the debt ceiling. But that's what it takes to make it in American politics these days. All style and no substance.

For all their dysfunction and communicative maladies, Democrats are coming off as much more reasonable and willing to compromise than Republicans these days. (Remember- it was only AFTER Republicans refused any and all tax increases that Democrats began to get stubborn with Medicare and Social Security.) Democrats "caved" on extending the Bush tax cuts, the 2012 budget and now it looks like the debt ceiling. But they don't really have a choice when dealing with hostage-takers.

I have to agree with President Obama- right now the only thing holding back any sort of agreement on raising the debt ceiling, let alone a medium-to-long-term budget deal, is obstructionist Republican posturing.

I guess that's what happens when over 200 members of your incoming congressional delegation ink short-sighted pledges opposing tax increases of ANY kind. (Can't wait to see what this country looks like after ten years of nothing but spending cuts!!) Or when your House Speaker and Majority Leader are basically the heads of two waring factions of your party, one having to constantly appease the other. Or when the stated goal of your party during one of the worst economic collapses in American history isn't creating jobs or stimulating growth but ensuring the defeat of the current president next year by any means necessary. This is not the kind of environment in which nation-saving decisions should or will be made.

There has always been fierce rhetoric in American politics and I suspect there always will be. But there must be reason behind the rhetoric, substance behind the style. Today's Washington is the most partisan and divided in recent memory (albeit mine is not very long), and although both sides fan the flames, one side clearly seems to actively support and benefit from the current climate more than the other. This new crop of Republicans does not view politics as a series of negotiations on behalf of the diverse interests of the American people for the good of the country. They see it as a battle, a struggle between good and evil in which lines must be drawn, principle always comes before prudence and compromise is a sign of weakness. Just what we need.

It's not yet clear whether this obstructionist effort is a party-wide calculation to set the stage for 2012 or the work of purist Republican elements beyond the control of party leadership. But one thing is clear- the current environment must not become the status quo of American politics. We already spend far too much time focusing on trivial issues (see: The Current State Of American Media.) Our elected officials should know better. Unfortunately, until common sense returns to Washington and party leadership finds a way to keep its fringes from driving the conversation, it looks like we're in for the long haul.

Ramblings On The Middle East

2011-07-01T11:09:00.000-04:00

Told you. I am deeply conflicted about what is currently happening in the Middle East. From Tunisia to across the region and (hopefully) Libya, authoritarian regimes are dropping like flies under the weight of an irrepressible public rage decades in the making. But what is taking their place? In some countries, like Tunisia, it appears as if democracy might actually take hold. But in others, the future is not so clear. Egypt has been rife with continued demonstrations, attacks on women and Coptic Christians and police-on-civilian violence ever since President Mubarak stepped down in February. If elections ever do take place, something tells me the Egyptian military isn't going to happily hand over power to the country's new crop of elected leaders. I hope I'm wrong.

I am certainly overjoyed to see people across the world standing up for their basic rights and freedoms. To be reminded that the arc of history truly does bend toward justice, as Martin Luther King said. But the efforts to gain these rights and freedoms will be wasted if they fail to extend to each and every member of these newborn nations. To replace a dictatorship with a government that does not view all citizens as equals in the eyes of the law, or one that is based on an explicit reading of religious text, or one that allows military control of civilian or political matters, is not true freedom. The people of Egypt and other nations throwing off the shackles of oppression must be ready to accept the good, bad and ugly parts of democracy as the foundation of their new country or its construction is destined to be a shaky one.

It is impossible to think about the implications of the change sweeping across the Middle East without discussing Israel. I understand Israel's hesitation to welcome these movements in Arab countries with open arms, but they should be open to communication and not resort to isolation. To assume that each new government that arises will be hostile to Israel is presumptive, but then again so is assuming they will all be friendly. All that is certain is that times and relationships are changing. Israel must exercise patience and practicality going forward in order to ensure its safety and prosperity. Needless to say, going to Washington, snubbing the President and blasting his plan for reconciliation in front of Congress is not a good start.

I support the state of Israel and the Jewish people's right to live on their historical, ancestral homeland. But I also support the Palestinians' right to live on their historical, ancestral homeland. And in the cases where these two overlap, a realistic, reasonable 21st century compromise must be brokered. Both sides have their flaws- Israel is stubbornly holding on to and building on land it seized when attacked over 40 years ago, while Palestinian leaders actively support a globally recognized terrorist organization. But at the end of the day, I refuse to believe the people of either nation want anything other than lasting peace. Grudges may be harbored, but they should not be impediments to peace. Israel must understand that sometimes concessions are a sign of strength. Palestinians must join together in renouncing terrorism in order to earn full respect as a nation-state. Coexistence is most definitely possible, but not until both sides recognize it is in their mutual self-interest.

The Current State Of American Media

2011-06-10T14:39:00.000-04:00

Ok so I've been really trying not to think or write about anything related to the Anthony Weiner Twitter scandal. But I am 25. So I'll try to keep this as mature as possible. It shouldn't be hard.

Seriously though, by now it should be universally known that this is the kind of stuff that passes as news these days. The fact is that the American media are more likely to cover with full force a story involving a politician's sex life than one detailing his or her policy credentials. Why? Because they think the American public is more interested in this kind of story. And for the most part, they're right.

The news wasn't always like this. There used to be an "understanding" between politicians and reporters of what constituted real news and what constituted gossip. No more. Some of my older readers may correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the Bill Clinton scandal finally shattered that understanding and opened the door to the modern era of ultra-personalization of public figures by the media. In other words, the country's utter mesmerization with the unfolding story of the blue dress gave the American media a green light to make these types of stories their main area of focus, and the people loved it. I'm not saying there were no political sex scandals before Clinton, but I think their use as fair game for primetime media fodder is a relatively new phenomenon in America.

My overall point is that as trivial as all these stories of tawdry sexual affairs may be, they fact that they are so prevalent is not necessarily a bad thing. We know infinitely more about how the world actually works than any generation before us. The average American of the 19th century knew next to nothing about his or her elected representative except what they were force fed; today we know more than we'd like to. In 21st century America, we are over-informed to the point of possible spontaneous human combustion. From Breitbart to Wikileaks, mainstream society has recognized and accepted the efforts of those who go after any person, institution or story no matter who they are or what it is. No one is safe from the prying eye of the public. Maybe this power isn't always used for good, but it exists and thrives and that in itself is remarkable.

There have always been crooked and creepy politicians, they just got away with it more in the past because they used to have more sway in crafting their public image than they do today. (Largely due to a culture of almost unquestioned reverence for elected office and a complicit and irresponsible media. Sounds familiar, non?) These men and women may have highly important jobs and extraordinary lives, but at the end of the day, they are simply human. And some have major flaws. While our society once suppressed this fact, we are now free to view public figures as people first and titles second. Because that's what they are. For better or worse, at least no one can say we aren't realistic.

My next post will be on the Middle East, I swear.

The End Of An Era

2011-05-03T21:13:00.008-04:00

If there ever were a time for me to be less than verbose, it would be now: Osama bin Laden is dead. We finally got him. (And by we, I mean an elite team of Navy SEALS under the direction of President Obama called the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, aka DevGru, aka Team Six. These men will more than likely go down in American history as the bravest group of soldiers the country will never know.) I think it is extremely difficult to argue that the world is not a safer place with bin Laden gone; the man was the personification of evil. He espoused and acted upon views that called for the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, women and children of all races and creeds. It would be morally unjust NOT to want an individual such as this stopped by any means necessary.

That said, there is something morbid and weird about celebrating the death of another human being. I can't see myself doing it at any other time, unless I had been around when news of Hitler's death spread. And bin Laden being gone certainly doesn't bring back the almost 3,000 who died on 9/11, nor will any future killing. In this sense, hearing of Osama bin Laden's death doesn't really bring any closure in my mind.

But damn, it feels good. Public Enemy Number One is no more. One of the greatest threats in American history, hunted down and taken out. At a time when faith and confidence in government is at an all time low, we as Americans just got a powerful reminder that this country can still work for us. Getting bin Laden was not a political maneuver by a vote-hungry politician, nor a boost to any special interest's bottom line, nor a calculated distraction on the part of some secret shadowy group. This was an act carried out by a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, on behalf of the people. I can't help but feel good when that happens, apparently even in the case of a death.

And what an easy death to celebrate. Besides his obvious, bloody credentials, bin Laden was a complete and utter fraud. Here he was, portraying himself as a pious and noble pilgrim of Islam who shunned the decadence of modern society in order to live a pure and simple life in the mountains. In reality, he was relaxing with his wives in a heavily guarded, posh three-story mansion in a suburban Pakistani town 40 miles outside of Islamabad. While he manipulated others into blowing themselves up for him. What a guy.

(Speaking of Pakistan, I find it impossible to believe not one person in the upper chambers of government knew where bin Laden was. He was literally right under their noses, just outside the capitol, surrounded by retired military officers, within the only guarded compound in town. And they couldn't find him? Clearly, the Pakistani government is dangerously rife with either incompetence or corruption or both. It seems to me the only reason this operation went off without a hitch is because we didn't tell them about it.)

Like I said, killing bin Laden doesn't bring back those who died on 9/11. But I really do believe it makes the word safer. Not only that, it's symbolic. It shows the victims and their families that we never forgot their pain. It shows the American people that our government is still on our side. It shows the world that we are still a nation committed to justice, pursuing it with determination and heart. And like President Obama said, it has the potential to bring back that fleeting sense of unity that comforted us on that terrible day ten years ago. At a time when good news seems hard to find, I know I will be celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden and looking forward to the day when America has no enemies to fear.

Quick Thoughts On The 2012 Budget

2011-04-15T19:46:00.005-04:00

First things first: AmeriCorps made it into this year's budget. To anyone who reached out to a member of Congress, thank you. It's good to know effective and efficient programs are still appreciated in Washington.

Second, it's eight o'clock on a Friday night in New York City, so you better believe I'm not spending it here on a longwinded post. But I do want to share my thoughts on the president's budget proposal before they become stale or influenced.

I believe Obama's proposal, however imperfect, is a much more realistic and reasonable approach to fiscal sanity than Paul Ryan and the Republicans' mathematically enigmatic monstrosity- almost $5 trillion in spending cuts, Medicare as we know it eliminated, trillions more lost in tax breaks, AND 3.5% unemployment in ten years??? It's a political nightmare to admit, but any sensible long term budget solution is going to have to include tax increases in one form or another. Democrats seem to recognize this fact despite its potential for electoral volatility, while Republicans seem intent on pursuing a dangerously flawed financial roadmap in order to appease (and reward) their clamoring base.

Obviously, Obama's plan should and will be debated in Congress and more cuts will inevitably be drawn from Medicare and non-defense discretionary spending. The President's version of the budget never looks like the one he ends up signing. But it's more than just a fiscal proposal, it's a statement, a declaration, and in this case more of a reminder, that despite his willingness to negotiate with (capitulate to, some would say) Republicans, inside President Obama's chest beats the heart of a liberal.

Time will tell if this partisan yet practical (it's pretty much in line with the Debt Panel's recommendations) vision of America's financial future will pass muster in Congress. It probably won't. But then again, neither will Ryan's. The final cut will be somewhere inbetween. Personally, I think Obama's budget is solid and should be the framework for congressional negotiations. Although it's a blatant shout out to the Democratic base, the proposal offers numerous constructive ideas and also serves to define the conversation, something Obama has struggled with in the past, as we head into 2012. Let the games begin.

Ok so that was kind of longwinded...Happy Birthday Dad!

Please Help Save AmeriCorps

2011-03-31T20:50:00.024-04:00

I created this blog as an outlet for my political opinions. Before I did, these opinions were usually relegated to my thoughts or loudly forced upon sometimes willing, sometimes frightened conversational participants. Now that I think about it, they still are. But as I've been watching Congress debate the budget, I've found another, greater use for it: to bring attention to a program very close to my heart, AmeriCorps, that is facing a very serious threat. The funding for this program, which is not only beneficial to the public but also fiscally responsible, has been set to be eliminated in the most recent budget resolution passed by the House of Representatives.

In short, AmeriCorps is the domestic version of the PeaceCorps. Its members engage in community and public service projects all around the country, from job training in Baltimore to redevelopment in New Orleans to environmental conservation in California. AmeriCorps members at the state and national level give back to their communities in countless ways for the purpose of improving this country and helping its people.

But House Republicans want to completely eliminate funding for the AmeriCorps program. They say it's costing American taxpayers too much money. Instead of getting into the logic behind that train of thought, I'm just going to share some facts.

From 2008-2009, I worked as an AmeriCorps member helping provide the homeless with health services in Boston, Massachusetts. I received a little over $13,000 (which is higher than the national average AmeriCorps stipend) and an educational award to perform 1,700 hours of public health-related community service in one year. That sounds like a good deal for the American taxpayer to me. This program isn't just cost-effective, it's actually effective: Since its creation in 1993 under President Clinton (and expansion under President Bush) more than 600,000 AmeriCorps members have performed almost one billion hours of service in thousands of American communities. And studies continue to show the program's positive effects on poverty statistics, community involvement, quality of life, the environment, public health, civic education, the list goes on. Plus, it partners with everything from faith-based charitable organizations to the Boy Scouts. Keeping it around is the definition of a no-brainer.

Although AmeriCorps has a staunch supporter in President Obama, Congress has made it clear they are willing to do away with it. This would deny future young Americans the chance to serve and future struggling communities the resources they need. Please don't let AmeriCorps disappear. Regardless of your political views, this is an amazing program that benefits everyone, relies on federal funding and MUST be included in the budget.

If you want to help, here's what you can do:

1. Contact your local congressman/woman. It's cliche, but it works. As I assume the bulk of my reader(s) reside in the Northeast area, I have provided lists of representatives from Massachusetts and New York. They probably won't need much convincing. So for you and everyone else, go to Govtrack.us and email some reps in your area or across the country. Tell them to vote against defunding AmeriCorps.

2. Sign the Stand For AmeriCorps petition at Change.org. This petition was started by an AmeriCorps alum in Cambridge, Mass, has over 115,000 signatures and is garnering national attention. It's free, it takes two seconds. And it goes straight to the U.S. Senate.

3. Educate yourself about AmeriCorps. It's done a lot for this country yet somehow still remains under the radar. I think that if the program were better known, Congress wouldn't have even tried to get rid of it. The more people understand what programs like AmeriCorps, City Year, Teach For America, etc really do, the more they will recognize how vital they are.

That's all, thanks for reading my pitch and for your help!

Wisconsin Power Grab

2011-03-01T10:41:00.001-05:00

Collective bargaining is the essence of what we in post-Gilded Age America call unionization. Republicans, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, know this better than anyone. (Walker should better than most, as he is backed politically and financially by some of the strongest anti-labor forces in the country.) The fights in Wisconsin and Indiana and soon to be Ohio and elsewhere have little to do with budgetary prudence. They can best be described as a naked power grab by an aggressive, newly empowered class of Republicans aimed at destroying a Democratic political monster, public sector unions, by going straight for the jugular.

The 1800s showed us that an unorganized workforce with no ability to collectively bargain is antithetical to a strong middle class. I would hope no one, Republican or Democrat, wants to go back to those days of economic disparity. Even though we're almost there. But in today's political reality, public sector unions represent the largest and most powerful Democratic ally come election season. Republicans like Walker understand this and want to diminish, if not dismantle, the influence of unions. But in attempting to do so, these Republicans threaten to swing the pendulum too far once again and ultimately strip the average worker of his or her voice in the name of political posturing. This must not be allowed to happen.

Unions, while still a necessary bulwark against the abuses of unchecked power, are currently controlled by a leadership that has amassed too much influence in American politics. Democratic politicians live and die by their decree, and in return for massive voter turnout, reward unions with an invincible aura and benefits the American taxpayer cannot afford. This is a troubling reality and in response to it, unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere have agreed to take cuts in benefits, pay more for healthcare and even accept pay cuts. This is a rare overture from a major political player and should be a relevant factor at the negotiating table. If only there was one.

Supporters of Governor Walker's effort say that unions are spoiled and should be willing to sacrifice like the rest of us. Unions under fire in Wisconsin have shown they ARE willing to sacrifice, and are only asking the Governor if he is willing to negotiate. He has shown he is not. Walker's sights are clearly set on crushing public sector unions at the expense of Wisconsinites and their budget. This seems to be a recurring theme in 21st century America: a Republican hell bent on pursuing a dangerously narrow-minded agenda with a twisted sense of stubborn principle that would make even Reagan cringe. What has happened to the party of Lincoln?

The Egyptian Revolution

2011-02-14T15:00:00.004-05:00

What is currently happening in Egypt is nothing short of history in the making. It seems as if the Egyptian people have managed to oust a well-entrenched, autocratic ruler (relatively) peacefully using little more than the internet and people power. At its core, a story as old as civilization itself: chaos breeds dictator, people support dictator, dictator takes power, dictator abuses power, people overthrow dictator. But this one has a 21st century twist. Facebook, Twitter and the like helped connect oppressed individuals who in the past would have been forcibly kept from joining hands, allowing them to come together in such a way and at speeds that would make our Founding Fathers' collective head spin.

These events apparently blindsided the Obama administration and the rest of the world, which is kind of scary but also weirdly comforting in an age of rampant over-connectedness that something this huge can still just happen seemingly without warning. But the cynic in me says there's always the chance this was all a carefully staged, backroom production aimed at toppling the strongest pro-western government in the Middle East outside of Israel. Doesn't look like it though. By my count, this was a legitimate and justified grassroots uprising. Regardless, Obama and his crew were put in a difficult situation and they handled it as best they could on such short notice and with the whole word watching. Live in HD.

Obama's support for the Egyptian people was pretty obvious from the start, but he toned it down out of necessity. To emphatically side with the protestors and all but abandon a longtime strategic ally (who receives billions annually in US aid) would have been a dangerous precedent for Obama to set. He needed to show at least some support for Mubarak in the days when it seemed like he really might stick it out. It just wasn't clear what was going to happen. Until he resigned, Obama (unlike some of his underlings) managed to carefully walk a middle line of mutual support without clinging to a bygone era or stepping on too many toes, all while pushing toward democracy. And in the end, he came out on the right side.

What happens next in Egypt is the most important part. The pro-democracy wave must not break yet. Or ever, really. The people of Egypt, including the Muslim Brotherhood, and the military are both actively pledging a reformed constitution and the institutionalizaion of secular democracy. For their sake and ours, I hope this is what becomes of these historic events. Only time will tell. A government by the people, for the people will be the only true sign that this was in fact a people's revolution and not a coup by some nefarious group in the shadows with a hostile agenda. The only thing clear at this point is that Egypt, and by extension the Middle East, will never be the same. Let's hope it's due to progress and not decline.

Now for Mugabe...

A Dangerous Game

2010-12-01T22:31:00.006-05:00

Political football is played on both sides of the aisle, but congressional Republicans have taken the game too far by playing it with something as fundamentally necessary and beneficial as a renewed nuclear non-proliferation treaty with Russia.

The New START Treaty should be a no-brainer for passage yet Senate Republicans, led by Jon Kyl of Arizona, have chosen to delay consideration of this crucial piece of legislation under the guise of focusing on what the American people "really" need: lower taxes and less government spending.

Now Americans definitely seem to want both of these things, but to hold a recently expired, globally beneficial nuclear pact hostage for their sake is irresponsible and short-sighted at best and self-destructively hawkish at worst. There are few areas of disagreement in regards to this treaty, both within the American government and overseas with the Russians, and those that do exist can be resolved after the main goals of continued mutual disarmament and nuclear facility inspections are formally agreed upon.

But instead of doing what is right, Kyl and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have come out swinging with heavy rhetoric promising the block of the nuke deal's ratification (and all other legislation) unless select issues, ones that don't have the potential to end in a musroom cloud, are considered. Sounds dangerous to me.

For Republicans to claim that extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% of the population is a more pressing priority than actively showing our commitment to nuclear non-proliferation just to gain political points with an angry and influential electorate is ridiculous. We elect our leaders to be responsible, especially with regard to issues of nuclear safety and national security, not to simply respond to the will of a clamoring public in order to ensure reelection (see: John McCain).

Congress must pass the New START Treaty as soon as possible. Then we can get back to bickering.

Thoughts On The Midterms II

2010-11-28T21:45:00.007-05:00

So the midterms came and went, with predictable results. As much as I support Obama and what he is trying (emphasis on trying) to do in DC, it's hard to see the election results as anything other than a referendum on how Democrats have been handling things since they took over. But I'll give it a shot.

I think the prevailing theme of the midterms was widespread dissatisfaction with what is viewed as runaway government spending, a slow recovery and high unemployment, not an overall sense of disdain for Obama and the Democratic agenda.

Consider: Any economist will tell you that in a recession, if the government doesn't spend money, no one will. Since the continuous flow of money was necessary to keep us afloat, this is exactly what any candidate who won in 2008 would have and should have done. It's just a matter of where to spend the money. Since Bush approved the bailout, voters couldn't have, or shouldn't have, blamed it on Obama. Since most in government supported some sort of economic stimulus at a time when very little money was being pumped into the economy, we can't really blame that solely on Obama either. And who would honestly argue that voters took Obama and the Democrats to task this month for trying (emphasis once again on trying) to reform the financial industry?

The only major issue that I can see as the possible impetus for an anti-Obama, voter-driven congressional facelift is healthcare. Although I know this issue is divisive to say the least and a popular one with older generations, many of whom voted, I don't see this as a satisfactory overall explanation for the red tidal wave that overtook the House. So I think that many Americans who voted this month did so because they expected us to be closer to digging ourselves out of this hole than we currently are and a scapegoat was needed: the party in power.

Democrats lost because they failed to articulate how their efforts have helped or will help average Americans, not because average Americans disagree with what Democrats are trying to do. Mark my words- if consumer spending picks up and unemployment drops by November 2012, all the Tea Party/healthcare/anti-Obama rhetoric in the world won't stop the guy from cruising to reelection.

Thoughts On The Midterms

2010-10-25T14:45:00.042-04:00

I'm not quite sure how I feel about the 2010 midterm elections. On one hand, it's great to see so much active interest and participation in the less glamorous side of the democratic process. Most Americans, regardless of party, are concerned for the country's future and want to play a part in shaping it for the better. I find this very reassuring.

On the other hand, some of this "interest" and "participation" is extremely troubling. For starters, we are witnessing a level of involvement by ambiguously-named, deep-pocketed third party groups not seen since the Watergate era. Thanks to the Supreme Court, these groups, which are frequently intermediaries organized and financed by both domestic and foreign corporate entities or wealthy donors, are able to influence even the most seemingly insignificant of elections anonymously. Is this really the kind of free speech our founding fathers fought so hard to protect?

I believe that all politics really is local. Good candidates, not ads or dollars, win elections. But statewide races should be directly and indirectly influenced only by residents of that state whether they be individuals, companies or third party groups. Even though the Roberts Court doesn't agree, I feel that protecting the rights of multinational corporations to secretly spend large amounts of money influencing and manipulating elections should not trump the need for those directly affected by a race to hear an open and balanced representation of the facts from credible sources.

Secondly, the lingering economic crisis and the Obama administration's handling of it have created a new class of outsider candidates that will no doubt leave its mark on the 2010 midterms. For the most part, these individuals (or at least the ones that make CNN) appear unqualified to hold public office and will undoubtedly prolong Washington's political stalemate if elected. Now I try to be as balanced as possible and wish I could say these candidates are equally distributed throughout the parties, but it's clear they are predominately Republican, Tea Party-backed candidates who spend vast amounts of establishment cash while spouting inflammatory quasi-libertarian rhetoric.

Don't get me wrong, Democrats aren't offering gold by any means and benefit from anonymous ads and cash as well. And let's face it, the inevitable gains made by Republicans in 2010 will be due in large part to the disconnect between Obama's policies and the American public. But there is a level of secretive financial backing and coordinated manipulation of the facts, as well as a willingness to take advantage of the economic crisis for political gain, exhibited by Republicans this year that is both disturbing and impossible to ignore.

In short, I think the 2010 midterm election season will be remembered as one that garnered unprecedented national interest (whether this will translate into voter turnout remains to be seen) but was marred by desperate partisanship and a boatload of cash that should have been spent on any number of more noble and needed endeavors. But what else is new? I guess as long as anonymous contributions are viewed as free speech and candidate ignorance is rewarded, 2010 will unfortunately be the model for future election cycles.

Guest Post: The Clubhouse

2010-09-29T14:37:00.016-04:00

From 2008-09, I worked as an AmeriCorps (basically domestic PeaceCorps) member in Boston's homeless shelter system through the amazing Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. To just say the experience was meaningful would do it no justice and to properly explain its meaning would probably take more time than you are willing to spare, so I won't do either. But while working at St. Francis House, a day shelter for homeless adults located in the heart of downtown Boston, I developed a friendship with an individual familiar with the shelter system who, speaking from his own experience, opened my eyes to a unique perspective of what it really means to be homeless in America.

In addition to being a talented writer and a great guy, Bob now also holds the distinction of authoring YP's first guest post. It's been condensed, but I know you'll still enjoy:

The Clubhouse by Robert L. Karash

(Excerpted from Spare Change News, Cambridge MA, issue of May 7, 2010. Full article can be found here.)

In some towns people who are experiencing homelessness have to wander around during the day until they are allowed back into a homeless shelter to get their bed to sleep for the night. In other places, so-called day centers for the homeless exist to provide services and to simply be a place to go during what are often long days of waiting. People in situations of homelessness frequently consider it a huge blessing to have a daytime shelter or "clubhouse." But interestingly enough, not only the presently homeless spend time in these. Others—including the formerly homeless—may also come.

Cities which have these daytime clubhouses are very lucky indeed to provide for their less fortunate and not force them to be purposeless and hungry daytime nomads. In fact, everyone comes out winning.

When a person spends a significant period of time being homeless, especially in a community with other homeless people, and then obtains permanent housing, sometimes a puzzling thing happens. This person doesn't break his ties with the homeless community despite now being in possession of his own apartment, home and new life.

It's been written that very few if any "outside" people realize how very tight-knit the sense of community within a homeless population can be.

Exiting this community to live in an apartment or house might be difficult. For many, there is no outside substitute since they might be afraid, emotionally distressed, estranged from former friends and family, or alienated by their new surroundings.

So where do they go? They return to the safe place, the place where they know they can say they belong—the clubhouse.

So housed, formerly homeless people return to the clubhouse for a variety of reasons, including not having much money. But most will say they want to check in with their old friends. They simply don't want to feel isolated in their new apartment.

Transition periods are never easy. For a while, the newly housed may have to keep one foot in the clubhouse and one foot in their new abode until things settle. This goes hand-in-hand with another factor, namely, the fear of losing one's new apartment. The only way to cope with this restless anxiety is to visit the clubhouse.

With proper support, people can manage the transition from homelessness or temporary housing to permanent housing successfully. Few can travel this challenging journey alone and navigate it well.

The daytime shelter, or clubhouse, is an important place for many people. For many, it represents their real home until they get settled in a new permanent housing situation. Even after making this transition, the clubhouse can remain a place of solace, security and belonging for the indeterminable time it takes to switch internal emotional gears from being homeless to being housed. Shaking off the traumatic experience of being homeless can take a long time.

My, Republicans, What Short Memories You Have...

2010-09-04T00:32:00.005-04:00

I'm tired of listening to people condemn the Obama Administration's "government takeover" of American liberties. Sick of hearing ignorant, opportunistic candidates and talking heads paint Obama like a foreign dictator and call him the worst president in history. Anyone can see Obama's off to a rough start (that's what happens when you inherit four generations worth of problems) but to claim he's the worst in history you must either have little to no knowledge of American political history (see: Buchanan, Harding, A. Johnson, etc) or you must be willing to say anything to fuel the flames of a rabid voting bloc motivated by pent-up frustration, some legitimate and some scary, in order to get elected.

The aforementioned presidents were really bad. Obama's only been in office for two years, so it's pretty difficult and stupid to compare him to these guys. But if you're dying to compare him to someone, you don't have to look that far back to find one worse than Obama: George W. Bush did more to intrude on the daily lives of Americans, expand the powers of the executive branch and trample on the Constitution than most self-proclaimed neocons with daddy issues could ever hope to do. This is what amazes me about Republicans in 2010: their dissatisfaction with the current administration has apparently led them to block the previous eight years out of their collective memory in a pathetically transparent attempt to regain power at any cost. And it just might work.

But where were these proponents of conservative government spending when Bush led us into a war that ended up costing almost a trillion dollars? Where were these ardent defenders of the Constitution when Bush, Cheney et al were treating it like last Sunday's funny pages? Why wasn't the Tea Party formed after Bush turned executive orders and signing statements into de facto legislation and gave his cronies the authority to subvert limitations on presidential powers that had been almost universally recognized for over 200 years yet simultaneously avoid oversight in the name of executive privilege?

I'll be the first to admit Obama has racked up some pretty hefty additions to our deficit, but he did so in the course of fixing problems that most people agreed needed to be fixed (if healthcare and finance reform are "disasters" now, what the hell were they before???) in amounts that are equivalent to or less than the debt we would have incurred had we continued down our pre-recession road. The voters spoke in 2008: Obama was elected to reform industries that had proven themselves to be failures and in need of reform. And even though many of these same voters are now deserting Obama as he gets his hands dirty and we are forced to accept the painful but inevitable consequences of our behavior, the guy is sticking to his message and doing what he was elected to do. As he should.

It'd be one thing if Republicans were offering any specific, constructive ideas other than "undoing the damage" inflicted by Obama's "socialist agenda," but they aren't. That's an advantage exclusively granted to the opposition: it's easy to point to current negative socioeconomic indicators as a reason for change (Dems did it in '08) but much more difficult to prove things would have been worse had they been done differently. Regardless, now is the time for a united front. And it seems to me that the Republican congressional leadership's sole focus is on doing whatever it takes to regain the majority, even if it means pandering to the vocal fringes of its party and putting the entire country back on the path that led us into this mess in the first place.

Why I Support The Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-16T12:26:00.042-04:00

I wish I didn't have to make a point to say that freedom of religion, more so than any other principle, represents the reason America came to be in the first place. But as the Ground Zero mosque (or Park51 now apparently) debate shows, there are those who don't think this fundamental right matters when it comes to certain religions building certain structures near certain places. Even worse, Republican congressional leaders and 2012 presidential contenders are turning the Park51 issue into an all-out attack on Islam. We know fear rallies the base, especially when you're in the minority, but this has gone too far. The calculated Republican response to the proposed mosque and Muslim cultural center a few blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood has been shameful and is contrary to America's founding principles.

It would be one thing if Rauf's ~~Dharma~~ Cordoba Initiative behind the proposed mosque/cultural center was in some way connected to Al Qaeda or any other known terrorist group. If that were the case, and if it ever is found to be in the future, I will be first in line calling for its demise. But until then, I (and the Constitution) support the project and the group behind it, the mission of which is to bridge the gap of cultural understanding between Muslims and westerners. Their location choice obviously stirs the pot, but it's no reason to prevent them from worshipping where they choose. Anyone who opposes this project on anything other than charges of insensitivity is either misinformed, anti-Islamic by nature or so desperate for political gain they are willing to slap the Constitution in the face.

9/11 was horrible. The wound is still fresh. It is insensitive of the Cordoba Initiative to make such a public and politicized, borderline stubborn, defense of where they build. NY's Gov. Paterson even reportedly offered them some prime real estate on the other side of the city, but they turned it down. Clearly, they don't have to continue building where they are proposing. However it is well within their constitutional rights to do so. I mean, it would be a nice gesture if they relocated a few dozen blocks away as a courtesy to this country and the almost 3000 who died that day. That would make quite a statement about their intentions to "bridge the gap." But, as Americans, we must be willing to accept and respect the decision of any legitimate religious organization when it comes to where they want to practice their religion in accordance with the law. There must be no exception, even for 9/11. As long as they obey the law, who are we to tell them where they can and cannot worship? It's not easy, but it's the stuff America is made of - being the bigger man even when it hurts like hell.

I applaud President Obama's defense of Park51. He's obviously swimming against the tide of public opinion...last time I checked, 70% of the country opposes the project. I guess I do too, on a reactionary gut level. But the issue requires more thought than just going with our initial emotional response. Obama is doing what he feels is right and constitutionally defended. Sure, he was speaking to a group of Muslims and got a little flowery with his language, but so did Thomas Jefferson when he entertained a Tunisian envoy for iftar in 1805 (as our current president so duly noted).

It wasn't an especially thoughtful or intelligent choice, but I support the Cordoba Initiative's right to build an institution dedicated to the practice of their faith and promoting cultural understanding, even if it's near an open wound. It's the definition of the American way. While I understand the public's emotional opposition, I don't agree with Republicans using 9/11 and the mosque issue as a way to whip up anti-Muslim, anti-Obama hysteria just before elections. It's predictably childish and deconstructive, not to mention far from patriotic.

All I know is many of the guys in opposition to this project, the same ones who love to spew Revolutionary era soundbites with vitriolic, Glenn Beck-esque fervor, would find themselves between a rock and a hard place if they could hear some of our founding fathers' thoughts on Park51.

In Defense Of American Values

2010-07-24T15:15:00.034-04:00

In my last post, I identified myself as a practical progressive. I think I may have to push the boundaries of excessive alliteration and change that to practical progressive patriot: I love America. Not in a weird or even exceptionalist kind of way, don't get me wrong; a combination of opportunity, will, determination, ingenuity and ruthlessness built this country, not manifest destiny. But I still can't help but feel lucky and proud to be an American. (Don't worry, I'm not pulling a Sherrod knee-jerk here to placate my conservative readers, if you even exist. I really am probably one of the more flag-waving liberals on the East Coast. Guess that's what happens when you grow up in Boston listening to bedtime stories about James K. Polk and Kit Carson. Thanks Dad.)

To get this out of the way, I am more than aware America has blood on its hands. No need to go through the list right now. We are currently paying for our country's moral failings and will continue to do so. But in a world where we are reminded all too often of mankind's capacity for intolerance, America was created as and remains today a symbol of all that is good about human nature. Our founding fathers didn't have to form a democratic republic, the freest nation the world had ever seen. They could have kept alive the traditions of monarchy, theocracy, autocracy, all of which were big hits at the time. But they chose to build a country that would include the people in government and protect the rights of those commonly stepped on when the sole driving force was their own conviction. Hard to argue that this wasn't one of the more unique and formative acts in all of human history.

America isn't perfect, but it's this imperfection that makes us great: We are a truer reflection of human nature than any nation that has existed on earth. For the most part, humans are greedy and self-interested, easily brought to arms but not inherently violent, short-sighted and proud but also compassionate and admittedly in need of moral direction. America is all these things and more, for better or worse; its flaws are humanity's flaws. While we have a lot of things right, we still have a long way to go. America is a foggy but true compass guiding those living in an imperfect world towards the destination progress will eventually, hopefully, lead us to.

Basically, America is as close to perfect as we're gonna get right now. We're a country built on slavery, yet we tore our fledgling union apart in the name of progress to end it and came out stronger because of it. We are the most powerful country the world has ever seen, yet we actively promote peace and self-determination, even if largely in speech and in the interests of our bottom line. After WWII we could have been much more aggressive and literally taken over half the world, but we didn't even consider it. We chose to try and build the world into a safer one of cooperation and democracy, even if we went about it like a bull in a china shop. We still have our issues, some that have been around since America's birth and aren't going away anytime soon. But at the end of the day, despite our differences, we all agree on one thing: people should be free. It's an idea that America has championed for 234 years, and one we need to stop taking for granted.

A Practical Progressive Assessment of the Obama Administration

2010-06-19T11:03:00.024-04:00

It's been a while since my last post, and I apologize for the delay. The past month has been somewhat stressful; job change, personal issues, Celtics losing the championship in classic fourth quarter fashion to the Lakers. But I am back with renewed focus and an even stronger desire to force my opinion upon you and the world. So relax.

Recently I have been speaking (albeit aggressively and at high volume) with a certain conservative, Tea Party-supporting friend of mine who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to politics. Hearing his constant and justifiable criticism of Obama's handling of everything from healthcare to the oil spill has pushed me to better define my own views.

I am not registered with either party, but consider the following facts: I voted for Obama.* I interned for Ted Kennedy. I was born and raised in and around Boston, the greatest city on earth. So it's safe to say I'm not going to run and join the Tea Party any time soon. My instinct is to believe that a strong, well-run government has greater potential to protect individual liberties than a weak one, or just leaving society up to the inevitable immorality of human nature. However, I also view government as a necessary evil; a system that, in a perfect world, would not need to exist. But it does, and should exist as an instrument of the people, not career politicians, elite bureaucrats or narrow special interests on either side of the aisle. In short, if I had to, I would call myself a practical progressive: someone who believes government shouldn't be the enemy and that reform is necessary to keep up with the pace of human ingenuity, but in the end will always side with reason.

*(NOTE: If you did too, don't let anyone give you retroactive crap for it. Some people forget how awful things were in November '08. Obama was a great candidate with an overdue message. If you didn't vote for Obama, you either voted for Palin, threw your vote away or didn't vote at all. Sweet.)

That being said, I'll admit I had high hopes for Obama. All of us who voted for him did, himself included. Even though the guy came to the table with the worst place setting for any president in recent memory. I mean, his first major act was to pass the most sweeping economic stimulus package since the Great Depression (one that was supported by every reasonable decision-making mind in the country and already in the works when he took office). He hasn't had it easy by any means, and since the country is still in one piece and arguably in better condition than when he got here, I have to approve of his overall performance. But the sad fact of the matter is that however effectively President Obama might be dealing with the economic crisis, which I feel still remains to be seen, he's not doing the best job of communicating it to the public.

In a time of crisis, Americans want our President to BE smart, calm, cool and collected. But we want to SEE emotion. People, myself included, are tired of the stoic, obviously teleprompted press conferences and speeches. Tired of the same old knuckle-pointing and vague rhetoric (Everyone can appreciate this mixtape of presidential bs put together by the Daily Show). Obama, the next great communicator, the Democrats' answer to Reagan, has seemingly failed to connect with ordinary Americans.

Taking on an enormous agenda and surrounding yourself with establishment politicians and advisors will make it difficult to shoot straight with the public. But come on, almost 60 days before a major speech on the oil spill and a meeting with BP brass? Obama is handling this situation TOO rationally and politically correct. He should have pulled a Teddy Roosevelt and come out swinging from the beginning, put together a coordinated response coupling US military resources with BP technology and barreled through all ideological opposition. Instead, he sat back to gauge the mood of the country, and reasonably the extent of the spill, when he should have acted. He's probably kicking himself now for not taking things over from the start, which I'm sure everyone advised him against doing at the time and wouldn't have overcome the limits of human technology. Regardless, the bottom line is that Obama, not BP, should have been running the show from the beginning.

But to be fair, I don't think anyone in office would have done things much differently thus far than Obama has (minus healthcare, which I think is philosophically right and has the potential to open up a vast new market and source of revenue...but could also end up bankrupting us). Despite rumblings of Obama's no-confidence vote within the Democratic Party, he actually seems to be following a pretty establishment-oriented line. But even if establishment ideas are sometimes good ones, he needs to better bridge the gap between the American public and his administration's policies (if he cares about reelection). He is obviously not afraid to assert his authority (see: Healthcare), he just needs to do so in areas all Americans can relate to: fixing the economy, creating jobs and saving the Gulf Coast.

I guess I wouldn't give Obama an A so far, but I certainly wouldn't give him an F either. The guy is smart, determined and well-intentioned, despite his lack of effective multi-tasking and communicative abilities. I know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But I would rather continue to support a President who wants what's best for the country when he has much more work to do than sit on the sidelines shouting and obstructing. All I ask is that he talk with, and not at, the American people.

Even FDR's critics couldn't deny his connection with the people. Ultimately, it was this spirit of unity through adversity, culminating with the attack on Pearl Harbor, that made it so easy for Americans to mobilize and turn the country into an industrial superpower as soon as we entered WWII. Obama needs to take a few pages out of both Roosevelt playbooks.

Rand Paul: Better Than Bunning

2010-05-23T14:04:00.015-04:00

So it appears the Tea Party actually managed to field a candidate on a major party ticket. With Rand Paul's win in Kentucky's recent Republican primary for Senator and MLB hall of famer Jim Bunning's seat, someone with Tea Party (and Sarah Palin's) support might actually go to Washington. I guess the apocalypse is coming sooner than I thought. Just kidding...sort of.

(Before I get to Paul, let me start with Bunning. The guy is borderline senile. Although once a fearsome presence on the mound, he has been arguably one of the weakest and most ineffectual Senators in history, except when it comes to single-handedly blocking unemployment benefits. Also, I'm pretty sure the only legislation he ever introduced had something to do with retired baseball players. In 2006, Time Magazine named Bunning one of America's five worst senators. He hasn't done much to improve his reputation since then. His retirement couldn't come soon enough, but I digress...)

Rand Paul is not a bad guy. Neither is his dad. They just have some radically impractical ideas based on a vision of how our founding fathers would have wanted America to turn out. I realize the Pauls just want to go back to simpler times, when most Americans were farmers, we basically produced everything we consumed and the federal government largely stayed out of certain affairs over which it now has influence. I can understand that. But, for better or worse, those days are gone and they aren't coming back anytime soon.

Over time, America has grown and with this growth has come experience through crisis and knowledge about how best to keep our country safe, stable and strong. At certain points along the way, our predecessors felt it necessary to give the Federal Reserve the power to regulate the financial industry, establish a federally regulated education system, limit corporate expenditures in elections and make it easier for historically oppressed minorities to enter the workforce. These things happened, and for Mr. Paul to openly criticize some and call for the abolishment of others is both impractical and insensitive but most importantly a waste of time. Don't even get me started on his use of free market principles to defend BP, a massive foreign corporation whose regulation-skirting caused one of the worst environmental disasters in history. In American waters.

What scares me most about Rand Paul is that his message strikes a chord with people, even me sometimes. Most Americans want fresh faces in Congress who won't uphold the status quo and follow the party line. We want new decision makers making new decisions. (I'm trademarking that.) But I don't think some people realize that although they agree with Paul's take on America's problems, they really aren't going to like his solutions. What we need are realistic minds representing us in Washington, not backwards idealists too wrapped up in colonial nostalgia and anti-government passion to actually be an effective lawmaker at the national level.

I have to give Rand Paul credit for sticking with his gut now that he is in the limelight instead of falling in line with the Republican establishment. But I don't think he is good for the country at a time when we need real solutions and not what-if pipe dreams. Hindsight's 20/20, Mr. Paul. Let's hear some practical ideas.

A Dark Place: WTUs "Worse Than Iraq"

2010-05-10T19:08:00.021-04:00

Ensuring the medical and mental (I would argue even financial) stability of veterans should be a basic and essential function of the United States government. It's really not that difficult: No man or woman who has ever served in combat wearing an American uniform should have to worry about proper medical care or homelessness. Ever. So why are so many veterans not receiving the medical attention they need? How is it possible that almost one quarter of America's homeless are veterans ?

Ever since the Washington Post exposed the despicable conditions and practices at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (unfortunate naming, Walter Reed was an American pioneer of modern medicine) people have been paying more attention to how we treat our veterans. We've come a long way since our regrettable treatment of soldiers returning from Vietnam, but our government still has work to do. A recent New York Times story shined a light on what the Army has created in the wake of scandal: Warrior Transition Units, or WTUs.

Instead of a traditional hospital setting, WTUs were intended to offer a more relaxed and personal rehabilitation experience for soldiers suffering from both physical and psychological battle wounds; an apparently novel concept for the VA. Problem is, they don't seem to be working. Reports indicate that instead of receiving adequate and individual care, soldiers are being neglected and abused, pumped full of meds and left to aimlessly watch TV, drink or use illegal drugs. What kind of rehab centers are WTUs supposed to be?

These might be isolated incidents, but is it really normal that one of these WTUs in Fort Carson, Colorado has had seven patient suicides since it was established in 2007? Is it just coincidence that numerous patients and doctors have reported seriously injured and traumatized veterans are being treated as harshly as if they were still in boot camp? Reports of over-medication and even illegal drug abuse also seem to be common in WTUs. This is not the environment in which our injured veterans should be preparing to return to society as healthy and stable citizens.

War is serious, and helping veterans of war should be taken just as seriously. We should expect that ALL returning veterans need our help; if they don't, that's great, good luck to them. But if they do, the U.S. government should do everything reasonable in its power to make sure they get proper treatment, care and attention on an intensive and individual level. Regardless of their condition, addiction or financial situation, we should have the best of the best making sure all veterans who reach out for help are met with respect and open arms.

Instead of forcing returning soldiers-in-need to enter time-specific and sometimes inadequate VA care programs, the government should be flexible around individual needs and provide more alternatives, such as footing the bill for certain private doctors, psychiatrists or treatment centers if they aren't willing or able to provide these services. Maybe we can start paying for it by firing some of the bitter scumbags currently staffing WTUs and disrespecting injured Army veterans.

You can tell a lot about a people by the way they treat their returning soldiers. These are the men and women who physically, not metaphorically, protect us from harm. If you are willing to risk your life for your country and its people you deserve the full benefits of the state. Far less worthy expenditures of tax dollars clog our fiscal drain on a daily basis; I think we can make some room to spend here.

Generation Common Sense

2010-04-29T19:57:00.065-04:00

My generation is suffering due to the failures and short-sightedness of those before us. How do we stop this from happening again? Reform, of course. Change what went wrong in the past so it doesn't happen again in the future. Makes sense. But how do we guarantee that we don't allow ourselves to fall into another situation just as catastrophic, or worse, in the future? No retroactive policy reform is going to do that.

Only education can give us the long-term stability we desperately need. Education = rational debate and elections = more effective governance = a stable, productive and powerful America. If we become smarter, so too will our leaders. Too many big decisions are put off by elected officials too scared to do anything good for the country in the long-term if it means displeasing voters in the short-term. This (and gerrymandering) has been the nature of the beast for basically all of American political history. This model, however instinctive and logical, needs to go.

America needs more politicians like the ones our forefathers envisioned: men both enlightened and practical, faithful and humanistic, steeped in both tradition and progress. True patriots who felt a duty to serve their country, unafraid to make hard decisions when necessary. Someone who puts the good of the country over their own political fortunes without hesitation is a representative in the noblest sense of the word. Where are these people?? Politics and government in America was never meant to be synonymous with corruption and ineffectuality in the public mind. People like Sarah Palin should not be as influential as they are and issues like race, abortion and gay marriage should not keep us from doing what needs to get done. I refuse to believe this is the America George Washington imagined. (In fact, Washington warned of the distracting and divisive nature of political bickering between parties in his farewell address.)

We can easily recruit men and women closer to this mold if we start basing our opinions on facts and not blind, distorted logic. This can be difficult; everything you read is manipulated in one form or another, from the source down (even this). But education doesn't mean a bachelor's degree, it means knowing how to sift through the bullshit in order to find truth in whatever it is you're reading, hearing or watching. Every American can educate themselves through balanced, thoughtful analysis of current events and by resisting the urge to hear one point of view and settle on it.

Basically, we need more Thomas Jeffersons and less Joe Wilsons. More Paines and less Becks. More enlightened pragmatists and less ignorant opportunists. Elections and politics in general should be fueled by factual and relevant dialogue, not stereotypes, hot button issues, unsubstantiated claims, flip-flops, one-liners and regurgitated rhetoric. Am I wrong? I mean, I know there have always been idiots in American politics, but don't you think our founding fathers would be just a little disappointed if they saw how divided our country remains over issues that are irrelevant to what really matters?

Arizona Cracks Down On Illegal-Looking People

2010-04-24T10:45:00.048-04:00

I can't say I agree with this new law in Arizona, which looks like America's toughest immigration law since we put quotas on immigrants from certain Eastern European and Asian countries in the 1920s. Nevermind that it basically turns police officers into immigration officers and will inevitably lead to charges of racial profiling, it is blatantly unconstitutional. But while the East Coast liberal in me cries out for the blood of racist morons, the conservative in me says it's about time somebody did something.

Let me explain. The problem with Arizona attempting to enforce its own immigration policy is that, according to the Supreme Court, federal immigration law trumps state law. However, Justice Hugo Black included in the opinion of the seminal case Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) the following caveat:

"And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation...states cannot...enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."

And there lies the real problem. As of yet, the federal government has failed to enact a "complete scheme of regulation" dealing with illegal immigration. In the absence of specific and relevant federal law, and in the midst of some of the worst drug related crime in the country's history, Arizona finally decided to take matters into its own hands.

Now I don't think, like some, that Arizona is just backwards. But it does seem as if Arizona voters, albeit rightfully tired of the bloodshed and kidnappings associated with illegal drugs coming from Mexico, short-sightedly put people in office who overstepped their constitutionally granted powers. Passing this bill was a desperate act on the parts of elected officials under pressure to respond to a serious issue when the federal government failed to do so.

Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, the driving force behind this new law, has been widely quoted as saying "illegal is not a race, it's a crime." I agree, but I don't think this naive and weirdly egalitarian view of the issue matches up with the practical implications of the law. At the end of the day, it will be up to police officers on the streets of Arizona to determine whether or not an individual appears to be present in this country illegally. While I don't think Arizona cops are going to arrest every person of Hispanic descent in the state, it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see how this could create a slippery slope toward unwarranted arrest and detention.

The law's broad language, discriminate scope and unconstitutional foundation make me confident it will be overturned in court. But the elephant in the room is that the federal government must act. Congress needs to come up with a realistic, bipartisan solution to illegal immigration that keeps our borders secure and our cities free from drug violence. At the same time, any solution must also distinguish between immigrants who already contribute socioeconomically (they do exist, and after monetary punishment should be given the opportunity to become citizens and pay taxes) and those who are just plain criminals. If the feds continue to drag their feet, more states will follow Arizona's lead. I'm not proud of what has happened in Arizona but I'm mindful of the bigger issues that created this situation in the first place. Hopefully we'll be able to look back on this and say Arizona was responsible for getting the federal government to finally act on illegal immigration.

On Sarah Palin's 1500 Minutes Of Fame

2010-04-20T17:58:00.008-04:00

If we want rational public discourse, we need a rational public. Which means we need an educated public. America's education system is decades away from offering every citizen an equal and quality education. Until then, in order to see that all Americans not only know the facts but know how to go about finding the truth themselves, we must do our part to educate ourselves through whichever means possible.

So when people like Sarah Palin dominate the media and spread ignorance instead of truth, it takes the whole "education of America" movement back a few decades. I know, I'm trying to promote reasonable debate and not personal attacks, but I can't help but feel like Sarah Palin is all that is wrong with American politics. From spreading lies about death panels to inciting violent retaliation against Democrats who voted for healthcare to now rejecting the idea of separating church and state, the woman seems hell-bent on dismantling all that is still holding our country together in a time of crisis. When America needs stability, she offers nothing but chaos.

I can't tell if she is just backwards and delusional or if this is a systematic ploy on her part to achieve massive celebrity status, or even worse, the Presidency. Is she really a misguided moron who through luck, good looks, charm and a few well-placed winks and "you betchas" managed to become Governor of Alaska, climb to the top her her party's socio-political ladder and get on a presidential ticket? Stranger things have happened I guess... But what if it's the opposite? What if she's perfectly aware of the effect of her behavior and actually enjoys dividing the country? If so, she is more dangerous than I thought.

Either way, she needs to stop being taken seriously as a political voice. OK, she's an interesting person, a straight-talkin beauty queen who snipes moose from a helicopter, I get it. But why should she still be relevant in a political sense? She abandoned an important executive office, has made countless factually inaccurate statements and even most Republicans don't want her to run in the future. For someone who claims to want to be involved in politics, she seems to have very little knowledge of what's going on. If she were in any other job she would have been fired by now. And her references would be terrible.

But as long as there are people out there dumb enough to believe Obama is a socialist, there will be support for Sarah Palin and we will see her face on TV. Which is unfortunate, because now is definitely not the time to waste on mindless distractions, no matter how attractive. Solving America's problems as a nation is going to take nothing less than all sides sitting at the the table together and working as equals, not shouting with their ears covered. This will only happen when we have an educated public that truly wants rational political discourse and is willing to listen to and understand all sides of a debate. Sarah Palin is just proof that we aren't there yet.

I know this is a long one but I want to leave with this quote from Time Magazine's Joe Klein, who has had to defend himself against criticism for saying personalities like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck push the boundaries of "seditious" speech. I think it's a good explanation of why we need to make clear the distinction between legitimate and radical opposition:

"Dissent isn't sedition. Questioning an Administration's policies isn't sedition. But questioning an Administration's legitimacy in a manner intended to undermine or overthrow it certainly is.

It's not illegal—unless actions are taken to overthrow the government in question—but it is disgraceful and the precise opposite of patriotism in a democracy."

Need A Buck? Shake Down The Homeless!

2010-04-16T17:41:00.009-04:00

OK, so I told myself I wouldn't bombard my blog with posts when the thing isn't even up and running yet, but I had to share this. Apparently, New York City is going to start charging the homeless to stay in the shelter system. That's right folks! Finally those bastards really responsible for the financial mess we're in are going to pay. Forget the Wall Street fat cats, crooked politicians and sinister lobbyists. It's about time someone focused political energy on squeezing every last penny out of those who are truly at fault: the poorest and most vulnerable citizens in our society.

Having worked in some of Boston's busiest homeless shelters as an AmeriCorps member, I find this idea absolutely disgusting. Anyone familiar with how the shelter system works knows that charging guests is an impractical and thoughtless idea that will benefit no one. Let's not pretend these people are coasting down easy street with free room and board. Shelter life is far from ideal and should be seen as a necessary evil, not a handout. And for those who are employed and homeless, looking for permanent housing is a full time job without having to fork over part of your meager paycheck just to live in what is basically the most undesirable environment imaginable. What an insult. Enforcing this short-sighted law will only make it harder for the homeless to find housing and further crowd NYC's shelters. Furthermore, the revenue generated will be minute at best and certainly not worth the hardships it will cause to countless homeless men and women who depend on the shelter system.

I guess this law has been around since 1997 but no one has tried to impose it until now. I know quick and easy revenue streams have always been popular with politicians looking to point to success near election time, but this is a new low. Why should our most vulnerable population, people who were struggling far before the Great Recession hit, have to bear the brunt of an economic downturn that was largely caused by those at the opposite end of the socioeconomic spectrum? Surely there are better ways for the city and state of New York to make a quick buck. I'll take the soda tax over this crap any day.

Why Write?

2010-04-16T11:48:00.009-04:00

Because I am concerned for America's future. Not scared of a socialist takeover like certain historically-inept Tea Party members, but scared that the level of political debate in this country has devolved to new (well actually, old) and dangerous lows. The current environment closely resembles something created by an nineteenth century urban political machine (see: Gangs of New York). Overzealous protests and death threats are commonplace, rhetoric has become increasingly radical and borderline violent. Rational debate has been replaced by unfounded accusations, ignorant passion, and, as Hunter S. Thompson would have put it, a lot of bad noise.

This must stop for the good of the country. Partisan bickering might be good drama, but ultimately it stalls the problem solving process and makes America weaker. We are the true power behind our government. If we demand more of our elected representatives, they will deliver more. But if we allow time and energy to be wasted on the absurd and childish ramblings of the fringes of our political spectrum, right or left, we will never have the kind of rational debate necessary to solve our nation's problems. I'm afraid if we don't do something about it soon, if those who oppose progress aren't somehow brought into the realm of the reasonable, things will only get worse. It seems as if Obama's agenda has brought out old divisions within American society, and we must rise above them or face a future of increasing divisiveness.

I feel very strongly that my generation of Americans will bring common sense and reason back to politics. The situation has become too grim to continue finger pointing and passing the buck, and I think young people see that, Democrat, Republican and everything in between. I hope the current divided state of American politics will push the youth of the nation to get politically involved in a useful and constructive manner. This blog is intended to help get that ball rolling.

Kickoff Post

2010-04-16T02:37:00.006-04:00

So this is my first post and I feel the need to make it a good one. Here goes. Since Tax Day has just fallen upon us, I thought I'd focus this first post on the Tea Party. Now, normally I don't like to give these people more press than they already get, but I figure no one is reading this blog at this point, so it shouldn't matter anyway.

Although the Tea Party has the numbers, shared interest and determination to pass itself off as a legitimate political movement, it must soon field or promote its own candidates in order to fully earn this distinction. Here's how I see it: If the Tea Party is truly principled, it will, as a whole, only support very conservative and far right-wing candidates. These candidates will, for the most part, probably not be those supported by the Republican establishment, and this will serve to split potential Republican votes between two candidates. Result: electoral victory for the Democrats.

But if the Tea Party is just a political establishment vehicle fueled by sometimes radical anti-Obama fervor (which I believe it is) then it will eventually split in half between those willing to abandon the movement's core principles just to win back the Majority and those who truly believe in the movement's conservative tenets. Either way, the future does not bode well for the Tea Party. Even if Republicans make huge gains in November 2010, it will be due to legitimate, defined opposition to Obama and the Democrats' political agenda and not ignorant catch phrases like "reload."

Don't get me wrong, Americans have a right to suspect the expanding reach of government. But when this reach becomes necessary due to the failures resulting from its absence (as it has become in the realms of finance and health care) the most patriotic thing to do is to support the President, whether it be Bush (who oversaw the bailouts, remember?) or Obama, as they set about the unwanted and difficult but ultimately right task of securing a stable short-term future in which to solve the major problems facing our country before they become unfixable. To deny this fact is the utmost in ignorance, and to do so and oppose Obama's agenda so rabidly is not patriotic, it's radical and downright scary. (As a history major, it is unfathomable that some people would compare our current situation with 1930s Germany. These people must be reading the same history books that call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression.")

The Tea Party should not be ignored or shunned from political participation, but it should be revealed for what it truly is: a once legitimate grassroots movement, hijacked by establishment Republican PACs and Confederate sympathizers, being pulled in opposing mainstream and radical directions. This conflict will inevitably leave the true followers of the movement with a bitter taste in their mouths.