The Fierce Urgency of Nov.

It doesn't have to be.

We don't have to suffer through two years of absolutely nothing getting done in Washington D.C. If the Obama coalition of young voters, minorities and women comes out to vote in the midterm elections this November, we might be able to get one or two things accomplished in the next two years. Unless we elect more Democrats to both chambers, the Republican controlled Congress has little hope of being able to order a pizza, much less solve our national problems.

I have to say, like many other Americans, including the President, I completely underestimated the attempts of Republicans in Congress to nullify an entire presidency. I thought he'd at least get an assist on the Infrastructure Bank idea. From the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" to the failed closing of Guantanamo Bay, Congressional Republicans have mastered the art of "no." Why then, are Republicans favored to win both houses in these upcoming midterm elections? It's because Republicans, unlike Democrats, actually VOTE in the midterms. Are you terrified of Ebola and ISIL? Not really? Well your grandma sure is, and you bet she's going to vote come November 4th.

Americans are always complaining that Washington can never "get things done" but then two completely different electorates show up for the general (younger and more diverse) and the midterms (older and whiter) giving us the wonderfully broken democracy we see before us. It's time to put an end to the madness. It's time for the Obama coalition to show the country that this movement for change was never about this particular President, it was about our belief that when we stand up and take action, we can change this country for the better.

If grandma and grandpa can make it to the polls on November 4th, so can you. Yes you can.

The Procreative Guilt-Trip

Don't let anyone fool you, at the core of the opposition to gay marriage is intense heterosexual guilt surrounding sex as a recreational act.

This debate was never about marriage per se. This was always about sex. Because of our cultural attitude towards sex the only realm where sex could take place without shame and humiliation is of course, after marriage in the attempts to make a baby. That's it. And don't try and tell yourself that there's any dogmatic underpinnings to the "fostering the unitive bond between husband and wife" that's all boo-shit as they say on "The Wire." That sentiment was made up by American Protestants who are always looking for new ways to water down dogma so they can tell themselves that they are still getting into heaven. Just an update, it doesn't look good for any of us...

The truth is for many Americans, babies are the ultimate moral cleanser washing away all that nasty that created them in the first place. That's why the SCOTUS decision legalizing sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas was so important. It's not that Texas wasn't upholding and enforcing its anti-sodomy laws. It's that Texas was enforcing its anti-sodomy laws unfairly by only prosecuting homosexual activity and not heterosexual sodomy.

Because by definition homosexual intercourse cannot be procreative, gays do not have access to their sexual "immorality" eraser! They have no biological progeny to somewhat justify the fact that they had sex FOR FUN! THIS is the real reason why people oppose gay marriage. It's because they believe that marriage and specifically procreation is the gate for socially and morally acceptable sex.

Unfortunately for opponents of same-sex marriage, equal rights do not have to meet some generic idea of what a "moral" sexual act is. Over time brave gay and lesbian members of our society  have come out, and we've seen up close very loving spouses and extremely capable parents. Denying gay American citizens the right to marry (and all the federal benefits that come with it) just because they can't biologically produce a baby to mollify our own collective shame about sex is the height of absurdity.

And remember, Jesus is watching you ALL THE TIME!

Happy unitive bonding!

Why I Support Barack Obama for President

I am ready for the election to be over and I'm sure most of you are ready for me to stop Facebooking and tweeting about politics. But before I return to more normal Dave, it's time for me to jot down a few things why I supported Barack Obama in 2008 and why I support his re-election, this Tuesday, November 6th, 2012.

First, my thoughts on the challenger. I've experienced Mitt Romney as a capable moderate Governor of Massachusetts. I believe that he is an exceedingly smart and decent man (though I hope those 47% comments were merely the typical Romney pander - and if not, that decency does take a hit). Unfortunately, Governor Romney decided, as he did in 2008, that he had to run to the far right disowning his moderate mantle that he worked so hard to build as Governor of Massachusetts. Here are some things that Governor Romney did that candidate Romney would be outraged by:

• Initiated a "cap and trade" carbon tax proposal between other New England states. McCain/Palin called these initiatives "cap and tax."
• Passed a healthcare reform bill largely based on conservative think tank policies advocating for the individual mandate combined with tax subsidies for low-income families (sound familiar?) called Romneycare.
• Required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception (a.k.a. the "morning after pill") as part of their official "rape kits" for sexual assault victims in emergency room care. See here.

If candidate Romney had run as Governor Romney of Massachusetts, then he might have gotten a closer look from me (deep down I was hoping for an Obama/Huntsman race). However, these past few weeks we've seen the Mitt we've always known, someone who has a good sense of what to do, but will say absolutely anything to get to power. And it's not fair to the Republican primary voter, nor is it fair to the general election voter to have literally no stance on key issues. For example on abortion, he told primary Republican voters that he'd be "delighted to sign" a bill that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended ALL abortion access, not even for the typical exemptions of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Then he told general election audiences that of course, in a Romney administration he would keep these exemptions. He can't have it both ways.

I still have this basic feeling: Mitt Romney is not a bad guy and could be a good president. However, the Republican Party in its current state is not fit to govern (see Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock) and to vote for Romney would be to reward the awful political gamesmanship of the Congressional Republicans.

I was lucky to see candidate Barack Obama up close as a State Senator from Chicago and federal Senator from Illinois. The young state senator got my attention because he came across as extremely smart, willing to work across the aisle on real policy issues (police interrogation rules at the state level eventually working with Republican Dick Lugar on nuclear proliferation on the federal/national level), and was and is a genuinely decent man of worthy character. And most of all, President Obama has done, in spite of an historically obstructionist Republican Congress, most of what he said he'd do. Here are some of the policies I hoped might be accomplished when I voted for then Senator Obama.

• A responsible end to the War in Iraq (completed)
• A responsible exit strategy for Afghanistan (initiated)
• A reasonable healthcare reform bill (passed) AND based on Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts
• Re-funding stem-cell research at the National Institute of Health (done)
• An end to the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (surprisingly passed) and side-thanks to Sen. Scott Brown for his courageous vote considering the circumstances
• Said he'd give the order to take Osama bin Laden out - regardless of the diplomatic implications. And if you think it's such an easy call, both opponents Hillary Clinton and John McCain criticized this posture in the 2008 primaries. Here it is: (amazingly DONE)

Like Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama will go down in history as one of the most successful conservative, yes you heard me, CONSERVATIVE presidents we've ever had. Someone who passed a very politically risky stimulus in order to avert a great depression and a very moderate healthcare bill modeled after the very successful Romneycare in Massachusetts. He's gotten America out of the war in Iraq responsibly, decimated the leadership of Al Qaeda (to the chagrin of very left wing and independent folks - who have legitimate criticisms of presidential powers including drone strikes and assassination "kill" lists). With re-election I believe he will have the political capital to tackle our deficit and debt situation in a balanced responsible way with some cuts to entitlements so long as responsible Republicans agree to revenue increases as well. I also believe he will follow through on his promise to tackle real immigration reform in his next term.

My favorite Obama quote is, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." For all of the messiah-complex writings on the man, the Presidency, as we've witnessed the last two years, is not extremely powerful. It's up to us to advocate for the sensible policies that will move our country in the right direction. That's why I'll be voting for President Obama, this Tuesday, November 6th.

Why Big Bird Matters

During last Wednesday's terrible debate for the President, one line from Republican nominee Mitt Romney stuck out to voters of all political stripes, when he said the following,

"I'm going to cut the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. Actually, I like you too [Jim]. But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”

Today, the President's campaign is out with a new ad featuring Big Bird admonishing Mitt Romney for promising to crack down on Sesame Street instead of the bankers on Wall Street and is getting some backlash describing the Obama campaign as unserious with their defense.

Here's why the Big Bird argument matters. In a nutshell, this example shows that Republicans (in power at least) don't give two shits about the deficit or debt and the only reason they care about it now is because they can use it to cut down on liberal programs that they hate regardless of the economic climate; things like PBS, food stamps and foreign aid. These programs account for less than one percent of the budget, but these are the programs that are first on the list to go in a Republican controlled White House or chamber of Congress.

For all their talk of honesty, Republicans are looking ripe to continue their spend and cut ways. For all of Paul Ryan's promise, there has been minimal mention of his plan to voucherize Medicare, and while I disagree with this policy it definitely saves the government money and is honest about what the #1 driver of the deficit is. And as Mitt Romney's tax plan currently illustrates, independent studies have shown that to give all tax payers an across-the-board 20% rate cut, plus a 10% reduction in the corporate tax rate, PLUS $2 trillion extra dollars in military spending, that deep hole cannot be bridged by "closing loopholes" yet to be named.

In all honesty, in the immediate term, I think the unemployment rate is way more important to fix than the deficit but we definitely need a long-term solution and cutting PBS and foreign aid gets us nowhere close. But don't let Republicans tell you they care about deficits and debt, because they don't.

The real argument Obama should be making...

Forget Bain Capital and forget the killing of Osama bin Laden, here's the argument Obama should be making this fall. The main argument is not that George W. Bush left a mess, it's that Congressional Republicans failed to help clean any of it up.

President Bush left three major shit burgers for the Obama administration: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, of course, the fiscal meltdown caused by teachers, firefighters and policemen the complete lack of regulation of Wall Street and the mortgage derivatives market. But Bush just left those burgers there. In a time of national crisis, Obama shouldn't have had to eat those shit burgers all by himself, but he got no help from Republicans.

Congressional Republicans were fine conceding to "country first" proposals during those last sad months of the Bush administration and much to everyone's surprise, found their anti-keynesian "fiscal responsibility" just in time for the Obama administration. Who could have predicted that? Not only were they merely content with standing by while Obama and congressional Democrats tried to clean up the economic mess, they purposefully advocated counterproductive measures like reducing unemployment insurance and, in unprecedented fashion, refused to raise the debt limit which resulted in a lowering of our credit rating. An easy self-inflicted wound. Until President Obama, every debt limit ceiling vote had been a non-partisan matter of fact for Republican and Democratic presidents alike.

At a time when the problems we faced needed to be solved with the cooperation of both parties, the Republican party chose politics over country and we have the simple proof to show it. In the fall of 2008, George W. Bush finally saw the Keynesian light and chose the economy over his "conservative" principles and proposed a needed stimulus bill for the banking sector in the amount of $700 Billion, commonly known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP. After TARP failed to pass in the House due to Republican resistance, the market had its biggest one day drop in it's history since the great depression of more than 700 points. I guess the free markets love socialism (Remember everyone, government handouts are fine so long as they go to rich, white people). After having the shit scared out of them by reality, eventually 108 House Republicans voted for Bush's bank bailout, yet only three congressional Republicans voted to support Obama's stimulus bill which went to the American taxpayer instead of banks, which by the way, were composed of 1/3 of tax cuts!

Here's then Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) speaking on the floor, reflecting his pure anti-Keynesian, anti-spending philosophy. Wait a minute???



And here he is in the summer of 2009, referencing the Obama stimulus bill or the "Recovery Act" for the amount of $787 Billion dollars. As you can see he's going to hold the same "do what's in the best interests of the country, not your party" position as he held a mere months before and vote yes, right???



Mitt Romney is not the problem. Mitt Romney is a nice, smart man who was born to a wealthy family and decided he wanted to continue that way of life, and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that the Republican Party has gone absolutely bonkers and their "no government" ideology has blinded them to pragmatic solutions to the problems we face. I think if we had a President Romney, due to his elite brain trained at Harvard, he would advocate for continued economic stimulus, also known as GOVERNMENT SPENDING, until we were fully out of this weak economy. The real question is, would his crazy party let him?

Awwww Yeah! Biden in DA HOUSE!

Watch out everyone. VP JB is comin' to your town and he's gonna kick some butt! Nothing humanizes the ticket like the Bidenator! Key quote, "you can tell I'm new."


For those of you who don't know State Senator Chuck Graham is disabled.

On Obama's State of the Union

First of all, let me state that I am tired and about to go to bed, because sleep is awesome.

Oh tay, here we go. The Presidential State Of The Union is always a balance between lofty vision and concrete policy proposals. You always want an equal mix of the two. You want to feel moved, but you also need a "where's the beef?" aspect to the grand themes of the speech.

Overall, I thought Obama did a good job - not great, but good. For me, it was a tad heavy on the "where's the beef" aspects of smaller policy prescriptions and a little light on general vision of why his leadership is right for this moment. He articulately laid out the facts that he has issued less regulations than Bush, domestic oil production is at the highest levels in 8 years (even with the BP oil spill), more WTO complaints against China than Bush, and his administration is doing it's best to get rid of dumb, red-tape regulations - culminating in the terrible "spilled milk" joke (which was oddly effective due to its extreme terribleness), which helped illustrate that he is actually, lo and behold a moderate Democrat. And he did a nice job at the beginning and end of the speech by simply stating that if Congress just had a smidge of the national purpose of our military we could get some great things accomplished. Although awkwardly phrased, the story of the Bin Laden mission with Republican Defense Secretary Bob Gates and former rival Hillary Clinton in the situation room was a nice window into the fact that only the mission mattered and party ideology dissolved and that in the small window of executive authority Obama has led as promised.

Interesting and good ideas - Ernie translated

- If you want to send jobs overseas, that's fine, but you shouldn't get a freakin' tax break - that money can be "spent" giving a tax credit to corporations that have expressed interest moving production back to the U.S. I find nothing wrong with a little bit of supporting domestic industry.

- Natural gas exploration is totally OK - so long as you prove it's environmentally safe for U.S. citizens. Also linked to a great point that federal research dollars eventually led to these new ways of accessing shale oil and relating to green/clean energy investment now even if it doesn't pay off IMMEDIATELY.

- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Fraud Task Force - A major part of the collapse of 2008 wasn't just because there were some dumb homebuyers out there. Many financial institutions sold fraudulent mortgages to weak buyers because a higher division of the bank was investing/betting on the failure of said mortgages! It's about time for an honest assessment of the difference between honest failed lending and a bad economy versus banks that proactively gave mortgages for the sheer purpose of monetizing them.

Neutral / Bad ideas

- Forcing everyone to finish high school - Totally agree with the principle, but no meaningful way of enforcement.
- China trade task force - We already have trade lawyers who do this work, this is just a more visible way of seeming like we're tougher on China (not likely to have much impact).

Missed opportunities

- Could have taken a larger stab at comprehensive tax reform. As you can see in the good ideas section, Obama proposed some small credits for corporations bringing jobs back to the U.S., but no mention of general tax reform of lowering rates in exchange for removing loopholes and deductions.

U.S. Catholic bishops care more about sex than abortion

It's been nice to see as President Obama continued his streak of standing up for the correct policies by affirming that all employers, regardless of their religious affiliation, would have to provide health insurance that covers birth control at no cost to the employee. The Obama administration did allow one key exemption; which would allow churches themselves to not comply with the law, but church related institutions such as universities and hospitals must comply by next August 2013. Notably Catholic bishops were outraged as they vowed to fight the "HHS Edict," Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York stating, "the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences."

Devout Catholics have every right to be upset with this dogmatically, as any sex that is not for the sole purpose of procreation is a big NO-NO. People always think that the general requirement for sex is that you need one man and one woman to get married for intercourse to be acceptable. Nope, not if that married couple is using a condom, is on "the pill", the "ring", IUD, you name it, it's NOT OK with the Catholic Church. And from a purely religious standpoint that's cool.

But on a policy level, all this proves is that the Catholic Church cares way more about teens having sex than it does about preventing teens from getting pregnant and then having abortions. This new policy is likely to stop hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies from occurring and that means millions fewer abortions over time. You would think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops would be applauding the new regulation, but no, the Catholic Church has shown its cards and it is way more interested in being angry about teen sex than it is about reducing abortion in America.

With friends like these...

Who needs enemies? This report out of Foreign Policy magazine really puts to light the recent "terrorist attack" assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan. We need to make a point here; just because someone works for a government doesn't mean they agree with their leadership's policies. I'm sure there were lots of people who worked for Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il not because they agreed with their policies, but because if they didn't work on behalf of their country, their entire family might be subject to work in camps or even death. If I lived in a country like that, you bet your balls I'm crying my ass off when Kim Jong-Il dies. It just so happens that Ahmadi-Roshan's job was to work on nuclear physics. To kill someone for merely participating in a system that is not of their own control and is CIVILIAN in nature is completely wrong and counterproductive to Israel's security. It's like the religious nuts of the world WANT to have World War III.

God damnit Israel, I want to love you so bad, but you're always acting so crazy!

Treat Yo Self, 2011!

It's the last day to Treat...Yo...Self - 2011. So enjoy it everyone and have a Happy New Year!

 

This is how Republicans govern

Clock in, clock out. Not like they have any bills to discuss. It's all in a hard day's work in the U.S. Congress run by people who don't believe in it.

Rest in peace Hitch

The great Christopher Hitchens has died. The columnist was a great advocate for freedom, reason and atheism. He is probably most known for his support of the Iraq War and had the strongest argument for it. Even though to this day I remain opposed (the war officially ended yesterday - yay!), Hitch always forced me to reconsider my view. He was also known for his fervent atheism and his belief that the modern world would be vastly better without religion and its influence. Whether we're religious or not, we pray for Hitch. He is neither in heaven or hell, but we hope that Mr. Hitchens' great acerbic wit lives on forever.

Long live Hitch.

I guess Keynesianism is dead after all. Wait...what?

Six major central banks, including ours, announced that they would coordinate their efforts to increase liquidity in the European market, to stave off the economic collapse of Greece, Italy, and Portugal and thus halt spreading the contagion to stronger parts of Europe and the world as a whole. Yet conservative politicians worldwide (and especially in the U.S.) want us (the economy) to jump off the top of the building (Keynesian counter-cyclical stimulus), hoping that we'll bounce all the way across to the building rooftop across the street.

However, confronting a true worldwide economic collapse just for the sake of moral superiority, would look like this. (Hint: We're Neo)

 

Essay of the Day

"In the aughts, Republicans held more power for longer than at any time since the twenties, yet the result was the weakest and least broadly shared economic expansion since World War II, followed by an economic crash and prolonged slump."

Quote from the must-read essay by former speechwriter and adviser to President Bush, David Frum.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments on ObamaCare

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the case concerning the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) commonly known to teabaggers and Americans alike as "ObamaCare." It will be interesting to see what this ideologically divided court does with the rulings. The court has instructed the parties to prepare briefs surrounding three main questions:

1. Is the requirement to purchase insurance (individual mandate) allowable under the interstate commerce clause?
2. Did the federal government overstep its bounds by only making Medicaid funds available upon states' acceptance of the new laws and regulations in the ACA?
3. If only the individual mandate is struck down (which is a legal option), does the healthcare law become de facto null and void as it is the primary funding mechanism for getting rid of pre-existing conditions, recission and young adult regulations?

Overall, I feel like the ACA will be held as constitutional. Most appellate courts have held it to be so, including the D.C. Court of Appeals. Here's Reagan's Solicitor General, Charles Fried explaining while, although in a democracy we may disagree on this politically, this law is surely constitutional.



I'm going to do the layman's argument.
Q. Can a government force you to buy something through regulation?
A. Yes, most state governments force people who have cars to purchase car insurance, so that when people get in accidents the costs to both health and property are borne by the people and not the state.
Q. A-ha! I have two points. One that's state governments have more lee-way to impose regulations; and two, I can opt out of the car insurance mandate by not having a car!
A. Here's the crux of why the mandate matters and is legal. Everyone has a body. NO ONE has the ability to opt out of the healthcare market. And if people promised never to move outside of their state, then maybe we could have health insurance administered on a purely state level, but the market of American people move frequently between states and thus the costs and risks of accidents, disease, and age are spread across the nation so it's not outside the bounds of Congress to consider national solutions to national problems. You may disagree with the solution, but that does not make it unconstitutional.

Boo f'n hoo...

Welcome to the economy fellas...you got a three year head start. Hope you like your new digs in Williamsburg.

Quote of the Day

"To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now."

- Andrew Sullivan, "The Dish", 10.20.11

Goodbye Steve...

You will be missed. Thanks for all of the cool gadgets and changing the modern computing experience as we know it.

President Barack Hussein Reagan

This video speaks for itself as a reminder of how far the Republican party has moved to the right.

 

A Microcosm of What's Happening Within the Republican Party

If you haven't seen this video yet, it's absolutely hilarious. Hank Williams Jr. of Monday Night Football fame compares President Obama to Hitler and the Fox and Friends crew are absolutely stunned!

I think it's a pretty good example of what's happening on a grander scale within the Republican party. Normal Republicans, who are too busy planning to make lots of money and shooting varmints with Mitt Romney (that's code for actually making lots of money), are thinking that they might end up with a normal centrist nominee that could feasibly win the Presidency and help them make even more money (if some gays are shebanging or getting married during this process these Republicans don't really care so long as the stock market is up). But what they don't realize is, is they have a good chunk of crazies in their midst like Hank Williams Jr., who will nominate a crazy person who can't get elected.