During the spring of 2013, Edward Snowden introduced himself to the world. Mr. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor with Booz Allen Hamilton, was the famed, or infamous, depending on your perspective, "whistle-blower" -- who released thousands of mass surveillance documents. He provided the public with intimate information about the United States' spy programs. Immediately, there was a firestorm of opinion, both of condemnation and praise.
I withheld judgment up until now. As I reflect, I cannot for certain say why. Indeed, as I looked for public or private statements about the matter, I came up empty handed.
It's not that I did not have an opinion. I did. But, it was not a fully developed opinion. How could it be? A complete judgment, or opinion, should be based on a complete set of facts. Moreover, the issue in debate is a complex question into how we balance the need for security with the individual right to privacy. There are entire volumes of books committed to this question.
That all being said, I have learned a great deal from the interview with Brian Williams on May 28, 2014. In my opinion, the interview provided a great deal of new information, including: Mr. Snowden's fear of a criminal trial -- because of evidentiary exclusion of evidence on the rationale that it could threaten "national security", how Mr. Snowden intended to seek asylum in South America, but ended up in Russia, and how he holds genuine convictions about the need for public participation in relation to the question of whether mass surveillance programs are needed.
Since the initial leaks, and number of subsequent interviews, including with Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who published the documents, there has been a healthy public discussion on privacy and security. The nuanced topic has made me realize that people may hold strong positions on the subject but be unable to explain a sound rationale for their position. I suspect that I did not formulate a belief for that very reason: I wanted to hear more from Mr. Snowden himself before I cast my judgment on him.
Before I state my opinion about Mr. Snowden, let me explain what should be done policy wise in regards to the ultimate balance question. Mass surveillance should be tailored, limited, and regulated. From what I have read of late, steps are being taken to do just that, even with our rancorous Congressional polarization, which is surprising. But, our Fourth Amendment rights need to be protected vigorously. A government agent, from the NSA, CIA, or anywhere, should have to meet the standard of probable cause. We should not water down the constitution for the sake of preventing a new September 11, 2001. By not doing so, we hurt our country and our reputation abroad.
The surveillance programs should be operated in such a way that our private communications, data, and lives are protected. There should be an honest debate in how this can be done effectively, including whether it should be stored first, and then accessed later by a warrant, or whether data should not be collected at all until there is probable cause. Individuals with more technological and intelligence gathering backgrounds should lead this debate. Surely, independent attorneys should be at the forefront of protecting personal privacy -- and the President has indicated that such an agency will be created.
Finally, the surveillance programs should be disclosed to the public in an honest fashion. The public does not need to know the classified information, but it is entitled to how the programs function, and how the public relates to those programs -- knowledge is power.
Security is essential to a strong nation. Countries cannot govern if its citizens do not believe that they are safe. I understand this. However, we need to evaluate how much should be sacrificed, and how much needs to be sacrificed for security. To date, the Snowden criticizers have not satisfied me with justification for the unlimited nature of the mass surveillance. How many lives were saved because of the constitutional rights of some were trampled on? We do not know. This should be addressed without hesitation: prove that these procedures are needed to protect against violent attacks.
Mr. Snowden gave us the information to base our opinions; that much is not in dispute. What should be done with him, given that he broke federal law? I think that he should be afforded the right of any other citizen: innocent until proven guilty. He should eventually come home and have a public trial, but that may be impossible with our current evidentiary laws on Espionage. This can be addressed by Congress. Perhaps reform can be made. Whistle-blower laws can be expanded.
In conclusion, there are still unanswered questions even after a whole year has passed. That may be a good thing. For once, Americans may be able to utilize patience in a world of immediate satisfaction. For me, I'm content in waiting to see what happens. And the reality is that the government may already know that.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
We're Not In Kansas Anymore ... Thankfully
One of the benefits of living in Los Angeles is the occasional celebrity sighting. Just the other day, at the local movie theater, I ran into Jeff Garlin -- actor and executive producer of the hit show: Curb Your Enthusiasm. And by "ran into," I mean that I shouted his name awkwardly before he waved back and scurried along. Britney Spears was even in front of me at the nearby Starbucks about a year ago.
Hollywood is right around the corner and there is a lot of cinema history in the entertainment capital of the world. In fact, one of the best known American movies, The Wizard of Oz, was filmed in Culver City and was originally shown in San Bernardino for a sneak peak.
The Wizard of Oz is renowned for a variety of reasons. One, its Technicolor was groundbreaking; the yellow-brick road awed audiences. Second, the music was inspiring, including the Oscar-winning song -- "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Third, Dorothy's dog and the Munchkins were adorable. Finally, it paved the way for the oft-quoted line, "We're not in Kansas anymore..."
I often wondered whether Kansas residents ever got sick of hearing that line. But recently, I have wondered whether Kansas residents wished they had left the state.
The Republican-controlled state is having some economic problems. The conservative-leaning Kansas has aggressively implemented tea-party economic principles. The Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, cut taxes and promised economic prosperity. He stated in 2012 that, "[Kansas'] new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy... [it will] pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business..." He may need another adrenaline shot.
Unsurprisingly, the opposite has occurred. Kansas is now facing a huge budget deficit -- $508 million less in revenues compared to the last fiscal year. By 2019, economists expect a deficit of close to $1 billion unless something is changed.
Employment is not the "best" either. Neighboring states are increasing employment at better or similar rates and two large companies, Boeing and Applebee's, have announced that they will move thousands of jobs to other states. Kansas voters are acknowledging the failures; only 33% of voters support Gov. Brownback. The candidate running against Brownback is taking the opportunity to point out that, "The governor [championed] a red state model, and it’s truly not working."
Besides the fact that Kansas schools are being harmed, it may be difficult for Kansas to follow the state's Supreme Court ruling that more must be done for low-income districts. The Republican's policies simply cannot provide an education to a number of its young citizens.
It is truly unfortunate, but again, what can we expect at this point. Republicans will not face reality when it comes to science, facts, or reality. Predictably, the Governor has blamed President Obama...He will not take credit for the situation that he created. Kansas has not been the only state to champion "conservative" economics and been proven wrong by the data. North Carolina, also Republican-controlled, cut unemployment insurance for millions of unemployed Americans. They said that it would lead to job growth and fortune. The reverse happened: most just left the labor force in despair.
If I were in the the land of Oz, I would try to stay there. What's the point of going back to Kansas? Ironically, I have to admit that I have some personal experience with Oz. In high school, I played the "Lion." I wasn't nominated for any Academy Awards but it was a great experience. One of my favorite moments was when I sang, "If I Were King of the Forest."
In honor of that moment, I now sing, "If I were king of the forest, I would not pursue voodoo economics." Because seriously, just like Oz, it's a fantasy to think that Republican economics will benefit everyone. We're not in Kansas anymore...and that's just fine with me.
Hollywood is right around the corner and there is a lot of cinema history in the entertainment capital of the world. In fact, one of the best known American movies, The Wizard of Oz, was filmed in Culver City and was originally shown in San Bernardino for a sneak peak.
The Wizard of Oz is renowned for a variety of reasons. One, its Technicolor was groundbreaking; the yellow-brick road awed audiences. Second, the music was inspiring, including the Oscar-winning song -- "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Third, Dorothy's dog and the Munchkins were adorable. Finally, it paved the way for the oft-quoted line, "We're not in Kansas anymore..."
I often wondered whether Kansas residents ever got sick of hearing that line. But recently, I have wondered whether Kansas residents wished they had left the state.
The Republican-controlled state is having some economic problems. The conservative-leaning Kansas has aggressively implemented tea-party economic principles. The Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, cut taxes and promised economic prosperity. He stated in 2012 that, "[Kansas'] new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy... [it will] pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business..." He may need another adrenaline shot.
Unsurprisingly, the opposite has occurred. Kansas is now facing a huge budget deficit -- $508 million less in revenues compared to the last fiscal year. By 2019, economists expect a deficit of close to $1 billion unless something is changed.
Employment is not the "best" either. Neighboring states are increasing employment at better or similar rates and two large companies, Boeing and Applebee's, have announced that they will move thousands of jobs to other states. Kansas voters are acknowledging the failures; only 33% of voters support Gov. Brownback. The candidate running against Brownback is taking the opportunity to point out that, "The governor [championed] a red state model, and it’s truly not working."
Besides the fact that Kansas schools are being harmed, it may be difficult for Kansas to follow the state's Supreme Court ruling that more must be done for low-income districts. The Republican's policies simply cannot provide an education to a number of its young citizens.
It is truly unfortunate, but again, what can we expect at this point. Republicans will not face reality when it comes to science, facts, or reality. Predictably, the Governor has blamed President Obama...He will not take credit for the situation that he created. Kansas has not been the only state to champion "conservative" economics and been proven wrong by the data. North Carolina, also Republican-controlled, cut unemployment insurance for millions of unemployed Americans. They said that it would lead to job growth and fortune. The reverse happened: most just left the labor force in despair.
If I were in the the land of Oz, I would try to stay there. What's the point of going back to Kansas? Ironically, I have to admit that I have some personal experience with Oz. In high school, I played the "Lion." I wasn't nominated for any Academy Awards but it was a great experience. One of my favorite moments was when I sang, "If I Were King of the Forest."
In honor of that moment, I now sing, "If I were king of the forest, I would not pursue voodoo economics." Because seriously, just like Oz, it's a fantasy to think that Republican economics will benefit everyone. We're not in Kansas anymore...and that's just fine with me.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Midterm Musings
President Obama sent me an email today. The short message had a personal touch -- Barack addressed me by my first name: Chris. I know that some of my readers must be jealous. I mean, it's not everyday that the most powerful man in the world takes the time to write to a regular citizen like me. Even if it's about raising money for the midterm elections...
Now that I reflect upon the email, it looks oddly familiar to the other 487289358 emails that I have received in the past thirty-five minutes; like the email Vice-President Joe sent me. Something seems fishy. I wonder if the two of them had shopped at Target recently.
All kidding aside, us political enthusiasts can expect dozens of similar emails in the next few months. As an individual who donated money in the past to Democratic campaigns, my personal information is ripe for solicitation. The midterm elections are right around the corner.
Most people must agree with President Obama about the midterms, however. They are not sexy. It doesn't even come close to the Presidential elections. That's the real sexy stuff -- remember when Mitt Romney opined about his sleeping wear. Indeed, most people do not even know if their candidate is on the ballot this year.
But for me and other liberals, there is something uniquely troublesome about the elections this November. Midterms are historically a bad time for Democrats. We tend to fall asleep. In other words, voter turnout during non-presidential election years are proven to be horrid. This year will be even more of a hurdle because of the unprecedented congressional redistricting, or "gerrymandering," by Republicans in 2010.
As stated before in a previous post, the Congressional maps heavily favor Republicans. In 2012, there were 1.4 million more votes for Democrats, but the Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House of Representatives. That was the second time since the 1940's that a party receiving more of the votes ended up losing the majority.
That's not all. Democrats can expect more obstacles to overcome. I know: it is not fair. The 2010 wave of Republicans, and Tea Party candidates, also stormed the state legislatures. Conservative states obtained Republican super-majorities, meaning that those states were relatively free to pass whatever "freedom-loving" bills that it wanted. On the agenda: strict voter ID laws.
Voter ID laws -- passed under the guise of fraud-prevention -- mandate that voters possess a valid identification card while casting a vote. Some states require a birth certificate or passport. The GOP has also taken steps to limit early voting, online voting, weekend voting, and same-day registration. Evidence shows that these type of laws have a negative disparate impact on low-income and minority populations -- traditional Democratic voters. The Republicans have been busy in the state legislatures -- as opposed to the House of Representatives.
So, while you may hear or see the occasional pundit pontificating about the political ramifications of ObamaCare on the midterms, it's actually more about structural advantages set into motion in 2010. Not that ObamaCare is necessarily politically bad for the Democrats. There is evidence to suggest that over 7 million will sign up by the deadline today. But it is undeniable that millions of dollars in TV advertising are being poured into the false ObamaCare narratives. Fact-checkers will be busy for some time.
We have a choice. The red or blue pill. Democrats can accept the traditional midterm blues or we can do everything in our power to help with the turnout. If we simply concede to the slick strategies implemented by the GOP, I question our resolve. The simple "reality" is that we may have to do more than read emails. Let's pick up the phones too -- we may find ourselves in a "better world."
Now that I reflect upon the email, it looks oddly familiar to the other 487289358 emails that I have received in the past thirty-five minutes; like the email Vice-President Joe sent me. Something seems fishy. I wonder if the two of them had shopped at Target recently.
All kidding aside, us political enthusiasts can expect dozens of similar emails in the next few months. As an individual who donated money in the past to Democratic campaigns, my personal information is ripe for solicitation. The midterm elections are right around the corner.
Most people must agree with President Obama about the midterms, however. They are not sexy. It doesn't even come close to the Presidential elections. That's the real sexy stuff -- remember when Mitt Romney opined about his sleeping wear. Indeed, most people do not even know if their candidate is on the ballot this year.
But for me and other liberals, there is something uniquely troublesome about the elections this November. Midterms are historically a bad time for Democrats. We tend to fall asleep. In other words, voter turnout during non-presidential election years are proven to be horrid. This year will be even more of a hurdle because of the unprecedented congressional redistricting, or "gerrymandering," by Republicans in 2010.
As stated before in a previous post, the Congressional maps heavily favor Republicans. In 2012, there were 1.4 million more votes for Democrats, but the Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House of Representatives. That was the second time since the 1940's that a party receiving more of the votes ended up losing the majority.
That's not all. Democrats can expect more obstacles to overcome. I know: it is not fair. The 2010 wave of Republicans, and Tea Party candidates, also stormed the state legislatures. Conservative states obtained Republican super-majorities, meaning that those states were relatively free to pass whatever "freedom-loving" bills that it wanted. On the agenda: strict voter ID laws.
Voter ID laws -- passed under the guise of fraud-prevention -- mandate that voters possess a valid identification card while casting a vote. Some states require a birth certificate or passport. The GOP has also taken steps to limit early voting, online voting, weekend voting, and same-day registration. Evidence shows that these type of laws have a negative disparate impact on low-income and minority populations -- traditional Democratic voters. The Republicans have been busy in the state legislatures -- as opposed to the House of Representatives.
So, while you may hear or see the occasional pundit pontificating about the political ramifications of ObamaCare on the midterms, it's actually more about structural advantages set into motion in 2010. Not that ObamaCare is necessarily politically bad for the Democrats. There is evidence to suggest that over 7 million will sign up by the deadline today. But it is undeniable that millions of dollars in TV advertising are being poured into the false ObamaCare narratives. Fact-checkers will be busy for some time.
We have a choice. The red or blue pill. Democrats can accept the traditional midterm blues or we can do everything in our power to help with the turnout. If we simply concede to the slick strategies implemented by the GOP, I question our resolve. The simple "reality" is that we may have to do more than read emails. Let's pick up the phones too -- we may find ourselves in a "better world."
Friday, February 28, 2014
Stop Your Groaning: Millennials Are Going to Save the World
It's difficult not to come across a Millennial headline every now and then: "Millennials: Trust No One But Twitter;" "Why Millennials Can't Grow Up;" "Narcissistic, broke, and 7 other ways to describe the Millennial generation;" "Millennials are the key to saving retail." The Baby Boomers, and Generation X, are keenly interested in us -- the younger generation.
The geriatrics have spent their time studying our interests, buying patterns, and social media indulgences. There is enough data to make some conclusions. "Narcissists, I tell you." Or, "Lazy, entitled, and love video games too much," they groan. One book summarized the Millennial generation as "Generation Me." I wonder if the old timers are right.
Yes, we have grown up with the internet, laptop, Google, Facebook, and iPhone. Selfies are our creation. We love Netflix, personalized webpages, reality TV on cooking, relationships, celebrities, competitions, and so forth and so forth. It's true that we can post our feelings on a million different social media platforms. Well, maybe not a million, but you get the idea.
But, Millennials are also the most educated of all generations. And guess what: we are also more tolerant, optimistic, and civic-minded. We may even be the Next Greatest Generation because of our pragmatism. So, in a way, Millennials are both self-absorbed and community-oriented.
Articles may discuss, or highlight, our weaknesses but some of them do not put history into perspective. Millennials have gone through the worst recession since the Great Depression. We have also witnessed the most polarized and least efficient political body in United States history. If that weren't enough, we have also been victims of higher education malfeasance and unrestrained avarice. Companies have polluted our waters with DT-50-D. The food we have eaten has been laced with ADA.
We can thank all of the older generations for the above-mentioned realities. So do you think you can excuse Millennials for being a little skeptical, distrustful, alienated -- even a little "narcissistic." There is the notion that we cannot fit into the frameworks institutionalized by the Baby Boomers. It's actually not true. We simply reject their framework.
Family time does not need to be sacrificed for a better career. A liberal and a conservative can sit at a table together and compromise, without abandoning principles. A person can be wealthy, and successful, without trampling on the least among us. Everything in this world does not have to be so black and white, a zero-sum game.
When I read the articles analyzing Millennials, I can't help but think that this has been done time and time again. The older generations aging -- losing the institutions and values that they had built for a lifetime. Almost half a century-ago, Baby Boomers must have been similarly criticized. It's the way it goes, I suppose.
Do not get me wrong: the older generations have made our world possible. They were the ones who gave Millennials the tools to be self-obsessed. It's just that Millennials have been unfairly mischaracterized. We do not like the way things are moving forward. Millennials are going to do something about it though. We are going to change the world -- for the better.
The geriatrics have spent their time studying our interests, buying patterns, and social media indulgences. There is enough data to make some conclusions. "Narcissists, I tell you." Or, "Lazy, entitled, and love video games too much," they groan. One book summarized the Millennial generation as "Generation Me." I wonder if the old timers are right.
Yes, we have grown up with the internet, laptop, Google, Facebook, and iPhone. Selfies are our creation. We love Netflix, personalized webpages, reality TV on cooking, relationships, celebrities, competitions, and so forth and so forth. It's true that we can post our feelings on a million different social media platforms. Well, maybe not a million, but you get the idea.
But, Millennials are also the most educated of all generations. And guess what: we are also more tolerant, optimistic, and civic-minded. We may even be the Next Greatest Generation because of our pragmatism. So, in a way, Millennials are both self-absorbed and community-oriented.
Articles may discuss, or highlight, our weaknesses but some of them do not put history into perspective. Millennials have gone through the worst recession since the Great Depression. We have also witnessed the most polarized and least efficient political body in United States history. If that weren't enough, we have also been victims of higher education malfeasance and unrestrained avarice. Companies have polluted our waters with DT-50-D. The food we have eaten has been laced with ADA.
We can thank all of the older generations for the above-mentioned realities. So do you think you can excuse Millennials for being a little skeptical, distrustful, alienated -- even a little "narcissistic." There is the notion that we cannot fit into the frameworks institutionalized by the Baby Boomers. It's actually not true. We simply reject their framework.
Family time does not need to be sacrificed for a better career. A liberal and a conservative can sit at a table together and compromise, without abandoning principles. A person can be wealthy, and successful, without trampling on the least among us. Everything in this world does not have to be so black and white, a zero-sum game.
When I read the articles analyzing Millennials, I can't help but think that this has been done time and time again. The older generations aging -- losing the institutions and values that they had built for a lifetime. Almost half a century-ago, Baby Boomers must have been similarly criticized. It's the way it goes, I suppose.
Do not get me wrong: the older generations have made our world possible. They were the ones who gave Millennials the tools to be self-obsessed. It's just that Millennials have been unfairly mischaracterized. We do not like the way things are moving forward. Millennials are going to do something about it though. We are going to change the world -- for the better.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Static Union
"Big thinking has more often gotten us into trouble then led us to success..." - Republican Congressman Tom Cole.
Last night President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in front of his political adversary -- the "do even less" Congress. During the address, Mr. Obama focused on the personal stories of average Americans. He highlighted the anecdotes to paint a picture and establish a theme: citizens need help, and if Congress is unwilling to act, he will.
The economy has definitely improved since the Great Recession. Unemployment is down, stocks are up, the housing market is rebounding, and consumer spending is picking up. Yet, people are still hurting. There are still many things that can be done to improve the lives of tens of millions. The Federal Reserve can only do so much; fiscal policy can be much more effective in strengthening the economic recovery.
Hence, President Obama has declared that he will use executive action when possible to aid the economy. Congressional Republicans reacted in sync. "Obama has run out of ideas..." "If [Mr. Obama] tries to ignore the [Constitution], he's going to run into a brick wall." What has Speaker Boehner been calling the brick wall up until now? The GOP has made it a political strategy to block whatever it can to ensure that Mr. Obama does not have claim to legislative achievements. The Speaker presided over record setting Filibusters and historical intransigence.
The Constitution is silent on what to do when one branch of the Government has taken an indefinite vacation. So, while Executive Action is necessary, it is not a cure all. It should not become a fix to Congressional obstructionism.
I believe that Republicans want to do whats best for the country in the long run. Like Democrats and liberals, the GOP loves its country. They certainly have different policy ideas on how to accomplish that goal. But, Congress has decided that it must win elections first before it can do its job. It's a brazen strategy not worth hiding. In having good intentions and standing by strong held convictions, the GOP has resigned to the fact that Americans can wait. We shouldn't have to.
Our leaders should look to the American people as examples. Every single day we compromise. We do not agree with all persons we come across or do business with, but we find a way to negotiate and find common ground.
Like individuals who must agree every day despite having different beliefs, Congress should forfeit its strategy of letting 2014 come and go. The time delay may be politically convenient, but it is not a good policy for Americans. It is not a winning formula either -- people will reflect their frustration at the ballot box.
In sum, Executive Action can help only so much. Mr. Boehner and I agree that the Constitution is the foundation of our great nation and must be followed. That is why I call on Speaker Boehner to fulfill his duties under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. You see, you were not elected to win elections, you were elected to legislate. Get to work.
Last night President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in front of his political adversary -- the "do even less" Congress. During the address, Mr. Obama focused on the personal stories of average Americans. He highlighted the anecdotes to paint a picture and establish a theme: citizens need help, and if Congress is unwilling to act, he will.
The economy has definitely improved since the Great Recession. Unemployment is down, stocks are up, the housing market is rebounding, and consumer spending is picking up. Yet, people are still hurting. There are still many things that can be done to improve the lives of tens of millions. The Federal Reserve can only do so much; fiscal policy can be much more effective in strengthening the economic recovery.
Hence, President Obama has declared that he will use executive action when possible to aid the economy. Congressional Republicans reacted in sync. "Obama has run out of ideas..." "If [Mr. Obama] tries to ignore the [Constitution], he's going to run into a brick wall." What has Speaker Boehner been calling the brick wall up until now? The GOP has made it a political strategy to block whatever it can to ensure that Mr. Obama does not have claim to legislative achievements. The Speaker presided over record setting Filibusters and historical intransigence.
The Constitution is silent on what to do when one branch of the Government has taken an indefinite vacation. So, while Executive Action is necessary, it is not a cure all. It should not become a fix to Congressional obstructionism.
I believe that Republicans want to do whats best for the country in the long run. Like Democrats and liberals, the GOP loves its country. They certainly have different policy ideas on how to accomplish that goal. But, Congress has decided that it must win elections first before it can do its job. It's a brazen strategy not worth hiding. In having good intentions and standing by strong held convictions, the GOP has resigned to the fact that Americans can wait. We shouldn't have to.
Our leaders should look to the American people as examples. Every single day we compromise. We do not agree with all persons we come across or do business with, but we find a way to negotiate and find common ground.
Like individuals who must agree every day despite having different beliefs, Congress should forfeit its strategy of letting 2014 come and go. The time delay may be politically convenient, but it is not a good policy for Americans. It is not a winning formula either -- people will reflect their frustration at the ballot box.
In sum, Executive Action can help only so much. Mr. Boehner and I agree that the Constitution is the foundation of our great nation and must be followed. That is why I call on Speaker Boehner to fulfill his duties under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. You see, you were not elected to win elections, you were elected to legislate. Get to work.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
2013: Incompentence over Nihilism
Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" is the go-to program for political satire, high-brow comedy, and potty jokes. In one moment during the show, a viewer can see an insightful interview on voter suppression, and in the next minute, a shtick on Chicago Pizza. The comedy central team certainly has range -- and it is no wonder that a larger majority of Americans are relying on the New Jersey native for quality news (as opposed to Cable News).
One segment, however, summarized the 2013 political year for me: Team Incompetence v. Team Nihilism. Can you guess which political party stands for nihilism and vice versa? Let me give you a hint; one was "responsible" for the Government shut-down, and the other, a botched health care roll-out.
Neither team names carry positive connotations. At this point, both political parties are facing huge electoral challenges in the future. Both have to fight their historically low favorability ratings in the upcoming 2014 elections.
In fact, the lack of faith in institutions, both Government and private, are at an all-time high. Even the reputable "60 Minutes" faced backlash when it ran with a bogus Benghazi story. It had to retract and apologize. No wonder people are pessimistic.
My posts this year have constantly focused on the GOP's absurd policies for obstruction, corporate welfare, and fiscal callousness. But, it would be a disservice to my handful of readers (I jest, it's at least a dozen) to ignore the failings of the current Administration. President Obama needs to do a better job with overseeing executive programs.
Let me be clear: I am happy with the President overall. No president in the history of our nation has had to face the amount of hatred and nonsense that he has had to deal with. He is the President in times of incomparable polarization and special-interest influence. Moreover, the GOP are not really opposing Obama, it's more like, they are opposing the imaginary Obama that they have created in their minds. Hell, if half of the things e-mailed to me about Obama were true, I would have purchased my tea party hat a long time ago.
That being said, President Obama should have appointed a head of the Health Care Exchanges at the beginning of 2011. The program, at the start, should have had a top-down hierarchical system to ensure efficiency and functionality. I was greatly disappointed that the first couple of months were plagued with glitches and bugs. Had there been better oversight, coupled with a more efficient procurement system, the problems could have been avoided.
Of course it doesn't help either that we have a minority party in Government that are nihilists, which brings me back to my central point -- I support candidates that want to improve the way things are done, not simply advocate a position of opposition. The GOP still, after three years of repeal obsession, has no alternative to the pre-ACA healthcare system. It's okay to the GOP that 40 million people remain uninsured, and that people with preexisting conditions, like cancer, diabetes, and the like, are out of luck.
It's much easier to fight for nothing, than to try to implement change -- messy, difficult, and demanding change. That's how I would summarize the 2013 political year though. We have one party willing to risk political capital to help the uninsured, and the other, willing to cash in on petty political points for every reported setback. For some reason, I had a crazy thought that after the 2012 election, we would have moved towards reconciliation and compromise. Boy, was I wrong.
Next year, 2014, we will have a choice as voters. Do we want a majority party that may mess up at times for trying to enact difficult reform? Or do we want to support the party that are naysayers, can't-doers, and perpetual alarmists? I have to admit, I don't really like either option. But, I'm willing to bat for the team that are willing to make mistakes, rather than the team willing to strive off of them. Bring on 2014.
One segment, however, summarized the 2013 political year for me: Team Incompetence v. Team Nihilism. Can you guess which political party stands for nihilism and vice versa? Let me give you a hint; one was "responsible" for the Government shut-down, and the other, a botched health care roll-out.
Neither team names carry positive connotations. At this point, both political parties are facing huge electoral challenges in the future. Both have to fight their historically low favorability ratings in the upcoming 2014 elections.
In fact, the lack of faith in institutions, both Government and private, are at an all-time high. Even the reputable "60 Minutes" faced backlash when it ran with a bogus Benghazi story. It had to retract and apologize. No wonder people are pessimistic.
My posts this year have constantly focused on the GOP's absurd policies for obstruction, corporate welfare, and fiscal callousness. But, it would be a disservice to my handful of readers (I jest, it's at least a dozen) to ignore the failings of the current Administration. President Obama needs to do a better job with overseeing executive programs.
Let me be clear: I am happy with the President overall. No president in the history of our nation has had to face the amount of hatred and nonsense that he has had to deal with. He is the President in times of incomparable polarization and special-interest influence. Moreover, the GOP are not really opposing Obama, it's more like, they are opposing the imaginary Obama that they have created in their minds. Hell, if half of the things e-mailed to me about Obama were true, I would have purchased my tea party hat a long time ago.
That being said, President Obama should have appointed a head of the Health Care Exchanges at the beginning of 2011. The program, at the start, should have had a top-down hierarchical system to ensure efficiency and functionality. I was greatly disappointed that the first couple of months were plagued with glitches and bugs. Had there been better oversight, coupled with a more efficient procurement system, the problems could have been avoided.
Of course it doesn't help either that we have a minority party in Government that are nihilists, which brings me back to my central point -- I support candidates that want to improve the way things are done, not simply advocate a position of opposition. The GOP still, after three years of repeal obsession, has no alternative to the pre-ACA healthcare system. It's okay to the GOP that 40 million people remain uninsured, and that people with preexisting conditions, like cancer, diabetes, and the like, are out of luck.
It's much easier to fight for nothing, than to try to implement change -- messy, difficult, and demanding change. That's how I would summarize the 2013 political year though. We have one party willing to risk political capital to help the uninsured, and the other, willing to cash in on petty political points for every reported setback. For some reason, I had a crazy thought that after the 2012 election, we would have moved towards reconciliation and compromise. Boy, was I wrong.
Next year, 2014, we will have a choice as voters. Do we want a majority party that may mess up at times for trying to enact difficult reform? Or do we want to support the party that are naysayers, can't-doers, and perpetual alarmists? I have to admit, I don't really like either option. But, I'm willing to bat for the team that are willing to make mistakes, rather than the team willing to strive off of them. Bring on 2014.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
The Pope Ain't Down with "Trickle-Down"
"What
good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their
soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?" - Matthew 16:26
Francis of Assisi was listening to a sermon in the year 1209 when his life changed forever. The preacher had been discussing the verse Matthew 10:9. In that passage, Jesus instructs his followers to go out into the world and proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven was upon them. But Jesus also told his followers to not take any money, shoes, or even a walking stick while they spread the Gospel. Shortly thereafter, Francis started the Franciscan Order, a group of "lesser brothers," who lived by a simple creed: follow the teachings of Christ and walk in his footsteps.
It was said that Pope Innocent III had his initial doubts about an endorsement for the Order. The doubts were put to rest when during a dream Pope Innocent III had seen Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome.
Over 800 years later, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope and took the name Francis. A sense of renewal, awakening, and hope has followed the white smoke that emanated from the Sistine Chapel. For over a billion Catholics, Pope Francis has rejuvenated the church. His embrace of the disfigured man showed compassion; and his humility was on display when he washed the feet of prison detainees.
Personally, it could not be more exciting to see Pope Francis living out the name he has chosen. He has called for Catholics to serve and help the poor. And his actions show a desire to ensure that the call is met. Pope Francis also connects with me on a deeper level because he will be the Pope during my confirmation in the spring. Almost two years of confirmation classes will culminate in me choosing a new name as well.
Pope Francis was also in the headlines recently because he attacked "trickle-down" economics -- the economic policies made famous by President Reagan and a number of "fiscal conservatives." In his statement, he condemned the policy by saying, "[trickle-down economics] has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system." He went on to decry the "idolatry of money" and encouraged implementation of economic policies that can actually help the less fortunate.
The remarks possibly gained more attention than it would have otherwise had it not been for Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential candidate. During a CNN interview, Palin said that the Pope's statements of late "sound kind of liberal." There was a social media backlash and Palin eventually issued an apology on her Facebook page.
The Pope is not the only person challenging the belief that low taxes on the rich will spur economic opportunity for all. Economists have been championing ideas that will curb the growth of severe income inequality. Furthermore, some journalists have made the issue of low wages a major topic of public discourse. Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart have had to face heat for being "welfare queens." The two companies have a host of employees who receive government assistance because the large companies do not pay them enough. McDonalds' McResource line, which helps employees sign up for welfare and food stamps, was rightly mocked and ridiculed.
There is no doubt that the public mood has changed on economic fairness because of individuals who have advocated for reform. In the year 2012, over half of the country made less than $30,000 a year. Over the past two decades, the top 1% of incomes have received over 2/3 of the overall economic growth in the country. The inequality is not just unfair, it is morally wrong. That is why Pope Francis has made it a central issue in his push to re-shape the Catholic Church.
There is another Pope who reminds me of the importance of good economic policy. The biggest statue in the world of Pope John Paul II is in the former soviet state of Poland -- the country where Pope John Paul II was born. Poland's economy has become the most dynamic in Europe. During years of economic decline all over Europe, Poland has stood out for its consistent growth and success. One of the main reasons for its success: Poland's refusal to accept austerity and its commitment to invest and spend on infrastructure. Over $137 billion was spent by Poland while other European countries were cutting back.
The point is that our Government can do more to change the current imbalance. Right now, the economy does not work for everybody -- it only works for a few. I sincerely believe that we have a moral responsibility to support ideas that will enable people to earn enough for their families without having to ask for a handout. If we can strengthen someone's ability to earn, we can also strengthen the moral foundation of our country. Pope Francis is right: money must serve, not rule. Let's just make sure that our elected officials hear the good news.
Francis of Assisi was listening to a sermon in the year 1209 when his life changed forever. The preacher had been discussing the verse Matthew 10:9. In that passage, Jesus instructs his followers to go out into the world and proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven was upon them. But Jesus also told his followers to not take any money, shoes, or even a walking stick while they spread the Gospel. Shortly thereafter, Francis started the Franciscan Order, a group of "lesser brothers," who lived by a simple creed: follow the teachings of Christ and walk in his footsteps.
It was said that Pope Innocent III had his initial doubts about an endorsement for the Order. The doubts were put to rest when during a dream Pope Innocent III had seen Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome.
Over 800 years later, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope and took the name Francis. A sense of renewal, awakening, and hope has followed the white smoke that emanated from the Sistine Chapel. For over a billion Catholics, Pope Francis has rejuvenated the church. His embrace of the disfigured man showed compassion; and his humility was on display when he washed the feet of prison detainees.
Personally, it could not be more exciting to see Pope Francis living out the name he has chosen. He has called for Catholics to serve and help the poor. And his actions show a desire to ensure that the call is met. Pope Francis also connects with me on a deeper level because he will be the Pope during my confirmation in the spring. Almost two years of confirmation classes will culminate in me choosing a new name as well.
Pope Francis was also in the headlines recently because he attacked "trickle-down" economics -- the economic policies made famous by President Reagan and a number of "fiscal conservatives." In his statement, he condemned the policy by saying, "[trickle-down economics] has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system." He went on to decry the "idolatry of money" and encouraged implementation of economic policies that can actually help the less fortunate.
The remarks possibly gained more attention than it would have otherwise had it not been for Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential candidate. During a CNN interview, Palin said that the Pope's statements of late "sound kind of liberal." There was a social media backlash and Palin eventually issued an apology on her Facebook page.
The Pope is not the only person challenging the belief that low taxes on the rich will spur economic opportunity for all. Economists have been championing ideas that will curb the growth of severe income inequality. Furthermore, some journalists have made the issue of low wages a major topic of public discourse. Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart have had to face heat for being "welfare queens." The two companies have a host of employees who receive government assistance because the large companies do not pay them enough. McDonalds' McResource line, which helps employees sign up for welfare and food stamps, was rightly mocked and ridiculed.
There is no doubt that the public mood has changed on economic fairness because of individuals who have advocated for reform. In the year 2012, over half of the country made less than $30,000 a year. Over the past two decades, the top 1% of incomes have received over 2/3 of the overall economic growth in the country. The inequality is not just unfair, it is morally wrong. That is why Pope Francis has made it a central issue in his push to re-shape the Catholic Church.
There is another Pope who reminds me of the importance of good economic policy. The biggest statue in the world of Pope John Paul II is in the former soviet state of Poland -- the country where Pope John Paul II was born. Poland's economy has become the most dynamic in Europe. During years of economic decline all over Europe, Poland has stood out for its consistent growth and success. One of the main reasons for its success: Poland's refusal to accept austerity and its commitment to invest and spend on infrastructure. Over $137 billion was spent by Poland while other European countries were cutting back.
The point is that our Government can do more to change the current imbalance. Right now, the economy does not work for everybody -- it only works for a few. I sincerely believe that we have a moral responsibility to support ideas that will enable people to earn enough for their families without having to ask for a handout. If we can strengthen someone's ability to earn, we can also strengthen the moral foundation of our country. Pope Francis is right: money must serve, not rule. Let's just make sure that our elected officials hear the good news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)