Liberals Unbound

The Top Ten Conservative/Republican LIes About Health Care Reform

2009-08-20T23:13:00.000-07:00

I've been doing some research recently and have come up with truthful responses to the ten most common lies about health care reform:

Lie #1: President Obama and Congressional Democrats are seeking to “nationalize” health care, which will result in “socialized medicine.”

The Truth: Fear-inducing buzzwords such as “nationalization” and “socialized medicine” are not accurate descriptions of Obama’s health care approach. In reality, Obama and Congressional Democrats are advocating that health care remain primarily in private hands, but that the government should design a "health insurance exchange" and “public option” to cover most of the estimated 46 million uninsured. In addition, Obama is promoting new regulations to reduce escalating health care costs, guarantee the portability of insurance policies, and limit the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage simply because of preexisting conditions.

Lie #2: "Universal health care” is overly bureaucratic and results in a “government takeover” of health care.

The Truth: The U.S. is the only country in the industrialized world that does not have some form of universal health care. But “universal” is not synonymous with a “government takeover.” Though some countries such as Great Britain and Canada have indeed nationalized major components of their health care systems, other countries such as Germany and the Netherlands have found ways in which to cover everyone while also retaining a strong private insurance system. In this regard, Obama and a majority of Congressional Democrats have endorsed a relatively moderate approach designed to reduce bureaucratic red tape in both private and public health care institutions. Under such a plan, no one will be compelled to switch from his or her insurance company to a public option.

Lie #3: Health care reform will result in the rationing of care, thus depriving people of important medical services.

The Truth: Insurance companies are actually the ones who are currently rationing health care in the U.S. Every day, countless thousands of Americans are denied payment for needed operations and treatments by health insurance companies. In contrast, there is nothing in any of the major Democratic proposals that would ration care. This is simply another scare tactic designed by conservative special interest groups to forestall any major reform of the system.

Lie #4: Health care reform, as proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats, will supply illegal immigrants with health care coverage.

The Truth: The main House bill, HR 3200, actually bans the coverage of illegal immigrants. According to Section 246 in the bill, any type of health insurance exchange or public option would forbid payments "on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

Lie #5: Health care reform proposals endorsed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats will mandate “death panels” for elderly patients, thus encouraging euthanasia.

The Truth: There is absolutely nothing in any of the bills before Congress that would provide for death panels or euthanasia. What HR 3200, Section 1233, actually states is that Medicare would be required to pay doctors for consultations with patients about "advance care planning," such as living wills, hospice care, etc. The American Medical Association, which has endorsed the Democratic approach to health care reform, has noted that such consultations would be strictly voluntary and not result in any type of rationing of care or euthanasia for seniors.

Lie #6: Democratic proposals for health care reform include a provision that would allow the U.S. government to access patients’ bank accounts and related financial records.

The Truth: Section 163 of HR 3200 entitled "Standards for financial and administrative transactions" requires the government to set "comprehensive, efficient and robust" rules for electronic transactions, thus reducing expensive and duplicative paperwork. This is one of several provisions that are designed to cut administrative costs and red tape in the health care bureaucracy. This provision only covers companies involved in medical billing and not individual patients.

Lie #7: The U.S. cannot afford any new, expensive government programs that will fuel the deficit for years to come.

The Truth: Currently, the U.S. has the most expensive health care system in the world. Every year, health care costs continue to rise, while insurance companies raise premiums and other out of pocket expenses for average consumers. Health care costs result in sixty percent of all bankruptcies in the US. One major reason why health care is so expensive is due to the approximately 46 million Americans who are uninsured that tend to visit emergency rooms for even minor ailments. As the most expensive place to receive care, ERs drive up the cost of health care in general. With universal health care, ER visits would almost certainly decline, thus saving huge sums of money. Maintaining the status quo will only fuel the federal deficit since health care inflation is having a dramatic impact on the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid. Besides, Obama has promised not to sign a bill unless it is deficit-neutral. Health care reform is designed to eliminate waste and duplicative procedures, thus actually saving taxpayers money in the long run.

Lie #8: The U.S. has the best health care system in the world; thus there is no need for any major changes in government policies and regulations.

The Truth: Among 191 countries, the U.S. ranks 37th for performance in health care and 15th in overall attainment of health care needs (according to a 2000 World Health Organization study). The U.S. also ranks 26th in infant mortality rates among industrialized countries, according to recent OECD figures. The OECD found that the U.S. comes in last among industrialized countries in the fairness of financial contributions to health care. As the WHO report states, “the impact of failures is most severe on the poor everywhere, who are driven deeper into poverty by lack of financial protection against ill-health.” The Commonwealth Fund found in 2007 that U.S. health care ranks last compared with five other nations (Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand) "on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes.”

Lie #9: Insurance companies would be unable to compete effectively with a government-backed “public option,” thus driving such companies out of business.

The Truth: In many countries around the world, a dual system of private insurance effectively co-exists with government-funded health care programs. Such private-public hybrids are the norm in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. In contrast, the current private insurance system in the U.S. is overly bureaucratic and monopolistic, thus driving up health care costs. A public option would provide a more competitive market for health care, thus pressuring insurance companies to lower their rates. The idea that the private sector cannot compete with the government has been proven wrong in other sectors of the economy such as education (with private schools competing against public schools) and postal services (with FedEx and UPS competing against the U.S. Post Office).

Lie #10: Obama’s health care reform proposals will cut Medicare benefits for the elderly.

The Truth: Obama and Congressional Democrats are proposing cost-saving measures in Medicare and Medicaid that target waste, fraud, and inefficiency. The plan envisions huge savings in these programs by changing procedures for billing and paperwork, with a particular emphasis on ending overpayments to insurance companies. As many experts have noted, the Obama/Democratic plan will not reduce Medicare benefits in any way, shape, or form.

Poster Art from Iranian Protestors on Social Networking Sites

2009-06-20T20:42:00.000-07:00

I have been surfing MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter this evening and discovered some incredible poster artwork focusing on the valiant struggle against tyranny now underway in Iran. As we have seen on CNN, the Daily Kos, and elsewhere, horrific photos and videos from the streets of Teheran have been streaming to a global audience, thanks in large measure to social networking sites. But I believe that it is also important to see the political artwork that is being posted on social such sites. This artwork is incredibly powerful and frames the protests as more than simply a dispute over a single election. Many of the pieces I found frame the protests as a new Iranian revolution and the people of Iran as struggling for their freedom while facing a bloody crackdown. Here are some of the examples of poster art I found on MySpace and Facebook.

Iowa: Field of Dreams for Marriage Equality

2009-05-18T10:20:00.000-07:00

In recent months, I have become increasingly proud of my adopted state of Iowa - "The Field of Dreams." For example, Iowa was instrumental in launching the candidacy of Barrack Obama at the caucuses in January 2008. Most recently, Iowa reinvigorated the movement for marriage equality with the monumental Iowa Supreme Court ruling in April (Varnum v. Brien) legalizing same-sex marriage.

The recent Iowa Supreme Court decision actually follows a long line of trendsetting decisions in the state on behalf of progressive causes and civil rights. For instance, Iowa abolished slavery in 1839 and banned segregation in public schools in 1869 - decades before the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Iowa was also the first state to admit women to the bar to practice law and was one of the first states to allow married women to own property. The state also legalized interracial marriage long before most states in the country.

Remember how dismal things appeared to be for the marriage equality movement back in November when California - reputedly the most progressive state in the union - rejected same-sex marriage with Proposition 8? Iowa singlehandedly brought back a sense of national momentum to the issue, with other states soon following Iowa's lead. When the Heartland speaks, America listens.

Significantly, the Iowa Legislature refused to consider a constitutional amendment banning the practice, with Democratic legislative leaders actually declaring their support for the Court's decision. As Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal noted: "I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other and want state law to recognize that. Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong.” I was also very proud of my own state senator, Daryl Beall (D-Fort Dodge), who has publicly stated his support for marriage equality, noting that eventually same-sex marriage will be accepted throughout the state. ''Iowa's had a long tradition of ensuring the basic rights and protections of citizens,'' he said.

More recently, U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) revealed that he had changed his mind on the subject and now supports same sex marriage. "It seems to me Iowa has always been in the forefront of extending civil rights to people, always in the forefront of this," he observed. "This, again, is just another step in that march that we've had in Iowa and I think now you see a lot of other states falling in line."

Such comments have clearly demonstrated that same-sex marriage is quickly becoming a mainstream political position for Democrats in Iowa and other states. But the fight for marriage equality is far from over in Iowa and elsewhere. It is important to remember why this issue is so important to millions of Americans across the country.

The current debate over same-sex marriage is the most recent battle involving the progressive evolution of marriage as a legal institution. It is not really a religious issue. Rather, it is a civil rights issue involving equal protection under the law, as expressed in Iowa's state constitution.

Significantly, there are hundreds of rights accorded to married couples including joint tax returns, inheritance rights, disability benefits, worker's compensation, spousal/child support, insurance benefits, medical leave, bereavement leave, retirement benefits, hospital visitation, divorce, etc.

To really understand this issue, it is first important to recognize that marriage is not an "unchanging institution,” as conservative Christians often allege. In reality, marriage has undergone many important changes over the years.

For example, marriage used to be completely male-dominated. Women had virtually no legal rights in marriage for centuries, often lacking the right to own or inherent property. Marriage has also changed in laws governing rape and domestic violence. Until the 1970s, most states did not have any laws protecting women from being raped by their husbands.

Probably the most relevant legal precedent is how many states used to have anti-miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage. It was not until Loving v. Virginia (1967) that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down such laws. In this case, Richard Loving - a white man - and Mildred Loving - a black woman - had wed legally in the District of Columbia and then returned to their home state of Virginia in 1958. They were arrested in Virginia for violating that state's so-called "racial integrity act." Police actually broke into their home in the middle of night, hoping to catch them in the act of having sex - another crime. The Lovings were quickly convicted of the "felony" of interracial marriage. The judge sentenced them to one year in prison - but were instead ordered to leave the state in 1959.

After hearing the case, the U.S. Supreme Court cited the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses in support of its decision in overturning anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and other states. Nonetheless, opinion polls taken at the time found that approximately seventy percent of the general public disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision ending state bans on interracial marriage. Many fundamentalist Christians of the day - especially in the South - quoted from the Bible to condemn the decision, while characterizing interracial marriage as “sinful.”

The Virginia judge in the Loving case, for instance, invoked God and the Bible in defense of his original ruling. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages," he proclaimed. "The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court did not simply affirm what was popular and ostensibly "Christian." Instead, the Court effectively expanded the legal definition of marriage to include a broader number of people. It is significant that MIldred Loving (the black wife of the white man in the Loving case) revealed her strong support for same-sex marriage prior to her death in 2008, noting:

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

I applaud the Iowa Supreme Court for a similarly humane and constitutionally correct decision in striking down Iowa's ban on same-sex marriage. This is an issue that relates directly to civil rights protections under the law – which should never be dependent on any kind of majority vote. Such a popular vote could easily lead to a tyranny of the majority that would trample individual rights - as we saw recently in California.

Though marriage can have religious connotations, it is primarily a governmental/legal institution that licenses and codifies relationships while guaranteeing attendant rights. To deny same-sex couples equal marriage rights is contrary to basic liberty. That's what America is supposed to be about: Liberty and equal opportunity for all, rather than mindless conformity to religious dogma or homophobic bigotry.

Hopefully, as goes Iowa, so goes the nation.

A Liberal Manifesto for Discouraging Abortion, but Keeping it Legal

2009-05-17T17:10:00.000-07:00

There is an emerging liberal consensus in this country that we should emphasize alternatives to abortion while at the same time not embrace any new abortion prohibitions. Like many liberals, I have struggled with this issue for years. Admittedly, I have ethical concerns about abortion particularly when it is utilized for reasons other than saving the life or health of the mother, rape, and incest. Yet, I am opposed to re-criminalizing the procedure or using the power of the state to compel women to carry a fetus to term. I am unwilling to have the state incarcerate doctors or women who have undergone the procedure. Common sense dictates that women must make this highly personal decision for themselves in consultation with their doctor – without any fear of prosecution.

I would hope that liberals, moderates, and conservatives would come together to find measures to discourage abortion short of its re-criminalization. In other words, rather than being pro-life in a legal sense, I think it is time for a new agenda that presents birth as an ethical alternative to legal abortion. Here are steps I would recommend to make abortion rare while keeping it safe and legal:

1. It is time to end abstinence-only sex education in public schools and instead provide for comprehensive sex education. Studies have shown that young people undergoing abstinence-only programs delay sex a bit longer than their cohorts, but once they start having sex are much more likely to do so without protection. Thus, abstinence-only programs ultimately result in more teen pregnancies and abortion. If we really want to limit abortion, then we should have comprehensive sex education that emphasizes the importance of effective birth control measures.

2. It is time to streamline the adoption process for couples seeking children. Currently, the adoption process in many states is incredibly cumbersome and financially burdensome. Why should adoption be so difficult? Laws or regulations should be enacted that make adoption easier, quicker, and less expensive. Hopefully, as a result of such reforms, more pregnant women will embrace adoption over abortion and more couples will opt to adopt.

3. It is time to remove any legal barriers to single parent adoptions and gay parent adoptions. If we really want to present adoption as a viable choice for unwed or poverty-stricken mothers, then we must dramatically expand the pool of potential adopters.

4. It is time to provide universal health care that includes state-funded prenatal care for uninsured women. Pregnancy is often financially burdensome for impoverished and single moms. If we are really serious about reducing the incidence of abortion and infant mortality, then it only makes sense to involve the state in providing medical assistance for uninsured women and their children.

5. It is time to emphasize preventive care in medicine, with doctors providing comprehensive advice to women about pregnancy in a timely manner. With universal health care instituted, women who had been uninsured will no longer abstain from regular visits to their physician. This will provide more opportunities for doctors to advise women on the best ways to avoid pregnancy.

6. It is time to mandate that all abortion clinics and family planning centers provide all women inquiring about abortion with information on the issue of adoption, government assistance for prenatal care, and potential risks in abortion procedures. Such information must be strictly factual and not advocate any particular viewpoint or course of action. It seems only appropriate that women should be fully and completely informed about any and all of their legal choices prior to consenting to an abortion.

I realize that this agenda is controversial and may provoke some dissent on both the left and the right. But it is one way in which many pro-life and pro-choice supporters might be able to find some common ground.

"Proposition 8: The Musical" is Marvelous!

2008-12-07T15:21:00.000-08:00

After the stunning, disappointing approval of Proposition 8 - which banned same sex marriage - in California a few weeks ago, a touch of humor was definitely needed. Hollywood has come to the rescue with "Proposition 8: The Musical." This short little video packs a wallop - combining political satire with a very important moral lesson.

I really liked this video, mainly because it points out the hypocrisy of the Religious Right with their selective theocratic interpretation of the Bible. More importantly, it shows the fallacy of basing laws on homophobic bigotry masquerading as religion.

This video needs to be seen by everyone. The marriage equality movement is far from dead. In fact, it seems more alive now than ever after Proposition 8. Every civil rights movement has had its temporary setbacks, and the current one dedicated to gay rights and marriage equality is no different in that regard.

By the way, the stars in this video are incredible and should be honored for their dedication to such an important humanitarian issue. Jack Black is hilarious as Jesus and Neal Patrick Harris does a bang-up job too a feisty, singing commentator. John C. Reilly is entertaining as a sanctimonious preacher supporting Proposition 8. Kudos to everyone involved in this project!

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Despite Proposition 8, It's Time for Marriage Equality!

2008-11-23T09:27:00.000-08:00

In many respects, Election Day 2008 was a very happy day for me with the election of Barack Obama as President. And yet, the day was bitter sweet. I felt a deep sense of sadness over the results of California’s Proposition 8, which not only banned same sex marriage in the state but also rescinded the marriage rights of countless thousands of gay couples.

Sadly, marriage equality received a major setback nationwide as a result of this constitutional referendum. Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will nullify this measure and recognize that the majority acted in a tyrannical fashion, depriving citizens of their rights without due process of law.

To really understand this issue it is first important to recognize that marriage is not an "unchanging institution" as many Christian conservatives have erroneously alleged. In reality, marriage has been redefined many times before and undergone several important social and legal changes over the years.

For example, marriage used to be completely male-dominated and patriarchal. For centuries, women had no real legal rights in marriage, with property rights often denied them upon the death of their husband or in divorce proceedings. By the way, people often quoted from the Bible to defend such sexist arrangements and laws.

Speaking of divorce, that's another example of how marriage rights have changed over time. No-fault divorce laws are a recent legal innovation that has dramatically altered marriage as an institution; abused spouses (both female and male) are now able to exit their marriage much easier as a result.

Marriage has also changed in laws governing rape. Until the 1970s, most states did not have any laws protecting women (or men for that matter) from rape by their spouses. All of these changes in marriage went up against the conservative status quo, but nonetheless prevailed.

Probably the most important legal precedent in this regard is how black slaves were denied legal recognition of their marriages until after emancipation. But even after Reconstruction, tyrannical majorities often thwarted marriage rights based on racist bigotry. In fact, at least sixteen states had anti-miscegenation laws that prevented people from marrying someone of a different race.

It was not until 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, that the US Supreme Court struck down such laws banning interracial marriage. The Court used the equal protection clause in support of their decision. Public opinion polls taken at the time found that upwards of 90 percent of the general public (not just in the South) disagreed with the Supreme Court and supported bans on interracial marriage. Many so-called "Christians" - especially in the South - quoted from the Bible to defend their stance in opposition to mixed-race marriage. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not simply affirm what was popular and reputedly "Christian.” Instead the Court took a bold stand to redefine marriage rights to include a broader number of people.

Our current debate is the latest battle in the progressive evolution of marriage as a legal institution. It is not really an issue of gay rights; rather, it is an issue of human rights.

It is important to note that there are over one thousand legal rights and benefits accorded to married couples in the U.S. (e.g., inheritance, joint income tax returns, disability benefits, worker's compensation, spousal or child support, insurance benefits, medical leave, bereavement leave, child custody, Social Security and other retirement benefits, power of attorney, hospital visitation, divorce, etc.)

For this reason, it is high time to grant equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples nationwide. This is an issue that relates directly to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Though marriage has religious connotations, it is primarily a legal institution that licenses and codifies relationships and the rights that go with them. To deny same-sex couples equal marital rights is contrary to basic liberty. That's what America is really supposed to be about: liberty for all; rather than some mindless tyrannical conformity based on homophobic bigotry.

For a great argument on this issue, check out Keith Olbermann in the following video:

My Top Ten Reasons for Supporting Barack Obama

2008-11-02T20:14:00.000-08:00

1. Barack Obama is a visionary leader. He is not only charismatic and inspirational, but also highly intelligent and creative. After having met him twice here in Iowa, I can tell you that he is incredibly responsive and empathetic to other people's needs and concerns. Obama has assembled an incredible grassroots movement that is fighting for real change in Washington. The legions of Obama supporters and the effectiveness of his campaign organization are definitive proof of his phenomenal leadership abilities. During the recent crisis on Wall Street, Obama demonstrated steady leadership and offered sound proposals. In contrast, John McCain has been increasingly erratic, uninformed, and irresponsible in his rhetoric about the economy.

2. Barack Obama is truly an independent thinker. While John McCain was following the neo-conservative Republican agenda and voting in favor of waging war against Iraq in 2002, Obama strongly opposed the war from the very beginning. Obama - who majored in international relations in college - was well aware of the dangers and pitfalls of such a preemptive unwarranted move. He understood that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and would only distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. That's why he clearly and unambiguously declared his opposition to the Iraq invasion months before it began, while running for the U.S. Senate. For all of his heralded Washington experience, McCain exercised very poor judgment by giving President Bush a blank check to invade Iraq. McCain didn’t even seem to understand the region, repeatedly arguing in the run-up to the war that U.S. troops would be greeted as “liberators.” In recent months, McCain’s befuddlement was painfully obvious when he repeatedly confused Iranian support for Shiite militias with Sunnis in Iraq.

3. Barack Obama is the ultimate bridge candidate. He definitely transcends political party labels and ideological camps. In both the Illinois state senate and the U.S. Senate, he has been receptive in working with members of both parties. I can tell you from attending the caucuses here in Iowa, that a wide variety of people support Barack, including many Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Young, middle aged, and older folks were among his supporters, as were men and women, and whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Put simply, he brings Americans together again. In contrast, McCain and Palin are constantly using divisive, highly partisan, language that questions the patriotism of their opponents. Such McCarthy-style tactics (i.e., “guilt through association”) are not only highly erroneous but also potentially dangerous to the foundation of our democracy.

4. Barack Obama is an agent of change. He is not a product of the Washington D.C. political establishment, unlike John McCain. He is an insurrectionary candidate that is leading a nationwide social movement against the corrupt status quo of Washington, D.C. Both parties have entrenched special interests that deeply fear the impending Obama Revolution. It is important to remember that McCain was a member of the Keating Five, which was one of the top financial scandals in modern American history. At the time of the scandal, the Senate as a whole admonished McCain for exercising “poor judgment.” Sarah Palin, too, appears to be highly corrupt and unethical, with her abuse of power in “Troopergate” as a notable example.

5. Unlike Bush and McCain, Barack Obama understands the importance of fiscal discipline. He has repeatedly criticized the budget-busting policies of the current Administration. Though McCain talks a lot about reigning in federal spending, he nonetheless favors extending the budget-busting Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. In contrast, Obama favors a return to the slightly higher tax rates that high-income earners faced in the 1990s. For over ninety percent of Americans and the vast majority of small businesses, Obama will offer tax cuts designed to stimulate the economy and thus generate additional revenue as well.

6. Obama has long supported accountability and transparency in government. As an Illinois State Senator, he helped pass the state's first major ethics reform bill in 25 years. And as a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of numerous scandals. For example, he co-sponsored a bill in 2006 with Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn to help curb pork barrel spending. The bill, which passed the Senate, established a searchable computer database of federal grants, loans, and "earmarks" or special spending advocated by individual members of Congress. As Obama said: "By helping to lift the veil of secrecy in Washington, this database will make us better legislators, reporters better journalists, and voters more active citizens." Obama also helped lead the U.S. Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote that become law in September 2007.

7. Obama smartly chose a vice presidential running mate that is highly qualified and considered to be one of the leading experts on foreign policy in the U.S. Senate, Joe Biden. There is no doubt that Biden is ready and able to become vice president and even president. In contrast, McCain selected a completely unqualified political novice, Sarah Palin, to be his running mate. This woman barely graduated from college and seems to have an aversion to reading news magazines and newspapers. What’s worse, Palin is on the far right fringe of the Republican party and opposes a woman’s right to choose even in cases of rape and incest. She and her husband have both been extremely chummy with Alaskan secessionists, John Birchers, and other nut cases on the far right. The fact that McCain is 72-years old and a three-time cancer survivor means that Palin could very likely become President if McCain wins. But with her total lack of foreign policy expertise, Palin won’t be anywhere near ready to enter the Oval Office for untold months, if ever.

8. Barack Obama has the right kind of experience that we need in a President. There are many ways in which to gain valuable life experience that would prepare one to become President. In contrast to the other major presidential candidates, Obama brings all kinds of new and novel experiences to the table. As a grassroots community organizer, civil rights attorney, and college professor of constitutional law, Obama gained invaluable experience. As a result, he truly understands social problems such as poverty, discrimination, homelessness, crime, etc. Moreover, he has a deep academic understanding of the U.S. Constitution and wants to restore that document's integrity, which has been seriously undermined by the Bush Administration. In contrast, McCain – who has spent decades in Washington – has become indebted to various special interest groups and has a campaign staff filled with former lobbyists.

9. Barack Obama is a strong family man who believes in inclusive family values (not to be confused with the more narrow theocratic version endorsed by McCain/Palin and their friends on the Religious Right). For example, Barack has specific pragmatic proposals designed to bring about universal health care and make college tuition more affordable, which will benefit families directly. Over the past several months here in Iowa, I have talked to many folks – including some fairly conservative supporters of Barack - who found his message of hope, national unity, and strong family ties to be uplifting and a pleasant change from many of the virtue-challenged politicians of both parties.

10. Barack Obama will end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. He is opposed to the jingoistic neo-conservatism of Bush/McCain. He recognizes that we cannot solve the conflict in Iraq militarily. The current "surge" of U.S. troops may have reduced casualties to some extent, but the violence continues nonetheless. We still have U.S. troops dying or being maimed every few days in Iraq. Besides, the surge would never have been "necessary" if we had not gone to war in Iraq in the first place. That's the fallacy of John McCain's argument when he claims credit for advocating the surge. But McCain should instead be faulted for strongly supporting the invasion of Iraq to begin with. Indeed, McCain is more of a war hawk than even President Bush! At the same time, Obama recognizes that the U.S. must become even more engaged politically and diplomatically in Iraq in order to stabilize the region and safeguard our national security. Even Colin Powell has become convinced that Obama will be a much better commander-in-chief than McCain.

Top Ten Reasons Why Sarah Palin is a Right-Wing Extremist

2008-09-21T13:59:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks, I have become increasingly concerned about the prospect of Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) becoming the next Vice President of the United States. Certainly, the idea of Sen. John McCain serving as commander-in-chief is indeed a frightening prospect, but with his advanced age and numerous bouts with melanoma, he is quite likely not to survive four years in office if elected, thus allowing Palin to become President.

The prospect of a Palin presidency (or vice presidency for that matter) is troubling for many reasons. Besides her obvious lack of experience, abuses of power as governor, and apparent ignorance concerning national and international issues, Palin also is a far-right extremist. I have decided to list my Top Ten Reasons why I am convinced that Palin is an ultra-conservative fanatic that makes Pat Robertson or maybe even David Duke look moderate.

1. Sarah Palin and her husband Todd are former associates and long-time supporters of the anti-American, secessionist-based, Alaskan Independence Party (AIP). Supporting a statewide “vote” for Alaskan secession from the U.S., the fringe AIP touts itself as a “states rights party.” As one AIP leader states, the party has "a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law." AIP’s founder, Joe Vogler, has repeatedly professed his “hatred” for the American government. As reported by ABC News, AIP leaders have claimed that the Palins are former members of the party and attended statewide conferences in 1994 and 2000. Though official records indicate that Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982, nothing has disproved the AIP claim that Palin was an active supporter of this rabidly anti-American party. Besides, one can certainly be a “member” of more than one party simultaneously. More telling is the fact that Gov. Palin sent an official videotaped message to the AIP’s annual convention in early 2008, in which she endorsed their “party’s vision” and referred to AIP as “inspiring:”

2. Palin is a Christian fundamentalist extremist who endorses a church that condones modern-day witch-hunts. For years, she was a member of a Pentecostal church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, which not only speaks in tongues and conducts faith healing, but also believes in exorcisms and witch-hunts. In fact, her former preacher and spiritual mentor, Pastor Thomas Muthee, purposively incited violent mobs in Kenya that physically drove alleged “witches” from various towns and villages. As an AP article points out about Palin’s “witch hunting pastor,” such activities are clearly sexist and are a centuries-old form of “spiritual warfare” directed against influential women living in traditional communities.

3. Palin is a theocratic extremist who believes that God actively supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and even the construction of oil pipelines in Alaska. As she told the Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, the Iraq war and the Alaskan pipeline were "part of "God's Plan." She also takes pride in the fact that her minister, the witch-hunting Pastor Thomas Muthee, beseeched God to help get her elected governor.

4. Palin is an apocalyptic survivalist who currently attends a church whose main tenet is the belief that Alaska has a “special role” in God’s divine plan for the “last days.” The Wasilla Bible Church, of which she and her family have been members since 2002, actively promotes the radical survivalist view that Alaska will provide a “shelter” as a “refuge state” in the aftermath of the impending apocalypse. See the following video for more on Palin’s religious extremist views on such issues:

5. Governor Palin has an extreme position on abortion rights. For years, she has advocated the nationwide criminalization of abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Going beyond the primary conservative approach of calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade (which would return the issue back to the states), Palin favors national legislation and a constitutional amendment that would criminalize abortion in all states, with only one exception: If the mother’s life is in imminent obvious danger. In fact, she stated as a gubernatorial candidate in 2006 that she would oppose abortion “even if her own daughter was raped.” So if President Palin has her way, she would legally force a 16-year old girl who was raped by her uncle to carry the fetus to term.

6. Palin is a rabid homophobic extremist. For starters, her current church clearly advocates the “conversion” of gay men and lesbians into “heterosexual Christians.” As reported by the AP, one of her church’s major theological tenets is known as “pray away the gay,” which Palin apparently supports, judging from her active support of Wasilla Bible Church’s programs and philosophy. More importantly, at the beginning of her administration, Palin actively supported a bill that would have denied state benefits for gay partners of public employees. As governor, she also sought to remove books from public libraries that were gay-tolerant. Like other far-right extremists, she supports a constitutional amendment that would ban same sex marriage nationwide. She also opposes hate crime legislation that includes provisions for sexual orientation. So, this supposedly “Christian church lady” apparently does not think that the law should offer any legal protection to the victims of hate crimes whose attackers were motivated by anti-gay bigotry.

7. Palin is an anti-environmental extremist. She not only constantly demeans science, but also decries mainstream scientific theories of climate change. Disagreeing with her running mate on this position, Palin has repeatedly argued that global warming is not man-made, but rather a “natural” phenomenon. Moreover, she favors opening up Alaska’s entire protected wilderness areas (including ANWAR) to oil exploration and development. In a recent interview, as reported on ABC News, Palin stated, “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”

8. Palin is a jingoistic bellicose extremist in foreign policy. Like Bush and McCain, she favors rash military action as a substitute for genuine diplomacy and careful negotiations with other countries. Though her ignorance about the Bush Doctrine was revealed in a recent ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson, she nonetheless reaffirmed her belief in American unilateralism and preemptive military attacks on sovereign nations. Moreover, when asked about her response to alleged Russian aggression in Georgia, she indicated that the U.S should consider going to war with Russia if further “unprovoked” incursions occur. If Palin indeed welcomes Alaska’s role in the Apocalypse, then she may get her wish if a U.S.-Russian war is ignited over a small obscure former member of the Soviet Union. For details, watch this excerpt of Palin’s interview with Gibson:

9. Palin is a major “gun nut” who believes that the Second Amendment is absolutely sacrosanct. Like the most extreme members of the NRA, Palin is opposed to virtually all forms of gun control – including waiting periods for gun purchases and bans on assault weapons. As a gubernatorial candidate, she even argued that gun control was “as much of a threat to families as drugs and gangs.” Talk about right-wing erroneous hyperbole. No wonder Palin received the NRA’s “highest possible rating” while running for governor in Alaska. Palin recently claimed that she "would be one of the most pro-gun vice-presidents in American history.”

10. Palin has taken numerous other extremist positions on a whole range of issues. For example, she actively supports and promotes “abstinence only” sex education in public schools. She favors the teaching of religious-based creationism in biology classrooms, including the “young earth” theory that promotes the ardently unscientific idea that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind literally thousands of years ago. As one blogger noted recently: “It is quite scary that someone who rejects the fundamentals of basic science, and who shows such a shocking inability to engage in rational thought, could wind up being a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

Wake Up America! McCain is a Liar and Deceiver!

2008-09-14T11:31:00.001-07:00

I am so sick of John McCain's lies and distortions of Senator Obama's record. I used to actually like McCain, back when he was a maverick within his own party. But over the past eight years, McCain has gradually become a Bush-clone budget-busting neo-conservative jingoistic war-mongering lobbyist-loving Religious-Right theocratic plutocratic elitist temperamental nut-job. Even worse, he's telling some of the most outrageous lies I've ever heard in any political campaign. I have become convinced that McCain is a very dark, disturbed man, who will stop at nothing until he wins the White House. Please don't be fooled by this idiot's shameful lies and perverse distortions. Here's a montage of some of his many lies, thanks to a YouTube video. Please forward this video to your friends, family members, and acquaintances.

McCain's Religious Intolerance: Invoking "Judeo-Christian Values"

2008-08-20T11:55:00.000-07:00

I don't think John McCain really understands that the United States was founded primarily on the ideals and principles of the Enlightenment, rather than simply "Judeo-Christian values.” Sure, such religious values played an indirect role in the founding of the country, but the fact remains that our founders were convinced that an official state religion should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, several of our founding fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin - were actually deists rather than traditional Christians. More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

McCain, who graduated at the bottom of his class in the Naval Academy, probably doesn't even comprehend such important constitutional principles as the separation of church and state. His confusion was certainly evident at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California last week, when he declared: "Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world."

The main problem with such language is his use of the collective “our,” which implies strongly that American values are synonymous with Judeo-Christian values. Of course, this was not the first time that McCain has used such exclusionary language, effectively rejecting the contributions and values of Americans that do not practice either Judaism or Christianity. As The Boston Globe observed recently, McCain uses such language often and in a variety of contexts. For instance, he recently praised small-town Americans by noting, "The Judeo-Christian values that they hold are the strength of America."

He has even used such language in reference to job training programs. Referring to laid-off workers this past February, he proclaimed, "We've got to educate and train these people. It is a Judeo-Christian values nation and it's an obligation we have and we are not doing it."

Even more disturbing, McCain appeared to embrace a religious test for President in comments he made last year in an interview with Beliefnet, hinting very strongly that non-Judeo-Christians need not apply. As he stated: "The number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?"

On a practical level, McCain’s theocratic comments have potentially serious repercussions not only for the civil liberties of Americans, but also for U.S. foreign policy and international relations. For example, in justifying the U.S.-led “preemptive” invasion of Iraq, McCain said the following in 2006:

"This just wasn't the elimination of a threat to Iraq - this was elimination of a threat to the West, part of this titanic struggle we are in between western Judeo-Christian values and principles and Islamic extremists."

He made similar comments earlier this year about Iran at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. In reacting to a new intelligence report that had downplayed the threat of Iran's nuclear program, McCain quickly listed other reasons to be distrustful of the Iranians. As he stated: "And they sure don't share our Judeo-Christian values."

It’s really disturbing that McCain is identifying non-Judeo-Christian countries (with predominately Muslim populations) as problematic for the U.S, simply because of reputed differences in religious values. In effect, McCain is framing such countries as part of an ostensible “clash of religions,” as was noted in the Boston Globe article. Much to the chagrin of the Muslim world, McCain constantly conflates Islam in general with the war on terror. He has implicitly referred to Islam as an “alien” faith that is deemed to be threatening to the “Judeo-Christian” world.

Last week, as Christianity Today noted, McCain argued in favor of supporting Georgia in its conflict with Russia by noting twice approvingly that “Georgia is a Christian nation.” McCain seemed to be praising Georgia for adopting Christianity as its official religion, implying that predominately Muslim nations and breakaway provinces in the region - such as Chechnya and Azerbaijan – are not as deserving of U.S. support.

McCain's theocratic rhetoric is just one more reason why I am convinced that he is a very dangerous man who would likely start a war with Iran or other predominately Muslim countries for foolish, irrational reasons. Based on such imprudent and ignorant comments, McCain is not intellectually fit to be commander in chief.

John McCain's Computer Illiteracy

2008-08-07T13:25:00.000-07:00

With Barack Obama, we likely have the most technologically-savvy candidate for President in the history of the country. He's revolutionized campaigning and fundraising with his web-based system. Google CEO Eric Schmidt and numerous other leaders in the technology sector have endorsed him. He has own iPod playlist. More importantly, Obama has an innovative series of policy proposals on technology issues. In contrast, John McCain is technologically illiterate. Significantly, his campaign's web page barely even mentions technology policy.

By his own admission, John McCain is completely dependent on his wife for e-mail correspondence and other forms of computer-mediated communication. He doesn’t even own a computer, as he admits when questioned in the following video:

Why is it important that McCain lacks any basic knowledge when it comes to information technology? With countless thousands of business transactions taking place every second on the web, McCain’s technological illiteracy could have potentially serious repercussions for decisions concerning economic and technology policies if he somehow becomes President (heaven forbid). With the constant threat of technological terrorism, it’s also a matter of national security. McCain’s cyberspace ignorance and apparent technophobia is not only embarrassing, it’s inexcusable for anyone working in government not to know how to use the Internet. Do we really need a modern-day Luddite in the Oval Office?

In fact, as the following video observes, what happens at 3 a.m. in the White House if President McCain is awakened from his slumber and told that he needs to read a vital e-mail message?

The Idiocy of John McCain

2008-08-02T23:37:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks, I’ve grown increasingly weary of John McCain’s negative and often dishonest attacks on Barack Obama. Among other things, McCain has often accused Obama of lacking “the knowledge and judgment” to be President. This past week’s ad depicting Obama as a vacuous celebrity akin to Britney Spears or Paris Hilton is the most recent example of such sophomoric absurdity coming from the McCain campaign. In reality, Obama is one of the brightest and most knowledgeable candidates for President to come down the pike in decades.

But in this blog I want to focus on McCain, not Obama. It’s high time that McCain is revealed as the one who is truly ignorant and uninformed on a wide range of issues. Despite his vaunted “experience,” it is painfully obvious that McCain is not only unknowledgeable about many important domestic and international issues facing the country, but lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the economy and foreign affairs.

Certainly, all candidates make occasional gaffes in their speeches and press conferences. But in contrast to most politicians, McCain never seems to learn from his misstatements. Instead, he repeats the same erroneous comments over and over again.

It’s high time to list the Top Ten Reasons why John McCain is an idiot:

1. By his own admission, McCain “barely passed” his coursework in college. He also finished at the very bottom of his class in the U.S. naval academy. He was ranked 894th of 899 among academy graduates in the class of 1958. Can the guy even read and write? I wonder sometimes.

2. One thing we know for sure is that McCain has never really used the Internet and lacks any basic knowledge when it comes to information technology. He revealed as much at last year’s Republican YouTube debate. You know, even my elderly mother has surfed the web and used e-mail. McCain’s Internet ignorance and technophobia is not only embarrassing, it’s inexcusable for anyone working in government to not know how to use the Internet. Do we really need a modern-day Luddite in the Oval Office?

3. Maybe if McCain could surf the web he might have discovered that Czechoslovakia no longer exists. He has mentioned this “country” several times in recent weeks, even after the media reminded him that the “Velvet Divorce” of 1993 resulted in the end of Czechoslovakia. Of course, his inability to remember such “details” is readily apparent. Ironically, even George W. Bush caught McCain making the same mistake in a 2000 Republican presidential debate. You know it’s pretty bad when Bush’s knowledge of world affairs apparently exceeds that of McCain. I doubt that even Bush believes that Iraq and Pakistan share a border, or that Vladimir Putin is the President of Germany, as McCain has stated recently.

4. Speaking of Bush, McCain was a zealous supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq – the most idiotic foreign policy decision in recent American history. By his own admission at a Republican presidential debate in June 2007, McCain voted to authorize the U.S. military invasion of Iraq without even glancing at the formal National Intelligence Estimate. If he had read the report he might have discovered that the intelligence community was divided over whether or not Saddam was developing WMDs. Once again I ask: Can McCain even read?

5. Apparently, McCain never anticipated any kind of insurgency in Iraq. As he famously said at the time of the 2003 invasion, the U.S. military will be “greeted as liberators.” Of course, in recent months McCain has repeatedly confused the Shiites with the Sunnis. His favorite lap dog, Joe Lieberman, had to correct him on the ground in Iraq by whispering the facts into his ear. But then McCain continued to confuse the two sects in the days that followed, even noting erroneously on a couple of different occasions that Iran (which is Shiite-dominated) was supporting (Sunni) al-Qaida in Iraq.

6. McCain’s confusion about Iraq has also been apparent in his claim that the surge of U.S. troops happened before the Sunni (Anbar) Awakening. But as all military experts acknowledge, the Awakening preceded the surge by several months, thus contributing to the current decline in sectarian violence. Despite such facts, McCain’s has so far refused to acknowledge his mistake about the war’s chronology. Not only is he idiotic, but also apparently too stubborn to admit any factual errors.

7. McCain’s ignorance about the Middle East is compounded by his juvenile sense of humor – which could be quite dangerous as President. Echoing Beavis and Butthead, McCain responded gleefully about the prospect of “bombing” another country. Asked at town hall meeting in April 2007 if there was a plan to attack Iran, McCain began his answer by changing the words to a classic Beach Boys' song. As he stated to the crowd, "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?” He then preceded to sing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Can someone please say “dumb ass diplomacy?” Is this sophomoric behavior really what we want to see in a possible commander-in-chief?

8. For months, McCain has been touting his support of a “gas tax holiday” for the summer months. This particular policy has been roundly criticized by virtually all economists and energy experts as fallacious and ill conceived. But McCain – out of stubborn ignorance or blissful dementia – has refused to abandon this foolhardy initiative.

9. Of course, by his own admission, McCain doesn’t know much about the economy. As he told the Wall Street Journal in November 2007: “I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” Judging from McCain’s previous dismal attempts at being “educated” while in college, I don’t have high hopes that his knowledge on economic issues will improve in the Oval Office.

10. When it comes to the economy, McCain never seems to miss an opportunity to tout the Bush tax cuts that have disproportionately benefited the very wealthy. Despite such tax cuts having fueled the largest federal deficits in American history, McCain blithely ignores such facts. Out of ignorance, dementia, or both, McCain appears to be totally unaware of the economic damage such uncontrolled tax expenditures have caused.

Well, I’m sure there are many other reasons that could be cited as proof of McCain’s ignorance, idiocy, and ineptitude. Talk about vacuous – the guy reminds me of Grandpa Simpson, or maybe a geriatric version of Beavis from MTV. Let’s just hope that Americans are wise enough to realize that McCain is indeed the latest American Idiot to hit the national political scene. Hmmm…I wonder if McCain is considering Dan Quayle as a possible running mate?

Defending the Iowa Caucuses

2008-06-01T09:57:00.000-07:00

At the Democratic Rules Committee meeting on Saturday, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich) once again justified his state’s decision to violate party rules and move up the date of its primary by blaming Iowa and New Hampshire. He criticized the preeminent role of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the quadrennial presidential election process, arguing, "no state should have the right to go first" during every campaign season.

Besides the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire had absolutely nothing to do with Michigan’s myopic ill-advised decision to break party rules, I believe that it is important to defend the traditional role of these first-in-the-nation presidential selection events. In particular, I want to defend Iowa’s longstanding position (since 1972) as the opening caucus state.

As a resident of Iowa for the past thirteen years, I have grown to really appreciate the special role that my adopted state plays in the presidential nomination process. As a relatively small state, it is possible for presidential candidates to visit virtually every town and meet residents face to face. Iowans are able to gather not only in large town-hall style settings to hear from the candidates, but also in medium size and small venues too.

It is truly an incredibly valuable experience for everyday folks from the heartland to converse with big-time politicos one-on-one. This kind of citizen-based empirical assessment of presidential candidates would be virtually impossible to achieve in huge states such as Michigan and Florida.

Rather than depending on the national media and endless TV commercials for sizing up the candidates, we are able to make an intelligent determination based on direct conversations and experience at the grassroots level. Large numbers of Iowans in both parties take this responsibility very seriously and begin familiarizing themselves with the candidates early in the process as a result.

Rather than simply anointing the candidate with the most name recognition (as is often the case in larger states with huge numbers of under-informed voters), Iowans often gravitate to new or even virtually unknown candidates. This is an extremely important function since our state in effect raises the national profile of candidates who otherwise might have gone unnoticed due to a lack of name recognition.

It’s been often said that Iowa lacks diversity and is therefore not a good barometer for presidential strengths and weaknesses. In pure ethnic/racial terms this is largely true, though the state’s population of Hispanics has actually more than doubled in the past decade or so.

Nonetheless, Iowa has a diverse population in many other respects. The state is almost evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants, for instance. The state is largely rural and yet also has numerous urban and suburban areas. In most communities, there is a great deal of social class differentiation that includes farmers, factory workers, middle-class professionals, college students, etc. Most importantly, Iowa is almost evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, boding well for strong activist participation in both party caucuses.

The Iowa caucuses are in many respects anti-establishment; i.e., not simply ratifying the presumed picks of the national party apparatus. Often bucking conventional wisdom, Iowans in both parties tend to reject the initial media darlings and assorted incumbent-style front-runners. Rather, we tend to gravitate towards the best and the brightest (and most interesting) among the candidates.

Winning in the Iowa caucuses certainly does not guarantee anything – other than the fact that new names may be taken more seriously by the national press corps and electorate in succeeding presidential nominating contests around the country.

As an Obama supporter for well over a year, I was particularly proud of my fellow Democrats in the Iowa caucuses. Without Iowa as a springboard to major national recognition, Obama would have had a much more difficult time in achieving the nomination. The enthusiasm for Obama at the caucuses was incredible and certainly was pivotal in breaking the perceived lock on the nomination held previously by Hillary Clinton.

Iowa did not guarantee that Obama would win the nomination but rather assured that the national contest would indeed become competitive and not simply a coronation. Entrenched incumbents such as Senator Levin naturally fear such grassroots power, which is all the more reason to maintain Iowa’s important role in this process.

Hillary's Remarks about "Assassination"

2008-05-26T15:53:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about Senator Hillary Clinton's unfortunate remarks last week alluding to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968. She seemed to be implying that she was remaining in the Democratic race just in case someone - presumably Barrack Obama - gets assassinated. I've got to say that these remarks were really over the top and incredibly offensive. What's worse is that she later offered only a tepid half-apology for her remarks to the Kennedy family, but failed to mention the damage such remarks had on the current campaign or Senator Obama.

What is wrong with Hillary anyway? Is she so detached from the reality of possible assassination attempts on Obama or even on her own life that she would mention such a disturbing scenario? Is she really so incredibly clueless about the potential danger in making such references in normal political discourse? Hasn't she heard about the numerous comparisons made between Obama and Bobby Kennedy, not to mention John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King? In making such remarks, she really has reached a new low in her campaign that is very disturbing.

Here's a commentary from Keith Olbbermann that expresses the outrage about these comments that many of us are feeling.

Same-Sex Marriage: As Goes California, So Goes the Nation?

2008-05-17T09:14:00.000-07:00

The California Supreme Court delivered a groundbreaking decision this morning: State law banning same sex marriage is clearly unconstitutional. To really understand this issue it is first important to recognize that marriage is not an "unchanging institution" as many conservatives such as George W. Bush and John McCain have erroneously alleged. In reality, marriage has undergone many important social and legal changes over the years.

For example, marriage used to be completely male-dominated and patriarchal, with men even permitted to beat their wives in some localities. Women had no real legal rights in marriage for centuries with property rights often denied them upon the death of their husband or in divorce proceedings. By the way, people often quoted from the Bible to defend such sexist arrangements and laws.

Speaking of divorce, that's another example of how marriage rights have changed over time. No-fault divorce laws are a recent legal innovation that have dramatically altered marriage as an institution; abused spouses (both female and male) are now able to exit their marriage much easier as a result.

Marriage has also changed in laws governing rape. Until the 1970s, most states did not have any laws protecting women (or men for that matter) from rape by their spouses. All of these changes in marriage went up against the conservative status quo, but nonetheless prevailed.

Probably the most important legal precedent in this regard is how a large number of states used to have anti-miscegenation laws that prevented people from marrying someone of a different race.

It was not until 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, that the US Supreme Court struck down such laws that banned interracial marriage. The Court used the equal protection clause in support of their decision. Public opinion polls taken at the time found that upwards of 90 percent of the general public (not just in the South) disagreed with the Supreme Court and supported bans on interracial marriage. Many so-called "Christians" - especially in the South - quoted from the Bible to defend their stance opposing mixed-race marriage. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not simply affirm what was popular and reputedly "Christian;" instead, they took a stand to expand the definition of marriage to include a broader number of people.

Our current debate is the latest battle in the progressive evolution of marriage as a legal institution. It is not really an issue of gay rights; rather, it is an issue of human rights.

It is important to note that there are over ONE THOUSAND SPECIAL LEGAL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS accorded to married couples in the U.S. (e.g., inheritance, joint income tax returns, disability benefits, worker's compensation, spousal or child support, insurance benefits, medical leave, bereavement leave, child custody, Social Security and other retirement benefits, power of attorney, hospital visitation, divorce, etc.)

For this reason, it is high time to grant equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples nationwide. This is an issue that relates directly to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Though marriage has religious connotations, it is primarily a legal institution that licenses and codifies relationships and the rights that go with them. To deny same-sex couples equal marital rights is contrary to basic liberty. That's what America is really supposed to be about: liberty for all; rather than some mindless conformity based on homophobic bigotry.

The California Supreme Court decision is another important step in the historic and ongoing expansion of civil and human rights in the U.S. Hopefully, as goes California, so goes the nation.

The New McCarthyism: Unfair Allegations of "Guilt by Association" Used Against Obama

2008-04-26T21:22:00.000-07:00

By David Drissel

McCarthyism has made an unexpected comeback in the guise of repeated questions ad nauseum about Barrack Obama’s “patriotism” and related “guilt by association” with various figures such as his ex-pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright and former Weather Underground member, William Ayers.

For weeks, we’ve heard this kind of paranoid chauvinistic drivel especially from the conservative media – Sean Hannity of Fox News in particular. But at the last debate, sponsored by ABC News, such neo-McCarthy-style tactics reached a new low in the guise of moderators Charley Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.

The entire first half of the debate revolved around whether or not Obama was sufficiently patriotic and “loved America” as much or more than other people such as his former pastor. Nothing Obama said seemed to be enough to satisfy the inquisitorial moderators.

Sadly, Hillary Clinton only piled on Obama even more, taking her extremist-cues from former Clinton Administration official-turned-TV “journalist” – Stephanopoulos. She then decided to bring up an even more distant secondary association - Louis Farrakhan – who she claimed was mentioned in Obama’s church bulletin! Wow, talk about McCarthy-style “guilt by association” of the worst kind.

You know, this has got to be the most disgusting display of “political” discourse I’ve ever seen in my life. These New McCarthyites –including Hillary Clinton - can’t seem to get enough of such non-issues. Since when does whether or not one wears a flag-pin matter? Patriotism is in the heart, not on the sleeve (or lapel). Besides, I didn’t see Hillary wearing a flag-pin. Why did the “unbiased” moderators not ask a question about her patriotism too?

Since when does a person’s ex-pastor become newsworthy? So what if Obama went to this church for twenty years? All of the objectionable comments (five minutes worth at most) made by Wright which played endlessly on cable TV news, were videotaped within the past six or seven years. That was the period in which Obama was not even around Chicago all that much. Besides, Obama clearly stated that he disagreed with Wright’s objectionable comments and was not in the church at the time when those comments were made. That should have been the end of the story, but Fox’s Hannity and now ABC News’ resident neo-McCarthyites just wanted to keep the story alive for as long as possible.

This whole line of “debate” about William Ayers was even worse and really brought politics to a new chauvinistic low. So what if Obama served on the same board with this guy? You know, I’ve served on boards with all kinds of people in my life. Am I supposed to run a background check on everyone in which I come into contact? This guy Ayers was never even convicted of anything, for crying out loud. This is the worst kind of McCarthy-style tactics: To insinuate or even say flatly that a person who has met an “undesirable” (fill in the blank) is somehow “corrupted” or “infected” by that association.

It’s instructive to remember that the critics of Dr. Martin Luther King attempted the use very similar McCarthy-style tactics to destroy him. They accused of him of being a “communist” (or “pinko”) simply because he had associated with a few communists in the civil rights movement. Of course, that was a ridiculous charge. King was never a communist or communist sympathizer. But just because he had brief associations with a few communists, the reactionary far-right race-baiting crowd automatically deemed him suspect of “anti-Americanism.”

Personally, I’m a whole lot more concerned about Presidential candidates who imagine and apparently lie about surviving “sniper fire” when they actually haven’t. Do we really want someone to be our commander in chief that can’t tell fantasy from reality on the battlefield? It makes one wonder what other kind of military attacks or maneuvers that Hillary might “imagine” if she somehow scratches her way back into the White House.

Hillary’s increasingly negative fear-mongering attacks on Obama are right out of the Republican playbook once again. You know, I actually used to like and respect Hillary. But now I see her as just so incredibly desperate to win that’s she’s willing to resort to McCarthy-style tactics and destroy the Democratic Party’s chances to win in the general election.

It’s time to return to the issues that really matter to average Americans. Let’s hope that Hillary ends her neo-McCarthyite campaign soon, before she completely ruins the Democratic party’s chances in the fall.

Why Barack Obama is the Best Candidate for U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security

2008-03-08T11:47:00.000-08:00

In recent weeks, the Hillary Clinton campaign has repeatedly argued that Barack Obama is unprepared to engage in international relations as President. These are my top ten reasons why I strongly believe that a President Obama would be highly successful in international relations, much more so than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

1. There's no doubt that Sen. Barack Obama has more global appeal than any other candidate for President. He's the son of an African immigrant and a woman from Kansas, which represents an obvious departure from the past.

2. Obama has lived in other countries and traveled abroad extensively, and as a result fully understands many other cultures particularly in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

3. Obama studied international relations in college and consequently understands important nuances of foreign policy. He has brought his academic expertise to the U.S. Foreign Relations committee and has worked in a bipartisan fashion to chart a new American foreign policy. For example, Obama spearheaded the effort – along with Republican Senator Richard Luger - to emphasize the importance of helping eliminate “loose nukes” in Russia and Eastern Europe – a project that had been vastly under-funded by the Bush Administration.

4. He has seen poverty and related social problems firsthand on a daily basis as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago and will have a greater understanding of comparable Third World issues as a result. His experience at the grassroots level in the U.S. will enable him to devise viable, innovative solutions to global problems as poverty, hunger, lack of adequate health care, infant mortality, AIDS, organized crime, and homelessness.

5. He has credibility in the world because he opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning (unlike Hillary Clinton) and understood in 2002 that Bush's pre-emptive war in Iraq would seriously hurt America's standing in the world. After all, the Iraq War is the Number One reason why the U.S. has become so incredibly unpopular in recent years.

6. Obama has clearly demonstrated good judgment in such foreign policy decisions, unlike Hillary and McCain - who made the worst foreign policy decision in decades when they voted to authorize Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

7. Obama is highly diplomatic in his personal style and never shrill or temperamental (unlike McCain and Hillary), which will help win back good will around the world. He doesn't lose his cool or cry "shame" when he disagrees with someone. Rather, Obama knows how to bring people together and forge compromises - and this characteristic will help him immensely in any diplomatic initiatives he undertakes with foreign governments.

8. Obama is willing to meet with virtually any leader in the world without unnecessary bureaucratic preconditions (unlike Hillary and McCain), thereby signaling a new, more open, stance for American foreign policy. He understands that the U.S. never stopped meeting with Soviet leaders during the Cold War, so why should we not meet with our enemies today? He contends that adequate preparation for such meetings is absolutely necessary, but continuing the obstructionist saber-rattling cowboy antics of the Bush Administration (as Hillary seems to favor) will get us nowhere.

9. Obama knows how to prioritize national security concerns (unlike Bush, McCain, and Hillary) and will act accordingly in shifting the emphasis in the war on terror back to Afghanistan/Pakistan, where it truly belongs. Of course, he will also use his diplomatic skills to help bring together disparate Iraqi factions and fully involve Iraq’s Muslim neighbors and the United Nations in a multilateral effort to achieve lasting stability in the region.

10. Electing Barack Obama as President will be a clear and unambiguous signal to the world that the U.S. is charting a brand new course. Rather than looking backwards, the U.S. will be moving forward with fresh new ideas and innovative bipartisan approaches in foreign policy.

Reflections on Democratic Party "Insiders" and "Outsiders"

2008-03-05T00:25:00.000-08:00

Someone mentioned to me the other day that there are basically two major “wings” of the Democratic Party. Actually that is somewhat of an oversimplification, since there are actually many factions. But there is some truth to that bisected depiction. Indeed, there are certainly party "insiders" on the one hand (i.e. the establishment) and "outsiders" on the other. There are those who almost always play it "safe" on major policy issues (the insiders) and those who stand up for what they actually believe on a given issue, even though their positions may not be popular with the nervous poll-driven party establishment. Paradoxically, sometimes the outsiders eventually become insiders and appear to "sell out" in the process.

I'm old enough to remember how Sen. Gary Hart (labeled an outsider) challenged the Democratic Party establishment candidate of the 1984 presidential election, Walter Mondale. In fact, I ran and was elected as a Hart delegate that year. At the time I was really excited by all of his fresh “new ideas.” He was touted as a “neo-liberal” reformer that wanted to dramatically change Washington’s political climate. He was even a defense policy expert.

However, that was right after the "superdelegates" had been created, which helped Mondale win. More importantly, the Mondale campaign was able to lift a simplistic line from a Wendy’s commercial, “Where’s the beef?” to question whether Hart's ideas actually had any real substance. As a result, the party insiders slowed Hart’s momentum and triumphed in the short term by winning the nomination. But the lackluster candidacy of Mondale went down to defeat against Ronald Reagan in the general election.

Ironically, Bill Clinton was deemed n "outsider" in 1992 by challenging the traditional liberal orthodoxy of the Democratic Party establishment. After years of losing presidential elections to conservative Republicans, Clinton’s strategy was to move the Democratic Party to the center and therefore appeal to a broader cross-section of the electorate.

Though many neo-liberals and progressives - including myself - were disturbed by some of Bill Clinton’s more conservative positions (on issues such as the death penalty, welfare reform, and growth of the prison-industrial complex), we still appreciated his charisma and leadership skills. Despite my misgivings, I liked him personally and credited him with some important accomplishments - especially regarding balanced budgets, the booming economy, and the peace processes in the Middle East and Northern Ireland.

The dynamic of Democratic insiders/outsiders changed again as a result of the Iraq War. The Clinton-era moderates had become the new insiders by this time, though a new cadre of more liberal/progressive outsiders was now on the horizon. Countless thousands of liberals and progressives across the country had spoken out against the use of force resolution, urging Congress to vote against it. It was obvious to virtually anyone who followed politics that President Bush intended to go to war against Iraq and was seeking Congressional “cover,” particularly since the U.N. route had been ruled out by this time.

Many Democrats - including a majority of Democratic members in the House of Representatives - voted against the use of force authorization of 2002. But a plurality of Democratic Senators - including several that had planned to run for President such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden, voted in favor of the resolution.

This was a defining moment for "liberal outsiders" such as myself who were mad as hell that any Democrat in Congress would basically give Bush a green light to invade Iraq. That's why I supported the maverick liberal outsider, Howard Dean, for president in 2004. That's also what initially attracted me to Barack Obama in the current election. But I soon found out that Obama was much more than just another anti-Iraq war outsider. He was filled with specific new ideas and policy prescriptions, while at the same time heading up a nationwide grassroots movement dedicated to overturning the corrupt status quo in Washington, D.C.

Of course, John Edwards reinvented himself as an "outsider," after leaving the U.S. Senate, adopting populist rhetoric, and actually apologizing for his Iraq war vote. But Hillary did not follow suit and for this reason further alienated many anti-Iraq war liberal outsiders such as myself. Despite my generally fond feelings for Hillary, I felt betrayed by her 2002 vote and her stubborn refusal to renounce that vote.

Ironically, Hillary had become the consummate insider, reaping the benefits of "insider" party patronage and network ties from her years spent in the White House. Though the idea of the “first woman president” was appealing, the idea of another poll-driven Machiavellian candidate of the corrupt Washington status quo was revolting.

For those of us who have seen countless liberal outsiders go down to defeat in the primary season over the years, Barack Obama has given us hope that the status quo can be challenged successfully this time. Now more than ever we are particularly hopeful that the new outsider (Obama) will ultimately triumph over the new insider (H. Clinton).

But the insiders are very adept at fending off such challenges from outsiders and tend to use overly simplistic attacks to marginalize their opponents. Mondale played that game and won the nomination in 1984. Hillary Clinton is employing similar tactics today, no matter what lasting harm that may be done to the Democratic Party. Hopefully, this time the outsider candidate will secure the nomination and lead his party – and more importantly his social movement - to victory in November.

Xenophobic Attacks on Obama are Disturbing, Especially When the Clinton Campaign is Involved

2008-03-01T10:12:00.000-08:00

I'm really disturbed by the narrow-minded attacks leveled at Barrack Obama over the last several days regarding such non-issues as his middle name (which was his Kenyan grandfather's name) and the photo showing him wearing tribal robes presented to him while visiting Kenya. Even though Obama is a long-time Christian who was born in the United States, some of his political opponents are resorting to fear mongering about his ethnic/ancestral background.

There has been a not-so-subtle use of such xenophobic themes by persons associated with the Clinton campaign and an all-out frontal assault by far-right talk radio commentators and bloggers in recent days. Anyone who would resort to such tactics is attempting to appeal to the unwarranted fears of many voters, particularly those who are easily swayed by such race-baiting demagoguery.

I would expect such ethnocentric tactics from conservative talk show hosts such as Bill Cunningham and Rush Linbaugh, since they are notorious for appealing to the dark side of the American electorate. But to have fellow Democrats employ such tactics is really sickening. As Linbaugh of all people noted on the O'Reilly Factor recently, the origin of the "controversy" over Obama's middle name goes back to Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton. It was actually a Clinton surrogate, former Senator Bob Kerry, who first repeatedly used Obama's middle name back in December while he was campaigning on behalf of Sen. Clinton.

As a Democrat, I am very disturbed that the Clinton campaign would use or condone such a xenophobic approach. Did Hillary apologize for Bob Kerry's remarks or admonish him in any way, shape, or form? No. It's very sad that Sen. Clinton's campaign is apparently resorting to such tactics even while John McCain has criticized such language.

There is also reason to believe that someone associated with the Clinton campaign was behind the leaking of Obama's Kenyan photo to the Drudge Report. What's going on here? Why does the Clinton campaign feel the need to encourage xenophobia in attacking their rival? This sort of thing is very ugly and Senator Clinton owes the American people an apology for her campaign's thinly veiled attacks on her rival's ethnic/ancestral background.

The Clinton Campaign's Dishonest Approach to Health Care

2008-02-17T17:46:00.000-08:00

I get so angry when I read about the Clinton campaign's dishonest approach to the issue of universal health care. Her campaign recently sent out a mailer with a photo of several desperate-looking people with the caption "Barack Obama, which of these people don't deserve health care?" The allegation of the mailer is that Obama would not cover everyone with his health care plan and is therefore not universal.  

Does the Clinton campaign really think that the American people are this stupid? Until recently, when has anyone ever argued that universal health care must include mandatory individual coverage? It's infuriating that Clinton is resorting to demagoguery on this issue and alleging (erroneously) that only her plan is truly universal.   

"Sen. Clinton's idea is that we should force everyone to buy insurance," Obama has noted, "She's not being straight with the American people because she refuses to tell us how much she would fine people if they couldn't afford insurance."

Sen. Ted Kennedy recently responded to Clinton's charges, noting, "They both effectively have universal health care programs. The point of this ad is to undermine people's belief that Barack Obama is committed to universal health care, and that is simply a distortion, a misrepresentation… that is the kind of distortion that we had back in 1994."  

Notably, Obama's plan likely would actually cover more people than Hillary's and would not include any unworkable government enforcement mechanisms in the process. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has argued:  

"She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than Hillary Clinton's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even when they're required to do so. Clinton doesn't indicate how she'd enforce her mandate, and I can't find enough money in Clinton's plan to help all those who won't be able to afford to buy it. I'm also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in Obama's plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. Clinton is far less specific on both counts. In short: They're both advances, but Obama's is the better of the two. Clinton has no grounds for alleging that Obama's would leave out 15 million people."  

It is certainly ironic that Hillary has stolen the idea of mandatory coverage from a conservative Republican, Mitt Romney, who as governor instituted such a plan in Massachusetts. As Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was an adviser to Romney on the state's health care reform law, has noted, "Hillary's plan is just like the Massachusetts plan. There's not a whole lot of difference."  

Moreover, there have been many problems enforcing such a government mandate in Massachusetts, with all kinds of unanticipated consequences in health care costs and fines on individual households. Hillary's plan is based on the flawed Romney Mandate Model and should be anathema to Democrats for that reason alone.

I'm Proud to be a Liberal

2008-02-17T10:15:00.000-08:00

I'm a liberal (i.e., progressive) Democrat who believes strongly in environmentalism, civil libertarianism, feminism, and other forms of egalitarianism. Yes, I'm proud to be a liberal. I don't care what those loud-mouthed idiot conservatives say about me.

I believe in a mixed market economy that is highly regulated, though not controlled by the federal government. Corporate greed and monopolization is a major problem in our economy today, especially when companies outsource jobs overseas and betray American workers in the process. It is time to eliminate all corporate subsidies and deny tax breaks for companies that outsource large numbers of American jobs or fail to comply with environmental and labor standards overseas.

I strongly oppose racism, sexism, heterosexism, ethnocentrism, classism, ageism, and related ideologies of hate and intolerance.

I reject the Religious Right and their exclusionary message, especially their myopic focus on the ostensible "sin" of homosexuality. As has been aptly demonstrated time and time again, the leaders of the Religious Right are mostly hypocritical demagogues who misquote the Bible to support their own narrow-minded theocratic agenda.

I support same sex marriage rights and equality. Why should heterosexual couples maintain a monopoly on the legal institution of marriage? Why should gay couples be denied over 1,000 legal rights and privileges that accompany marriage licenses? There is no rational reason for such bigotry. Just as mixed race couples were once criminalized by an oppressive government, the same thing is happening today with same sex couples.

I often identify with the Religious Left, since I believe, for example, in helping the poor and the less fortunate (as Jesus advocated). I embrace what I believe to be the real message of Christianity - love your neighbor as yourself, judge not or you will be judged, etc.

I recognize that a majority of welfare recipients in this country are working poor people and their children. We should support these families, not stigmatize them. I support voluntary workfare programs, earned income tax credits, living wage rates, and free or heavily subsidized worker training programs and publicly funded college coursework for all persons who meet minimum academic standards.

I favor the reform of Social Security payroll taxes that would raise the cap on taxable income, thereby saving the system and making it more equitable. It is incredible that the wealthiest Americans do not pay their fair share of payroll taxes. Why should I pay as much in Social Security taxes as Bill Gates? It makes no sense.

I support universal health care and believe that health care should be considered a civil right, rather than a privilege. Every industrial nation in the world has some form of universal health care, with the exception of the U.S. At the same time, the U.S. has the most expensive health care system in the world.

As a civil libertarian, I also believe that the war on drugs has clearly failed; it is especially time to end marijuana prohibition. Along those lines, our criminal justice system is in dire need of reform. It's time to shift the focus from treating drug abuse as a criminal justice problem and instead spend more tax dollars on drug rehabilitation and related human services. I also reject mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty, which I am convinced are highly racist and classist in application, not to mention ineffectual in actually deterring crime.

In terms of foreign policy, I am a strong supporter of human rights and believe that debt relief for Third World nations is imperative. Torture is always wrong and should never be used by the U.S. government. I find it particularly offensive that the Bush Administration has established secret prisons, arrested people and held them without charge, and tortured suspected "terrorists," thereby clearly violating the Geneva Conventions.

I support military action only as a last resort or in cases of direct military attack on the US or our closest allies. I am a very strong critic of Bush's neo-conservative foreign policy and jingoistic doctrine of preemption, which has made the world a much more dangerous place and succeeded in vilifying America in the eyes of the world.

Barack Obama has the Right Kind of Experience

2008-02-15T20:03:00.000-08:00

I am so tired of hearing some folks say that Barack Obama lacks the "experience" necessary to become President of the United States. Such folks need to remember that experience should not be narrowly defined as simply working in Washington, D.C. Indeed, that kind of inside the beltway "experience" can sometimes be a major drawback rather than strength. Look at how the government's been managed for the past eight years. Is that the best we can do?

In contrast to the other major presidential candidates, Obama brings all kinds of new and novel experiences to the table. It's important to remember that experience is much more than just simply being a national politician. There are many other ways in which to gain valuable life experience that would prepare one for such an important position as President of the United States.

For example, what other presidential candidate in recent memory has actually majored in international relations during college? Obama did just that, graduating from Columbia University after studying global politics and foreign affairs in depth.

What other candidate has been president of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School? What other candidate has worked as a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, best selling author, and college lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago? In this respect, Obama clearly understands the importance of preserving our constitutional freedoms, unlike the current occupants of the White House. He also has witnessed and experienced firsthand the negative impact of racism, classism, and poverty on American society.

Who else running for president has emerged from the grassroots of inner-city urban politics, as Obama did in Chicago? Who else has served for years as a state legislator and was highly respected by members of both political parties? What other candidate has served with distinction on the U.S. foreign relations committee, bringing his academic expertise on international relations to the national stage?

This is all very important experience and much more significant than what George W. Bush brought with him to the White House.

Moreover, Obama's demeanor and personality along with his strength of character is tailor-made for leadership and diplomacy both at home and abroad.

When you think about it, Obama is the definitive "bridge" candidate - he's actually biracial, which may be one reason why he instinctively appeals to so many people of all races. He even seems to bridge the gulf between Christians, Jews, and Muslims; though he clearly identifies as a Christian, he also has a strong understanding of Islam and Judaism. Ideologically, he's a liberal on most issues but also often uses value-laden language, invoking God and his Christian faith. He's the kind of candidate that could actually get votes from card-carrying ACLU members and evangelical Christians alike.

He's an intergenerational candidate too, representing the first major presidential candidate in U.S. history to come of age in the 1970s - the post-Vietnam cohort of younger baby boomers and Generation Xers. His message is refreshing as he often employs the language of youthful idealism and belief in change agency through social movement activism, essentially synthesizing 1960s style civil rights concerns with the modern era. Images of John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King come to mind when I watch him speak, with messages framed specifically for a contemporary post-9-11 world.

Obama's charismatic personality helps to bring people together too, along with his language of inclusion. I have been impressed by the fact that he has repeatedly rejected the Bush-era scapegoating of gays and lesbians, for example. He also says all the right things about the Iraq War, including the fact that he opposed this war from the very beginning (while running for the U.S. Senate) and considers the war to be a "tragic mistake." He has a clear plan and timetable to end America's military involvement in Iraq. But at the same time he frequently expresses concern and admiration for our returning veterans, thereby bridging the perceived gap between the peace movement and our troops in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

Let's hope that Obama continues to bridge these gaps (both real and perceived) and finds a way to help make America whole again. It's high time we elected a candidate with the right kind of real-world experience who truly has a fresh outlook and rejects politics as usual. That's why I'm supporting Barack Obama for President!

Bush, Torture, and Creeping Fascism

2008-02-15T19:46:00.000-08:00

George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisors and Congressional allies have succeeded in turning the U.S. into an international pariah, with torturous interrogation techniques having been performed by the CIA since 2002. This corrupt oligarchy is quickly leading us down the path to fascism.

The Democratic Congress recently voted to outlaw such barbaric practices as "water boarding" (originally known as "water torture," which dates back to the Middle Ages and was used extensively by the Waffen SS of the Third Reich), while the Bush Administration claims that such extreme methods are needed in the war against terrorism.

It is important to put this whole debate in an international context. For the past several years, the Bush Administration has been attempting to "amend" the Geneva Conventions unilaterally to allow extreme interrogation techniques. Many such practices are clearly inhumane and torturous, according to Amnesty International and other human rights groups.

The Bush Administration and their allies in Congress have been claiming the right to broadly "interpret" Article 3 of the Convention - the provision that bans torture. As a result, Bush is claiming that he has the power to commit Medieval-style torture against imprisoned combatants and suspected terrorists. Now, he's threatening to veto any new legislation that would prevent the U.S. from engaging in additional acts of torture.

This is not the first time we've heard about rampant human rights abuses directly or indirectly encouraged by the Bush Administration. From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay to secret prisons in Eastern Europe, this President has systematically established an American torture network. Meanwhile, by engaging in the illegal abuse of POWs and other detainees, the U.S. has lost the moral high ground that we had in the initial aftermath of 9-11.

If the US abandons or departs from important provisions within the Geneva Conventions, then other nations - including our enemies - may do likewise. It is very important to note that not all of our current and prospective enemies are terrorist groups.

Besides, we should never lower ourselves to the level of terrorists. If the U.S. continues to succumb to the temptation to extract information through torture, then we are no better than the Jihadist thugs that cut off the heads of "infidels." It is important to maintain (or regain) the moral high ground, while at the same time striking hard against any nation or group that directly threatens American lives, property, or security.

This is an issue that clearly shows who actually supports our troops and who does not. As many veterans have argued, tampering with the Geneva Conventions would likely cause our enemies to do likewise, thereby threatening the lives and safety of our soldiers.

The Bush Administration's unilateral approach to the Geneva Convention is counterproductive to long-term American interests. We cannot go it alone. We need allies to wage any kind of effective war on terrorism. Such unilateral actions are bound to fuel even more resentment and hatred against the US. Taking such steps has been a propaganda victory for many of our adversaries. Such neo-fascist unilateralism has isolated the U.S. further, thereby weakening U.S. foreign policy and endangering Americans at home and abroad.

Ironically, studies have shown that such extreme interrogation techniques are often ineffective in extracting reliable information. It is important to note that waterboarding is not only highly painful, but can also cause permanent harm. People have even died by waterboarding (at least when used by other nations), so that definitely qualifies not only as torture, but also as potentially premeditated homicide.

But that's aside from the main point: We should never pick and choose when to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, or attempt to reinterpret the agreement unilaterally. That is a very dangerous slippery slope. We must treat all prisoners of war and enemy combatants the same under both international and domestic law.

Otherwise, we risk becoming a despotic outlaw nation, even further condemned and isolated by the world. If we condone such actions as a society then we risk not only our international reputation and respect abroad but also our own national identity as a freedom-loving people.