McLefty

Guest Blogging

2007-08-15T13:24:00.001-05:00

Blogging over at JTTR for Ryan all this week. It should be interesting writing for a conservative blog, so check it out!

What is the Center-Left?

2007-08-06T21:31:00.000-05:00

Ryan over at JokersToTheRight was inquisitive about center-left ideology and whether or not it represents more or less a monolith of ideas.

While one type of candidate tends to do well, I would argue that the modern Democratic Party is made up of a coalition with many divergent ideas and origins, and that much like the Republicans, different special interest groups tug at and influence the individual candidates in various ways.

The modern Democratic Party is what remains of Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition; much of the unifying ideology is the notion that government has the power and obligation to help its citizens in times of need. The 1960s and the Vietnam War led to an awkward alliance of anti-war leftist and the traditional bigger government liberals, though Johnson’s approval of the civil rights legislation marked an end to the unity of the party in the south as so-called “Dixicrats” left in mass numbers.

Today, many Democrats are party members for topical reasons; the main division presently comes between economic and social liberals; even within these groups there are sub-divisions. There are some “liberals” who have the libertarian bent; government should leave both the economy and our private lives alone. Others would be fine with a sales tax of 70% but tons of social services for everyone, much like Sweden. We have union activists along with Clintonian free-traders, and rarely if ever will those sides agree. Socially, we have some who believe the government should actively protect its citizens while others believe that it should leave them alone. We have Christians who support government assistance to the poor while opposing the death penalty, war, and abortion all at the same time on moral grounds. We also have other anti-war and even anti-establishment types out there as well, though most believe in strong national defense, support the military, and work strongly for veteran’s benefits

Most people are a kind of hodge-podge of these ideologies, as reflected in the candidates; most in the 2008 field are “in the middle” on many of these issues, as are many of the Republicans. Especially in the post-Bush and Clinton era, I’m not certain what a traditional Democrat OR Republican believes any more. It should be interesting to see where the Democrats and the Republicans head with the choices for 2008; it could be a crowded center, especially if Bloomberg joins the fray, leaving room for extreme candidates on both sides that could further complicate the national electoral picture.

2008 Democratic Analysis

2007-07-24T21:01:00.000-05:00

While fatigue and frustration resulting from the seemingly endless election cycle we’ve been in since about 2005 have dissuaded me from following the 2008 developments too closely, I figured I’d at least give my early view of the Democratic field since I did catch a bit of last night’s “YouTube” debate. I enjoyed the format, and hope we move closer and closer to real people asking questions and holding the candidates accountable for their typically evasive answers. Now, on to the list, starting with front-runners….

“Jane Doe” – a shoe-in – she worked in the executive branch for 8 years and knows the ins and outs of White House politics. She’s a second-term Senator who has garnered support from members of the opposite party in a non-native state. Politically savvy and tough, she has a strong yet amicable personality that endears more and more voters who meet her. But wait – her name isn’t Jane Doe, its Hillary Clinton – and as a result, talk turns to “electability” instead of “inevitability.” Suppose it’s too late in her life for a name change?

Barack Obama – speaking of too late in life for a name change, the man whose name is one letter off from “Osama” is doing remarkably well given his inexperience. That said, he’s a fresh face with a resume eerily similar to Abraham Lincoln, who turned out to be a remarkable president in a time of crisis. He’s got good ideas, charisma, and the common touch that a lot of politicians lack. He’s forcing this nation to reopen the dialogue about race, an issue that still touches nerves on so many levels. Win or lose, he’s not going away and the weight on his shoulders is much more than that of most other presidential candidates, for better or worse.

John Edwards – Still has the common touch, but running for president for six years straight does not count as experience. If he’d held off in 2004 and won reelection to his Senate seat, he’d be a serious threat. The failure of Kerry-Edwards will hurt him in the long run, and the slew of stronger, more experienced candidates will keep him from breaking through. Name recognition alone is keeping him going at this point.

Joe Biden – The opposite end of the spectrum from Edwards. Probably the most knowledgeable guy in the field and he actually comes across as a straight talker in spite of spending over half his life in the Senate. He may have been the nominee in 2004, but the 2008 field is strong and crowded. Biden would be well served to play nice and prepare to be the next Secretary of State; he would be a sound choice for a President from either party.

Bill Richards – Another would-be nominee from 2004, his résumé is tremendous and he’s more than qualified for the spot. His personality is keeping him out of the top tier, and the debates aren’t helping. Another great cabinet member for any future president.

Dennis Kucinich – An important candidate, not because he will win the nomination but because he forces the field to reconcile with the liberal base of the party, all the while standing on pure ideological principle. His courage is to be admired, even if some of his views are “fringe.”

Mike Gravel – A less chipper version of Kucinich, he still brings some interesting insights to the debates.

Chris Dodd – good ideas, lots of experience, but it doesn’t seem that this is the year for old, white men in the Democratic Party. Maybe he should run as a Republican – they like them exclusively and seem to be more and more open to “moderates”…

Al Gore? – would be top-tier if he joined, but he seems to be enjoying his retirement, writing books and making movies in order to irritate Republicans and force the Democrats to focus on environmental issues. However, he’s still young; if the Dems fail in 2008, watch out for them to turn to their favorite martyr in 2012.

For the record, I’m still “undecided,” in part because it seems like the people of Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide for me. Something needs to change in the primary system. That said, I think the Democrats have a strong field overall, and suspect that the Vice-Presidential candidate will again come from within the existing field. Things should get much more interesting as fall turns into winter.

Time to Go

2007-07-16T22:44:00.001-05:00

While its been too long since my last post (approaching a year, so it seems), today I felt the pressing need to publish my thoughts on the Iraq matter, to articulate them to the best of my ability. Since it became rather lengthy and I feel all parts are vital, I will not risk sending it to any newspapers. So, in conclusion, horray for the internet.

Call it flip-flopping if you must; I’d call it evolution of thought, a change of ideas based on facts, contemplation, and evidence collected over time. Though I’ve resisted my liberal tendencies thus far, I can no longer continue to support our massive troop presence in Iraq. It is time to bring our men and women home, to refocus our efforts back to the real war on terror, to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice, and to play nice with our allies once again in order to deal with growing threats around the world.

Recommitting and refocusing on the war on terror necessitates that we leave a small force in Iraq to deal with the Al Qaeda threat that has developed since our invasion, though many of the groups that claim alliance do so just for the hope of financial support from the worldwide group. While we need to make sure Iraq does not become a haven for international terrorism, most Iraqi nationals do not want these outsiders there any more than they desire a continued American presence. Many “insurgents” tolerate the terrorists because they have a common enemy in what they view as a much more powerful occupying force. Still, a select group of American Special Forces could probably see to this issue and greatly diminish the image that we are there for permanent plunder.

Up to now, I have relied on the fear and the belief that if we left, Iraq would descend into total chaos. Everyday in the news, I see evidence that such a state of affairs already exists, and that the risk of it increasing is in no way diminished by a massive American presence. The “surge” might have worked if we had done it in earnest or earlier in the conflict; however, a creeping surge this late in the game was ill-fated from the start and should not be allotted much more time to fail; the lives of our soldiers are too valuable for that. While I would like nothing more than success or, at the very least, a clear change in Iraqi fortunes, increasing our numbers merely served to reinforce the idea that we are there for good, creating more enemies and catalyzing even more chaos, which is seemingly the only true force dominating the nation as a whole at this time.

Quite possibly, Iraq may break apart if we leave; it may also break apart if we stay, as support for the Americans is yet another issue that divides rather than unites the Iraqis. At the very least, a greatly decreased U.S. presence will force the hand of the Iraqi government either into the success that we cannot create for it or final failure, perhaps leading to something new and better. We simply cannot divine the future – but we cannot control it even if we are there. As such, the risks to our troops simply outweigh the benefits.

Risk – a word with new meaning since 9/11; a recent report stated that the terror threat from Al Qaeda has grown yet again and that they are preparing another attack on the United States. The war in Iraq has not diminished or even really addressed this threat. Rather, it has taken our eye off of the ball; we live in risky times and cannot afford further distraction. As Russia seems content to escalate old tensions, Pakistan continues to refuse to fully cooperate against the Taliban and the hunt for Bin Laden, Iran and Turkey threaten to expand the Iraq conflict into a regional war, North Korea remains unstable, genocide continues more or less unchecked in Darfur – the threats to international peace are everywhere, including within our own borders. With all of our resources tied up in Iraq, how can we expect to act as a superpower and world leader? How can we meet the needs of our own people and deal with our own domestic challenges as we struggle to do so for a nation whose prime minister already told us that we are “free to leave”?

And so, while my support for our troops, our brave men and women in uniform remains unwavering (and should not be questioned because of my position, but alas, we live in an area where the patriotism of all dissenters is doubted), I can no longer support their massive presence in Iraq. The time has come for us to go and to bring our soldiers home, to disengage them from a dangerous civil war where the mission is unclear, the end game undefined, and the original purpose blurred by years of changing platitudes emulating from President Bush and his cronies who dominate our foreign policy and have steered it down a reckless and self-aggrandizing path.

From Jungle to Desert

2006-11-21T09:33:00.000-05:00

Richard Cohen has an excellent yet chilling piece in today's Washington Post on Bush's recent visit to Vietnam. He writes:

"...the military is now considering three options for Iraq: more troops, fewer troops (but for a longer time) and no troops at all -- the ol' cut and run. The missing option here is victory. Don't worry, it will be invented. "You have to define win," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who is about to return to Iraq, told the New York Times. Ah, just in the nick of time.

Where have we heard this sort of language before? It is the lingo of Vietnam. As with Vietnam, we are fighting now merely not to lose -- to avoid a full-fledged civil war (it's coming anyway) or to keep the country together, something like that. But not for victory. Not for democracy. All this talk of the Iraqis doing more on their own behalf is Vietnamization in the desert rather than the jungle. What remains the same is asking soldiers to die for a reason that the politicians in Washington can no longer explain. This, above all, is how Iraq is like Vietnam: older men asking younger men to die while they try to figure something out.

That's why Bush kept moving. He knows Vietnam is not just about the past. It's also about the future."

Election 2006 Thoughts

2006-11-14T10:01:00.000-05:00

Better late than never I suppose.

At any rate, my singular thought is this (beyond sheer joy):

The Republicans lost this election. They lost because, as the old saying goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." The Democrats were the fortunate bystanders who now have the chance to prove that they deserve to win, on their own, the next election. They have the chance to put forward ideas and policy now that, realistically, Bush will probably reject. However, if the public likes it and realizes that Democrats do in fact have good ideas, they will get the president they need in 2008 to make these ideas realities.

All this is not to say that Dean and various local candidates do not deserve credit; they were able to find candidates palatable to the disenchanted electorate. In turn, these candidates were able to pull off victories over the hapless Republicans.

As 2008 takes shape, the Democrats, along with the Republicans, must struggle to find an identity. Will the extremes continue to dominate the political landscape, or will their time in government move the Democrats towards a practical, Clintonian center that will win throughout the country? Will the Republicans continue to act as though they are God's soldiers, or will they eat humble pie and work with Democrats to actually get practical things done for our nation?

Starting in January, I guess we will find out. Either way, it is bound to be an improvement over the way things were. Fellow Democrats, the celebration is over. Now, it is time to work and build on this victory.

Endorsments: Election 2006

2006-11-06T10:16:00.000-05:00

This seems to be the trend, so I figured I might as well keep up with the Jones’ (and other bloggers) and post my endorsements.

Senate
Tom Carper: Carper has done a great job serving Delaware throughout his career. He is a moderate consensus builder who does not lose touch with his constituents. Though his political views sometimes fall to the right of mine, I generally agree with him on most issues and feel his is the best man for the job.

House of Representatives
Dennis Spivack: He is the most qualified challenger to Mike Castle in a long time. Castle’s support of Bush/Republican budget cuts in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy prevent me from supporting him, in spite of his efforts on stem cell research that I greatly admire. Besides, Castle is part of a party that needs to be sent a message; the only way to change the status quo is to remove the Republicans from power, even the moderate ones who simply add to the majority.

Attorney General
No Endorsement: Both men would bring positives to the table. Biden has good ideas, Wharton experience. Wharton is the safe pick, but maybe it is time for a change. A change for the worse is possible, however. See, I’m stuck.

This has been an unnecessarily nasty race for an office that really shouldn’t be that politically charged. Republicans are pulling out all stops to prevent another Biden from entering the public arena: after all, the last time they failed to do this, he held the same seat for over 30 years. In the end, I am leaning towards Wharton right now because his experience is overwhelming, but I plan to do more reading on both candidates tonight before I go to the polls.

Treasurer
Jack Markell: He has done an excellent job so far and deserves to be reelected. If he runs for anything in 2008, I’ll give you more informed analysis then.

Auditor:
Thomas Wagner: My dad always said the auditor should come from the opposite party as the one in power. Sounds good to me. Wagner has done his job well, and the Democrats failed to field a serious candidate.

39th District Representative
Dr. Richard Sternberg: A real person instead of a local politician sounds good to me. And a bonus: he’s a Democrat, which would help the push for the Democrats to take a majority in the House. Now, if only the Senate had a majority Democrat instead of Dixie-crats in control…

What Bush SHOULD Say

2006-10-31T16:57:00.000-05:00

Ben Stein is a Republican and a former speechwriter. This Sunday, he suggested what President Bush SHOULD say and do to help with the public opinion and policy problems that plague him right now. Sounds like a good Democratic Platform, too.

My fellow Americans, I have some sobering news. It is my duty, above all, to protect the nation. I sincerely believed I was doing that when I ordered the invasion of Iraq. I still believe Saddam Hussein was the most dangerous man in the world. But it is clear to me now that things are not working out well in Iraq. Despite the incredible confidence, bravery and sacrifice of our men and women on the ground there, Iraq is still a violent, largely out of control nation. We may be making more terrorists than we destroy. "Quagmire" comes sadly to mind. It is clear that change must be made. Therefore, I have this morning accepted Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation with sincere thanks for his service to the nation. He will be replaced by a truly heroic American, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Despite my best intentions, I made mistakes in Iraq and mine is the responsibility. Good men and women died and hard-earned tax money was lost. Fine young men and women are crippled and disabled, which is a tragedy. It is time for a change. Therefore, I am convening an official, national, bi-partisan, blue ribbon commission composed of Democrats, Independents and Republicans, civilian and military, to start meeting at once and give me a recommendation in one month as to what our Iraq policy should be. All options are on the table. All.

I want to close with this thought. I am just a man. I have no miraculous powers. I have no special pipeline to God. Like all presidents from Jefferson and Lincoln onwards — and believe me, I know I'm not in their league — I make mistakes and sometimes good people die because of them. I am deeply sorry. As we re-examine our policy, I would ask that you all pray for us to make the right decision. May God continue to bless us all. Thank you.

Thoughts on the Election and Change

2006-10-24T15:10:00.000-05:00

I made these comments in response to a post on JokersToTheRight, but I thought they were important and general enough to post on my main page.

In the end, I view this election as a referendum on the status quo - "stay the course," if you will. The status quo has this country moving in the wrong direction; the leadership of this country has the world moving in the wrong direction. It is time for a change. Ryan is correct; the Republicans have done little to nothing to earn the support of their usual constituents. Any readers who have not already made up your minds: don't let the fear of change and the fear of accountability affect your decisions as you vote. There is a big difference between hearings about a President's sex life and hearings about the reasons that a nation went to war, a war that costs more American lives every day. The current leadership, under the Republican Party, has not provided the leadership necessary to look into and move past these vital issues on to a better future. Denying the reasons and original goals for a war means that it is open-ended, and the time has come to think about how to bring about closure in Iraq.

When leadership fails, we as the American people have the power and the responsibility to bring about change. The time is very near for us to do that.

Blogging Renaissance

2006-10-24T06:32:00.000-05:00

What? A new post? Yep, that's right - and hopefully the first of many. I'm teaching full time now and have actually gotten back into blogging in a whole new way; I have a "class blog" that is doubling as a homepage at the moment. Check it out and see what is going on in a real public education classroom. I figured as a blog, it has the added bonus of the comments section where students can post questions or comments and respond to one another. In the meantime, I hope to get back to my political blogging as well, including a list of endorsements for the 2006 election. Stay tuned, and welcome back to anyone who might still be checking in!

Dover Post

2006-04-12T21:15:00.000-05:00

I was glad to see the Dover Post ran a piece on local blogs in this weeks edition, and that in spite of my sparse writing these days, I made the cut.

So, welcome any new readers that this may have drawn - I invite you to read through my old post and make comments. I hope to be updating much more frequently now that my student teaching experience is winding down. It was gone well, but I've been quite busy and have had to prioritize. Thank you, readers, for your understanding, and again, don't give up on me!

Just Gasping...

2006-03-12T19:19:00.000-05:00

For those of you who still check this blog (thank you!), I just wanted to let you know that it is not dead, just gasping for air right now because I'm so busy with student teaching, classes, and life in general. However, I have enjoyed just bothering people on their own blogs, and continue to enjoy being part of this community.

I do have one issue to talk about from student teaching, however (no, I'm not going to rip on DSTP - that will probably come after I have to help proctor them next week). A lot of students know a lot about what is going on - and that's great. However, far too many have no clue about what is happening in the world right now. I urge everyone in the blogging community to talk about what you do with young people, and encourage them to become politically active (even if it is on the wrong side...lol). I know it goes against our better inclinations, but try not to be too biased when you do it, either. Young people should have the opportunity to think for themselves, just as we all have. Try to stick to the facts, and not the Bill O'Riley version of the facts either (or the Maureen Dowd version, just to be fair).

Alright, I'm off my soapbox for now. Don't give up on me! I hope to start updating more regularly.

On Government Size and Reform

2006-02-13T22:12:00.000-05:00

Because Ryan has recently made a post on the state of conservatism and my admission of certain failures within the Democratic agenda seemed to startle some, I’ve decided to further explain my view on government size.

I view it kind of like getting in shape. I have no problem with it gaining a little mass, but we need to trim the fat. I think government should help those who need it without allowing people to become a complacent drain on the system. I have no problem with radical reform of our welfare state; it is flawed, in some cases, DEEPLY flawed. At the same time, that doesn’t mean that we should simply scrap it or give up on the notion that everyone in the United States deserves a fighting chance of success.

I personally know people who are in fact drains on the system. They don’t work, reproduce, and collect assistance with a sense of entitlement. That’s bunk, but it is also a difficult situation. As a society, I think we are morally obligated to at least protect the children they produce, but we must coerce the parent back to work. I think Clinton’s working welfare reforms were a great first step, but more must be done along those lines.

At the same time, I know some who are in genuine need of assistance. These are they types who work 40 + hours a week and make less than $20,000 a year. Usually people in this situation are doing the jobs that many would never wish to do, yet they are positions that are valuable to us as a society. These people deserve support; they deserve at least some level of assistance in order to have the opportunity to better themselves (such as greater financial aid for college). However, under the current system, they are often shut out by those who abuse the system but are able nevertheless to better extract assistance from the government.

In the end, I believe in a stronger government, one that is there to help the citizens who need it the most in their times of need. If this creates a “bigger government,” so be it; I don’t believe in sacrificing the working poor over empty rhetoric that rejects any notion that government can benefit its citizens. However, I do believe in a trimmer government, one that rejects a welfare-supported impoverished leisure class and that has a clear but fair tax code that aims to balance the budget.

Really, is all that too much to ask for?

In Defense of "Elmer Fudd" Cheney

2006-02-13T18:53:00.000-05:00

The words above are rare for me, I know. My first reaction was shock, then bemusement about Cheney’s accidental shooting of his lawyer friend (I mean, Cheney just kind of LOOKS like Elmer Fudd, and the nightly talk shows are going to be hysterical).

However, at today’s White House Press Conference, the media attacked press secretary Scott McClellan because the information was first released through the private rancher on who’s land the incident occurred.

While I’m usually in favor of any reason to go after the corrupt and power-hungry Bush administration, in this case I think the media is making a mountain out of a wabbit hill---eer…molehill.

Though an interesting footnote in history that Cheney is only the second VP to shoot a man while in office (the first was Aaron Burr’s assassination of Alexander Hamilton in the infamous dual), this incident occurred in Cheney’s private time on private land; it was accidental, not criminal in any way. Just as I thought President Clinton’s sex life was none of our business, the same lapplies to Cheney’s private life; this accident is really none of our business.

There are very serious issues that face our country right now, including grave concerns about various activities undertaken by the present administration. Perhaps the media should focus on them instead of an unfortunate accident. It is past time for the media to act responsibly and report on issues that matter, instead of whatever real or created “scandal” will draw the most attention.

On the Lighter Side

2006-02-11T19:10:00.000-05:00

I received this as an email from my sister, and couldn't resist posting it:

This year, Groundhog Day and the State of the Union address occured on the
same day.

As Air  America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition of
events:
 One involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a  creature of
 little intelligence for prognostication, while the  other involves a
 groundhog."

The Pen is Mightier (Still)

2006-02-06T19:35:00.000-05:00

In my student teaching, I am currently covering a unit on American Imperialism. If you recall your history class, you will remember how “Yellow Journalism” pushed the public opinion towards war (specifically the Spanish-American War). Now, before you sigh and ignore what you expect to be some rant about our imperialistic adventures in Iraq, stick with me – at least THIS post isn’t about that. I merely wish to point out that the media maintains a powerful influence in world affairs.

For proof, one need only look to the Muslim world, as consuls and embassies burn over a political cartoon that originally ran in a Danish newspaper. A single cartoon is now at the forefront of the news and is dramatically shaping world affairs, just as the Yellow Journalist of the 1890’s were able to change their world and push it towards war. Though we can only hope that this incident does not end in violence, it is evidence that the pen of the journalist still yields a lot of power.

State of the Union

2006-01-31T23:02:00.000-05:00

A few thoughts before I turn in for the night...

Nothing really exciting - mostly more of the same from both the Presidents and the Democrats.

Foreign policy wise, he continues to see a progress in Iraq that is missing in the news; indeed, it may be missing from reality. However, I agree with him on the notion that we must succeed. It will just be like Taliban Afghanistan if we do not, a harbor for violence and terrorism. However, success must be measured by how quickly we can give the Iraqis their country back. He made a strong statement on Iran, and deservedly so. I'm glad to see we're working WITH the international community on this critical issue. Russia is really the key to peace with Iran. The Dems called for change in Iraq without offering any alternative.

Domestically, his arguments for the patriot act and the wiretappings were familiar; I still fail to see why he doesn't just get warrants, however, as he is allowed 72 hours...why even push the limits of the law, if not break it? As for the patriot act, with more provisions to protect civil liberties, it should be passed; some of the powers therein have indeed been important at breaking up terror domestically. The key is finding a balance and debating it thoroughly.

Economically, the traditional divisions continue. No news here. I thought Bush's head was going to explode when the Dems cheered the failure of his Social Security agenda. A highlight of the night for the loyal opposition.

Once again, Katrina seemed to be an afterthought for the president. It was a major national event, and only got a few lines.

His call for a line-item veto scares me - yet another extension of executive power, already greatly broadened under President Bush. I can't see the Congress giving Bush even more power, but the way the Republicans are wrapped around his finger, nothing would surprise me.

That's really it as far as anything I thought was interesting - we truly do need to commit to expanding renewable energy; I would hope people on both sides of the aisle agree with that.

On the whole, however, Dick Cheney came out of his hole and saw his shadow...you know what that means: another year of bitter partisanship in Washington. Moreover, as odd as it sounds, I sincerely hope no crisis great enough to again unite us comes along anytime soon.

Pre- State of the Union

2006-01-31T17:09:00.000-05:00

First off, I offer my apologies again to anyone who still checks this site from time to time for not being more on top of things. Student teaching has kept me busy, but is going well.

I plan to post some reaction to the State of the Union speech (hopefully I'll actually get around to it) tonight after it is over.

I'll just mention this: I disagree with liberals and Democrats who refuse to watch it. I mean, come on guys and gals - isn't it better to know what the other side is up to?

Apologies

2006-01-19T23:15:00.000-05:00

Sorry the blog has been so quiet to those of you who read - started student teaching this week and have been trying to get my mind adjusted to the new hours. I'm usually up from 11am to 3 am - school starts at 7:30 am, so you can see the problem.

While my hours are extreme, I do think there is a valid argument for moving back the day a bit. There are of course problems, but the science has shown it would benefit a majority of students academically. No Child Left Behind? What about us night owls?

Ok, hopefully the weekend will bring a more serious post. Until then, I'll be trying to make as many annoying comments as possible on other people's blogs!

Alito Process – Initial Reactions

2006-01-12T12:37:00.000-05:00

He’s coming across as an extremist and an ideologue; he seems bitter, mean spirited, and is making his “side” look bad. But enough about Sen. Kennedy…

All kidding aside, I’ve always admired Ted Kennedy because he is, at the very least, consistent and clear in his views. However, in this very public forum, he is a living characature of what many Republicans have accused the Democrats of being – essentially whiny little children who will do anything to get their way.

Unfortunately, this detracts from the rest of the Democrats who have done an admirable job bringing the important issues to the forefront of the discussion. Sen. Feinstein in particular deserves credit for engaging Judge Alito concerning important issues and doing so on a layman’s level. Sen. Biden has been amusing, and though a bit aggressive he has done it much less mean-spiritedly than Sen. Kennedy.

As for Judge Alito, he has been calm and cool, clearly knowledgeable on case law and able to respond maturely to criticism. I’ve been surprised at the number of questions he has answered, though some critical issues remain open-ended. Still, I fear the saying that “in a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve” will come true; Alito is clearly a Conservative in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, just as Bush promised prior to his reelection. However, I think he’s too mild mannered and “normal” not to ultimately be confirmed.

I don’t know if the Dems will decide to filibuster or not – I think if they do it is a great political risk. A much better tact for blocking his confirmation would be to launch a massive public relations campaign in order pressure enough moderate (particularly pro-choice) Republicans to block him on an up or down vote. I do not think this will happen. It is too early to make a prediction as to the final Senate vote, but I expect it to be much closer than the Roberts vote, as Dems position themselves to maintain or increase their appeal to Americans who support Roe v. Wade, a group that remains a clear majority nationwide.

Remember When...

2006-01-08T17:11:00.000-05:00

I borrowed this from Ryan over at JokersTotheRight and thought it was interesting enough to complete on my own. Basically a “where were you when…” type of thing.

You found out about 9/11: World Geography class with Mr. Maroon, an older teacher who was a retired Air Force intelligence officer. A messenger from the office had brought a message and said a plane had hit, then a Vice Principle, knowing his background, stopped by to tell us the second plane had hit. Mr. Maroon turned around and wrote “Osama Bin Laden” on the board, then started trying to get the horrific images on the TV. I changed classes at 9:20 am, but it didn’t take much to convince my chemistry teacher that this was a whole lot more important than that day’s lesson, esp. as events unfolded.

The start of the FIRST Gulf War - When we began combat operations: The “Big G” grocery store (now Farm Fresh) just outside of Camden, DE. I was shopping with my family, and we were checking out when they came over the intercom. It was the first major combat since Vietnam, and people were on edge. I remember the whole store going silent as the announcement was made.

The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded: I think I was sitting in a high-chair eating, but I really don’t remember.

The Space Shuttle Columbia broke up during re-entry: I was sleeping – my mom came in and told me to turn on the TV. We thought initially it might have been a terrorist attack because of the Israeli astronaut, though even later that day that seemed unreasonable.

Berlin Wall came down: Nope, no idea, too young.

President Clinton was acquitted of impeachment: I was getting ready for jazz band when the vote was taken – they had TV’s in the band room, and our teacher left us watch it as the practice began, realizing that it wasn’t something you see every day.

Election night 2000: Watching at home on TV, finally going to bed around 1am because of school the next day. I was in a government class at school that semester, so we followed all of the developments closely, including when the Supreme Court decided votes didn’t matter....hmm, I think I’m still a little bitter about that one.

Delaware SB 80 Deserves Support

2006-01-03T14:37:00.000-05:00

Delaware’s SB 80 has stirred passions on both sides of the stem cell research debate here in the First State. Senate Bill 80, the Delaware Regenerative Medicine Act, will be up for vote in the House this month after already passing the Senate. This Wednesday, 01/04, there will be a public hearing at legislative hall from 6:00 – 8:00 pm. I find the whole debate fairly interesting, and the fact that there is a town hall meeting at legislative hall makes me realize why I like Delaware so much: where else could the people of a state gather to discuss policy in the place where it will actually be decided?

My two cents? I support this measure whole heartedly. Its primary purpose is not an expansion of embryonic stem cell research, but to create oversight and standards regarding various aspects of research surrounding regenerative medicine. This is particularly important in Delaware, a state where much private research takes place. The controversy is about several other provisions of the bill which “will permit couples whose cells created the embryos to donate them for legitimate medical and scientific research, if they so choose. A couple’s decision to donate their embryos, instead of having them destroyed, would be strictly voluntary. This legislation would permit scientific researchers to use donated human embryos created during in vitro fertilization procedures for legitimate research projects, subject to restrictions. The restrictions would include the following: a) a determination that the embryos would never be implanted in the female donor; b) a requirement that the embryos would otherwise be discarded; c) a requirement that the embryos are donated for the purpose of stem cell research by the individuals seeking fertility treatment; d) a requirement that written informed consent would have to be obtained from the individuals donating the embryos; and e) a prohibition that prevents the individuals who are making the donation from receiving any financial or other inducements for the donation.”

These embryos will be destroyed anyway; to me, this is indeed a moral issue. Allowing the research to take place does not destroy life any more than discarding the embryos. Instead, it works towards the creation of solutions that alleviate suffering and SAVES lives. To ignore a science that has the potential to save lives in order to “protect” embryos that will be destroyed anyway is both immoral and illogical. SB 80 deserves full support and should serve as a model for similar legislation at the national level.

More Bush Shadiness

2005-12-31T12:53:00.000-05:00

In a rather disturbing turn of events, President Bush announced that there will be a full inquiry into the source of the leak about the NSA program in which the average American was subject to surveillance without any warrant or permission from the courts. In the meantime, the President continues to assert that the program was and is legal without ever really offering any reason as to why he has the divine right to disregard the Constitutional and bypass the judicial system.

I find this most recent development disturbing because, once again, he is attacking those who dare to speak out against or expose the questionable methods of his administration and the activities they claim are necessary for our security. At the very least, he should have announced a simultaneous independent probe of the program itself, including an investigation to make sure he only targeted potential Al-Qaeda members and not political enemies or a specific race or religion. That, literally, is the very least that should be done, and until it is, I think most Americans will remain quite uncomfortable with this Nixon-esque activity and rhetoric.

Darwin, God, and the Courts (oh my - here we go again…)

2005-12-23T16:37:00.000-05:00

With the defeat of the Dover, PA school board members who supported intelligent design and a US court recently ruling the teaching of it in public schools illegal, it seems that once again common sense may, in the end, prevail.

I’m not implying that intelligent design in and of itself defies common sense; religion ultimately is rooted in faith more than reason anyway. Science, however, must be based on both reason and empirical evidence. While this should be cause enough not to teach intelligent design in a high school science classroom, in the end it is the Constitution that prevents this, and it was this document that led the court to its ruling. While there is room for legitimate debate concerning the establishment clause, few deny that evangelizing by representatives of the government, teachers included, in public schools is unconstitutional. Teaching intelligent design calls for teachers to do exactly that; “intelligent” implies some higher form of intelligence – something that ultimately requires an act of faith to believe in. It should be up to the churches to equip their believers with either a counter narrative or information on how the two theories are compatible. Personally, I look to science to answer the “how” question and my faith to answer “why.”

In our public schools, however, the teaching of intelligent design is both bad science AND bad law. Fortunately, the PA courts ignored the prophecy of fire and brimstone from Pat Robertson and made an - get ready, here it comes - "intelligent" decision.

A Blog is Born!

2005-12-20T01:22:00.000-05:00

Welcome one and all to my new blog. Many of you are probably familiar with me from my contributions on the University of Delaware College Democrats Blog (linked to the right). This semester, I have moved home to student teach at a local high school (Polytech) and as a result resigned my position on the Dems board. Though I will still be contributing regularly to the their blog, I found myself wanting to expand the perspectives within my writing. So, with the encouragement of Ryan S., one of my favorite Conservatives, I decided to create my very own blog (I realize now that I am stating the obvious).

At any rate, I will try to update regularly and expand the links page, etc. If you would like to be linked, let me know and I will try to get you on ASAP. I welcome all comments, but would like to encourage intelligent, civil dialogue.

Politically, I am to the left of center, but am a centrist in that I believe we can solve more problems through open dialogue and through seeking common ground than by trying to dominate those with different perspectives. Too often, that is the way of our current political system, and I believe the high level of disapproval for both parties in Congress as well as the President is at least in part a product of the childishness of our elected officials in how they conduct their business and campaigns. Though some may consider this idealistic drivel, truly it is the pursuit of a better way that drives many into politics and the political system as a whole. How better to fix this nation’s problems than to begin with “fixing” those who run it?