What’s the Government to Do?

In article published today on Slate, David Weigel  examines the impact the Arizona shootings will have on the upcoming legislative session. In his piece, Weigel concludes that while the tragedy ought to make the 112th Congress consider stricter gun laws and the way our country handles the mentally ill, nothing will likely change, due in part to politicians being afraid to touch these “hot button” issues and procedural roadblocks Republicans would present in the House. Weigel represents a growing voice of young, progressive, pundits, highly visible in the social-media community, asking what the Federal government will do in response to the assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Why are they calling on the Federal government to respond to the situation at all? Where do the government’s responsibility lie?

Obviously, since a Federal judge was killed and there was an attempt on a Congresswoman’s life, the Federal government has a responsibility to prosecute the alleged shooter to the fullest extent possible, but with a Justice Department led by Eric Holder, that does not seem very likely.

Outside of that, what exactly do we need the Federal government to do? To suggest, as Weigel does, that stricter gun laws may have prevented the massacre is anecdotal at best. Yes, it seems likely that the alleged shooter obtained his weapon legally, but Weigel’s argument assumes that the alleged shooter would not have obtained a weapon by some other means. Let’s assume for a moment he was not allowed to purchase his weapon legally and because of that gave up on his planned killing spree. It would represent one instance where a gun crime was prevented due to the lack of legal access to a gun, as opposed to the mass of gun violence committed with illegally obtained guns each year. It would be the exception to the rule. Are Arizona gun laws too lenient? I don’t know, that’s for the residents of Arizona to decide, not the Federal government.

How about mental health? Obviously, the alleged shooter had some mental issues. On a whole, the care for the mentally ill in this country could be a lot better. I think it’s great if we, as a nation, can use this tragedy as a chance to consider those who suffer from mental illness and explore ways to better treat them. But again, not a Federal issue. It’s a system best left to the states and the private sector.

In the end, it seems that the Generation Y progressives are just like their predecessors and never miss an opportunity to exploit a national tragedy to expand the size of the Federal government. Some things, it seems, will never change!

The Last Best Hope of Man on Earth

Throughout his life, Ronald Reagan delivered many memorable speeches. Americans remember them by their names–”To Restore America,” “A Time for Choosing,” “City Upon a Hill.” His speeches sought to challenge and comfort, strengthen and nurture and instill in us all a reminder of what it means to be an American. No where is this more evident than his address at the first annual CPAC conference, a speech which ended with the immortal line, “We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.”

Tonight, another American President known for his speeches took to the podium, hoping to bring healing to a community and nation in need. Speaking at the Tuscon memorial service, President Barack Obama sought to echo the sentiments expressed by President Reagan some 37 years ago. Recognizing the caustic fallout from the weekend’s tragic shooting, Obama, in his own way, called for a renewed sense of civility in the political discourse ringing out across the land, a promising tone from a President who has remained virtually silent since the shootings as his supporters concocted hate-filled ad hominem attacks on conservative pundits.

If we are to live up to Reagan’s legacy, we need to begin by acknowledging Obama said the “right things,” time will tell if his followers heed his advice. We need not engage in verbal sparring with our political opponents; we must only hold firm to the principles and truths we know to be true.  If this unleashes an angry tidal wave of abuse from the Left, we must refuse to be drawn offsides by their hard count, and instead focus the attention back on the principles we believe make the United States THE exceptional nation.

Vulgar Display of Ignorance

In the hours following the tragic Arizona shootings, many media members have engaged in what can best be described as a vulgar display of ignorance, choosing to play a game of political finger-pointing, rather than simply reporting the facts. Void of any evidence to link the shoot to the Tea Party or any of its affiliates, progressives began an aggressive campaign to link the shooter to the group. Only minutes after news of the shooting broke, several left-leaning figures, including Daily Kos founder, Markos Moullitsas, began posting tweets that seemed to imply that the rhetoric of certain conservative leaders, such as Sarah Palin, could have led to the shootings. As the day progressed and we learned more about the suspect, more and more progressive journalists began to engage in similar tactics, ignoring the facts about the suspect, and instead building on the assertion that conservative rhetoric played some role in causing the senseless act of violence.

Several writers from Slate, including Dave Weigel, New York Times contributor, Heidi Moore, and Wonkette’s Ana Marie Cox all used their Twitter stream to blithely point their fingers at the right for causing the day’s events. Even Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, joined in the fray, decrying “rhetoric of hatred, mistrust of governmentt, paranoia about government that inflames public daily, especially unbalanced people.”  Sheriff Dupnik went on to lash out the Arizona state legislature for being too soft on gun control. Thankfully, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly displayed the intestinal fortitude to hold the Sheriff accountable when he appeared on her program.

I understand the human need to try and find some closure when something as horrific as the shooting of Rep. Gabby Gifford occurs. On 9/11, we all asked, “who could do this to us and why?” When you examine the history of the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, you see a young man with a history of exhibiting signs of extreme mental unbalance. The sad fact is that it is a difficult proposition to understand what motivates mentally unbalanced or mentally unstable people and this is what causes so many people distress about this particular case. We may never be able to wrap this case up, place it a box of understanding and prevent a similar event from happening again. It does seem that were will remain some loose ends remaining, even if and when Mr. Loughner is prosecuted. This scares the hell out a lot of people.

For whatever reason, conservatives deal with uncertainty better than progressives. Even the most extreme right-wingers I follow on Twitter refrained from pointing fingers at the Left for this tragedy. In fact, almost all of the conservatives I followed offered their sincere condolences to all those effected and seemed shocked that progressives would attempt to politicize the situation.

While we may never be able to understand the motives behind Saturday’s shooting, or understand why bad things happen to good people, we can do our part to help the country move forward. First, we quit trying to point the finger of blame at political figures we disagree with for causing this tragedy. The only person responsible is the person who pulled the trigger. It’s now in the hands of the judicial system to handle the prosecution. Next, support your elected officials by showing up at their next public meeting in your community. Even if you disagree with their positions, show up, let them know how you about the issues that matter to you, but remember they “are human and need to be loved, just like everybody else”, so leave them with a handshake and a smile. Don’t let this shooting scare you away from being politically active and aware. Finally, find a way to engage in constructive dialogue with those you disagree with politically.

The Political Importance of Health Care Repeal

Day 2 of the 112th Congress and we’re already seeing some positive results. In addition to getting back to basics and reading the Constitution aloud on the House floor, the GOP led House also opened up hearing meetings on the repeal of the health care legislation. It looks like a vote in the House could come as early as Wednesday. While it’s likely that the repeal would pass easily in the House, Democrats have plenty of votes to block the repeal in the Senate and the President has indicated, as expected, that he would veto the repeal should it reach his desk.

Why even try? Isn’t it hypocritical for Republicans to introduce a piece of legislation they know has no chance of passing, when they were elected to address our country’s economic woes?

Not at all.

First, Republicans believe, and I tend to share the opinion, that the 2010 health care bill will hurt our already fragile economy.  I’ve already noticed some disturbing trends in my own, employee-sponsored health coverage, and everywhere you look you see stories about the negative impact of the bill on job creation. Taking every step possible to repeal this legislation shows Republicans are serious about tackling the tough economic issues of the day.

Consider also that many of the Republicans elected in November ran against the health care bill and promised to do all they could to reverse it if elected to office. By taking on this hot-button issue on the second day of the session, Republicans are following through on not one, but two of their campaign promises–the economy and repealing the health care bill.

So President Obama has vowed to veto the repeal, no big deal. This is actually the area where Republicans stand to gain the most. The health care debate was contentious the last time around and it cost many a politician their seat in November. Since that time, Obama has been able to score some key political victories–”Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, tax cut extensions, etc. Indeed, the “lame duck session” in December turned out to be be anything but “lame” for the Obama administration. Pushing for the repeal of the health care legislation moves one of Obama’s most unpopular pieces of legislation back to center stage. The President and Senate Democrats will be forced to once again to debate an issue that several key Democrats, Obama included, cannot afford to debate again.

Transfer of Power

Regardless of your political affiliation, the peaceful transfer of power we witnessed today, during the opening of the 112th session of Congress, should make us all proud to be Americans. Critics regularly criticize House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) for being too emotional, but I must admit, watching the pageantry associated with selecting him as Speaker, made me a little emotional. It’s the same type of emotion I experienced two years ago when I watched Barack Obama become the first African-American to be sworn in as President of the United States.  The potential energy contained in the peaceful transfer of power drives our nation in a positive direction. It is, and I don’t believe I am resorting to hyperbole here, the reason we went from a colony to a super-power in 200 years, and why we remain an exceptional nation.

In order for this potential energy to be released and make as an ever greater nation, those who inherit the power must simply remain true to the principles on which this country was founded, the same principles that helped us evolve through the years. It seems as if Democrats forgot this simple fact over the last two years, looking to the outside for some secret to unleash this purely American energy. We need not look to the East or West, North or South, across the Atlantic or across the Pacific, to find the catalyst for this release of energy, but merely within ourselves.

Republicans now control the House, while the Democrats maintain the Senate. However, the electorate sent a strong message to all politicians in Washington in November–Americans are sick of “politics as usual” and want change. In order to see that change come to fruition, we must tap into to the bottled up potential energy. This means those Republicans voted in with the confidence that we would return a sense of fiscal responsibility and Constitutional accountability to our government will do exactly that. If not, the voters will hold them accountable in the next election.

It all sounds good now. Republicans will read the entire Constitution out loud on the House floor tomorrow. On Friday, they may vote on a repeal of the health care bill. They have vowed to slash spending. It sounds like a government we can all be proud of,  but we also know these politicians to be human first and politicians second, so they will definitely not live up to all their promises, but will they do enough to release this powerful, transformative energy?

For now, we can only hope. Until then, I know for a fact that America is better today than it was yesterday. As long as we have more days like that over the next few years, we will be making positive steps to harnessing this energy.

Hate the Game, Not the Playa!

A tweet from Slate caught my eye tonight—@Slate: Ever wonder how much news is created by under 140 characters from @SarahPalinUSA? Introducing the Palin Tweet Index! http://slate.me/gKIhfT . For the past two years, Slate writers have dissected literally every one of the Palin family’s social media mumblings, no matter how mundane. I sometimes wonder if the writers are like the homophobe who tries to shield his true sexual orientation by constantly casting disparaging remarks at other gay people, or do they suffer from something even more pathological.  They certainly obsess over her enough; their site features a “department” called “Palinisms”, which exists solely to memorialize Palin’s speaking snafus. One Slate writer, Jacob Weisberg, even published an entire book on the subject.

Let’s be clear, pundits on the right are guilty of equally egregious ad hominem attacks on progressive figures. If you ever have the misfortune of landing on an ABC radio affiliate in the afternoon, you will hear Sean Hannity and Mark Levin try with every ounce of their being to come up with some utterly juvenile nickname for Democratic politicians. Indeed, Hannity and Levin spend far more time name-calling than addressing real issues. Similarly, the right-wing blogs focus a majority of their attention in attacking the character of adversarial politicians.

Politics evoke emotions and these emotions are sometimes hard to channel constructively, yet we must if we ever want engage in positive political dialogue. This does not mean we need to cave-in on issues. On the contrary, we should be even more vociferous on the issues. Debating the issues requires us to examine an opposing point of view and rationally construct a rebuttal. It is how we nurture and grow our democracy. When we focus our attention instead on the PEOPLE we disagree with, we function a little less like our “founding fathers” intended and a little more like the rest of the world.

More on Ezra Klein

Yesterday, I dared to ask the question, “who is Ezra Klein?” Today, I read his Washington Post blog with great interest as he took on “inequality and income.” By all means, please read his entire entry and the accompanying graphs. So Klein attempts to formulate an original thought, something I attacked him for being void of yesterday, yet in doing so embodies one of the worst progressive traits–guilt/worry.

Reading this post, I felt sympathy for Mr. Klein. This dude is young, healthy and has a great career laid out before him yet he pours over economic data, charting income disparity, and I’m worried he’s one graph away from a coronary.

Klein needs to realize no degree of worrying, nay, nor any graph he draws, will shrink the income divide. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to worry about the income gap and neither do we as citizens. As moral humans, we have an innate desire to help those less fortunate than us, but we can only do this after we take care of our own needs. If you feel bad about the income disparity and you’re financially secure, donate to your favorite charities, spend time at a local school mentoring kids, but don’t suggest that the Federal government has any obligation to play any role in bridging that divide–that job exists for Americans to do on their own and should not be compulsory.

Relax Ezra. Go to iTunes, download Naughty by Nature’s “Everythings Gonna Be Alright” and listen to how a kid from the streets climbed out of poverty and know “everythings gonna be alright” for everyone else out there caught in a struggle.

Is Tron Legacy About Socialism?

One of the things I love about WordPress is the site-stats page, which gives you a detailed report on how many people view each page and what search phrases direct people to your site. I noticed one of the search phrases that directed someone to my site today was the question, “is Tron Legacy about socialism?”

I don’t know if you can definitely say the movie is “about socialism,” but you can definitely say it is not very free-market friendly.  One of the memorable early scenes in the movie takes us inside the board room of ENCOM just moments before the launch of their software platform. Ed Dillinger, the chairman of ENCOM’s board, is portrayed as a money-hungry antagonist who wants to exploit the poor by releasing virtually the same platform every few years, with only minor changes, in order to increase profits. Sam Flynn, the youthful ideologue, swoops in just in time to upload the platform to a public domain for the public to download for free. Profits are definitely treated as evil by this film, which is ironic considering the huge profit the film is set to rake in over the holidays.

Also, please remember this film stars Olivia Wilde who is a radical Leftist even by Hollywood standards. However, all things considered, I think it would be more accurate to say that Tron Legacy promotes an “ultra-progressive” agenda than garden-variety socialism. The philosophy spouted by Kevin Flynn is definitely a Utopian view shared by socialists, Marxists and communists, but it takes a much more spiritual (Eastern based) approach than the average socialist could stomach.

 

WikiLeaks: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

What happens when a disgruntled American soldier and an Australian hacker turned free-speech activist conspire? You get the WikiLeaks scandal that has dominated our news coverage for the past week, a tale so complicated, featuring so many different angles, yet full of so much intrigue, it seems it could only come from Hollywood.  My knowledge of the WikiLeaks story comes strictly from what has been reported by mainstream media sources. Of those leaks, mainly profiles of world leaders, I have yet to find one cable I feel our government wrongfully hid from the public, no information I felt we as American citizens are entitled to and nothing that makes me any less distrustful of our government.

I fear the release of more sensitive information that could compromise Americans’ safety here and abroad. Before you write me off as a right-wing cynic, understand that I have no problems seeing government lies and cover-ups exposed, as long as it involves information we deserve to know and it does not compromise the safety of American citizens. Watergate is a prime example of a “good” leak.

Perhaps The Daily Beasts’ Howard Kurtz tweeted it best today, “‘I’m all for exposing govt secrets; I’ve exposed a few myself. But Wikileaks says publish every cable, even about nuclear strategy.” While I have never exposed any government secrets, nor do I desire to ever be in the position to do so, I have played the role of investigative journalist and exposed a few secrets as a college student at Lon Morris College.

As part of my work study assignment, I worked in the school’s administration office and learned things other college students were not privy to. With the help of a few friends, I published an underground newspaper, dedicated to exposing these stories to the entire faculty, student body and local community. I still remember the sense of pride I felt walking into the building the morning the paper was distributed and watching as every student gathered and read our work. In my 9 a.m. class, the professor lead a discussion on the paper and everyone involved with the publication reported similar scenes from their classes. For a moment, we felt like kings and queens of the world.

Almost all of these stories focused on the school’s President, who did not react too kindly to the publication. My name never appeared within the text of the paper, yet I immediately became the prime suspect. I learned through school administrators that my personal e-mail account had been hacked and was being monitored by the President and his staff. Rumors spread that the President had hired a legal team to pursue those responsible for the publication and I ended up abandoning my dorm room and moved in temporarily with an off-campus friend as a precaution (I still managed to secure a 3.8 G.P.A. for the semester).

I know what it feels like to uncover corruption and conspiracy and understand the urge to share this information with a larger community. The stories we uncovered at Lon Morris were legitimate and when the President finally left office many of the things we wrote were proven to be true. However, I also recognize that we were young, idealistic college students. I have matured since those days and would certainly handle the situation differently now. Those responsible for WikiLeaks–the informant(s) and publishers, the financiers and supporters, anyone who could be an accessory to the organization or who feels they are “freedom fighters”–have yet to mature enough to understand the seriousness of the sensitive documents they possess. This is not college and exposing nuclear secrets is far more dangerous than exposing the fact a college President changed his son’s grade. I am no expert on Federal criminal code, so I’ll stay away from recommending how to prosecute those involved, but simply say they all need to grow up.

Are Republicans Listening?

Based on what cable-news network you watch or which publications you read, Republicans will either gain control of one or both houses of Congress in November. The American people trusted the Democrats with absolute power for two years and received absolutely nothing in return but absolute misery. Now it appears that the American people are willing to give the Republicans another shot.

From 2000 to 2006, elected Republican officials did their best to destroy the chances of future Republicans ever being elected. They governed with complete hypocrisy, turning their backs on the small government they promoted, and expanded the size and scope of the Federal government in ways that would make even FDR shudder. They led us into two costly, unnecessary wars, injected the Federal government into the private lives of millions of American citizens in the name of “homeland security,” flirted with theocratic legislation, and, let us not forget, it was George W. Bush who adopted the Keynesian approach to attack our failing economy and authorized the first stimulus package.

The old saying goes, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  While the statement seems rather obvious, partisan voters tend to neglect it every so often, and when they do, our nation hits a rough patch. Looking over the course of my life, our nation experienced many great years with a Republican President (Ronald Reagan) and a Democratic Congress. In the 90′s, we achieved great prosperity with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. Only when one party power became chic in 2000 did things start to erode.

Americans seem to realize now the folly of entrusting one party with all the power and stand ready to hand back some of that power to the Republicans. When they do, we must ask, will the Republicans listen?

If the Republicans take back both the House and the Senate it will be for one reason–the economy. I firmly believe that the Republican Party of my youth, the Party of Reagan, holds the answers to fix our broken economy. It requires common-sense, discipline and the ability to effectively communicate the benefits of supply-side economics and the moral value of capitalism. It requires resisting the temptation to succumb to their own power and affirming that in almost every case, the private sector is much more efficient at handling problems than the Federal government.

Republicans are not leading in the polls because Americans fear a mosque at Ground Zero or fear that their marriage may be ruined if their gay neighbors are afforded equal rights. If elected, Republican must hit the mute button on the culture warriors on the Right and move towards the middle on social issues. After all, less government means allowing people to worship as they please–no matter their religion–and not just keeping government out of the boardroom, but the bedroom as well.

Democrats NEVER learn. Since the 1940′s, they tried to force socialized medicine down the throats of American people.  The American people continually voiced their opposition. After gaining “absolute power” in 2008, even amidst all the problems facing our nation, the Democrats made socialized medicine their top priority. They fiercely divided our nation, much like Republicans did with the Iraq War, and woke a sleeping giant, the “silent majority.”

In order to be successful, Republicans must learn from the Democrats’ mistakes and their own. They must learn to listen to their constituents and not the radicals who run the Party. They must remember, the United States is a center-right country that does not like being governed by their extremes.  Most importantly, they must listen to the voice of the people who made this Party great–Reagan, Goldwater, Rockefeller– and ignore the voices of the Republican who tore the nation apart–Nixon, Bush, DeLay, etc.