Obama Is a Muslim Terrorist, Gun-grabbing Socialist, and the Destroyer of the US Economy.... (or, so we were told by the cons)

As we're drawing closer to the unthinkable, that is, uttering the phrase, "president Trump", there might be time for Obama to live up to the worst fears of the Republicans, tea partiers, and conspiracy idiots.

Now, of course, this won't happen, but it actually won't be noticed by the knuckleheads who've been accusing president Obama of all those things that were actually lies, that he wasn't, and he didn't.  I don't think they'll really notice the tricks Trump will be pulling off to not do what he promised during the campaign.

Happy new year. The resistance begins on January 20th, 2017. I mean, believe you me, Trump is already responsible for bad weather, disease & pestilence, the middle class woes, Putin's grab of power, the rich getting richer, billionaires in charge of our government, and the Giants' loss in the playoffs.

The Year of the Monkey Ushers Fun and Games. But Who's Going to be Laughing by Year's End?

This is shaping to be a nice new year, and once again we're called to make a decision about the direction of our country. There are vast differences between the two parties' candidates, and let's not forget that elections have consequences! The Supreme Court is always at play during a presidential election.

There have been great debates about the direction of the country already, but new ideas come primarily from the left as the right wants to bring back what it has been tried before, often with dire outcomes. Yes, "the system" has a momentum that can't be easily changed given present political realities, unless, as Bernie Sanders says, public opinion and voting changes to reflect the need for change--change that will restore most benefits to the middle class.

The presidential term lasts 8 years, and Obama has over 300 days left in office. God just gave us a gift by recalling Scalia from the US Supreme Court. How can you argue with God, right? Scripture, as per St. Paul, says the people should obey those in power, because, after all, there's a divine plan in place. Therefore, Obama should nominate a replacement asap, and the president should be the communicator-in chief in order to get the new SCOTUS justice confirmed by the Senate.

Despite the nice statements about the departed justice, Scalia was a divisive figure and a conservative champion who believed in a romantic but unrealistic view of the US constitution. The conservatives have been attacking the liberal justices as "activists" who find rights in the constitution and overturn the "will of the people" and legislatures. Of course, the 2000 SCOTUS decision to essentially give G.W. Bush the presidency was an act of judicial activism by the conservatives.  

Marco Rubio put it bluntly yesterday, that the US constitution is not "a living, breathing" document but must be interpreted "as the founders intended."  This is a conservative but misguided view. The constitution was meant for a living and breathing country, not a dead one of the 18th century! A time when owning arms meant a musket and a knife!  Indeed, we tweaked it 27 times already. And, many necessary changes that promoted rights, freedom, and the quality of life came via the judiciary branch, especially when states--often representing local majorities--remained stuck in the 18th century.

There are many cases of importance the high court has to decide before it goes into recess in June, cases such for voting rights, Obamacare, union organizing, immigration, etc.  So, let the gladiatorial games begin...  Happy Chinese new year by the way.

SOTU 2013: A Progressive View of Government

There were two distinct views on the role of government as their speeches demonstrated by president Obama and GOP Senator Rubio on Tuesday. It also demonstrated the conservatives' anachronistic view of liberalism. 

The notion of freedom that came out of the Enlightenment was to define it by the individual; free countries weren't necessarily free unless their citizens had individual freedoms which were guaranteed by a social contract. 

After the American Revolution, the question was, what kind of political system should we have here?

Those early leaders of the new country-to-be chose liberalism, representative government, popular consensus, and the radical idea that the new entity should be a commonwealth--that is, work for the benefit of the people.

Ever since, and in order to fulfill this goal, government is engaged in the redistribution of resources, enhancing access to opportunity and maintain fair play. At least this has been the principle.  

Of-For-By The People

 Now, let's think how this social contract principle was implemented in the early days. "Of the people"? Well, not so much. Common people weren't invited into government. "By the people"? Not so much either. Only white men with property were allowed to vote. "For the people"? OK, more or less, if you excluded the slaves, the very poor, and the absence of a social safety net.

Since those days, there has been an evolution in the role of government, culture, society, gender roles, racial relations, economic activities, all sorts of ideas and views, etc, etc. And, our country has been better off, because of it. Look at any country where most of its citizens are faring well and you'll see that's a liberal, social democracy with an activist state.

FDR's New Deal put in practice the evolved liberalism--an expanded notion of freedom--which went beyond the narrow definition of the absence of restraint. What prevents a person from enjoying freedom is the absence of access to opportunity, lack of meaningful choices and actions. An in the absence of an activist state, the marketplace alone or even charity and human fellowship weren't enough to give individuals of the middle and lower classes a pathway to freedom.

It's the activist state--which according to the main principle of the social contract should serve the people--that helped create a more even playing field and ensured the rule of law. We still have a long way to go, so the conservatives' and libertarians' view that the state should be limited makes no sense whatsoever, unless, of course, this is designed to further the gap between the classes and ensure our system becomes plutocratic, unjust, immobile, and unfree!

The SOTU, 2013

 

Federal budget reflects the values and priorities of government. Here are some of the president's points that I share:

• Wages and benefits haven't risen in decades
• We're in this together
• Fairer tax burden; not fair for wealthy to pay less of a share than working class people
• Debt: health care costs rising; tuition debt
• Cuts in social services, job training, green economy are not good for us
• Medicare reform; Affordable Health Care Act necessary to improve the health of the nation, including access to medical treatment
• Social Contract should be maintained, and paid for; it's what a modern country does for its citizens.
• We shouldn't cut medicare and education, ss, for the benefit of preserving tax breaks to the wealthy.
• don't play with the credit and credibility of the USA
• A strong economy is based on a strong middle class
• Gov investing in green energy, innovation, scientific research
• Climate change is upon us, not a coincidence; Science v. wishful thinking
• Internet, infrastructure, efficient, less corrupt system, educated workforce, tolerance, etc.
• investment in education, early access to learning, makes individuals more productive, more successful, less prone to crime, etc. Better for US
• comprehensive immigration reform, now!
• Women's rights, like paycheck fairness act, more protection from violence
• minimum wage should rise
• shared prosperity
• end of war (started by previous prez)
• gay and straight in the military should have equal benefits and treatment
• right to vote, fundamental right; why do we place obstacles to voting? 
• reduce gun violence; sensible gun control laws;

Rubio

• I made it on my own; don't need Washington's help
• Free enterprise economy is the solution
• More government is the problem; but not if it has to do with intrusion into our privacy,  abortion, and the .."moral fitness of America"
• More government breeds more rules, laws, and taxes. Who needs that, right?
• No Obama care; without explaining the particulars since most Americans are in favor of the new health care law if its provisions are explained.
• Role of gov: security, night watchman, not much more
•  blah, blah, blah
• ....
• have some of the same medicine that got you sick in the first place....

Are We Better Off Today than 4 Years Ago?

Are we better off four years into Obama's presidency? Well, it depends how you look at it. I say, yes, we are! The previous chief and his crew started the fire that began to consume our house. This chief and his crew put out the fire and have began the rebuilding process. Is our house better since 2008? Probably yes. Is it better since we arrived? Probably not. However, the previous regime that created the whole mess now wants the keys back because the present regime hasn't completely fixed the mess!

Oh, and when the current chief asks for tools, programs, jobs, the Republicans in Congress say, NO! Under our system, the president can't raise or spend money unless Congress agrees. Further, we should never elect to high office persons and political parties that do not have a positive view regarding government. If they don't think our government can be a positive force for our commonwealth, they should stay away. No, government is not the answer to all problems, but it is the agent that reduces obstacles to freedom, to enhance access to opportunity, and to push for legal equality.

The numbers

Clinton was right, the Dems have created almost twice as many jobs despite controlling the White House for fewer years! The Repubs have created more deficits and increased the gap between the 1% and the rest. How about the market? Without including the Great Depression [guess who was mainly responsible for it?], had you invested in the market, under a Dem president you'd have gotten an annual return twice as big, 8.9% to 4.7%; including Hoover's term, then it drops to 0.4%! [Here's the link to those numbers]

Obama gets an "D" (barely passes) when it comes to political communication. He cut taxes for 95% of the middle class taxpayers and nobody knows it. The benefits of the health care law are not known to those not immediately affected by it, so many people think it's another big government program costing billions more, when it's not and it actually reduces medical expenses. One third of the stimulus went to tax breaks for working people!

There's been a huge investment in green jobs and the CBO reports that 2.5 millions jobs are a direct effect. Likewise for the automobile industry and the many private business connected to it. The stimulus package was mainly a jobs bill in essence, but Obama hasn't communicated that!

Banks got a bailout--private banks with very highly-paid execs--but that saved the financial system. It wasn't done in a way most of us would have liked, but it was necessary.

Where's G. W. Bush?

In 2008, the US had lost millions of jobs, and was losing hundred of thousands every month until the summer of 2009 when Obama's policies began to take effect. The conservatives started labeling the Great Recession as Obama's recession a week after the November election in 2008!

If the GOP really believes Obama is responsible not for the pace of the recovery but for the roots of the problem why don't they take G.W. Bush and his crew out of mothballs and parade them around today until the election? Did you hear Dubya's name at the GOP convention? I didn't either!

In 2008, the economy was shrinking 9% a year; it was like the entire economy of Canada disappearing! Deregulation and lack of oversight of Wall Street created many of the financial scandals. This is the philosophy and policies of the conservatives at play. Yes, many Democratic leaders also cater to Wall Street and big banks. A few support regulation of the marketplace and not a libertarian's paradise, like Somalia...

Why? Because capitalism needs referees, needs oversight, needs to be saved from itself. The more successful, stable, happy, safest, healthiest countries are the ones who have strong regulations and a good oversight. The more "pure capitalist" countries are on the opposite side of this spectrum. Check it out.

It's truly amazing that the US conservatives' policies attract so much support. Why Romney and his party are still competitive in this election... They are not saying anything different nor are proposing new policies but the ones that got us into a deep recession and worsened the position of the middle class.  Are we suffering from Alzheimer's as a nation? Let's see what happens on November 6th, 2012, when not only the presidency will be decided but Congress and the future Supreme Court.

Guns Don't Kill People! Therefore, All Guns, Any Weapon, to All People! Yeehaw!

Those who don't like gun control now--after the theater massacre in CO--say "let's not politicize it". I say, we shouldn't if no aspects of this outcome are related to political decisions. Of course, we all know that the prevalence of gun violence in our society isn't because of our culture but also because of laws which are the result of political considerations, lobbying, and leadership.

Short on something?

Speaking of leadership, the president failed to lead, again, on this issue. He may lead, from the rear, in the near future if the country moves ahead on this issue and demands sensible gun controls. This issue is like so many others--oh, "controversial"--so Obama is cautious. Like he was with the Don't Ask Don't Tell, same sex marriage, taxes, etc. First the country moved, then this president followed instead of providing leadership.

Even most NRA members agree that sensible gun laws, better and more complete ones we have now, are needed! So, when will this president and Congressional leaders take on this issue? Why isn't there a federal law prohibiting assault weapons, certain ammo, and requiring background checks and waiting periods? 

Not turn-the-other-cheek fellow.

One of the stupidest arguments is that "the Gov will take away our freedom if it takes away, or knows about, our guns!" Oh, really? IF it comes to that, it will be too late indeed; the GOV always has more and bigger guns. We would have lost our fundamental freedoms well before that. And, we'd lose those freedoms by being idiotic, apathetic, and having a bumper-sticker mentality!

Modern societies have progressed from the days when justice and protection was up to each person--if they could afford it. Disputes are better solved without violence and if there's violence deadly weapons aren't used. We tried the method of everybody carrying a gun to defend themselves and we, at least most of the advanced societies, decided to change that. 

Draw and make my day!

Sure, it's possible that the Colorado incident might have turned out differently had most of the theater audience packed guns. How different, I'm not sure. On campus where I work we've talked about the V Tech student massacre few years ago--when one person walked on campus and killed 30+ people. Maybe that would have happened if faculty, staff, and students had been carrying guns. However, what would happen every other day?! And, what would the atmosphere be when everybody knows a dispute can escalate into bullets flying everywhere?!
 

The Notion of Freedom 

I will not tire repeating that freedom is not just the absence of restraint! Yet, this is how most Americans define it, but this is rather inadequate nowadays. Obstacles to freedom include poverty, illiteracy, prejudice, tyranny of the majority, disease, lack of opportunity, etc.  


From my perspective, having the freedom to carry a gun and use it for protection is not as important as having health care, education, and be in an environment that allows me to reach my potential.  I cannot understand why having limits on the types of weapons I can buy, the types & amount of ammunition I can obtain, or restrictions on how and where to use certain weapons is limiting my true freedom. 

If guns don't kill people, then why have any limits? How about licensing nukes, armed fighter planes, and dirty bombs? Don't we need such weaponry for hunting or target practice? Obviously no one needs this weapons or huge ammo clips that attach to machine guns. If then it's about the effects οf weapons, then reasonable restrictions are necessary.


Necessary gun control plus some common sense enhance everyone's freedom and the quality of life.
........................................

Update, 7/23

The NYT has an editorial today reflecting many of the points here. Both candidates for president, but especially the sitting president failed to take this opportunity to lead and push for sensible gun laws.  On the other hand,  NYC mayor Bloomberg has been right on this issue all along. 

“Maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”Mayor M. Bloomberg

As much as Obama has been lukewarm on many important issues, GOP flag bearer Mittens Romney is ridiculous. When he was one-term Gov of MA, he advocated all sorts of good things--health care, gun control, same-sex unions, abortion rights, etc. Of course by vying for the leadership of a lunatic party he changed his tune completely. 

And, this is my argument with people who say voting for Romney will not make much of a difference and that maybe he'll be more effective than the siting president. This is wrong on so many counts. Romney will have to govern with this Republican party, with its extreme policies and backward party line. He has flipped-flopped from his centrist positions and he'll most likely won't go back to them if elected. Plus, he'll be running for reelection which will make it even harder to adopt centrist policies.

On the other hand, Obama might be freer to pursue sensible policies (more) boldly after November thinking of his legacy and not of reelection in 2016.

The President's Cave in & Miscalculations. Is Leading From the Rear Obama's Style?

Update, Aug. 2nd: Jon Stewart: "You're not pinning this turd on us..."
 


The manufactured crisis of the debt ceiling theater is coming to a close, though the damage will last a long time. Even if the US averted default on its obligations, its credibility has taken a hit. Progressives think that Obama was diminished by this process, and his popularity is also decreasing. Even though the majority of Americans like him, and are more in favor of his proposals than those of the GOP, he's considered a weak leader. Remember, the country has shown that it prefers a strong, effective leader even if he's wrong, to a weak leader even if he's right on the issues! 

Maybe Obama is gambling on the possibility the Republicans will nominate someone worse to run against him next year. The economy won't be much better before the next election, because this president failed to take action and the GOP has done everything it could to damage it.


Read Paul Krugman's "The President Surrenders" editorial.

Here's something to remember: One of the biggest differences between progressives and the American conservatives is that progressives want an active government to mitigate social darwinism the Republicans are in favor of. 

Every time there's a failure of government, the conservatives win points! They seem to be winning the narrative on this one too. They come into government with an intent of making the government worse! They create deficits, slush social services, and remove consumer protections. They love gridlock, because this increases the public's cynicism of their government!  Sadly, the person with the bigger, loudest megaphone is not disputing this narrative!


I'm with Senator Bernie Sanders on the need to issue a serious primary challenge to Obama. Not the Nader type, or a foolish preacher, or some leftist fringe, but a good, sensible progressive like Feingold. I'm sure Obama will prevail but he will have to understand that there's an activist base out there and elections (especially close one) depend on getting the base excited and to the polls. Besides, we have to publicly discuss a few important issues and highlight the importance of good government, for the benefit of the people.

I argue that the narrative is extremely important in shaping our political discourse. Most Americans support progressive positions but it's the conservative narrative that often prevails. The more we spend time discussing the ridiculous [or, the artificial crisis of the debt ceiling] the more time, energy, and money we're wasting, instead of tackling serious problems.


There are going to be lots of polls following this manufactured crisis. As of now, the public blames the GOP more, but Obama's ratings are looking more and more Bush-like.

Here's a snapshot:
Q: If negotiations between President Obama and Congressional Republicans on the federal debt ceiling fail, and it leads to an economic crisis, would you place more blame on the President or on Congressional Republicans, or would you blame both equally?  
President Obama: 35
Congressional Republicans: 46
Both equally: 18
Not sure: 1


Here's a slew of numbers from DK/SEIU weekly poll.

This president hasn't learned yet that he can't trust this Republican party. When asked back in December--when he caved in regarding the Bush tax breaks to the super rich--why he didn't make the looming debt ceiling part of the deal, he said the Republicans would do the responsible thing when needed. Great call...t. Probably he forgot how the GOP negotiated on health care reform....