Why I Probably Won't Be Voting for Obama Again

It would seem that meaningful health care reform has been killed in the Senate. Really and utterly destroyed. Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, and a few other conservative "Democrats" have said that they will not vote for the bill as it stands. Let us take a brief detour through the history of this process.

Medicare was created in the U.S. in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson. It is offered to those who are U.S. citizens or have been living as legal permanent residents for 5 years or more, who are 65 and older, and have been paying taxes for Medicare for at least 10 years. Medicare is a single-payer system, and in fact is the largest single-payer system in the world, covering 43 million Americans in 2007. The program has been under constant scrutiny since its inception, and indeed has a lot of problems - one of the largest being huge fraud issues. Medicare has been updated several times since its creation, and largely has gotten better by most measures of such things. Conservative opposition has always been the strongest, and typically fall along two pillars - 1) It's too expensive; and 2) It leads to socialism.

As to expense...yes, I'll give them that. The Medicare system needs significant overhaul to cut costs and perform audits on treatments. Clean up the program, and you will probably see significant savings. Al Franken has made this a huge talking point - the guy is very much in favor of Medicare, but recognizes it needs significant work.

As for the second pillar, that of fear-of-socialism...well, I offer this to the conservatives. If you really and strongly are opposed to all "socialized medicine," and are so concerned about principles and values as you claim, then propose an amendment to eliminate Medicare. Get rid of it. Tell all your constituents that Medicare is "evil" and "socialized" and is ruining American freedom and that you're going to eliminate it and allow the elderly to exercise their freedom of choice and buy their own health insurance out of their own savings (because subsidizing them would be exactly the same problem). You'll be saving money and protecting American values. I don't understand why you haven't already done this when you controlled Congress and the Presidency.

More below the fold...


Let's jump ahead to the Clinton administration. A bit arbitrary and skipping over some things, definitely, but this is a blog post, not a history of health care in America. Clinton made it an important part of his presidency (in some parts spearheaded by the First Lady) to introduce health care reform. Part of the problem was that it wasn't sold very well, and conservatives and the health care industry made their case loudly and well (whether or not it was a valid case is an entirely different point, but here is the problem inherent in humans - we don't often, if ever, make choices based purely on logic). Clinton tried and got little done - it was all basically shot down by Congress. We had no meaningful reform, despite the fact that so many conservative members of Congress claimed that they were quite happy to legislate reform, so long as it was the right reform.

Let's skip to the Obama administration. This is not as arbitrary. For more than a decade very little was done with health care, despite conservative control of government. That silence may, in fact, be the most damning evidence against them of all.

Obama campaigned primarily on promises of health care reform, on significant reform in foreign policy, on constitutional adherence and on transparency in government. In foreign policy...well, he's done a pretty good job. He has restored a large part of foreign nation's relations with the U.S., and has taken a tough but measured stance on specific groups. While I don't fully agree with the idea of sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan if your only purpose is hunting down the reported 100 or so people left, I'll give it to him, it's a strong political message, and at least he's showing he is attentive to the situation there.

However, Obama has made little moves to eliminate or reduce Bush's foreign or economic policies. I see this as a significant failure. The Patriot Act, tax cuts, even the TARP bailout. Let me be the first to state that I do agree that some sort of bailout was necessary to prevent a deeper depression - whether or not we should have had a bailout may not be the right question. How the bailout was carried out...that is entirely a different question. The bailout should not have been, I think, at a $1:$1 ratio, nor do I think that it should have come without any oversight or regulations. Basically, nothing has been done to fix the basic system. Obama's speech in the past few days about the bankers' responsibility? Please. A glorified publicity stunt - a public slap on the wrist, nothing more. He's asking them to self-regulate. The media complains that the White House doesn't have much leverage in this situation. Please. My ass the White House doesn't have leverage. Let's look at it this way - the only reason most of these banks are still afloat is because the American tax-payers bailed them out. Obama, as the representative of the American taxpayers, should be able to tell the banks a few things, as that we own a rather large stake in them now. And what should he tell them? Well, first of all, that they're going to open up lending again. And if they need a little assistance in that, well, we could just eliminate the whole credit default swap mess that got us into trouble to begin with. Executive decision - regulatory power, hell, use whatever agency you want to decide that they're fraudulent and just effing ban them. That's a big stick right there.

But Obama consistently makes deals with the bankers and continues to open loophole after loophole for them. I believe that he is smart enough to realize that he does have the ability to push for regulation, (certainly Britain and France have recognized it). I believe that if he had the will to do it, he could accomplish it relatively easily. Which leads me to believe that he simply doesn't want to do it.

So now let's look into health care. If we go with the most progressive/liberal option, Obama could have pushed for a single-payer system. This would essentially be like expanding Medicare to everyone. The basic pros would be everyone would be covered with health insurance, and assured coverage. The basic cons would be costs and likely tax levies. But, instead of pushing for this, they compromised to a strong public option - a government run insurance plan that most anyone could buy into. This would also have come with significant regulation reforms to bring down costs in other areas such as Medicare. I was in support of this plan to begin with, but again and again the Democrats compromised, and the White House stood basically silent or encouraged such compromising. Now the public option, if it happens at all, seems likely to be a completely toothless measure that would cover very few people, be vastly more expensive than it would have been to begin with, and chock-full of loopholes. I am not in support of this type of public option.

Now, granted, the House passed a proposal with a public option. It's not everything that we would want, but...maybe it's a bit of a step forward. But let's look at the Senate. Here we have the utter breakdown. The Obama administration has again and again called for "bipartisan support" for this bill, and has signaled his willingness to compromise again and again to get even one Republican vote. But that's exactly the problem - they have given you the laundry list for what it will cost to get even a single vote from their side of the aisle. We'll have to eliminate the possibility of a public option, we'll have to eliminate the expansion of Medicare, we'll have to mandate that everyone gets private insurance coverage, we'll have to reduce regulation. Essentially, if we take out all meaningful reform and fill the coffers of the private insurance companies, then we might get a Republican vote or two...but probably not.

So here are the basics - the Senate's bill does not include a public option. That got eliminated due to "conservative Democrats" like Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson. Then someone proposed that we could expand Medicare to people 55 and older in special cases. But Joe Lieberman didn't like that, so, of course, we have to bow our heads to him. The Obama administration has made a deal with him and has basically told Harry Reid to accept whatever Lieberman says. Lieberman says that not only will he not vote for any bill that has a public option or Medicare expansion, but that he will join a Republican filibuster.

Let's look at the situation. If the Democrats had any spine at all, this would be a very easy fix. There is a special option for budget resolutions in Congress called reconciliation - it's a fairly drastic measure, but let's be honest...the Republicans used it all the time when they were in power, including to get the Bush tax cuts passed. Back when they were in control, reconciliation was just another means of doing business, while filibustering (the Democrat's option at that time) was a horrible and obstructionist policy. Now that the Democratic Party controls Congress, reconciliation is a means of railroading policies and destroying American freedoms, while filibustering is a noble venture to protect the people. Hmm...politics as normal.

Anyway, the point is, you could have a Senator, one of the ones already locked in to vote for a reform bill, go on any of the programs that Lieberman and Nelson are touring and say something like the following:

"Oh, hi Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Nelson. I'm sorry to see that you've been wasting your time on these talk shows. You see, we've decided to split the bill. Yeah, it's going to be a headache, but, here's the thing. We're going to put in a public option, or an expansion of Medicare, or whatever the American people want, and make it a budget matter. Then we're going to push it through in reconciliation. I'm sorry, but you are effectively irrelevant now. Oh, what's that you say? It's going to cost too much? Well, it's up-front costs, maybe; but the Budget Office has already returned estimates that show that these measures would save us a helluva lot of money over the next decade. So, at the very least, it's budget-neutral. What about that war that's going on? I notice the conservative senators across the aisle never had any budget problems when Bush was in office. How odd it is that they and you are complaining about the budget now. Oh, and we're going to push private insurance out of business? Look, I really don't think that's going to happen - FedEx, UPS, and the USPS all coexist quite happily. And if they have to trim their belts a bit and offer better services, well, that's capitalism for you. Socialism? To begin with, that's ridiculous, and on the other side of it, a majority of Americans want significant health care reform and are in favor of a public option. So, you tell me, if the American people want it, why are you standing in their way? Even if it does smack of socialism to you?

"You see, (interviewer's name), the problem is that most of us in America believe that when you have two opposing views, the truth must be somewhere in the middle. Our issue is that here we have one side, the conservatives and people like Mr. Lieberman, who are so far off into non-reality, that even when you take the middle ground between them and the facts, you're still wrong. It's like when you split the differences between American progressives and the "pure" Republican party, you're still pretty conservative. We need a fact-based approach to this, and here are some basic facts - private insurance premiums have continued to rise unchecked in the past years; health insurance is covering fewer and fewer people for fewer and fewer conditions, and thus excluding more people for more conditions; the majority of American tax-payers, who people like myself and Mr. Lieberman are ultimately accountable to, want strong health care reform like a public option; the people elected Obama, who ran on a platform of strong health care reform; and no significant reform has happened in quite a long time. Beyond these basic facts, there are the numbers of comparing different health care systems around the world. On any standard measures, ours ranks fairly low. Conservative congressmen are wont to say "Our health care system is the best in the world." I can only assume that they include the V.A. and Medicare in that, as they often tout our treatment of veterans and the elderly. If that is so, why are they so opposed to a government-run plan for the rest of us?

Could it be that these senators and representatives are not truly representing the will of the people? Could it be that they have been bought off by private insurance companies? We know they receive significant amounts of money through that lobby, and it seems that opposition to health care reform is directly correlated with the amount of money being received from them. Which brings us back to Mr. Lieberman, senator from Connecticut. You stand to gain a lot from revenue increases for private insurance companies, Mr. Lieberman, and have proven time and time again that you have no real interest in actual reform. Thus, we have decided to cut you out of this process. We are going to reconciliation, and we will spend every nickel we can to run an actual progressive against you in Connecticut in the next election. Don't pretend to be surprised or angry. You can pack your things and move to the other side of the aisle if you want, but for now, you've effectively been cut out of the debate."

You want to tell me that the Democrats don't have leverage to spare right now? Fuck, it's like everyone's taken a stupid pill. I think the issue here is that, with a few notable exceptions, no one, including Obama, is really interested in creating real reform in this area. Maybe the lobby is too big and there's too much money in it for them; maybe they were never interested in reform to begin with but just wanted to garner some of the progressive vote - I don't know. What I do know is that Obama has completely given up on a lot of his campaign promises. While I think that's normal for politicians, it's also disappointing to have allowed the process to go this far and then have the guy who proposed it in the first place stomp it down.

I know that Rahm Emmanuel has his strategy - gather whatever support you can from conservatives by compromising, because progressives will never vote for the other guy. They're expendable. Well, maybe that's true. We're not so crazy as to vote for ass-hats who have been coming to the forefront of the conservative movement recently. But, maybe we're not so stupid as to keep voting for people who are going to turn out to be conservative-lite in the end.

So, for now, I'm probably not going to be voting for Obama again. Don't caution me about voting against whatever crazy-person the Republicans offer up...at this point, I'd almost relish knowing again that the person in power has no intent to do anything but selfishly promoting their own power and control. I'm not sure that it's less dangerous than having someone who promises so much and not only fails to delivers, but purposefully does the opposite. Obama can win me back, but it's going to be a hard, hard fight.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Inherent Contradictions of Conservative Opposition to the Public Option

Political hypocrisy is nothing new. We've all seen it, heard it, and lived it from pretty much every politician...ever. At this point it's really the degree that matters. Do you go with the politician who is always going to be lying, or the one who is only going to disappoint sometimes. Jaded? Perhaps.

But let's consider this issue in regards to say, the public option that the Obama administration has proposed for health care reform. We already know that the public option is a compromise from a single-payer system, as in, in committee, the public option was hammered out as an acceptable compromise. Now, of course, the conservative voices in Congress are saying that the public option should be compromised, revealing a few things - first, that of course they never intended to actually work with the idea of a public option, but were waiting for the public option to be revealed as "the plan" instead of as "already a compromise," and secondly, that these guys are in the pockets of the health care industry. The Young Turks have a good commentary on a Keith Olbermann special comment that nicely sums that up:



In fact, I'm just going to go ahead and link you to The Young Turks in general. They're fairly excellent.

Anyway, the point of this post was really to look at the conservative position and see if it stands up to itself.

To me, it seems to break down to three points of contention:

1) Government control
2) Free market economics
3) Government ineffectiveness.

Let's think about these things. These are all talking points of the conservatives, in one way or another, and you hear them all the time from these "town-hall meetings." We'll get to those in a second.

First, we have the issue of "Government Control." Conservatives, naturally, want government to keep its hands off of their health care and medical issues. This has led to the rather ironic statement being yelled "You tell the government to keep its hands off my Medicare." Pause for blinks and awkward laughs. OF COURSE Medicare is government-run health care. OF COURSE it has been since the 60's...um, right. But, anyway, we'll go back to medicare later. If you main point is that you want to keep government out of your health care and medicine, then OF COURSE you must support the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion, and OF COURSE you must support the right for a person to remove a family member from life-support, and OF COURSE you must support the right for researchers to work with stem-cells....Oh...right. We're only against government interference in health care in some issues.

Our second issue to consider is the whole issue of the free market. A frequent conservative talking point is that the public option is actually a nationalization of health care, or that it would out-compete any private insurance and drive them out of business. On the first point, no, the public option is not a nationalization of health care insurance. It is a public INSURANCE OPTION. Which, basically means, you have the OPTION to get your health INSURANCE from a government source. The government is not taking over hospitals or doctors. It is merely an insurance option. Yes, this does mean that someone will have to determine exactly what the public option will cover and which health care suppliers are preferred. But is that any different from a private insurance company? No. Another thing that people say is that they're happy with their employer insurance and don't want to be forced to go with a public option. Well, first off, you're not forced to go to the public option. Secondly, the only reason that most people really like their employer insurance (i.e., cannot discriminate for pre-existing conditions like private insurance can) is because of a government mandate. Already, the hand of government has intruded into your health care. Now, the other problem is the whole "driving private insurance out of business" or "dominating the market." As this is a public OPTION, you would assume, perhaps, that one would be in favor of having yet another competitor in the market, especially when private insurance companies tend to dominate entire states. In most projections, the public option would drive down costs across the board, because, yes, the government can do it for cheaper overall and would be a competitor in the market. Would they drive out other companies? Well, even if they did, would this not be the utter definition of a market economy? The better option prevails unless the private insurance companies can compete? Also, since so many claim that a government program would fail miserably, it's surprising to hear so many say that it would out compete private options. But that dovetails into our last point.

Third, the common refrain is that government cannot run health care. You hear this on Fox News talking points - the government can't run Cash for Clunkers (which it can and is an example of a program that is almost TOO successful), so how can it run health care? Well, part of the problem, already mentioned, is that the government does run health care - Medicare and Veterans' programs. That's right. Medicare, considered one of the best programs by the people insured under it, is government run. Likewise, conservatives always talk about the top quality care that our armed forces receive (partially in compensation for lower wages), and that too is government run. An excellent take down of this point can be seen here, in a interview between Jon Stewart and Bill Kristol:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Kristol Extended Interview
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

So, if you're going to claim that Medicare and Veterans' care work, which conservatives tend to do (and just try to maintain any political capitol when you say you are going to take away Medicare), then it's very hard to say that government cannot run a health care program with a straight face. Also, again, the general contradiction of saying that government programs would out-compete private companies and would also be horribly run and an utter failure.

Lastly, the trope of of "nameless, faceless bureaucrats between you and your doctor." How this is different from the nameless faceless people in my insurance companies, I don't know, but regardless. Most of the rhetoric is outright lies, such as the "nationalization of health care" and "death panels," but let's also go back to Medicare. People on Medicare tend to like it. They like it a lot. So, if we already have a well-running program to cover people over 65, why not extend it back to 55? Why not 45? 25? Why not everyone? Granted, a legitimate question is "how are we going to pay for this," and that is an issue we should talk about, but it is also clear that nearly 50 million Americans are uninsured, and preventative care can do a great deal to lower costs overall, in the long run.

This issue has been made a clearly political one - conservatives want to stop Obama, and want to pocket the money that insurance companies are providing for them. We know that public options can work - we have examples from around the world. Unfortunately, the conversations we should be having are not the ones that are going on. There are jokes of town-hall meetings going on around the country because conservative groups are funding, educating, and shipping people around to these town halls to protest, fill up the front rows and disrupt the meeting so that the senator or representative cannot talk or offer counterpoints. Now, if they wanted to ship people in to go up to the mic and voice their concerns and allow a rational debate, then that's fine. That's democracy. However, as it stands, they are not allowing anyone else to talk but themselves. They're trying to drown out every voice but their own and ignore any rational points, as well as the more-than-majority number of Americans who want major reforms (a la Gallup polls). That's not democracy. Sorry.

I promise this will be the last point - you often hear conservatives state that we have "the best health care system in the world." What they don't tell you is that this is based on an opinion poll. The World Health Organization has a different idea. We spend more money than almost any country, and yet have lower quality of care, ranked 37 in a WHO assessment. Are there problems with this measurement? Of course it's arguable. But at least it's more objective than a simple opinion poll.

Anyway, that's my two-cents. I'm not saying the public option is perfect, but I can't stand anymore to hear the utter hypocrisy from the conservative side and listen to the constant contradictions. They don't even have a leg to stand on, if this is the way they're going to be arguing. I'm sure Jason could offer more, and tell me where I'm bullshitting, and I fully welcome that. Any thoughts?

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama and Science

Obama is now the 44th president of the United States of America. I'm proud of us in a lot of ways, and I'm proud of him. The Inauguration was interesting to watch, and I found the fub during the Oath...well, adorable. It was a very human moment. Apparently, that's been corrected.

He has some interesting plans for our foreign policy coming in soon. I'm glad to see these, though of course we'll have to see how these pan out and the consequences/problems associated with them.

Lastly, I'm very glad to hear that Obama has pledged greater transparency in his administration. I am cautiously hopeful about it:



Obama has pledged to return science to its rightful place during his administration. And he has recognized non-believers in his speech. These are both good signs. Let's make sure that he follows through with them.

Read More...

Summary only...

God-Walloping Meathead Writes to Obama - Or, Chuck Norris is an Ass

Apparently Chuck Norris has found enough time from his busy schedule to write a nice letter to President-Elect Obama. Oh...wait. I forgot. Chuck Norris is crazy-deep end dude...

I think Rev. BigDumbChimp does an excellent job of teasing apart the tricky meaning behind all those veiled threats and "suggestions." You have to wonder at the gall of this dude. And, sadly, at how much of the American population he probably represents.

Chuck, this is official. I briefly thought that the whole Chuck Norris internet meme was alright. I may have even watched an episode or two of Walker, Texas Ranger when I was younger...but, buddy, you've completely lost me when you went bat-shit loco.

Thanks to PZ over at Pharyngula for this tip off.

Read More...

Summary only...

More from the Obamatron

More coverage of Obama's election and the ripples that it's having in our society:

First, a poll conducted by Democracy Corps conducted a poll on policy issues. Apparently, they have found some evidence to rebut the claim that America is a conservative-right leaning country. In fact, they claim that in policy questions which are not attached to a candidate's name, Americans are trending towards progressive stances. This is interesting, though of course we could argue the language of the questions. It's certainly possible there is a main effect hiding in there somewhere.

More below the fold.

Here's an eye-opener - Senate Republicans are already up in arms over working with Obama. Now...I want you to take a moment and savor the sweet, sweet irony of the next to last sentences. Ah yes, Mr. Senator. Of course you're for filibustering, right after you were against it.

Politics, as usual.

Tip O' the Senate Gavel to Eschaton, a blog of some note, that I found through Afarensis, likewise, a blog of some note.

Did the web-savvy campaign for Obama help him? It's starting to look that way. We saw for perhaps the first time a youth vote that helped edge out some narrow margins, including my home state. If nothing else, that's an important symbolic victory for the Obama campaign - they inspired young people to actually be interested in politics in record numbers. They also showed an application of a particular strategy that I enjoy - the bottoms-up, headless organization. Completely unruly and undisciplined, but ultimately producing a higher-level sense of self and order. This tactic is favored by Anonymous, of course, and Obama has shown that a similar strategy works for political campaigns. The fallout from this will be incredibly interesting to watch. I hope this trend continues.

Just to give you a sense of some of the prime-contenders for important offices in this country, I offer you this. Comment on it as you will. Watch out Michael Feldman. We may just have a progressive party yet.

Some sobering news - November layoffs. We're still waiting to get far enough out of the woods to know we've left the bottom. That will probably continue for a while.

Finally, an opinion/special interest piece. Here's a brief story about a butler, Eugene Allen, who worked in the White House for more than three decades. Stay with it till the last paragraphs.

Read More...

Summary only...

State of the Union

I suppose I'll be the first to put up my thoughts about Obama's election for this blog. I apologize for the delay, but I think we've all been busy, and...well, celebrating with the rest of Chicago.

We have reached a historic moment in our country. 40 years after Martin Luther King Jr. laid out his vision, we have elected an African-American president. That it finally happened is something to celebrate enthusiastically. That it took so long is a tragedy. From this day on, for children growing up, it will no longer be an impossibility for a non-white to gain our country's highest office. Likewise, I have to hand it to Senator Clinton, and yes, even the cynical and insipid choice of Sarah Palin, to showing that women are not far behind in this.

This is a moment which we should all celebrate, it's a moment in which I have allowed myself to have some slight hope for American politics. It's evidence that we can, grudgingly and sometimes belligerently, overcome ourselves. We can make a more perfect Union, slowly, painfully, and with back-breaking labor. That, to me, has always been the dream of America, something that we have not, and perhaps never can achieve, but we can always work towards it.

However, I am not overflowing with effervesence and joy at the moment. There are many things that are still troubling.

For one, Proposition 8 passed in California. Similar bans on gay marriage passed in Alabama and Florida. Arkansas passed a proposal to ban unwed couples from adopting (basically, to prevent gays and lesbians from adopting children). All of these propositions were motivated by and funded by religious organizations, and they have succeeded in continuing a policy of discrimination in our country. And that's the thing - it's not simply privileging a religious group's interpretation of marriage, or even the majority's opinion on marriage (because, yes, indeed, it did pass with a majority of the vote), but it is simple and outright discrimination against a minority. That is exactly the sort of thing that our Constitution is meant to protect against - the voice of the majority does not have the power to take away the voice of a minority. So, there's one reason to be upset.

We have elected a black president. But what if he were non-Christian? What if he were gay? Or Latino? There are still huge issues of discrimination in America that need to be addressed. Our work is nowhere near done.

The media's over-jubilant proclamations of "post-racial" America are absolutely ridiculous. Of course there are still racists, and there are still those out there who even now are shining their guns and saying they will never follow a black president. Our country remains divided against itself, and it will take work to even begin to fix these deep wounds.

Our economy remains in trouble. The markets have calmed a bit, and perhaps we have hit the bottom of the recession. Perhaps things will begin to climb upwards again. The problem, of course, is that you can only recognize the bottom in hind-sight.

Our foreign relations and social capital have been utterly obliterated in the past eight years. World leaders are making tentative motions towards Obama, and I can only hope that we begin to rebuild some of the good-will that we experienced years ago.

Our civil liberties have been utterly trampled upon, and for the most part, we have grown complacent about it. You hear the occasional angry voice, but most people don't even think about it. I am a strong believer in the need to fight for the rights of citizens against the government, and this is certainly an area where we have much work to do.

Our science and math education is pitiful. I've mentioned this one many times before, so I don't feel the need to blurb it. All I can say is that when we can have people seriously decrying money spent on basic science (i.e. Palin's fruit flies comments) and McCain's "overhead projector" nonsense about a planetarium...and these people are taken seriously...it's not a good sign.

Obama has been elected, but despite McCain's rhetoric, he's still a fairly conservative politician working with a Congress that has largely gone along with Bush's policies over the past eight years, and a Supreme Court which cannot be very warm to him. Our political system has shifted, but it's a small shift. I also worry about the total control the Democrats have. The last times this happened, it didn't turn out well (Carter and Clinton, in case you were wondering). We ended up with Reagan and Bush. Keep that in mind. We have to light a fire under our politicians and keep them in line. Keep them working for the people.

These are only a few of the issues that still face us. There are plenty more, and I encourage you to put some down in the comments, if only to remember them and draw attention to them.

So, overall, I want to say that this is not the time for complacency. Celebrate! Rejoice! Sign unto the hills and valleys! But then we have to put our boots back on and go right back into the trenches. Now, more than ever, there is work to be done to combat discrimination, encroachment on civil liberties, and our faults in foreign policy, education, and research. We have taken a first few staggering and fearful steps forward, but we still clutch at apron strings. We will elect a black president, but we will not call gays and lesbians full human beings. This is not the signs of a perfected Union. It's a sign that we have to take stock of reality around us and do what we can to change it for the better.

I am glad that we have elected Obama. I do not agree with him on everything, and on some of his policies I am outright opposed. I do think he was the better choice, and I was glad to cast my ballot for him. I hope...I sincerely hope...that some of the inspiration he has built in our nation will continue its momentum and people will go out and get involved. As I've gotten older, I have come to expect more of both citizens and the government...I hope that others do not sit down and wait for Obama to change things for them. We have as much work to do as anyone.

I hope this finds you all well and recovering from post-election parties.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obamamercial

Yeah, I'm late. I know. Here it is:



Tip O' the Blogging Hat for Secretary of the Internet to ERV for this one.

And I do find some irony in the YouTube link, considering Jason's last post. However, this is more of a hosting of a broadcast than your average Joe's opinion on the intarwebs.

Read More...

Summary only...