SensibleDemocrat's Blog

I support Bill Clinton and John Edwards/Barack Obama

2008-01-17T12:06:00.000-08:00

I am a pretty calm man, but I got a few pet peeves. One of them is people on the left that refer to President Clinton as a Republican and trash his administration, the GOP does that enough (well not the call him a Republican part) we don't need to partake in that. So I thought I would write this explaining why I am a strong supporter of President Clinton and why I now support Senator Edwards and Senator Obama.
Let me start off with President Clinton, I know he can't be described as a progressive, that he is a moderate Democrat who is a member of the DLC. But that doesn't mean he is not a Democrat. The Democratic Party is a big tent party made up of liberals and moderates and we need to be united to defeat the Republicans. Let's examine his record as President shall we:
1. NAFTA: One of his major policy decisions early in his Presidency, the big complain with NAFTA is that it does not include worker protections clauses. When I was in college I learned that the lack of worker protections clauses were due to the insistence of the Mexican government. Should the US have been more insistent on adding these sure but it didn't happen that way, perhaps if a progressive wins the White House in 2008 they can change this.
2.Don't ask Don't tell: A compromise that allowed homosexuals in the military provided they don't share. Should we change it now, of course but at the time it was what could pass.
3.DOMA: Ok this was a bad idea, no getting around that
4.Rwanda: A major failure for not acting but after the disaster in Somalia the previous year no US President would get involved in Rwanda.
Now for some of President Clinton accomplishments: 22 million new jobs, Family Leave, Americorps, expanding head start, Brady Bill, Assault Weapons Ban, Helping with the cease-fire in Northern Ireland, inflation and unemployment at record lows, leaving office with a budget surplus.
I also learned in college political parties dominance comes into power. The last two being the present GOP Rule (1980-Present) and the Democratic Rule (1932-1980). Both have similar characteristics. Both start off with charismatic leaders who win big (FDR, Reagan) both have a period of opposition (Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford, Clinton) and both end with dismal Presidencies (Carter, Bush).
Look I know President Clinton compromised and use triangulation but that is what he had to do at the time. The US is a nation that likes to move in small steps so before we can go from a period of Republican Rule to a period of Progressive Rule we need an in-between, that was Clinton was he gave a win when we needed it and opened the country up to the idea of Democrats in power.
So that why I now support Senator Edwards and Obama, they are the strong leaders to start this era of progressive rule. But we can't forget about President Clinton and what he has done for the party. I am proud of all three of them.

My Right Wing Tendencies

2008-01-01T20:01:00.000-08:00

I’ve come to realize that very few people are 100% liberal or 100% conservative; most of us have tendencies from the other side of the spectrum. I thought it would be interesting to list these right wing tendencies of mine and perhaps my fellow readers can list what their right wing tendencies are as well. Hopefully this won’t cause too much conflict and it could be fun to talk about. So without further ado here they are.

I have two of them:
Support of the Death Penalty: For as long as I can remember I have been a supporter of the death penalty. I suppose I got that view from my parents but I now have my own reasons for supporting it. I know it not a deterrent but to me if you commit a truly heinous crime and take a life or lives then you really don’t deserve your own. I’ve also heard that for some families, not all, that it brings them a sense of closure. I also believe that if the Death Penalty is in force then you got to make damn sure that you got the right guy. Also a temporary moratorium might be in order until we figure out who on death row deserves to be there and who (if any) the innocent ones are.
Welfare Reform: This is the second right wing tendency that I have. While I have no problem with social welfare programs I’ve think that a time a family gets to be on welfare should not be limitless. Perhaps it should be a little longer than five years but not limitless. After a certain amount of time a family should be able to survive on their own.
Now that I’ve done that let me list my left wing tendencies for you:
Universal Health Care: A state has a responsibility to see that all it citizens can afford to see a doctor. Having 47 million Americans without Health Insurance is not right; and this is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is when the state runs every aspect of health care. If the US got socialized medicine it would probably be like the Canadian system where the state pays the bills but the hospitals and other aspects are private. If taxes have to got up for this to happen so what?
Pro-Choice: I think it funny Republicans always talk about a nanny state and yet they are pro life. Women have a right over their bodies and can decide what to do with the baby growing inside of them.
Wiretapping: It's legal as long as a warrant is obtained
Stem Cell Research: I am very much in support of this issue, the lives it could save in the future is something we can’t ignore.
Right to Die: The model that Oregon has for its Death with Dignity Act needs to be followed.
Gun Control: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns but there no need for assualt weapons to be used by anybody but the military.
Gay Rights: The 14th amendment says equal rights for all Americans so gay marriage should be allowed. Civil unions are unconstitutional because last time I checked the Supreme court outlawed separate but equal. Personal feelings have no bearing on the law.
Body
I have two of them:
1. Support of the Death Penalty: For as long as I can remember I have been a supporter of the death penalty. I suppose I got that view from my parents but I now have my own reasons for supporting it. I know it not a deterrent but to me if you commit a truly heinous crime and take a life or lives then you really don’t deserve your own. I’ve also heard that for some families, not all, that it brings them a sense of closure. I also believe that if the Death Penalty is in force then you got to make damn sure that you got the right guy. Also a temporary moratorium might be in order until we figure out who on death row deserves to be there and who (if any) the innocent ones are.
2. Welfare Reform: This is the second right wing tendency that I have. While I have no problem with social welfare programs I’ve think that a time a family gets to be on welfare should not be limitless. Perhaps it should be a little longer than five years but not limitless. After a certain amount of time a family should be able to survive on their own.
Now that I’ve done that let me list my left wing tendencies for you:
1. Universal Health Care: A state has a responsibility to see that all it citizens can afford to see a doctor. Having 47 million Americans without Health Insurance is not right; and this is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is when the state runs every aspect of health care. If the US got socialized medicine it would probably be like the Canadian system where the state pays the bills but the hospitals and other aspects are private. If taxes have to got up for this to happen so what?
2. Pro-Choice: I think it funny Republicans always talk about a nanny state and yet they are pro life. Women have a right over their bodies and can decide what to do with the baby growing inside of them.
3. Wiretapping: It's legal as long as a warrant is obtained
4. Stem Cell Research: I am very much in support of this issue, the lives it could save in the future is something we can’t ignore.
5. Right to Die: The model that Oregon has for its Death with Dignity Act needs to be followed.
6. Gun Control: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns but there no need for assualt weapons to be used by anybody but the military.
7. Gay Rights: The 14th amendment says equal rights for all Americans so gay marriage should be allowed. Civil unions are unconstitutional because last time I checked the Supreme court outlawed separate but equal. Personal feelings have no bearing on the law.

Support for Homosexuality

2007-12-17T15:35:00.000-08:00

I was talking to a friend today about different political issues and the issue of homosexuality came up. He told me that because of religious views that he did not support homosexuality personally but knew that his view should have no bearing on US law and according to the US Constitution gays should have rights and that includes marriage.
Istarted to think about this statement and wondered how many people in the US felt this way; that while they were personally against homosexuality they felt that gay marriage should be legal. I also felt how many people in congress felt this way and if put up for a vote would allow gay marriage and the overturning of DOMA?
So my question to you my fellow readers is do any of you feel this way? Or do you feel that homosexuality is fine with you on a personal level. And if you do feel that homosexuality is fine with you on a personal level are the people who don't homophobic even if the support gay rights and gay marriage. I know this is a sensitive issue and this is the one issue we are most displeased at the answers given to it by the Presidential candidates. Thanks for reading

Torture is Wrong Period!

2007-12-11T17:47:00.000-08:00

So we have another Bush crony coming out an saying torture works, that valuable intelligence was gotten using Waterboarding. Wow I didn't realize that we had sunk that low. It very frustrating to hear that the US will use the same methods that the very worst in the world usel; we are the freakin United States a world superpower and we're supposed to set a good example for the rest of the world. We should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard as well and not use torture as Al Qaeda or any other scum organization would.
Besides Waterboarding here are some other techniques used by the US:
Chained to the floor or to plastic chairs so long the detainees would urinate or defecate on themselves.
Short Shacking: forced to squat without a chair with their hands chained between their legs and chained to the floor. If they fell over, the chains would cut into our hands. This could last up to 12 hours.
AC turned up high or NO AC
Strobe lights or loud rock music
Using Dogs to scare them
Stress positions
Sleep deprivation
Longtime Standing
In addition to being morally wrong torture does not work. When your put under these methods you give out false information in order to get the torture to stop. Let us not forget the story of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who was given to Egypt and was tortured and gave the information that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked. Look how that information turned out.The Bush Administration has also changed the definition of torture from severe pain or suffering to very serious bodily injury, such as organ failure or near death and it must also be intentional. Just Lovely!So it would be very hard to prosecute the Bush Administration under US law as they have changed the definition so much and with the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 narrows the set of acts which are punishable under the War Crimes Act. As for punishment in an international court it does not seem likely as well since the US is not a member of the ICC and neither is Iraq. Only way for a case to go forward if the Security Council referred it to the ICC but guess who has a veto on the Security Council? The best thing seems to be to get a Democrat in office in 2008 as all the Republicans (except McCain) seem intent on continuing torture.

Paper on President Chavez

2007-12-03T14:24:00.000-08:00

So for my Human Rights class at the UW (that's Washington not Wisconsin for those of you east of the Mississippi) I wrote a paper on the growing authoritarianism in Venezuela. While I am writing on authoritarianism I do not call President Chavez a dictator and i urge you all to pay particular attention to my conclusion. Enjoy!
The issue of human rights has always been a pressing one; ever since the end of World War II, when the world saw the horrors of the Holocaust. With the creation of the United Nations the issue of human rights became an international issue rather than a domestic one. The United Nations has many documents that protect human rights. These include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights. While there have been many improvements in the area of human rights, some countries still have human rights violations. One such country is Venezuela where, since Hugo Chavez won the Presidency in 1999, has been slowly drifting towards authoritarianism. To be fair not everything Hugo Chavez has done for Venezuela has been negative such as this Washington Post article suggests, “Eight years into what Chavez calls "21st century socialism," Venezuela's economy has evolved into one marked by contradictions: the highest growth rate in the Americas and grinding underemployment, out-of-control consumerism and a lack of investment, troubling uncertainty and golden prospects. The economy is expected to expand by more than 8 percent this year, the highest rate in South America. Gross domestic product has shot up from about $92 billion in 2002 to a projected $170 billion this year” (Washington Post). President Chavez has been very concerned with helping the poor and disadvantaged in Venezuela and his policies are helping them. On the other hand he is doing whatever it takes to get what he wants done without thinking of the consequences. In this paper one will examine several issues that are happening in Venezuela and how human rights are being violated. These issues are: imposing jail sentences on people who offend government officials, shutting down schools that don’t follow the government plan, not renewing the TV and radio licenses if they are critical of the government, and throwing out foreign dignitaries. These issues will be compared with the Venezuelan Constitution, the Convention on Discrimination in Education (CDE), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights (ICSER), and the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), all of which have been signed and ratified by Venezuela. Once these issues have been fully explored solutions will be given to help Venezuela become free of human rights violations. One area of concern in Venezuela is the tightening of free speech restrictions and the possibility of jail time if offending remarks are made about government officials. The Venezuelan Constitution of 1999 declares that people have a right to freedom, to participate in public matters and declares that Venezuela is irrevocably free (Venezuelan Constitution, Articles 1, 44, and 62) in the Constitution. One can interpret these articles to mean that freedom of speech should and will be respected. However this is not the case, as in 2005 President Chavez made changes to the Venezuelan Criminal Code that punished dissent, “The president, vice-president, government ministers, state governors and members of the Supreme Court are already protected from disrespect under the law. The new provisions extend this protection to legislators of the National Assembly, members of the National Electoral Council, the attorney general, the public prosecutor, the human rights ombudsman, the treasury inspector, and members of the high military command. Anyone convicted of offending these authorities could go to prison for up to 20 months. Anyone who gravely offends the president, on the other hand, can incur a penalty of up to 40 months in prison” (Human Rights Watch). By making these changes President Chavez violated several treaties that Venezuela has signed and ratified. Venezuela is violating article 1 section one of the International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights which states that all people have a right to self-determination and have a right to determine their political status. (ICSER). Venezuela is also violating article 1 section 1, article 2 section 1, article 9 section 1, article 18, and article 19 of the ICCPR, which state that all people have the right to self-determination, the state shall respect its citizens, no one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, every has the freedom of though, and to hold freedoms without interference (ICCPR). In addition to international treaties the regional American Convention on Human Rights has articles 7, 12, and 13 violated which state that individuals have the right to personal liberty, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought and expression (ACHR). It is clear to see that President Chavez is curtailing freedom of speech. President Chavez is also shutting down schools that don’t follow his socialist agenda. President Chavez is very committed to the idea of a socialist Venezuela and is willing to do whatever it takes to see that happen. One way President Chavez is doing that is by threatening to shut down private schools that don’t follow his ideology, “All Venezuelan schools, public and private, must submit to state inspectors enforcing the new educational system. Those that refuse will be closed and nationalized, Mr. Chavez said. A new curriculum will be phased in during this school year, and new textbooks are being developed to help educate “the new citizen,” said Adán Chavez, the president’s brother and the education minister, in their televised ceremony on the first day of classes” (New York Times). This directive by President Chavez violates articles 102 and 103 of the Venezuelan constitution which state that Education is a human right and a fundamental social duty; it is democratic, free of charge and obligatory and every person has the right to a full, high-quality, ongoing education under conditions and circumstances of equality, subject only to such limitations as derive from such persons own aptitudes, vocation and aspirations (Venezuelan Constitution). Venezuela is also violating international treaties they signed; for instance they violated Articles 1(a and b), and 5(b) of the CDE which state that a state cannot deny any person to education of any type, limit them to an inferior education, and to respect the rights of the parents to choose where there child attends school (CDE). Article 13 Section 2(b) of the ICSER is violated which states, secondary education in its different forms, including technical and vocational secondary education, shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education (ICSER). In addition Venezuela violates articles 18 and 19 of the ICCPR which state that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice (ICCPR). President Chavez is not just violating international treaties he is violating regional treaties as well that includes articles 12 and 13 of the ACHR which state, No one shall be subject to restrictions that might impair his freedom to maintain or to change his religion or beliefs, everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice (ACHR). President Chavez is violating all these treaties by shutting down private schools that don’t follow his socialist ideology. Schools are not the only institution that President Chavez is threatening to shut down he is also saying the same for TV and Radio Stations. The reason for doing this is President Chavez does not feel he or his plans for Venezuela should be criticized, “Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.Police fired toward the crowd of up to 5,000 protesters from a raised highway, and protesters fled amid clouds of tear gas…Chavez had refused to renew RCTV's broadcast license, accusing it of "subversive" activities and of backing a 2002 coup against him” (Washington Post). In addition to shutting down this TV station Venezuela passed a law that would undermine freedom of expression, “A draft law to increase state control of television and radio broadcasting in Venezuela threatens to undermine the media’s freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today. Venezuela’s National Assembly, which has been voting article by article on the law, known as the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, is expected to approve it today, This legislation severely threatens press freedom in Venezuela,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Its vaguely worded restrictions and heavy penalties are a recipe for self-censorship by the press and arbitrariness by government authorities” (Human Rights Watch). These new laws violate articles 2, 57, and 58, of the Venezuelan Constitution which state that Venezuela is a democratic state, everyone has the right to freely express their opinions by any from of expression and no censorship shall be established, and communications are free and plural (Venezuelan Constitution). These laws also violated articles 18 and 19 of the ICCPR, which state that, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice” (ICCPR). Article 13 of the ACHR is also violated which states that everyone has a right to freedom of though and expression and that there can be no censorship (ACHR). President Chavez seems to only want his ideology expressed and will end freedom of expression to achieve that. President Chavez has declared that foreign dignitaries that criticize him shall be deported from Venezuela, “Hugo Chavez has served notice that foreign dignitaries visiting Venezuela will be deported if they presume publicly to criticise him as he attempts to transform the country into a single-party state dedicated to his vision of "21st century socialism".How long are we going to allow a person from any country in the world to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the President is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Mr Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program, Alo, Presidente, on Sunday” (The Independent). This executive order violates article 12 and 13 of the ICCPR, Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement. An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled there from only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority. (ICCPR). Article 22 of the ACHR is also violated, which states that Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law (ACHR). Deporting foreign dignitaries from the country for criticizing the President and his policies is a violation of international and regional treaties. Also president Chavez has traveled to the US and criticized President Bush so it is hypocritical for him to give this executive order. It is clear that changes need to happen in Venezuela, as President Chavez is not only violating the national constitution but international and regional treaties as well, which according to the Venezuelan Constitution are to be respected. In order to fix these human rights violations the other countries of the world have to come talk to Venezuela in a respectful manner to get them to see that these human right violations are not right. Sanctions would just be putting oil on the fire as it would further upset President Chavez and he might place more restriction on Venezuela. One reason that President Chavez is acting this way because he sees the US and other countries trying to undermine him, if the US were to accept the fact that Venezuela is a socialist country now and have a friendly relationship with them it could go a long way in fixing these human rights violation in Venezuela.
Work Cited
American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR)BBC News, “Venezuelans 'lost faith in polls'” 6 Dec 2005.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4501890.stmHuman Rights Watch, “Venezuela: Curbs on Free Expression Tightened, 24 March 2005. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm
Human Rights Watch, “Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression, 24 Nov 2004.http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/30/venezu9754.htm
International Convention on Economic and Social Rights (ICESR)
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)New York Times, “Chavez Warns Private Schools Not to Resist His Inspectors” 18 Sept 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/americas/18venez.html?_r=1&oref=sloginReuters, “Chavez foes attack push to end term limits” 16 Aug 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1526395420070816Venezuela ConstitutionWashington Post. “Crime Brings Venezuelans Into Streets” 10 May 2006http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901803.html
Washington Post, “Venezuelans Protest As TV Station Shuts” 29 May 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052800161.html

Sex-Education in Schools

2007-11-27T00:00:00.001-08:00

I was reading the paper the other day when I cam across a story about a middle school in Portland, Maine that will let middle school kids (ages 11 to 14) pick up birth control pills if the have a waiver that is signed by the parents. Once the waiver is signed by the parents they are not notified if birth control pills are used. Now to me it was a little disturbing, that birth control pills would be handed out to middle school kids and not tells their parents about it. I later found out that the reason for putting this measure in place was there were about 3 to 4 cases of kids getting pregnant at this school.
So I can sort of see why the middle school is doing this, even if it makes me uncomfortable, but the thing I don't get is why the parents are not informed, call me old fashioned but if there is need for a 11-14 year old to use birth control I think the parents have a right to know. Until a kid turns 18 they effectively belong to their parents unless they are emancipated. They can't be sued, they can't vote, so why can they take birth control pills without their parents knowing.
The bigger issue here thought is one of sex-education. Let me give you a little personal background. I was raised from a very early age that one should not have sex until marriage, I was also taught not to disparage someone who held a different view on sex. Now it didn't matter if my school taught me abstinence-only sex ed or safe sex use sex-ed I wasn't going to change my views. I think more parents need to stop relying so much on the school to teach sex-ed but instead teach their kids at an early age (not to early) about sex and all the responsibilities that come with it. I'm not saying get rid of sex ed in school altogether but it should not be the primary source of where these kids learn it. Parents need to be more responsible for their kids.

Indians-Americans and You!

2007-11-19T16:52:00.000-08:00

So I thought it would be fun to post a diary informing people about Indian-Americans and their contributions to American society. Now to avoid misunderstandings I have had in the past this is not an ethnicity is better than your ethnicity diary it’s information about my ethnicity diary. I hope you all find it informative. I was thinking I could also do this Dwight Schrute style. Hopefully I won’t get sued by NBC =)
Fact: Hinduism subscribes to monotheism So I know not all Indian-Americans are Hindu but this is a misconception that has been bugging me. In Hinduism there is one god and many forms. I believe at the last count it was around 330 million or so.
Fact: Indian-Americans are a largely employed in the professional and managerial field. About 57.7% of Indian-Americans work in this field, contrary to the popular stereotype that all Indians are taxi cab drivers and convenient store owners. According to the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, there are close to 41,000 Indian American doctors. Also 64% of Indians have their Bachelor’s degree and 40% of them have a Master’s or other professional degree. There are nearly 200,000 Indian-American millionaires and they have the highest median income among any minority group.
Fact: Indian-Americans are mostly socially conservative and politically liberal. I’m not saying this is true for all Indian-Americans but the ones I know usually are the same on issues: you drink very little if at all, you don’t smoke, you don’t have sex till you married, among other issues but all are Democrats. In fact polls prior the 2004 election showed Indian-Americans favoring Kerry to Bush by nearly a 4-1 margin.
Finally here are some notable Indian-Americans Piyush "Bobby" Jindal: First Indian-American governor of the US. Kumar Barve: Majority leader in the Maryland Hose of Delegates. Aasif Mandvi: Daily Show Correspondent Kal Penn: Actor
Body
Fact: Hinduism subscribes to monotheism
So I know not all Indian-Americans are Hindu but this is a misconception that has been bugging me. In Hinduism there is one god and many forms. I believe at the last count it was around 330 million or so.
Fact: Indian-Americans are a largely employed in the professional and managerial field.
About 57.7% of Indian-Americans work in this field, contrary to the popular stereotype that all Indians are taxi cab drivers and convenient store owners. According to the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, there are close to 41,000 Indian American doctors. Also 64% of Indians have their Bachelor’s degree and 40% of them have a Master’s or other professional degree. There are nearly 200,000 Indian-American millionaires and they have the highest median income among any minority group.
Fact: Indian-Americans are mostly socially conservative and politically liberal.
I’m not saying this is true for all Indian-Americans but the ones I know usually are the same on issues: you drink very little if at all, you don’t smoke, you don’t have sex till you married, among other issues but all are Democrats. In fact polls prior the 2004 election showed Indian-Americans favoring Kerry to Bush by nearly a 4-1 margin.
Finally here are some notable Indian-Americans
Piyush “Bobby” Jindal: First Indian-American governor of the US.
Kumar Barve: Majority leader in the Maryland Hose of Delegates.
Aasif Mandvi: Daily Show Correspondent
Kal Penn: Actor

WA Election Results 2007

2007-11-13T07:53:00.001-08:00

I thought I would inform my fellow users about the election results in Washington and which ones I think are good and which ones I think are bad. I'll also update the diary as more results come in but it doesn’t look like much will change. Feel free to disagree with me; unlike the Bush Administration I can take criticism.
I'll start with the bad news first:
The bad:I-960: 2/3 legislative approvals for tax increases or voter approvalPassed 52%-47%I had hope last night this would fail but with all of King County Counted it doesn't look good. Tim Eyman needs to move far, far away.HJR 4024: Simple Majority for school tax leviesFailed 48%-51%So the anti tax people got their way, I 960 could be very bad for the state I only hope the State Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional as I have been hearing.King County Prosecuting Attorney: Dan Satterburg defeated Bill Sherman 53%-46%Man how does a GOP partisan hack win in King County?
The Good:R-67: Basically Insurance companies have to pay out their policies and can't weasel out of themPassed 56%-43%Good news considering that the insurance companies outspent the proponents 5-1.SJR 8026: Creating a rainy day find for the statePassed 68%-31%Always been a fan of having a rainy day fund, glad the WA voters feel the same way
So unlike 2006, not that great of an election

No Mr. President Your're the Worst President in 20 Years!

2007-11-04T21:43:00.000-08:00

I've never been one to get to angry with the Bush Administration, sure I can count the number of his policies I support on one hand, but I don't hate the guy. One thing that has always gotten my upset though is his arrogance. Here we have another example of it, of him talking about the current Congress and calling them the worst congress in 20 years for not getting work done. I also agree with that point but for different reasons.
Here was President Bush's statements on the current Congress.

"Congress is not getting its work done," Bush said, flanked by members of the Republican House leadership. "The House of Representatives has wasted valuable time on a constant stream of investigations, and the Senate has wasted valuable time on an endless series of failed votes to pull our troops out of Iraq."Bush criticized Congress for not being able to send "a single appropriations bill" to him."They haven't seen a bill they could not solve without shoving a tax hike into it," he said.

Of course we are having investigations Mr. President you’re quite the unethical President do you need us to show you your lists of mistakes, it might take all night. As for the Iraq War it is and always will be a mistake. You are no Harry Truman no matter how many times you say it. I did appreciate the Democrats leadership response

Democrats quickly fired back. Jim Manley, senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said, "Taking advice from President Bush about fiscal responsibility and getting things done for the American people is like taking hunting lessons from Dick Cheney. Neither is a very good idea."

The reason for the low ranking of Congress is that they won't stand up to you on Iraq not that the country agrees with you there. We're not hurting the troops you are by leaving them there. so please stop being so arrogant and learn to accept that you the worst President in the past 20 years, hell one of the worst ever just be glad you got the pre Civil War Presidents, the Pre-Depression Presidents and Nixon to stop you from, being the worst.

Bobby Jindal's Win Makes Me Porud

2007-10-29T09:43:00.000-07:00

Alright I know some of you are wondering what I am smoking and some of you might also be wondering where you can get some but when I talk about my being proud it is as an Indian-American and not as a Democrat. I know Jindal is about as conservative as one can get, but as an Indian-American I am very proud. As you know Indian-Americans are the richest minority group in the US. We tend to do well for ourselves here in areas such as IT and Medicine and Engineering, however when it comes to politics not soBobby Jindal looks like he might change all that. By winning in LA he has opened the door for fellow Indians-Americans to get involved in politics. Plus the fact that he is super smart doesn't hurt either I mean just look at this resume.

He attended high school at Baton Rouge Magnet High School. In 1991, he graduated from Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, with honors in biology and public policy. Afterwards, he received a master's degree in political science from New College, Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. After Oxford, he joined McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm. In 1995, U.S. Congressman Jim McCrery (R-LA) introduced his former aide (Jindal) to Republican Governor Murphy J. Foster, Jr. Foster subsequently appointed Jindal, then aged twenty-four, to be Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals, an agency then representing about 40 percent of the state's budget; he served from 1996 to 1998. From 1998 to 1999, he was executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. He was also the youngest-ever president of the University of Louisiana System between 1999 and 2001. Newly-elected President George W. Bush appointed him Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation; he held that post from July 9, 2001 to February 21, 2003.

Plus he delivered his own kid that got to take some brainpower.There is also the concern about Indian-Americans about is it possible for us to get elected, in other words will our skin color hurt us. A legitimate concern but if an Indian-American can win in LA where can't we win. much.

Right Wing 3rd Party, Please!

2007-10-23T19:45:00.000-07:00

I was surfing the web today when I cam across an article stating that many Christian conservatives are seriously considering forming a third party.

Christian conservatives want more respect. They were instrumental in propelling George W. Bush to power—twice—and now they're feeling neglected.

Are you kidding me you don't feel respected, your run everything in the country right now. (Well except Congress but lucky for you they have no spines).I would love to see a Right Wing 3rd Party
The reason they are thinking of forming this 3rd party is due to the fact that pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, and three times married Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination right now. At a Values voter summit last week Rudy came in 8th among the participants. Now a lot of people think this is just a bluff but according to Richard Land who serves as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission its is no bluff.

My intuition [is that] this is not a bluff. If Giuliani is the nominee there will be a third party. There are things that Giuliani could do to help mitigate the damage. But I have been in too many discussions over the last 15 years where evangelical leaders have said, "The one thing we will never allow to happen is for the Republican Party to take us for granted the way the Democratic Party too often takes the African-American community for granted." This is not a bluff.

Later on we see just how far right wing he really is

No, he's not going to do that, and if he did nobody would believe it. He would [have to] say, number one, "This is a pro-life party. I realize I am out of step with where the party is, and I am not going to try to in any way weaken the [pro-life] plank." He could say, "I will only appoint strict constructionists, original-intent jurists to the federal judiciary." Strict constructionists by definition think that Roe v. Wade was an overreach and is a badly decided decision. If he were to agree to appoint a pro-life attorney general in the mode of a John Ashcroft.

I think the Democrats will win in 2008 regardless of a Right wing 3rd party or not but it would be nice for there to be one because that will almost guarantee a Democratic Victory. I don't get how these people don't see they are handing the Democrats a key to victory, but oh well that’s not our problem.

Presidential Rankings

2007-10-15T11:26:00.000-07:00

I was thinking it would be fun to put out my rankings of the Presidents and my reasons for it. I been thinking about it for a little while now and I think it would be cool for my readers to tell me where they agree or disagree. I’m thinking we’ll agree for the most part but I sure there will be a few disagreements. So without further ado here are the rankings:

1. Abraham Lincoln: Led the country through its darkest hour.
2. George Washington: Father of the country did a good job as the first president, set the tone for the rest.
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt: New Deal helps lead the country out of the Great Depression, lead US through WWII, greatest Democratic President no question.
4. Theodore Roosevelt: Square deal and the regulation of industry one of many Republican presidents who would be Democrats today.
5. Thomas Jefferson: Louisiana Purchase good for America.
6. Andrew Jackson: The first populist president
7. Harry S Truman: Marshall Plan and the de-segregation the military
8. John F. Kennedy: Peace Corps and Cuban Missile Crisis resolution
9. Dwight D. Eisenhower: Got us out of Korea (well sort of) and built the highway system
10. Lyndon B. Johnson: Great Society Program, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act
11. Woodrow Wilson: Lead us through WWI
12. James K. Polk: Resolved the Oregon boundary dispute, Got us Texas (mixed results there), and led us through Mexican-American war which was a pivotal moment for the US.
13. James Monroe: Monroe Doctrine
14. James Madison: Led us through war of 1812
15. Bill Clinton: The only reason he at 21 right now in most historians rankings is that he is ranked last in moral authority, how is lower than Nixon and the pre-Civil War Presidents I do not know. But Clinton achieved a lot including Reducing the federal deficit, Americorps, School-to-Work Program, A cease-fire in Northern Ireland, A Peace Agreement between Israel and Palestine, 22 million new jobs, and increased minimum wage, and The Brady Bill.
16. Grover Cleveland: Modernized the US Navy
17. John Quincy Adams: Good statesman who continued the policies of James Monroe
18. William McKinley: Led us through Spanish American war, got us Guam, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii
19. Martin Van Buren: Poor’s man Andrew Jackson (ok very poor man)
20. Jimmy Carter: Help to negotiate peace between Egypt and Israel
21. Gerald Ford: Help stabilize the country after the Nixon Administration
22. William H. Taft: Tried to be a progressive.
23. George HW Bush: Persian Gulf War
24. Chester A. Arthur: Helped established the Greenwich Meridian
25. Rutherford B. Hayes: Signed a bill which allowed female lawyers to argue before the Supreme Court
26. Ronald Reagan: Helped to end the Cold War by making the USSR spend itself into the ground, put Sandra Day O’Conner on the Supreme Court
27. Benjamin Harrison: Sherman Anti-trust Act
28. Andrew Johnson: Let reconstruction happen in the South
29. Ulysses S. Grant: Treaty of Washington
30. John Adams: Alien and Sedition Act
31. Zachary Taylor: Formed the Department of the Interior
32. George W. Bush: I can count the polices of his I support on one hand
33. Calvin Coolidge: Did not do much help contribute to stock market crash
34. Herbert Hoover: Did noting after stock market crash
35. James A. Garfield: Died in office, did nothing
36. William Henry Harrison: Died in office did nothing
37. Tyler: Did nothing in office
38. Richard Nixon: Watergate
39. Harding: Teapot Dome Scandal
40. Pierce: Did nothing to stop the Civil War from happening
41. Millard Fillmore: Fugitive Slave Act
42. James Buchanan: Did nothing to stop Civil War from happening

Run Away Socialized Medicine is Coming!

2007-10-09T17:24:00.000-07:00

Now that I have you attention I must tell you that one thing that has been annoying me lately is the Republicans referring to universal health care as socialized medicine. I don't understand why the republicans are being so simple and do not realize that universal health care and socialized medicine are not the same thing; they are different. Republicans act like capitalist can't support universal health care and that is just wrong, here is why.
I have not always been for universal health care it only a recent development for me. But in college when a professor made it very clear that it was not socialized medicine I started to look at it differently. I now see that it is something that we need is this country with 47 million Americans without insurance. I was browsing Slate today and came across an article on the subject this passage in particular stood out to me:
To some, the prospect that socialized medicine would still frighten anyone is absurd. Fears that "creeping socialism" might insidiously erode American freedoms are a relic of a distant age, like worries about fluoride in the water. Even so, the socialized medicine meme may have transcended the fevered ideological climate that spawned it. The words retain a talismanic power—a power that will soon be tested again.
Republicans seem to think that universal health care as socialized medicine will ruin America but that is not the case because UHC isn't socialized medicine and it will help save America. If America would implement UHC it would probably be most like the Canadian system where everything is private but the difference is the Canadian government pays for the health care; a single payer system. Of course taxes would be higher but to me that would be fine. As for the part about destroying America I am a capitalist and you know who else was: FDR. When FDR first introduced idea like this and others that help the poor and disadvantaged it was to save capitalism in America, which was not looked upon so greatly because of a little thing called the Great Depression. Taking care of ones citizens is not a socialist concept. It can be but it can also be something a capitalist country does. I just don't know how to convince Republicans of that. Oh and in the Seattle PI this weekend there was this great cartoon of a sick kid in bed with his mother saying you may be sick but President Bush says that better than being a socialist. Kinda funny. That is all.

Pulling out of Iraq before 2009? Not Going to Happen.

2007-10-01T18:53:00.000-07:00

Let me start off by saying I am against the Iraq War. I am sad to say not from the beginning, I supported the war when it first started, but after three months or so I started to see that that was a mistake, there were no WMD’s to be found, we were starting to get bogged down with no exit strategy in sight. I then obtained the view that we had to stay in Iraq to fix what we had done, but after a year or so with no end in sight and a civil war going on I knew the best thing was to get out of Iraq. So when the Democrats took back Congress in 2006 I was happy but soon learned that a pullout before 2009 was not possible; here is why. There are only a few things that the Democrats can do they can pass a bill for a partial withdrawal and pull more troops out over time, they can set a date for when all the troops must be out of Iraq, or they can cut off funding. With the withdrawal plan it seems we have the votes to get it passed (even with a few Republicans voting for it) but you know that the President will veto it and we definitely do not have the 2/3 votes needed to override the veto. It seems very unlikely that till will happen.
The other option we have is cutting of funding for the war. At first I was skeptical about this, as I feared it might make the Democrats look bad in the eyes of the public that we were cutting off funds for the troops. Then I realized that with the majority of Americans opposed to the Iraq War they would see it as a way of ending the war. Unfortunately even if Congress did pass a bill like this the president would once again veto it and we definitely do not have the 2/3 votes needed to override the veto. it looks like the best thing for the Democrats to do is keep passing bill after bill that calls for the withdrawal of the troops and with each veto the American people will see it is President Bush that is keeping the troops there.

Race and Class

2007-09-24T16:08:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about race and class and all the issues that goes with it. For me it is of interest because I am Indian-American who was born and raised in this country. I’ve only had to deal with one incident of racism but other than that it’s been good for me. Now I’m not saying that racism is gone in this country, but compared to 40 years ago we made miles of progress, hell 40 years ago I was a second class citizen in this country. So I thought I could share my views and experiences on the subject to explain my point of view. To start off with let get what I am out of the way. I am an Indian-American, upper middle-class heterosexual male who lives in Washington. I have also lived in Illinois and Florida and in all three places I have yet to experience racism. I should point out that I am light skinned and on several occasions have been thought to be white. Whenever I enter a store I am immediately helped, whenever I go to an airport I am never searched, and I don’t feel any different from any of my white friends here in Washington. I think some of that may have to do with class, it seems the more money you have the less you encounter racism. Perhaps it is due to the face that I live in Washington, which is quite liberal and very tolerant. But then again when I lived in Florida my family took many trips to the “deep south” and even there I did not feel discriminated against. The once cause of racism I have dealt with took place in Western PA when my family was at a camp with a few other Indians families. At night the kids would hang out and talk and I guess some of the other campers complained and when the owner came to talk to us the term “you immigrants” was use, made us feel real good. I know the Jena 6 case is going on right now, which is horrible but an appeals court tossed out the conviction and that is a sign of progress would not have happened 40 years ago. So I guess my main point is this America is going in the right direction on the issue of race and what we need to improve on more are class issues. Still things are looking good. So keep your hopes up.

Bush Nominates New Attorney General

2007-09-17T19:43:00.000-07:00

Today President Bush announced his nomination for Attorney General: Michael Mukasey who is a retired judge from New York.

As chief judge of the busy U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mukasey had presided over high-profile terrorism cases.” He knows what it takes to fight this war effectively and he knows how to do it in a manner consistent with our laws and our Constitution,” Bush said, standing next to Mukasey in the Rose Garden. As chief judge of the busy U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mukasey had presided over high-profile terrorism cases. “He knows what it takes to fight this war effectively and he knows how to do it in a manner consistent with our laws and our Constitution,” Bush said, standing next to Mukasey in the Rose Garden

He was also involved in many high profile cases post 9/11 including one involving Jose Padilla.

Mukasey also had a hand in one of the most hard-fought post-Sept. 11 terror cases: that of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was arrested in 2002 on a supposed mission to detonate a “dirty bomb.” The judge appointed a lawyer to represent Padilla, but before a hearing on whether there was sufficient cause to detain Padilla, President Bush declared him an enemy combatant. That started a legal odyssey that ended with Padilla in a different federal court. He was convicted last month of murder conspiracy, and faces sentencing later this year. Mukasey wrote an opinion piece recently in which he argued the Padilla case shows the current legal system is not well-equipped to aid a largely military effort to fight terrorists. He urged Congress to consider passing new laws to improve what he said was a mismatched legal system

He is known as a “law and order” judge which in GOP speak means one who doesn’t believe so much in rehabilitation as in punishment.
To me Mukasey is not the type of person I want as Attorney General. He too conservative and will be another Bush Puppet. But President Bush, with a little over a year left, is a lame duck and I don’t think he will nominate someone who the Democrats like. Mukasey, according to the news outlets is popular with some Democrats including Senator Schumer (D-NY). So approve him lets ride out the rest of Bush’s term and focus on winning in 2008.

Dear Congressional Democrats: Buck Up

2007-09-10T19:33:00.000-07:00

Imagine my surprise today when I opened CNN.com today and saw that General Petraeus doesn't want to end the surge till July 2008. (For those of you who don't already know that was sarcasm.) I could expect nothing less from someone who has proven to be for the Iraq War and doesn't want to leave. Another thing that caught my eye was a new ad by MoveOn.org that said this: MoveOn.org Political Action, which paid for the ad, accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House" on progress being made in Iraq and calls him "a military man constantly at war with the facts."
Congressional Republicans were outraged and making statements that were completely silly such as these: House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "Democratic leaders must make a choice today: Either embrace the character assassination tactics Moveon.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops in the fight against al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful." "Gen. Petraeus and the other commanders in the U.S. Armed Services have dedicated their lives to defending the very freedom that enables MoveOn.org the right to free speech. I support that right, but I find the way they have chosen to exercise it today to be disrespectful and downright reprehensible," Boehner said in a statement.
What a silly statement, of course we respect the troops and their commanders but when they blatantly ignore the facts we will call them on it. To show that GOP hypocrisy knows no bounds they called on Democrats to condemn the ad. Funny when Democrats call on Republicans to condemn something on their side they just ignore us. So of course Lieberman quickly does (of course he is as much of a Democrat as President Bush) but to see Senator Kerry and other Congressional Democrats do the same was shameful. Where the hell is your intestinal fortitude?? So buck up congressional Democrats don't be afraid of looking weak, you won't the large majority of American people think this war was a mistake and needs to end. Act like Democrats and buck up. What a day to begin it by being called a centrist and now this it’s been eventful.
Sensible Democrat

Hypocrisy in the Republican Party

2007-09-06T23:30:00.000-07:00

Hello all, this is my first of many blog entries and before I start a few quick notes. I am a liberal and this blog will have entries posted from a liberal's point of view. Also I will post at least once a week if not more than that. I am sure that many of you have heard about the scandal involving Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). Senator Craig was caught trying to solicit sex from an undercover cop in an airport bathroom. Senator Craig is the latest example of politicians who are anti-gay and then get busted for being gay. Now a few months before this Senator David Vitter (R-LA) was caught with his name in the address book of a D.C. madam. Senator Vitter is another Republican big on family values. So one can see what we have here are two similar scandals committed by two Republicans. When the Senator Craig scandal broke he was pressured by the Senate GOP to resign and he did. However Senator Vitter was not pressured to resign and was given support by the Senate GOP. The difference? Senator Vitter didn't have a homosexual scandal. The hypocrisy there is stunning.