Crystal Persuasion

The folks over at Fox are beside themselves over the results in New Jersey and Virginia last night. They will be on the TV today talking about how this is a clear repudiation of the Obama agenda and how this bodes well for the GOP in 2010 and 2012. Of course they will forget to mention that the only election that might affect the Obama agenda went to the the Democrats.

NY-23 went to a Democratic candidate for the first time in over 150 years. The Republicans (Palin, Pawlenty, etc.) decided that their candidate wasn't conservative enough and decided to back the Conservative party candidate even though he didn't live in the district and didn't know anything about the district. The military base is one of the biggest employers in the district, but the Conservative party candidate didn't even know there was a military base there. The Republican leadership decided that there was no place in the party for a "moderate" Republican. They didn't care that their candidate was basically a carpet bagger. They only cared that he was a Tea Bagger.

The exit polls in New Jersey and Virginia show that a majority of those voters approve of the President. These races were decided by local issues. These are tough economic times and people do vote with their pocket books. We have a clear example of that from last November. In Virginia the Democrats have controlled the Governorship for the last eight years in which the state, along with the rest of the country, has swung from recession to boom times back to recession. The voters of the state decided that they wanted to try something else at the state level. They were not voting for or against the Obama agenda (I take that back. Of course some were voting against the Obama agenda, but they would do so in an election for dog catcher as well). The same is true of New Jersey.

The elections of 2010 will be a better barometer of what the country thinks of the President. Those elections will have a direct effect on his ability to push his agenda through. Health Care reform has to pass and the economy (read unemployment numbers) has to begin to show a real turnaround. If those things happen, the Democrats will do fairly well in next years elections. If they don't, then the Democratic majority in the House will be in jeopardy. The war in Afghanistan will have little effect because the Republicans are actually pushing for more troops, while the majority of the country has very little stomach for that.

As is the case in most elections, however, people vote with their pocketbooks. If the President can convince the majority of Americans that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and (to borrow a line from George Bush Sr.) to stay the course, the Democrats should be able to hold on to their margins in the House and Senate. If the Republicans can shape the debate to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of Democratic leadership then the Republicans may well find themselves back in control of Congress and with a much smaller minority in the Senate.

My biggest disappointment over the results of yesterdays elections was the fact that Maine made it 0-31 when same sex marriage initiatives face the voters. I have already written on this subject but each time it comes up it just makes my blood boil. Why do Republicans, who claim to be champions of individual liberty and less government intrusion in our lives, continue to revel in denying a basic human right to citizens of this country? Why would those who believe in "family values" deny people the right to start a family of their own? Why is it anybodies business if two consenting adults want to get married? And why have voters continually taken away a right that has been guaranteed by either the courts or state legislature? Why don't we just start repealing rights that we don't like? There's a justice of the peace in Louisiana who wouldn't mind repealing Loving v. Virgina. Perhaps the Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act should be repealed as well. I'm sure there are many that aren't particularly thrilled with the 24th amendment. Perhaps women shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth considering how fragile and emotional they are. This is all complete nonsense. I have no idea how a nation that prides itself on personal freedom can continue to treat a selected portion of it's citizens as if they are not worthy of the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. It's just plain shameful.

I have very conflicted feelings about Thomas Jefferson, but there is one thing cannot be disputed and that was his gift with words. I'll end this particular rant with one the most famous sentences in the English language. It was mainly the work of Jefferson (with some slight revisions from John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, to name two) and although the idea had been in print before, it had never been and probably has never been stated more eloquently and clearly. One of these days we'll live up to this, but unfortunately, it's not today. And I quote the good gentlemen from Virgina,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot...

But honestly, I don't think that he should be denied the right to be an owner of an NFL team. Rush is constantly pushing the envelope in his commentary every day, but let's face it, he's basically an entertainer at this point. He has an audience to entertain and he does an amazing job of keeping their attention with just talk. I would hate to think that we've reached a point in this country when expressing your views, however unpopular, would mean that you no longer have the right to take part in a free market enterprise. I probably haven't agreed with anything I've heard Rush say for the past 20 years, but if he wants to own an NFL team, a NBA team, a MLB team or an NHL team, I say more power to him.

I think we on the left should be branded hypocrites if we said nothing on this matter. I don't like what Rush has to say, but damn it, he has every right to say it. Let's not start handing out scarlet letters to people we don't agree with. What should we deny Rush next? The right to buy a car dealership? The right to buy his groceries at Wal-Mart? And why should we just stop at Rush? Perhaps everyone on Fox News should have the same restrictions placed on them. I know Rush is a pretty vile person. I personally can't stand the guy, but I'm not willing to say what he should and shouldn't be able to do with his money.

I know this will probably be a pretty unpopular post, but I'm standing on principle here. Rush should be able to buy a football team if he wants one. Of course the players can refuse to play for him if they want to. The fans can refuse to show up to the games if they want to and the networks can refuse to cover the games if they want to.

It's a Snowe Day in D. C.

So the Finance Committee finally got a version of the health care bill approved. Well, hoo f'ing ray! We, meaning the American people, will now have the pleasure of having our the future of our health care system decided by one person. No, I'm not talking about the person the majority of Americans voted for last November. I'm talking about our new de facto President, Olympia Snowe. I do appreciate Senator Snowe breaking with her party and voting for some version of health care reform. What I do not appreciate is the fact that the bill coming out of the insurance company employee Max Baucus' committee, is without a doubt the weakest of the five bills in Congress.

It has become clear that because of the Snowe endorsement, the weakest of the bills is now the template for any agreement going forward. The Bacus bill is the only one of the five that does not include a public option. The Democrats, who in theory have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, will now bend over backwards to accommodate Senator Snowe. She will be a part of the group that works on merging the two Senate bills and at this point it looks like she will be the most important part. Do you think that a bill containing a public option will make it to the floor of the Senate when keeping the approval of Senator Snowe seems more important to the Democratic leadership than passing an effective bill?

I have no idea how we have come to this point. The last time I checked, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. It seems almost unbelievable to me that the White House would be willing to throw the public option overboard (with no real alternative in sight) for this token appearance of bi-partisanship. Has bi-partisanship somehow replaced effectiveness as the key word for health care reform legislation? In the coming weeks, we will watch as Bacus and Harry Reid bend over backwards in order to placate Senator Snowe. No public option? Sure, Olympia, whatever you want. You want a much larger penalty on those who are too poor to actually afford the high priced insurance that they are now mandated to purchase? Sure. Anything you want. You want to actually make the Bush tax cuts permanent? Sure. We don't need the money anyway.

There can be only one President at a time, according to our Constitution. But I'm not sure that we don't now have two people who now have the power to veto a bill. Senator Snowe may indeed have more power than the guy in the White House, because she gets to veto the bill before it ever gets to his desk.

All Aboard

As the Democrats struggle with health care reform, I think it's a good time to remind ourselves why they seem to struggle to get meaningful legislation passed, even with control of the Congress and the White House. When the Republicans are in power, they band together to form a single voice. There are few dissenters and they push through their agenda with seemingly little debate from inside the party. The Democrats, however, end up looking like a model for the modern dysfunctional family. Are the Republicans more united than the Democrats? No doubt. Are the Republicans more effective at advancing their views? No doubt.

Why are the Republicans more effective than the Democrats? It's simple really. The Democrats try to incorporate many views under their banner, while the Republicans are basically tolerant of only one. Being a "conservative" means that you believe in God and the Bible. That you believe in a strong national defense above all else. That you believe in the 2nd amendment as an absolute. That you believe abortion is a sin. That you believe illegal immigrants (and frankly all immigrants of color) are the cause of many of the ills of society. That you believe that government has no place in your health care (as long as Medicare and VA benefits are tended to by some invisible force that is definitely not the government). These along with a few others are the tenants of the Republican cause. You either believe these things or you have no place in the party. When Colin Powell dared to admit that he was voting for Barack Obama, the right wing press attacked. Rush Limbaugh said that the only reason he was voting that way was because of skin color. Rush said that there was no place in the Republican Party for him.

That is the modern Republican Party. It is monolithic and at times monosyllabic. The Democrats are a "big tent" party. It is made up of a diverse coalition of views and beliefs. Some believe in God and the Bible, some believe that abortion is a sin, some have no love for immigrants and some even believe that government should have no place in their health care. The difference being that the Democrats do not try to expel people for those views or beliefs. The current uproar over the "Blue Dog" Democrats would have you believe differently, but unless one of those representatives were to declare himself or herself a Republican, they will still receive the majority of support of their party members against any opposition.

It does make the Democratic Party a whole lot messier and seemingly less effective, but you have to remember the legacy that the big party approach has left behind. From social security, to desegregation of the military, to the civil rights bill, to Medicare, the Democratic Party has been the driving force behind each of these landmark changes to our country. It was a struggle each time to get these things done. Arms had to be twisted, promises had to made and sometimes the rules had to be bent just a little in order to give the American people real change. But always remember which side of the aisle those changes came from.

I am a declared Independent who has been at times very frustrated with the pace of progress in Washington, D. C. At times I've thrown up my hands at the President's seeming lack of urgency. I've cursed the Blue Dogs and the Progressives. I've sworn off writing on this blog a time or two. I've written angry articles, I've called my Senators and Congressmen and demanded action. I have even said out loud that I wished the Democrats could be a little more like the Republicans. But with a calmer head I do realize that wishing for such a thing is more than foolhardy. It would be downright dangerous. Imagine a Congress in which we only had far right and far left fighting each other. We would see and endless string of leadership trying to dismantle what the other party did while in power. I long for the day when the Republican leadership will realize that a narrow vision is not necessarily a better vision. Until that day, we have the Democratic Party, warts and all, that still invites disparate views to share the stage.

I want meaningful health care reform. I want an end to the war in Afghanistan. I want public education to be a priority for this country again. I want an end to the abuse of the Constitution. I want a lot of things, but as I make my endless demands, I do occasionally stop and realize that there is only one party that's listening. It may not be perfect, it may not be the most effective, but it is the only one that genuinely values ideas that may not fit exactly into its platform. So I take today to celebrate the Democratic Party. Tomorrow may be a different story though.

Welcome to Lowball

The truth plain and simple is not something that is in doubt. You can argue the facts of any situation, but the truth is not open to debate. Why then do the major cable news network spend so much time arguing about the truth. There are no death panels in the health care legislation. That is the truth. How many times have we heard "debates" over the past couple of months about this very thing? President Obama was born in the United States. That is the fact and yet lunatics, including members of Congress, get to go on TV and argue this very point on a regular basis.

Do you know what wasn't the truth? Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and yet there was very little debate about that point when the President said it, even though it was later proved to be absolutely false. Are we now seeing a backlash from the press against its negligence to question what was coming out of the White House during the Bush administration? Is the press trying to make up for being asleep at the wheel?

Roman Polanski plead guilty to a charge of having sex with a minor which was the least serious of the six initial charges that arose from his drugging and then raping a thirteen year old girl (consensual or not, having sex with a drugged and drunk 13 year old is rape by definition). He served 45 days under psychiatric observation and then was to return to court for additional sentencing as deemed necessary by the court. Apparently under his plea deal, he was not supposed to serve any additional time. The Judge in the case, who undoubtedly committed some major misconduct decided that he didn't want to go by the agreed upon plea deal and so Roman Polanski fled the country after being released from psychiatric observation, but before appearing before the court again. He is therefore a fugitive from justice. That is the truth. He is a convicted felon who decided to flee the country when faced with more possible jail time. Yet the networks have committed air time to having people try and debate this issue. There is no issue. He pleaded guilty to a crime and then ran away before facing sentencing. Period. It does not matter that the now adult woman (who received a very handsome settlement from Polanski) wants the case dropped. It does not matter that those in Hollywood decided to give him an Academy Award for his direction of the movie "The Pianist". It does not matter that he made "Chinatown". It does not matter. The truth is that he is a fugitive from justice. Period. There is no debate about that, so why would you put two people on a major news network to debate the point.

When the news networks give equal weight to both the truth and whatever made up nonsense can be spewed against the truth, they play a major role in undermining that truth. When they make fun of the crackpots (like the insane woman who keeps on coming up with Kenyan birth certificates for Obama), they legitimize them by giving them air time and allowing their message to be heard by millions of others. It would be the same as if Chris Matthews were to allow a serious debate to take place between the people who believe the earth is flat and those who know that it is round. The argument is ridiculous on its face, but by giving them equal time you legitimize the ridiculous.

It is unfortunate indeed that the news organizations didn't do a better job of questioning the Bush administration when they had a chance, but to turn that mistake into a free for all maybe even more damaging to the American public. Isn't there someone in the morning production meetings of those major cable news networks who will stand up for the truth? I understand that the 24 hour news cycle forces each network to search for stories to cover, but there are so many worthy stories. The networks are not only guilty of laziness, they are guilty of trying to appeal tot he lowest common denominator. How many follow up stories have been done about the murders that took place during Hurricane Katrina that went unpunished. How many stories have been done about the fact that our public education system is falling apart? How many stories have been done about the fact that our Constitutional rights are under constant attack? I don't have any specific numbers but the answer is too damn few!

There are a hundred legitimate topics that the news organizations can point their cameras at and yet they chose to show us debates about the truth and present that as real news. When will this stop? When will our news organizations once again try to give us the news as news and not as entertainment. There are lots of network shows that I can watch or hell I can even rent a movie if I want to watch something for the sake of entertainment. I watch news networks because I want the news, not so that it can compete with the latest blockbuster from Steven Spielberg. Let's focus here people. The times demand more than we are being given. The stakes are too high for our only real inside view of the politicians, that are going to decide the fate of this country, to be looked upon as just another chance to entertain the lowest common denominator.

Into the Mystic

Rest in Peace, Teddy. The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Baby Steps

I'm going to admit defeat in the health care reform debate. I'm just going to get out ahead of the White House and Congress and admit that there is simply no middle ground in this debate. I'm not talking about the middle ground between the Democrats and Republicans. I mean there's no middle ground between Democrats and between the Houses of Congress. It is becoming more clear that congress may pass a bill with a public option, but the senate never will.

It's time for the White House to retreat to a defensible position. I believe that the debate got away from the President when he was unable to define exactly what health care reform would mean for most Americans. The genie is out of the bottle at this point. There is no way to get the sweeping change that was promised through the Congress this year. The Right has done a masterful job of bringing out all the hot button issues to bear on this debate, from abortion to illegal immigrants. The administration spends so much time trying to combat these bogus charges (which more than 50% of the public believe by the way) that it's message has gotten lost.

I have a plan though. I'm not sure that anyone will follow it, but I do think it might actually be more effective. Health reform this year should be limited to introducing new regulations for the Health insurance industry. The legislation should make it illegal for the insurance companies to either deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or drop someone once their application has been approved. The last regulation should be that the lifetime caps on coverage should be eliminated. That's it. No mandates for universal coverage, no mandates for employer coverage, no public option, no single payer. Just some common sense regulations that will make the insurance companies policies a lot more equitable. The Republicans will of course oppose the legislation on some far fetched ground, but it will be easy to explain to the people and all Democrats should be able to get on board with it.

If those major insurance regulations could be pushed through this year, the President could claim a major victory. It's is now pretty clear that health care reform has to be done in smaller steps. It is apparent that something as complicated as a major health care overhaul is simply too much for the majority of the people to understand and is subject to the most spurious of attacks. The people have to be force fed their medicine. Perhaps if we give it to them in small doses they'll never be aware of how much they've actually swallowed. I say the President takes on one health care initiative a year as part of his planned agenda. Explain one thing at a time, have a unified message, and that will make it all less scary for most Americans. Perhaps this is the approach that the White House has. Maybe they've been planning this all along. I know that the President is much smarter than me and so are the people working for him, so I would find it hard to believe if I'm the first to come up with this idea.

This effort cannot go to waste. Substantial insurance reform would be a giant step in the right direction. If you have been watching and listening to the President closely during his recent town hall meetings, he has subtly turned his mentions of reform from health care reform into health insurance reform. Could that have been his goal all along? Maybe. Or maybe I'm just dreaming.

Peace With Honour

For some reason Neville Chamberlain is on my mind today. This morning the Secretary of Health signaled that the White House is ready to wave the white flag on the public option for health care, which is in my opinion, the backbone of the proposed legislation. A month ago I wrote an article in which I expressed my frustration over what I perceived to be a lack of commitment on the part of the Obama administration to real health care reform. First of all the only way to truly control the spiraling cost of health care is with a single payer system. However the Democrats gave up that fight before they even started down the reform road. Since single payer had been so demonized during the Clinton attempt at health care reform, they decided that they would forgo it this time in order to try and keep the rhetoric to a minimum. So before this current attempt at health care reform had even begun, they had already conceded the best option to control costs and to make sure that everyone receives some level of coverage.

It seemed naive to me at the time to believe that by conceding this option it would lead to less vitriol from the opponents of real reform and events have proven this point. As I have said previously, the Republicans are not interested in bi-partisanship. Their only goal is to defeat the President's agenda. The Democrats continue to concede point after point (the provision to provide end of life counseling is, if you pardon the pun, dead) in the name of bi-partisanship when the Republicans have no intention of voting for a health care reform bill regardless of the number of concessions that are made. If a bill does receive solid bi-partisan support you can rest assured that calling it a "reform" bill would be massive misnomer. In a town hall meeting this week the President singled out Chuck Grassley as a Republican who was trying to find ways to get bi-partisan agreement on the reform bill. The next day Grassley told an audience that the government shouldn't be in the business of killing grandma.

Each concession that the Democrats make only serves to embolden the opposition. The question becomes, is our government in the business of protecting the private insurance companies or protecting the health and well being of it's own citizens? Each concession in the never ending chase for phantom Republican votes only takes us further and further away from true reform. The Democrats are going to have to pass this bill on their own. They now have to figure out whether they want to pass something truly historic and helpful to the citizens of this nation or whether they want the GREAT HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL OF 2009 to become just another footnote in the history of politics of usual in Washington D.C.

Sound and Fury

I wake everyday to the same nonsense over and over again. I have to listen to the opponents of health care make up claims about "death panels" and other extreme positions that have nothing to do with the proposed bill in Congress. I have to listen to people talk about how afraid they are of what is happening to their country and how we need to "take our country back". I have to listen to this supposed organic movement talk about how this country is on the road to socialism. I have to listen to senior citizens say that they want the government to keep its hands off their medicare. I have to listen to the right wing media talk about the 1st amendment when they spent the previous eight years calling anyone who opposed the President un-American, treasonous and worse. I have to listen to people compare our President to Adolf Hitler and the Democratic leadership to the Nazis. I have to listen to Glenn Beck appeal to his audience not to get violent over this protest and then joke about poisoning the Speaker of the House.

This is no longer a "debate" about health care reform. This becomes just another outlet for the Right to get out their talking points about the President. Could anyone with a brain actually believe that the Congress would pass a law that sets up "death panels"? Of course not, but why let that stop them. But if you keep shouting socialism! and fascism! and Hitler! and Nazi! long and loud enough, you may just get some people to pay attention. People who oppose the President not because of what he stands for, but because of who he is are very attuned to the buzz words of the campaign to defeat health care reform. After all, they don't want someone who wasn't even born in America to tell them what to do. And I won't even get into the fact of how corporations get citizens to work against their own self interest (that is a story for another day).

There is real anger in this country, but it's not about health care reform. I think the vast majority of people in this country would be in favor of a system that stops the insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Or stops the insurance companies from increasing rates if you happen to make a claim against your coverage. Or lowers costs so that even poor Americans can get coverage. Those are universally helpful measures. The real anger in this country comes from the person pushing the message. While the Clinton health reform push was defeated by misinformation, fear, and millions from the insurance companies, this attempt at health reform might be defeated by hate.

The opponents of this President "want their country back". Well, I hate to be the one to tell them this but "their country" doesn't exist anymore and that is a good thing. Our last election proved to me (and if you read this blog, you will know that I was extremely skeptical) that this country has indeed moved on in a way. The country that allowed the Republicans to dominate the Presidential elections for the previous 40 years, has indeed changed. The fallout from the Civil Rights Act that allowed the Republicans to tap into white, southern anger has finally run its course. I believe what we are seeing now are the death throes of that movement. The loud, angry, vitriolic death throes of a movement whose time has past.

These are indeed desperate times for those who long for the days when white equalled right. The influx of Hispanics into the mainstream of this country scares the hell out of them (John McCain's vote against the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor was his first against ANY nominee to the supreme court). Having a Black President scares the hell out of them. Losing control scares the hell out them. There was a day when these things weren't possible. There was a day when they controlled the "debate" in this country. There was a day when fear of the known and unknown kept us from fulfilling our destiny as a nation. I can only hope that day has passed. The anger is real and loud, but at the end of the day it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

Home Invasion

Henry Louis Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct after getting into an argument with a police officer. This would be a major story given professor Gates' reputation. However the fact that he was arrested in his own home and that he is a friend of the sitting President of the United States makes it a media storm.

I have no doubt that Mr. Gates was extremely upset to be accosted in his own home by a police officer. I also have no doubt that his reaction was based not only on the current situation, but a lifetime of racial bias that he has had to face. Was his reaction more emotional than rational? Probably. Was he justified in reacting the way he did? Probably. I believe that if you are in your own home and have committed no crime, then the police have no right to treat you like a criminal. The police officer in this case will now get a lot of support from the Right. People like Rush Limbaugh are already rushing to give their views in favor of the officer. This once again proves the hypocrisy that comes from that side of the aisle. The Republicans are the first to talk about the sanctity of the home and an individuals right to privacy. If this had happened to George Will, and he would have been arrested by a black police officer in his home, the outrage from the Right would be palpable.

I have written about this topic before and I frankly hate to repeat myself, but unless you are a black male in this country, you have no idea what if feels like to be afraid to step outside your front door in fear what the very people who are supposed to protect you might bring to bear. I live in New York City and there is no neighborhood or group of people or time of night that causes me more fear than the sight of New York City police officer heading my way. I have first hand experience of being wrongly arrested and abused by the people that we call "New York's Finest". The funny thing is that I actually feel fortunate that I didn't have to grow up in Boston. In his early years, the comedian Chris Rock told a joke that went something like this, "I was in South Africa the other day...Or was it Boston". Boston is the town that reacted the most violently to forced busing in the seventies. Boston is the town that still has de facto segregation to this day. Boston is the town that being black is still a cause for alarm, unless you play for the Celtics or Red Sox.

Was race a factor in the arrest of Professor Gates? Of course it was. Would both men have acted differently if they were of the same race. Of course they would have. If Professor Gate were white would a 911 call even have been placed? debatable. The point here is that once a police officer shows up at the residence of an individual, what should be the threshold for then allowing that officer to arrest any person that lives there? I am not sure what the answer is to that question, but given the accounts of the proceedings given by both Professor Gates and the Officer, I am confident that the threshold was not breached. Would the Officer have arrested an elderly, semi-disabled, white Harvard professor? You can bet your last bowl of New England Clam Chowder that he would not have. The multi-cultural support for this officer from the Cambridge police department doesn't impress me. The New York Police department has never been held accountable for firing over 80 shots at an unarmed man and hitting him with over 40 in the doorway of his own apartment. And they were only held accountable for sodomizing an innocent man and causing life threatening internal injuries after one of dozens of officers decided that he couldn't maintain his silence anymore.

Actions speak much louder than words. If you think that race plays no part in any of this, I would just ask you to look at the growing movement that is questioning whether the President was born in this country. The absolutely only reason it's a question is because of his race. The language from the opposition is couched in the terms of "taking the country back". Glen Beck promotes gun ownership as a rational response to losing an election. I remember when 5 people on the Supreme Court decided who our next President was going to be. There were a lot of disappointed people, but I don't remember anyone of any national prominence promoting armed revolution. Why is it okay to question the legitimacy of a President who won his election with a decisive majority of the American people voting for him? He's black. It's as simple as that. Having a black President is a huge step forward for this country, but being black still means that there's a bullseye on your back.

Have Another Donut, You Fat Pig!

On Glen Beck's daily spewing of nonsense today he was attacking a government program that purchases food for food banks and soup kitchens. His initial argument was that the government was overspending for these products (which seems reasonable enough), but of course this poor excuse for a human being couldn't leave it at that. Responding to a comment by the by the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack that the program, "provides assistance to people who otherwise do not have access to food", Beck said, " Wow! I didn't know in America that we had people that didn't have access to food". I have no idea how someone can be so insulated that they wouldn't know that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who go to bed hungry every night. Does he think the homeless are just sitting on a pile of money? Does he think those people begging for money on the street are just doing that to kill time? People like him should be forced to live on the street and he can see just how much "access" he has to food. Perhaps it might help that fat tub of lard to lose some weight.

He has a book out now called "Common Sense". It reminds of a Saturday Night Live sketch in which there was a game show called "Common Knowledge". The answers to all the questions were not the right answers, but the one's that most people believed to be true. That is exactly what he is selling. He is selling lies to people who are too lazy to actually find the truth. It's a shame that "reporting" has reached these depths.

The Lion in Winter

The health care debate has reached a crossroad. The Republicans and the insurance industry are staging a full frontal assault on the reform bills now working their ways through the House and the Senate. They have decided that the President is vulnerable on this issue and have gone so far as to proclaim that this issue will be his Waterloo. The President to his credit has finally jumped into the fight with both guns blazing. His statements, which used to be very conciliatory toward the opposition, have become more pointed and emphatic. His staff is no longer talking about a bipartisan bill, they are now talking about the reality of having Democrats push this through on their own.

The President has to make the point that health care reform is not a policy question, it is a moral imperative. The health and well being of the citizens of this country is not something to bartered with or toyed with because of political differences. Republicans offer no alternative to the current proposal. Michael Steele went so far as to say that he doesn't even know what's in the bill. It is very clear that Obama's opponents don't have any strategy to fix the health care crisis, they only want to block anything that comes out of this administration.

The conservative Democrats have a different agenda. They are trying to placate the constituents in their right leaning states and districts. Their single issue is cost. They have to be sure that any program does not add to the bloated deficit. I do not believe that they are actually opposed to health care reform. Of course if they do not get on board at the end of the day, their opposition, regardless of how principled it is, will sink our only chance to give Americans a proper health care system. I have to believe that if push comes to shove, they will vote with the majority. If not to approve the bill then at least to end a republican attempt at a filibuster.

We, as a people, should have a right to decent health care. I have stated before that each elected official should be willing to do the right thing even though it may be a losing issue in their next election. We vote people into office not only to do our bidding, but also to do what is best. The people don't always know what is in their best interest. Just look at California. The fact that everything is up for a vote has led them to a budget crisis of biblical proportions. They need more revenue, but refuse to vote for any tax increases. "The People" want everything for nothing. "The People" cannot always be trusted to make the right decision. Our elected officials are not supposed to be as shortsighted as "The People". If their only concern is getting re-elected, then the needs of the people take a backseat to that goal.

It is a given that there are many in both houses of Congress who do not care if the majority of citizens of this country have adequate health care. They have been bought and paid for by the health insurance industry. That however should not stop the majority from doing what they know is right. I understand that no one wants to have to go to their constituents and tell them that health care reform is going to cost them money, but as with most of the great moral crusades of the last century, cost is not the important factor. We will of course save money if we are a healthier nation, but that is too forward looking for most in this country to understand. Sometimes “We the People” have to dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. I can only hope that we have enough representatives who comprehend how significant this issue is and how monumental a difference it will make in the lives of all our citizens.

President Kennedy spoke of civil rights as a moral crisis. He tragically didn’t live long enough to see the eventual passage of the Civil Rights Bill. Critics at the time attacked the bill as government interference in private enterprise. They argued that the government has no place in dictating the actions of the private sector. They argued that we needed less government, not more. Time has proved these arguments wrong. His brother Ted Kennedy has made universal health care his life’s work. He has pushed for universal coverage since the early seventies. He has spoken about the fact that he and his family have always received the highest level of care. However, unlike some of his more callous fellow members of Congress (Senator Grassley had the nerve to offer this bit of advice as to how to get the same level of coverage that he enjoys, “get a government job”), he has always said that he wants all Americans to have access to that same level of care. As Kennedy battles brain cancer, he is doing all he can to lend his support to this most important of issues. It is his life’s work, it is his legacy. It is the moral imperative of our time. Let us hope that we are up to the challenge and I believe that time will treat the opponents of health care as well as it has treated the opponents of the Civil Rights Bill.

The Most Dangerous Person in America

Sarah Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska in a rambling and unfocused press conference last Friday. In fact, she made Mark Sanford seem like the epitome of coherence. Those on the left were quick to proclaim that this was the death knell for Mrs. Palin as a serious candidate for President in 2012. Those on the Right were quick to point out that she is now free from the burden of running a state and can now make even more appearances where she can spread her message.

If we were living in "normal" times, those hopeful thinkers on the left may indeed be right, but we are not living in normal times. The Republican party has been reduced to its core elements. Social conservatives now dominate the base of the party and those are the very people who find Sarah Palin irresistible. We must also remember that over 58 million people voted for her in the last election. I understand that she was not at the top of the ticket, but she was only a heartbeat away from the top job which would have been held by a 73 year old, 2 time cancer survivor.

Sarah Palin is the most ill-prepared person proposed for national office that I have ever seen. She has no understanding of the Constitution (illustrated by her constant misstatement of what the 1st Amendment means), she couldn't explain what Conservatism is if you spotted her Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and she is dead set against learning what she doesn't know. That last point is what makes her so dangerous. Anybody with the lack of understanding of national and international issues that she has demonstrated and with the family issues that were forced to be played out on a national stage, would have declined the offer to join the McCain ticket. However her personal ambition outweighs any family obligation or reasonable action.

Despite all her shortcomings, the base of Republican party has anointed her as the savior of the party. Republican pundits have even compared her to Richard Nixon. Nixon uttered the famous, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore", after losing to Pat Brown in the California Governor's race. Nixon, of course, returned 6 years later to become a two term President. However comparing Richard Nixon to Sarah Palin is like comparing an Indy race car to a scooter. At the time that Richard Nixon made his famous concession, he had been a 2 term Congressman, a Senator, a two term Vice President and had lost a closely contested and controversial election for President. For all his shortcomings, I don't think that there is anyone who would question his intelligence or his skill as a politician and statesman. Sarah Palin, a first term Governor of Alaska, was as recently as 4 years ago, voted mayor of a town with approximately 600 votes. The comparison is ridiculous on its face and becomes even more ridiculous when you compare the two. She has also been compared to the great communicator himself, Ronald Reagan. Of course Reagan had become politically aware as part of the Conservative movement. He was schooled by the likes of Barry Goldwater himself and cut his teeth as Governor of California. Ronald Reagan's intellect will never be confused with Richard Nixon's, however he knew what he stood for.

Sarah Palin doesn't know what she stands for. Her speeches contain no details, no policies, no directions for how she intends to "make America a better place for all Americans". She simply spews talking points and applause lines. Her ego is so large that she would probably never allow someone around her who doesn't agree with everything she says, or at least they wouldn't be around her for long. I have nightmares about this woman being in charge of our international policy. Can you imagine this woman as our representative around the world? Can you imagine her having a serious discussion with the leaders of the rest of the world? George Bush at least had the awareness to understand that he needed smart people around him. They were evil for the most part, but they were undoubtedly very intelligent. I don't think Bush ever had a problem with not being the smartest guy in the room.

Sarah Palin, almost unbelievably, thinks that she is the smartest person in any room that she's in. She would surround herself with people who would be unwilling or unable to disagree with her on any topic. It would be an absolute disaster. I honestly don't understand how anyone could hope for this to come to pass. There are smart people on the right, who for unknown reasons support Sarah Palin. It could be desperation, it could be... actually there is no other reason. It has to be desperation. I hope that in the years before the next Presidential election, the Republicans come up with an alternative. I fear, however, that wishful thinking will not be enough to get rid of the spectre that is Sarah Palin. She will be with us for the foreseeable future. Unless there's a scandal out there that we don't know about. That might be more wishful thinking I'm afraid.

The $60 Billion Solution

I feel like I have written this article before (as has my co-contributor), and yet I can't help but return to the health care debate. Howard Dean was on TV recently and he said that if health care reform does not include a public option, then it would be basically worthless. As I watch our President say that there is no line in the sand in the health care debate, I again wonder aloud what exactly the goal of this administration is on this topic.

The arguments against a public option have basically been boiled down to two positions that are inconsistent with each other and are yet voiced simultaneously. The first position, which is favored by the insurance providers and their lackeys in Congress, is that, they (the insurance companies) would be driven out of business by a government option. The claim is that so many people would chose the public option (because it would be cheaper, better and less cumbersome) that the insurance providers would not be able to stay in business. The President called this point into question yesterday when he said:

" The notion that all these insurance companies who say they’re giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can’t compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what’s the best deal, that defies logic..."

The Insurance companies and the members of Congress that they own, will continue to claim that the government option would drive them out of business without stating the real reason why that is the case. As has been stated here before, the companies are in the business of making money. They are not in the business of providing Americans with the best health care possible, therefore it only makes sense that they would not be able to compete with a system that makes the actual health of Americans the top priority. A significant portion of the resources of the insurance companies goes to trying to find ways to deny claims of the people that they currently insure. How could they possibly compete against a competitor who doesn't spend a large portion of their income on trying to screw their own customers? Republicans are constantly arguing for a free marketplace. Why would they now be afraid of a little competition? If, as the insurance companies and the many well compensated spokespeople in Congress claim, we do in fact have the best health care in the world, then having a public option would provide very little competition indeed. Why on earth would people give up their current coverage if they felt like it was the best plan available?

The second claim is that the public option would lead to American getting less medical care than they are now receiving. "We don't want to be like Canada" becomes the clarion call of this particular group of sycophants. So this argument claims (in total opposition to the other one) that under a public plan, the health of Americans would actually suffer. They talk about health care being rationed and long waits for transplants and lack of money for new equipment and fewer doctors being available and government bureaucrats making your health decisions. All of this presupposes that our current options are fantastic and that we are thrilled about insurance company paper pushers making our health care decisions. My question is, which is it? Is the public option going to be so great that it breaks the backs of the insurance providers or is it going be the beginning of the end? I guess it's too much to ask the opponents of the plan for a consistent message.

And if all else fails, they point to the money. How on earth can we pay for this? $1.6 trillion!!!! Inconceivable! Pointing to the money is of course the easiest way to take attention away from the human cost of not getting real health care reform done in the near future. No one talks about the 50 million who are uninsured. No one talks about the tens of thousands who die each needlessly because they could not afford to seek medical attention. No one talks about the millions who are saddled with crippling debt for medical procedures even though they were "covered" by private insurance. No one talks about the fact that our some of our major industries are now big health providers who also happen to manufacture something. No one talks about the fact that in ten years the only growth industries left in the this country will be tied to health care and the insurance companies. No, they don't want to talk about that. Let's just talk about the cost. That will scare Americans into demanding that nothing gets done. I have a simple plan for this. Like the Iraq war (which is going to cost upwards of $2 trillion), let's just claim the same opening figure that the Bush administration did for that endeavor. The cost for complete health care reform that will cover every American is $60 billion.

Dreams Die Hard

This may very well be the last post I do here because I am about to be so disgusted with this president that I may just swear off making any comments at all. From the Vice President to the Secretary of Health to the President himself, the Obama administration officials are all showing signs of giving up a public healthcare option in order to get some semblance of "bipartisanship". This administration is going to be willing to throw the uninsured and under-insured in this country under the bus in order to get a couple of Republican votes (which may or may not actually happen. I doubt that there would be any votes in the House unless the bill was absolutely worthless). The President is willing to protect the profits of the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the doctors in this country at the expense of the American people.

There was hope when Obama was elected, but in my mind that has quickly crumbled into the most disappointing presidency in my lifetime. I realize that Obama is the better of the options from the last election, but that does not make his actions any easier to stomach. I wrote an article in January which outlined what I thought were the most pressing issues for this president to address. To date, not one of them has been addressed to my satisfaction. There is still no plan for an exit in Afghanistan, education reform has not even been whispered about, healthcare reform is going to amount to nothing and the Constitution continues to be battered by the policies of this administration. This administration has also decided that they are not only fond of the anti-gay, Defense of Marriage statute, they are in fact it's biggest supporters. The lack of support shown to the gay and lesbian community by this administration has been stunning. You would think that there are Republicans running this country.

I no longer believe that Obama was only pretending to oppose gay marriage in order to get elected. I no longer believe that he wants healthcare for every American. I no longer believe that he wants to end the Constitutional abuses that took place under the last administration. I no longer believe that he wants to bring anyone to justice for the torture policy of the previous administration. I no longer believe that he wants to do anything that is even within sniffing distance of radical. He has become Bill Clinton without ever losing a fight. At least Bill had his losses before he decided to throw in the towel. At least Bill tried to get healthcare coverage for every American. At least he tried to stop the dismissal of gay military personnel. At least he tried. I no longer believe that Obama is even going to try. He's just going to try to get along. He doesn't want to piss off too many people so that he can get re-elected in 2012 and then he can go about making lots of money on the lecture circuit. He will leave behind the legacy of being the first African American president (which is no small feat), but I was hoping for so much more.

Those "Change we can believe in" posters are just painful to look at now.

The King of all he Surveys

The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, at a public press conference yesterday, chastised a reporter for asking about the rationale for the overturning of the term limits law by the City Council. The mayor made comments about the begins signs of a turnaround in the economy. The ailing economy was one of the major reasons sited by members of the City Council and the supporters of the overturning of the law on term limits as to why the mayor and the City Council should be allowed to serve beyond their two term limit.

The reporter asked a perfectly legitimate question about whether the rebounding economy took away one of the reasons for the extending of term limits. The Mayor reacted angrily and said that the voters will speak to that on November 3rd and called the reporter a "disgrace". I actually think that Mike Bloomberg has been a very good mayor for the city of New York. There is something appealing about a man who has so much money that he cannot be bought by special interests and isn't beholden to the dogma of either national party. However, the downside of having a mayor who is basically above the fray means that he sometimes feels that he is above being questioned as well.

Mike Bloomberg was all for term limits when he ran for Mayor. Rudy Guliani had floated the idea that he be allowed to stay on to shepherd the city through six additional months in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy. Bloomberg was the first to quote the famous line about the cemeteries being filled with "indispensable" people. Of course he used exactly the same argument that Guliani did, by claiming that he was the only person qualified to lead the city through these difficult economic times. His master stroke was including the City Council in his plans.

He could have made his desire for another term known in more than enough time for it to be put on the ballot, but he knew the easiest path would be to skip the voters all together. The voters of this city had twice voted for term limits, but that did not matter to the mayor. By including the City Council in his plan, he allowed those already in office to basically vote to allow themselves to remain in office. The ridiculous argument floated by a lot of the City Council members was that if almost half of them were forced out due to term limits then the city would suffer because it would take the new members a few years to figure out what they were doing. This argument does not acknowledge the fact that in four years we will be faced with an entirely new City Council. If the argument was that experience matters, then in four years we will face a city council that will be 100% new. There will be no seasoned council men or women to mentor the new members. That does not seem to matter to the people currently on the Council and Bloomberg knew it wouldn't.

So the mayor stands poised to win a third term in November (along with large chuck of the City Council), which he will no doubt do with an overwhelming majority of the votes. There is simply no candidate who can stand up to the onslaught from a multi-billionaire mayor. And as King Michael oversees the land, he finds it an annoyance to answer questions that do not fit into his view of the world. King Michael is indifferent to the will of the people unless their will coincides with his desires. King Michael rules at his leisure and we his humble servants are fortunate to be able to bask in the glow of his magnificence. That reporter should count himself lucky that the words out of the king's mouth were "you're a disgrace" and not "off with his head".

Running Scared

Yesterday, the Senate handed President Obama a resounding defeat. They voted 90-6 against the funding for the closing of Gitmo. This astounding vote can only be described as an absolute victory for the Right wing fear machine. Since Obama announced that he was going to close Gitmo, the voices on the right have been screaming that this will certainly make us less safe. Republican representatives have been using every available pulpit to assert that they are not willing to take these dangerous detainees in their state prisons.

It seems almost laughable to hear the Right talk about these detainees as if they were master criminals from fiction. It would seem that we have everybody from the Joker to Lex Luther and they are just waiting for the opportunity to be on American soil so that they can reap havoc on the citizens of this country. The fact that we already have convicted terrorists in our prisons does not seem to matter to the Right. Those guys are apparently just the B team. The people we have in Gitmo are the real criminal masterminds. Never mind the fact that no one has ever escaped from a supermax prison, to hear the Right tell it, those super fortified detention centers are no match for the brilliant and devious minds of the detainees at Gitmo.

Before yesterdays vote, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California gave an impassioned speech in which she explained that the supermax detention centers in her state were more than capable of handling these detainees. She also said that she hoped that her fellow Senators had not been swayed by any words to the contrary. Of course she then went out and voted against the funding herself. Amazingly, this was not the most egregious action in the Senate yesterday. That prize would have to go to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. After having voted against the funding, he gave a press conference in which he stated that he didn't want these people released onto American streets. He was reminded by a reporter that the President wasn't talking about releasing anyone, but just transferring them. He responded that you can't put them in prison unless you release them??!?!?!?!?! I have no idea what he could have possibly meant, but when the leader of the Democrats in the Senate is spewing ridiculous right wing talking points, you know that something has gone terribly wrong.

Maybe I don't understand. Perhaps our federal prisons are as easy to get out of as jury duty. Who knows? I somehow find that hard to believe though. As stated before, we already have terrorists in our prisons. They have not managed to escape and unless we are bringing the inmates from Arkham asylum, I don't think that we'll have a mass escape any time soon. The Republicans love to play the politics of fear and this time it seems to have ensnared most of the Senate. I thought that the Democratic Senators were smarter than that, but then I tend to give people too much credit.

UPDATE: Here are the six brave souls who voted for the measure: Durbin (D-IL)Harkin (D-IA)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Reed (D-RI)Whitehouse (D-RI). They deserve our thanks.

Healthcare on life support

I just wanted to add my two cents to the healthcare article that SJ wrote. He always says it better than I do, but here are my thoughts. As we go to sleep tonight there are at least 48 million Americans without healthcare. I have only one question to ask to the 250 million Americans who are fortunate enough to have healthcare. Is that okay with you? Our current healthcare system was basically set up under the Nixon administration with the promise of providing quality healthcare to all Americans. Yet how can it be that more than twenty five years after the Nixon administration opened the gates for HMO's to decide the level of medical care we should receive, that there are more Americans without healthcare than ever.

There is a simple answer to that question. Medical coverage is now a matter of dollar and cents. The medical insurance companies are in the business of making money. Their bottom line is that they only make money if they take in more than they pay out. That means that they would like your insurance premiums to be more than the medical care that you are provided with for that year. Judging by immense profits that the medical insurance companies have been amassing over the last two decades, they have been doing a very good job at making sure the ledger balances in their favor.

When the former Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan was in front of a Congressional committee trying to explain what went wrong with Wall St., he said "I thought they would do the right thing". What he meant was that he thought that the people whose only job was to make as much money as they possibly could, would also take it upon themselves to police their own greed. That was akin to letting wolves loose in a hen house and expecting them to make sure that they left enough chickens alive so that everyone would have omelets the next morning. The health of Americans is now a "for-profit" enterprise. The insurance companies "do the right thing" by making sure that their profits are as big as possible. After all, they have stock holders to answer to. The health and well being of their policy holders is not their primary concern. They have thousands of people hard at work right now, trying to find a way to deny needed medical procedures for their policy holders. The system is now set up so that less medical help you get, the more money they get.

The "for-profit" system is what those fortunate enough to have coverage have to endure. The almost 50 million without health insurance have a different set of problems. While having insurance is not a guarantee that you won't end up tens of thousands of dollars in debt because of uncovered "experimental" treatments, or denied claims, or non pre-approved emergencies, but at least you usually get treated at the hospital. Try to show up at a hospital without medical coverage and see how you get treated. Hospitals have been known to try and ship people to other hospitals for emergency care because they don't have medical coverage. They have been known to put sick people in cabs and drop them off in the middle of the city because they don't have medical coverage. There is no such thing as preventative medicine for those without health insurance. A simple infection can turn deadly without proper treatment, but under the current system, those without coverage are almost destined for the more serious situation.

At the end of the day, the question has to be, what kind of country do we want to be? Do we want to be a country where we let children and the elderly die because of the lack of affordable medical care? Do we want to be a country where possible life saving treatments are denied because they hurt the bottom line? Our healthcare system is broken. The insurance companies, along with the American Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical companies seem hell bent and milking every penny possible from the pockets of the American workers. The lobbyists for the "Triangle of Terror" (that's my trademark, by the way), spend tens of millions of dollars every year to make sure that our representatives in Washington keep the gravy train rolling. I have always believed that we as a people are better than our current healthcare system would reflect. We are generous when people are in need. We spring to the aid of neighbors during time of crisis. We help strangers half way around the world that we will never meet. I simply cannot believe that the majority of Americans are happy with a system that holds human life as cheaply as our healthcare system does.

Is Universal healthcare possible in America? The answer is obviously yes. The American people cannot be afraid to do what's right. The opponents of healthcare reform will say that the government will now be deciding whether you get to have surgery. They will say that you will have to wait much longer for life saving treatments such as transplants. They will say that we are not socialist and that providing healthcare to everyone is a socialist idea. They will try and convince the majority of Americans that they currently get treated like they wealthy do and that reform will lead to them being treated like the poor are. If Americans were to closely examine the current system they would realize that they are already being treated like the poor. Healthcare reform is absolutely necessary for us to move forward as a world leader in this new century. The health of our citizens should not be one of those things that gets worse as time goes on, but somehow it is. We rank behind every developed nation in western hemisphere in life expectancy. We rate no better than in the thirties in overall infant mortality rates. We can do better and we must do better. There is a better way, we just have to demand it.

The Hail Mary Play

Dick Cheney has been touting the fact that President Obama has made the country less safe since about one month into his term. The former Vice President has made it clear that he thinks that the use of torture (that is plain English for the code words "enhanced interrogation techniques") is essential to the safety and well being of the citizens of this country. He has gone so far as to basically admit that he and former President Bush were not only aware of the torture program, but in fact green lighted the policy.

There are some who would say that his current media blitz is just Cheney's attempt to protect his legacy. There are others who would say that he is genuinely concerned about what he perceives to be a serious flaw in our national security. Cheney would probably say that he loves his country so much that he is willing to state his case regardless of the repercussions. However, I suspect that the real reason that notoriously press shy Cheney has suddenly made himself more available than a prostitute at Hunts Point is much more diabolical.

I believe that Dick Cheney goes to bed at night praying for another terrorist attack on the United States. He really see that as the only way that he will be fully vindicated. His mantra of "we kept America safe" can only fully appreciated if we are attacked again. Of course he conveniently washes over the fact that the worst terrorist attack in our history took place on his watch. In his mind, that fact is secondary to the "kept us safe" lie. He in fact repeats it so much that in his mind it's true. The 9/11 attacks weren't his fault. The fault for those attacks lays solely in the laps of the Clinton administration. In his mind the Bush administration started on 9/12/01. The discarding of the Bill of Rights, the subsequent breaking of international law, leading the country into an unwarranted war and the lies and deceptions that followed are all part of the "correct" way to run the country.

He prays that this country will suffer a devastating attack so that he will be able to say, "I told you so". He wants the country to recognize him as the ultimate patriot. He wants the American people to agree with him and say that our rights need to be sublimated in order to protect us from extremists. He wants the country to live in fear. He prays that future events will somehow vindicate him and the Bush administration in the eyes of history. He does not care what the cost in human lives may be. He does not care what the cost to the rule of law may be. He does not care what the cost to our reputation may be. He only cares about himself. There can be no other answer to someone whose current mission appears to be to undermine the current administration.

Words like treason and unpatriotic were thrown around whenever someone had the audacity to question the motives and actions of the Bush administration. It is almost comical to watch the other side of that equation. The far Right likes to wrap itself in the flag while attacking the current administration at every turn and throwing around words like secession and revolution. Dick Cheney is just the leading example of the most hypocritical element in our society. Political dissent is a critical part of our republic. It is necessary for the best ideas to come to the fore. However, Dick Cheney is not only expressing an opposing view (a view that in truth supports continued illegal activity), I believe that he is hoping that actual harm befall our nation. His legacy can only be rehabilitated by such an action and he knows it.

Muddy the Waters

The former Vice President has been on a damage control tour of talk shows to try and press his case for the use of torture against terrorist suspects. The Republicans and their talking heads have taken the tact of trying to accuse Nancy Pelosi of lying about knowing about the torture policy. Dick Cheney has even gone so far as to point the finger at former President Bush as having known about and approved of the torture policy. Dick Cheney's main point however is still that torture was an effective tool in preventing attacks on the United States.

The point as to whether torture was effective or not has become a main point of contention on both sides. I have stated in the past and will reiterate the point that the effectiveness of torture is not important. People being tortured will admit to almost anything. Dick Cheney and the Republicans have been successful in altering the national debate. Dick Cheney has admitted and we have documentation to prove that the Bush administration did in fact carry out a policy of torture. We have more than enough legal history to prove that the techniques approved and used by the Bush administration are indeed torture. If we accept that fact, then the conversation should not be about who knew what when, but who approved and initiated the program.

I have no doubt that Democrats like Jay Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi might have indeed been briefed on the techniques that were used. That is wholly beside the point. Even if they knew about the torture, they were in no position to do anything about it. The CIA briefings were classified and anyone in those meetings was bound, by law, not to talk about them. The less than esteemed former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, said that since Democrats have been in charge since 2007 they should have made Waterboarding illegal if they thought that it was so bad. Of course he forgets the point that waterboarding was illegal and continues to be illegal. There is no need to make any new laws to make it so.

The question of torture is a matter of law. There is no grey area. Claiming that some Democrats may have known about the practices does not make the use of those practices any less illegal. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If our leaders can decide to enforce only the laws that are convenient, then our system of government is not only corrupt, but invalid. Torture is illegal. The people who initiated a program of torture need to answer for their actions. That is it. Our nation's laws and international laws and treaties were violated in the name of the citizens of this country. It is the citizens themselves who should be demanding that the people who approved and initiated this illegal program of torture should be brought to justice. It is the people who have to adhere to the rule of law who should be outraged that their good name has been sullied by those in government. It is the people who have to rise up and shout that no one is above the law.