My Real Politik

Racism? Or Perspective?

A recent email forwarded by Orange County GOP official Marilyn Davenport depicting President Obama's face on the body of a monkey has sparked outrage from the California NAACP. The photo included the caption "Now you know why no birth cirtificate."

At first glance the racial tone is pretty glaring and offense, but consider this image that was widely circulated about five years ago:

Where was the moral outrage over this depiction? (You'd think at least one or two animal rights groups would have taken offense to the comparison...)

It's pretty interesting to note the stark contrast in reactions from one image to the other. A black man depicted this way strikes such an uncomfortable chord for America at large, espcially coming from a political opposition that has been battling the scarlette-R of racism for decades.  

In my opinion, either image circulated by a party official is in pretty poor taste. It never ceases to amaze me how juvenile the political environment can be.

Yet I can't help but feel the racial double standard here is distracting our attention from the value of satire itself. If you laughed at the image of Bush when he was president then why is the Obama image any more offensive and less acceptible? Is there really inherent racism here or is it oversensitiveness on the part of the "politically correct?"

I honestly have no answer to that question. I felt the sting of ignorance when I saw Davenport's email and never thought twice about offensive implications of the Bush monkey business. Isn't that an unfair double standard? Are we really willing to draw a racial divide between what forms of humor are acceptible and what forms aren't based solely of our own sensitive political climate?

Isn't humor expected to call into question the boundaries of acceptibility? If we're really serious racial equality then we need to be able to laugh at ourselves. So why so serious?

"The Repeal Amendment:" Supporting A Conservative Cause

As I was brousing through the conservative blogosphere, I came a cross an interesting article "Voter Anger Fuels Support for 'Repeal Amendment.'"

Voter anger and Republican promotion has given some steam to what is being dubbed the "Repeal Amendment" which is a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would allow a vote of two thirds of the states to repeal any act of Congress. According to the article, the proposed Amendment has already been ratified by nine state legislatures (it would require 33 states to petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention on the amendment) and is gaining traction in other states. 

More information on the proposal was hard to find- a general Google search found very little references outside the Daily Caller, which is considered to be a conservative counter to The Huffington Post. Outside of a host website, there's very little explanation as to how this Amendement would even work and exactly what acts of Congress this would apply to (ie. could the states repeal a Declaration of War or a Military Appropriations bill or a Fiscal Budget?). I haven't even been able to dig up the actual language of the Amendment, short of a one-paragraph explanation. 

Support for this proposal is coming primarily fron conservative and Tea Party groups and has been fueled by the backlash against the Health Reform package passed earlier this year. For my money though, the idea is a pretty damn good one and one more Americans should take a serious consideration of. This might be one of the first real proposals to give a legitimate checks and balances option to the general public, rather then relying on the government to police itself. 

To the liberals that might be balking at the idea, I'd ask you to look past the adversity to Health Reform and consider how valuable this Amendment would have been when the original Bush tax cuts were passed, or when the TARP action was passed, or the Iraq War.

Allotting more power and control over the federal government to state and local governments is not a primarily conservative ideal, it is an American one. Federalism is part of our foundation and even a progressive like myself can appreciate the very real threat that an over obtrusive government can have on civil liberties.

We need to get past this notion of supporting government when our affiliate party is in control and opposing government when the opposition is in power- I've seen too man liberal thinkers support policies coming out of the Obama administration and a Democratic Congress that they easily would have vilified had they been passed under during the Bush presidency. It's too easy to forget where the line is drawn between good government and too much government when you're content to be in the driver's seat.

Soon we will have a Republican President and a Republican Congress and after that the pendulum will swing back to the left and repeat. The only thing standing between the American people and bad government, regardless of party, is the will and consent of the governed. If we're able to give more weight to that consent, then that's something I can support regardless of which party is proposing it. 

One BIG Reason the Deficit Will Be Hard to Crack

As the White House appointed Debt Commission chairs gave early indications of what significant government spending changes might be recommended in the coming months, Republicans are going to have a very difficult balancing act to do.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the special interest group with the largest gains in Congress this season were Retirees, the majority of whom tend to vote Republican. Retired groups gained favor with twenty new seats in Congress, followed closely by Leadership PACs (which are literally institutionalized nepotism) with twelve new seats. 

I am not trying to paint a picture of Republican failure here but I am trying to point out that Republicans will find themselves in the very difficult position of attempting to rein in government spending without threatening the two elephants in the room- Medicare and Social Security. 

Add to that the ironic reality the Republicans will inevitably be forced to defend two of this country's most socialist programs and you have a very peculiar situation. With the Tea Party now having a hand in the Republican machine with Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, it will be interesting to see how their fiscally conservative platform will play into the debate. 

Extending the Bush Tax Cuts through next year or making them permanent are also a hard sell when it comes to deficit spending- over the last decade those tax cuts have accumulated over $3 Trillion in debt and will continue to do so if they are made permanent. 

It remains to be seen what will happen with the 112th Congress, which will be home to the most freshmen in over half a century- sixteen new Senators and ninety three new Congressmen, but one thing is for sure, it could prove to be the most politically interesting session in some time and have drastic implications for this nation's future. 

Debt Commission: Early Signs of the Battle Ahead

The White House's Debt Commission Report isn't due out yet, but the Committee's two chairmen, former Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles are releasing recommendations today.

The idea is to cut $4 Trillion from the deficit by 2020 and knock the debt-GDP ratio down to 2.2% by 2015 (we're roughly at 10%).

Here are some of the highlights:

• Roll discretionary spending back to FY2010 levels for FY2012, requires 1% cut in discretionary budget authority every year from FY2013 though 2015
•  Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year by reducing direct payments and other subsidies
•  Achieve $100 billion in Illustrative Defense Cuts;
•  Index retirement age for Social security to increases in longevit:. "This option is projected to increase the age by one month every two years after it reaches 67 under current law, meaning the normal retirement age would reach 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075." There will be a "hardship exemption" for those unable to work beyond 62
•  Give retirees the choice of collecting half their benefits early and the other half at a later age to minimize impact of actuarial reduction and support phased retirement options;
•  Reduce corporate tax rate to 26% and permanently extend the research credit
•  Gradually increase gas tax to fund transportation spending.
•  Reduce Congressional & White House budgets by 15 percent
•  Freeze federal salaries, bonuses, and other compensation at non-defense agencies for three years
•  Cap the number of federal political appointments at 2,000
•  Eliminate the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools
•  Eliminate all earmarks.
•  Reduce unnecessary printing costs

In the end, Medicare and Social Security cuts will be crucial to this plan which has already caused a number of Democrats and Republicans to balk at the proposal. The report still needs to be ratified by 14 of 18 members of the committee and won't be due for some time yet- it remains to be seen if these measures will garner the necessary 14 votes. Significant cuts to any major social program can be a nightmare for Democrats and cuts to Medicare and Social Security will garner severe unrest among older Republican voters. 

Here enlies the irony of a public demanding fiscal responsibility while being unwilling to compromise their own dependance on government dollars. 

For better or worse, the Obama Administration has already proven willing to stand behind legislation that may not be popular with voters if they feel it is the right couse for the country take. However, many Democrats lost their seats in Congress for supporting the President's major Health Reform legislation, so they may not be willing to jump on board another bandwagon when Republicans are poised to be in the driver's seat. Yet, it seems rather pointless to appoint a committee to solve our budget problems if we're unwilling to follow their recommendations and even more pointless to consider them if the Congress doesn't have the nerve to enact legitimate fiscal restraint. 

Time will tell what the end result of this report will be, however it is at least comforting to know that potential solutions are on the table. 

 usgovernmentspending.com

Top Brands: Dems vs. Reps

I have to say I was rather startled and fascinated by a recent study conducted by YouGov on brand loyalty broken down by political leanings. 

Republicans' number one brand? Fox News Channel

Democrats number one brand? Google

As if that weren't enough to paint an interesting picture in your mind, how about the History Channel being Republicans' number two while Discovery Channel was the Democratic top channel at number three. 

Much of the brands in the top ten are similar, but I think there's something rather telling in each top company- Fox News vs. Google. I'll let that simmer for a bit.

Politics, Basketball, and Iran: Where is the Media?

As I walked into work this morning, I overheard on the television "the U.S. is really trying to blow Iran out of the water right now!" I nearly spit out my tea dreading the discovery that the U.S. had secretly launched a covert attack against Iran. What I saw was something very different.

Today, the U.S. basketball team took on Iran in the FIBA World Championships.

And I bet you had no idea.

I sure as heck hadn't. In fact, a google search for "US Iran FIBA" found only two serious mentions: one from the International Basketball Federation's own site, and one article from Sports Illustrated. There was a one-paragraph mention buried in the blogs section of CNN. 

Where was FNC? MSNBC? CBS? NBC? The New York Times? From what I found, there has been zero mention of this game in any of the major news outlets.

Now granted, this isn't the World Cup and it would be hard to garner a whole lot of major interest in the World Basketball Championships. But a game between the United States and Iran? That's pretty interesting and truthfully, rather inspiring to see two teams able to set aside politics and play basketball on the world stage. 

The Minister of Sports for Iran, Ali Aseedlou, put it quite nicely: "We try to improve our sports and make a better society for sports. We think about the sport only. This is not politics." 

In 1980, when the United States' olympic hockey team took on Russian at the height of the cold war during what would later become known as the "miracle on ice," the story was huge. Countless articles and films have come to tell the story of that game (Rocky IV even takes cures from that game) and the International Ice Hockey Federation chose that game as the number-one hockey story of the century. 

Have we become so complacent that stories of "politics aside" no longer are of interest to the American media? Or are there more insidious motivations here?  

I for one, regardless of the outcome of the game (we're currently winning 64-39), want to congratulate both teams and salute anyone who can look beyond our differences and share in our common interests- the love of a game. 

Scientific Report Once Again Refutes Government Claims on Oil Spill

Carol Browner, special adviser to the president for energy and climate change, told NBC's Today Show last Wednesday that government scientists' initial assessment showed "more that three-quarters of the oil [in the gulf] is gone. The vast majority of the oil is gone." The federal National Incident Command, which has been coordinating the Gulf cleanup, has said that of the 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, half had been safely burned off, skimmed, or recovered and another 25% had evaporated. 

Yet, researchers this week at the University of Georgia are reporting that as much as 79% of the oil released into the Gulf has not been recovered and continues to threaten the ecosystem. Another report from the University of South Florida has concluded that dispersed oil have drifted to the ocean floor and are turning up much further east then previously expected. 

Samantha Joye, a marine biologist at UGa has also stated that the government has additionally failed to account for hydrocarbons in the water: "Methane and other gases aren't being documented." 

Additionally, according to CNN, attempts to permanently seal the Deepwater well have also been delayed as new concerns over pressure risks have kept plans at bay. 

This is not the first time government reports on the spill have conflicted with the scientific community- previously the government had initially reported alongside BP that the well had been leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day. After scientific scrutiny, this was eventually amended to 53,000 barrels a day. 

According to a recent politifact report, Browner's statements were more of a "glass is half full" statement then an actual statement of fact. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report, on which Browner's assessment was based, could also be "interpreted as indicating that 50 to 75% of the oil [still] remains in the environment." 

In the end, while not surprised, I am continually disturbed by this administration's continuous attempt to sugar coat the greatest environmental disaster this country has ever seen. An event which should have served as a catalyst for major environmental reform has been converted into a farcical hodgepodge of distorted facts, dagger fingers and devastated livelihoods.  

Prop 8 Ruling: Unconstitutional

Today Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in favor of gay rights activists citing that Prop 8, the CA voter approved ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. 

"Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined."

 The California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2008 but voters outlawed it just months later with the approval of Proposition 8. Prop 8 has been a matter of contention since it's proposal and gay rights activists have been battling it in court ever since. 

 Walker's ruling impacts some 18,000 same-sex couples who were legally married in 2009 and is expected to move on to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then possibly the Supreme Court.

Mayor Bloomberg Defends Building of Muslim Community Center

Mayor

If you're not pissed off at big oil yet, READ THIS (and if you are, read it anyway)

At what point will people stop fooling themselves and open their eyes to the fact that relying on century-old fuel technology is detrimental to our very survival?

On April 20th, the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico soon to become to worst environmental disaster in American history. Ironically, the disaster occurred just a month after President Obama proposed opening up new coastal land for oil prospecting permits. The spill leaked 2.5 million gallons of oil into the gulf every day for almost a hundred days- that's roughly a quarter of a billion gallons of oil leaked into the Gulf.

As the Gulf Oil spill has brought world wide shame onto British Petroleum, tanking their stock and leading CEO Tony Hayward to resign on Tuesday, Democrats in the House and Senate rolled out their bi-partisan legislative responses only to have Republicans and "blue dog" Democrats balking at several contentious provisions. Republicans have condemned the proposed elimination of the liability cap for oil companies in light of a spill, as well as a hike in the amount of insurance capital a company is required to put up for a drilling permit.

The oil industry, which has not been reformed in over thirty years, has it's defenders. They claim that the Deepwater Horizon is a rare case, that the vast majority of oil rigs are safe and that the endemic risk of an oil spill is still considerably low. So why burden the industry with draconian regulation and environmental protections?

Exhibit A:

Cedyco Corp's Well Spill in Barataria Bay, LA on Tuesday, July 27th

Result: still uncapped

Flow Rate: Officials have yet to release this information (1994 statistics cite 44 barrels/day)

Amount of oil spilled: Unknown

Official U.S. Coast Guard photo

Exhibit B:

Enbridge Oil Spill, Kalamazoo River, Michigan on Monday, July 26th

Result: Capped within a day, cleanup continuing

Amount spilled: 1 million gallons

Exhibit C:

Enbridge Oil Spill, Pembina County, North Dakota in January

Result: Capped, cleanup continuing

Amount spilled: 126,000 gallons

Ehibit D:

Enbridge Explosion in Clearbrook, Minnesota on November 28th, 2007

Result: 2 deaths, $2 million in damages

Exhibit E:

BP Refinery Explosion in Texas City, Texas on March 23, 2005

Result: 15 deaths, 170 injuries

These spills represent only a handful of some of the more publicized spills, and nearly every oil company  has been cited numerous times by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Association: BP has been cited 58 times since 2002, Enbridge has been cited 31 times, Chevron 52 tims, and Exxon 44 times.

In light of the disastrous collusion between big oil and the MMS, it's hard to paint any nice picture of the oil regulatory bodies. What good does citing a company do if you can get 52 citations? If I got 52 speeding tickets I'd probably be thrown in jail and my license would be suspended forever.

And, just to drop the cherry onto of this multi-billion dollar mass polluting pile of F-you, the American taxpayer has been subsidizing the oil, gas, and coal industries to the tune of $2+ billion every year. And just this week, BP announced it planned to claim nearly $10 billion in tax rebates next year to account for the cost of the cleanup in the Gulf. 

So god damit, write you Senators and your Representatives and tell them to stop peddling for this industry or they will be seeking unemployment in November.