Do Repeal [Don't Ask]

Do Repeal [Don't Ask]

Tonight, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted through a provision allowing the Defense Departement to take action to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, the ban on openly gay men and women in the military. Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Obama are supportive of repealing the regulation that originated under President Clinton. The vote was 16-12, with Maine Senator Susan Collins the only Republican to vote for the provision.
As the bill continues on to the full Senate and eventually to the House, it is important to keep in mind why it is imperative the ban is lifted in the military. Thousands of American troops have been kicked out of the armed forces through Don't Ask Don't Tell. Just as, earlier in our nation's history, the military faced a major overhaul when it was desegregated, the armed forces must now end this discrimination of gay soldiers and allow all qualified people to serve together in the military. Even if this takes a long and bitter partisan fight, not unlike that of the sixties as segregation of races was called into question, this is a civil rights issue that deserves to be resolved. It is not patriotic to weaken our military by kicking out qualified soldiers, though it is what some politicians would have you believe. The ridiculous rebuttals offered by politicians to those who are attempting to support the administration in repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell only further clarify the necessity for imminent action. One Congressmen expressed concerns that the rule's repeal would result in "overt" sexual behavior in the military. The idea that gay men and women would encourage more "overt" sexual behavior in the armed forces than straight ones would is completely baseless, and relatively hypocritical. The endless stream of alleged and confirmed affairs of Congressmen demonstrates more "overt" sexual behavior than ever is heard of from the military.

Read more »

Top Kill: The Environmental Murder Mystery

Top Kill: The Environmental Murder Mystery

It's the classic whodunnit: a crime of massive scale was committed in the Gulf of Mexico, and all of the suspects have wildly blamed each other. The ramifications of the crime are sill being felt across the coast, and don't show signs of going away anytime soon.

In the Gulf of Mexico, sea-faring birds who once were brown are now a matted black, slick with oil. Beaches around the coast are punctuated by clumps of sand glued together in thick, greasy globs. Attempt after attempt has been made by BP and others to control and stop the spill. Today, the "top kill" method was employed, a last-ditch effort to clog the hole before the situation worsens. Top kill is a plan in which BP will bombard the hole with heavy "drilling mud" in an attempt to end the flow of oil. If this is effective, cement will be sent on top of the mud, hopefully binding the site permanently.

As President Obama embarks on a trip to Louisiana to assess the damage, it is imperative that a closer look is taken of those who were supposed to be regulating BP's off-shore drilling habits. Regulators at the Department of the Interior allowed BP to drill at an ocean depth that, while profitable to oil companies, is completely unsafe for the environment. If something goes wrong that far into the ocean, there is virtually nothing that can be done to reverse it.
Moreover, BP's rig wasn't anywhere near the deepest drilling. Oil companies are allowed by the US government to drill at much lower depths in the sea than BP did. If the BP spill is difficult to fix, imagine the position America would be in if a disaster occurred at two, five, or ten times the depth. 

Read more »

Quote 5/27/10

Quote 5/27/10

Whoopie Goldberg       

"You've got to vote for someone. It's a shame, but it's got to be done."

Read more »

What We Can't Forget

What We Can't Forget

This year, domestic issues have been the champions of the national discussion. From the health care debate and the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Wall Street debacle and the BP oil spill, the American conversation has been, quite rightfully, basically dominated by domestic problems. However, it is imperative that the foreign conflicts the US is involved in around the world are not forgotten by the American public.
As North and South Korea grow more polarized this week, world news have made a slight return to the American media. Still, when was the last time you heard a serious news report about the Iraqi conflict? After all of the controversy last year about a surge, Afganistan and Pakistan are no longer major news presences.
What does a lack of world coverage mean for America? Americans will become completely uninformed about our nation's international interactions if this pattern continues. Without an informed public, democracy could fail, for no outrage over poor decisions will act as a check over the government.
Pseudo-foreign policy issues could return the international conflicts to the spotlight.  As Don't Ask Don't Tell is discussed more frequently, it's possible that stories about the international conflicts will follow. However, this is not guaranteed. It's possible that we will continue to simply hear stories about our national debates- which are very important, but do not excuse the absence of an entire faction of news.
This isn't to say that foreign news has disappeared completely. Some stations and papers do a better job than others, but, as a whole, foreign reporting has decreased- and not just over the past bit of time. This is a trend that has been on this path for decades.
There is no way to impart how important it is for the American public to be educated about foreign issues. America is seriously involved in many parts of the world- and not just in the Middle East. If Americans do not know fully about their country's actions, there is no way for the federal government to have a proper check on it. Without a proper check, America will become a country with unrestrained executive power.

Read more »

Primaries (Part One)

Primaries (Part One)

As campaign season looms before us, we will take a look at the initial primary results as a gauge for the attitude of the nation and as foreshadowing for midterms. 
Pennsylvania 
Democratic primary: former party-switcher Arlen Specter was defeated by Joe Sestak in this week's primary. Spector had been a Republican for nearly thirty years but decided to caucus as a Democrat last April. Spector's loss was not exactly shocking, as his idealogical switch was highly controversial at the time. If Sestak, a major advocate of Wall Street reform, wins the general election, the PA seat will have become decisively more liberal, although it would not change the party holdings in the Senate.
Republican primary: Pat Toomey, previously a member of the House of Representatives, gained the support of the GOP in his race for the PA Senate seat. Toomey would certainly swing the seat to the right, and he has already begun to paint his challenger as a Washington insider, as compared to his time in Pennsylvania.
Special Election: Late Representative John Murtha's seat was also contested this week. The seat stayed in the hands of the Democratic party, whose candidate, Mark Critz, defeated Republican Tim Burns. The race was seen by many to be an indicator of how the midterms will play out.
Kentucky 
Democratic primary: Jack Conoway, the state's Attorney General, won over Kentucky Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo, both moderates. Mongiardo had run for the US Senate unsuccessfully in the past, and Conoway had similar results in his prior bid for the House.
Republican primary: Conservative Republican and son of failed presidential candidate Ron Paul, Rand Paul, overtook Trey Grayson, Kentucky Secretary of State, in the GOP primary. Paul is viewed by many to by extremely conservative, a point his new challenger has already begun to capitalize upon.
Arkansas 
Democratic primary: Due to overly close and severed votes, a runoff election will be held between incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln, who was the youngest woman to be elected to the US Senate, and Lt. Governor Bill Halter. The Arkansas seat has been held by a Democratic candidate for over 130 years.
Republican primary: Representative John Boozman fought for and won the GOP primary. He will be facing tough opposition by whoever wins the Democratic run-off and will have a difficult time swinging a liberal state. Still, discontent with Senator Lincoln's positions may prove a blessing for Boozman as voters turn to other solutions.

Read more »

Quote 5/19/10

Quote 5/19/10

Robert Kennedy

"All do not develop in the same manner, or at the same pace. Nations, like men, often march to the beat of different drummers, and the precise solutions of the United States can neither be dictated nor transplanted to others. What is important is that all nations must march toward increasing freedom; toward justice for all; toward a society strong and flexible enough to meet the demands of all its own people, and a world of immense and dizzying change."

Read more »

Why Regulation Matters

Why Regulation Matters

When corporations make seemingly wrong or immoral decisions, such as the bad investments allegedly sold by Goldman-Sachs or the massive bonuses given by failing, taxpayer reliant banks during the height of the financial crisis, Americans tend to blame these companies. However, no matter how horrifically immoral these private interests act, they are just that- private, for-profit businesses. They act as expected, in the best interest of their profits. It is not their responsibility to act with appreciation for the American consumer of the US economy; rather, it is the job of regulators. Irresponsible and immoral action by corporations is the fault of poor regulation and of regulators who do not fulfill their jobs.
Due to the privatized nature of the American economy, there is a paramount need for the US government to protect consumers. It is important that regulators are conscientious and unbiased judges for the American people, unlike those involved in the companies they regulate, like members of both the Treasury Department and the Department of Interior.
The 2008 economic crisis was a result of un-meticulous regulation by the federal government. The mining disaster in West Virginia could have been prevented if regulations had been stricter. If, historically, oil companies were better restricted, the BP oil spill would not have been so incredibly massive.

Critics call strong regulation overreaching by the federal government. However, it is the very job and nature of the US government to protect consumers, and, often, through regulation. Created “for the people, by the people”, it is the responsibility of the people’s government to act on behalf of and protect its citizens, whether this is from outside forces or from the nation’s own companies. The only way the American government can fully do this is to actively advocate and regulate.

Read more »