Recently in the incompetence of our leaders Category

Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch amendment, effectively killing the Amendment.  The vote was 54:45, which was not the landslide victory everyone reported.  Although Democrats only needed 51 votes to defeat the Amendment, I think it's a sad state that they only managed to get 3 others to vote for tabling the amendment.  Two of those votes were from Republicans, Snow and Collins (both from Maine).  

It should also be noted that several Democrats voted against tabling the Amendment and spoke in favor of the amendment during the floor debate.  Senator Casey (D-Pa) comes to mind with his awful 10 minute speech about why the Nelson-Hatch amendment was such a wonderful thing and why we should all be sucking Hatch's dick.  

You can see who voted for and against tabling (remember, for tabling= good) here.

But, if you can't wait to click and see, here's the down and dirty on the Democrats who were fine with Nelson-Hatch Amendment and voted against tabling:

Bayh (IN)
Casey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Kauffman (DE)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)

Special thanks to those Democratic Senators who made some brilliant and impassioned arguments on the floor:

Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
and Feinstein (CA) (who did not become involved until the very end, but as the saying goes "better late than never")

Of course, as much as I liked the fact that these particular senators raised good arguments, I am still disappointed that no one came out against the Hyde Amendment.  The rhetoric from both sides of the debate was that the Hyde Amendment is well settled policy.  Hmm, that's interesting: the Hyde Amendment was particularly controversial in 1977, and many organizations think the Hyde Amendment is horrible policy.  Where is this idea that it is well settled policy? 

And let me add one final thought: the Democrats have a super-majority.  There is no reason why the party should be bowing to Republican or conservative rhetoric.  Oh, but wait, I forgot-- there are lots of Democrats now that side with Republicans.  Does anyone else see a mythical creature emerging-- one with a donkey's head and an elephant's behind?    

This past Wednesday, Time Magazine published this article  that portrayed Obama as scaling back Bush's AIDS initiative.  Now before I start on my rant about how incorrect this article is, I have to admit that PEPfAR was a pretty neat thing; a commitment to spend more than $15 billion to combat HIV/AIDS over five years is great.  But I refuse to ooze thanks to former President Bush like most world leaders did at the time-- I do not feel the need to congratulate our former President in the same way I would give a high-five to a two year old for eating without getting peas in his hair.  PEPfAR was a long time coming, and it was the least he could do after screwing our nation in his eight years of presidency.     

In our world today, over 33.4 million are HIV positive, but only 4 million have access to HIV or AIDS treatment. In the U.S. alone, it is estimated that 1 million people are HIV positive, but that only a third of those individuals actually know their diagnosis.  In fact, between 2001-2005, HIV transmission rate increased 17% in people ages 50 and older.  Although black and Hispanic women represent 24% of all women in the United States, these two groups account for 82% (almost 9 million) of the estimated total AIDS diagnoses for women in 2005.

Knowing these facts, let's take a look at what former President Bush did for our nation.  Oh that's right, one of his first acts in office was to institute the Global Gag Rule, a policy that prohibited federal funding for abortion services.  Although it was limited to abortions, the Global Gag Rule effectively shut down many family planning operations worldwide, as many family planning clinics were in some way associated with providing for abortion care.  Result? Most women in developing nations who relied on U.S. funded family planning programs had nowhere to go-- no maternal health, no reproductive health screening or treatment, and yes, no access to STD or HIV/AIDS treatment or testing. 

Then there was also the infamous birth of Title V, an Act that would ensure that federal dollars only be used for abstinence-only education.  I can easily create a whole new blog on abstinence-only education, so I'll make this short: abstinence-only education is ineffective through and through.  Telling youth to save themselves for marriage is not a a life-long message.  First, this mantra seems to forget that even when you are married, you can get STDs/HIV-- as far as I know, marriage does not equal fidelity. (*cough* Sen. Mark Sanford (R-SC) *cough*) Second, it only preaches to those, who at the time, identify as heterosexual.  Sadly, same-sex marriage has not been accepted in many states.  And, finally, abstinence-only education has been criticized for giving incorrect information to our youth; for instance, informing school children that condoms are more ineffective than they are effective. 

During his presidency, Bush also blocked federal funding from needle-exchange programs.  It wasn't until 2008 when Democrats reached a super majority that federally funding was restored to needle-exchange programs. 

Yay President Bush-- you destroyed so many worthwhile programs, but made up for it by creating PEPfAR!  It's like you're curious George: you always come through in the end.  Oh, and P.S., good job for also getting through that sentence without stumbling!

Now let's look at our current President.  One of Obama's first acts in office was repealing the Global Gag Rule.  Then he abolished Title V in an effort to put federal funding back into comprehensive sexual health education (although Sen. Hatch (R-UT) was able to pass an amendment through the Senate finance committee that would restore $50 million to abstinence-only education).  Next, he lifted the travel ban for HIV positive individuals, so that the U.S. could be an integral player in the fight against HIV/AIDS.  And finally, this past month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended that Medicare coverage extend to cover HIV screening and treatment.  The coverage was extended in early November, which will provide HIV screening and coverage for youth, pregnant women and individuals over age age of 65.  

So, Time, I just have to ask-- what were you thinking when you published that article?

A commitment to end HIV/AIDS is a political movement.  It means acknowledging that people are sexual beings and openly discussing sexuality in a way that would encourage healthy sexual activity and create treatments for those who have been infected with STDs.  It means not blaming someone for engaging in "risky" sexual activity, or blaming someone for addiction to intervenous drugs.  It means that we are looking for equality in the most basic human function: the right to livelihood. 

In addition, when you commit to combating AIDS, it means that are asking for universal healthcare for anyone regardless of age, race, gender or sexuality.  It means that you are asking that individuals receive the treatment necessary to survive, or that they receive the education they need so that they can make well-informed decisions.  You are asking for an overhaul of our private healthcare system and our educational initiatives.  This is not a feel good movement-- this should be something that makes you upset that in 2009, almost a good 20 years after our government began to recognize the AIDS epidemic, that only bare minimum has been done to combat this infectious disease.

I fully believe that if Bush had not been our president, we could have shaved 8 years off of that 20 year mark.  Instead, Obama now has to make up for Bush's horrible policies and then some.  Let's credit Obama for what he's doing to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic...and then demand that he do even more.

I had the great luck to be in downtown Chicago the night that Sen. Barack Obama was widely and fairly elected to the office of the President of the United States, which is probably the crappiest job anyone could accept at this moment in time. For that, I offer my congratulations and condolences.

There was an air of energy, especially as the news was good. People were smiling, waving flags, pallin' around with tourists (ha. ha.). Some people got messages on their cell phones (I must have gotten 20), while others excitedly asked complete strangers what the electoral college count was. All the cops were out, streets were blocked, and from where I was enjoying a cocktail on the 96^th floor of the John Hancock building above the twilight, Chicago was beautiful.

I, of course, didn't vote this election. To be honest, I was one of the undecided. I felt that both of the candidates had their good and bad points. I think that McCain is not as Bush-like as he was made out to be, but shot himself in the foot when he chose Palin for a running mate. I think that Obama is not as socialist as he was made out to be, but I had a few contentions with him as well.

I'm feeling increasingly discontent with a two-party system that pretends to be dichotomous but is actually centrist. Neither of the two major parties fits my ideals with any kind of accuracy, so I'm growing weary of these red/blue choices and conservative/liberal ideologies. But, thankfully, this two year election is finally over. I have to admit that I'm feeling a little empty. A little on the fringe of the excitement that radiated like a doppler from Grant Park last night.

I am still overwhelmed by how excited people were. People were crying. In my short history, I don't remember anyone crying for the election of a President in a good way. People were literally hopping up and down. People were screaming and they were hugging their friends and family.

A part of me was very skeptical of this reaction. Like the wallflower in the corner of a party that doesn't quite fit in with the scene. I think it's very wonderful that Obama is our first black and only minority president. I can't believe we've been stuck with middle-aged WASPs since Washington (excluding Kennedy, who I guess was a WASC). I hope that his nomination to the presidency will add to the dialogue and healing of racial barriers in this country. I think it's wonderful that George W. Bush will finally be going back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to cut wheat or eat beef jerky or whatever he does. Who wouldn't jump for joy at the fact that a man who has supported and bred one failed policy after another, who really should have never been elected once, let alone twice, will finally be moving out of the White House. (Please, Mr. Bush, stay away from politics. And no lectures or books, either.)

Now, here comes my very large "however."

I am very concerned that this excitement places the entire American voting population (highest ever) in a very precarious position. Excitement like this creates high expectations, mandates, and hopes. And we, as a public, cannot expect one man and his administration to alone solve our problems. I do not want the energized electorate to become discouraged when change does not come quickly. The American voters tend to have short memories, and shorter patience. Please give President Obama a chance. He is cursed with what may be the worst handover in the history of this nation.

I am very concerned that our government will remain highly partisan, divisive, and bound by our false R/D dichotomy (for more on my feelings on this, please see my previous post, "where's my think tank?"). The downfall and party backlash of the Republicans, if you'll remember, happened when the Republicans held a majority in all branches of the government. This is exactly what our forefathers did not want to happen.

I am very concerned that the two-party system will continue to restrict the flow of ideas, policy, and social activism that is needed in modern times. Consider this quote from a recurring third-party candidate, Ralph Nader. "It would be a three-way race if I'd been in the debates," Nader said Tuesday in an interview. If the networks and newspapers had covered him, he said, his poll numbers would have gone up and the Commission on Presidential Debates would have had to include him. "We documented the two-party dictatorship, we've won ballot access and we've educated a lot of people about what politics should be about," he said. Nader was on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia (this material was borrowed from this article).

I'm not saying you have to vote for third-party candidates just because they are third party candidates. But please stop ignoring politicians that don't have an 'R' or 'D' behind their name. Hell, maybe Barack Obama doesn't really deserve the D behind his name, and did it out of a necessity to win.

Here's a dream I wrote about a month ago:

I met Barack Obama in my dream last night!  I really liked him, and we were at some charity fundraiser. Oddly, there weren't a lot of people there.  I really was conflicted on who to vote for, being that my views aren't represented by either major party.  I didn't get a chance to ask him my question, but I saw my political science teacher from high school and told him to ask Obama this: "If you get elected, what processes or policies will you change to ensure that third party candidates can legitimately and seriously run for political office?" 

I hope that Obama will help do that.  That's the change I'm looking for. 

And Probably Yours Too


None of us are taking this seriously enough. 

I was talking to a friend of mine online about a month ago.  She is very a very competent law student that does a good job keeping up with current affairs.  We were talking about the warrantless wiretapping.  I was explaining to her what is at issue here, that they didn't just hand over "suspected terrorists" (whatever those are) but the random correspondence of American citizens. 

Her response was, "it is a good thing we are having this conversation online."

Uh, not quite.  It is a terrible thing we are having this conversation online.  Because AT&T, the very company that is accused of handing this information over to the government, provides the internet where I work, where I was having this conversation.  In fact where I am typing this right now. 

But she still didn't seem to get what I was saying---that this is not a safe conversation.  And since she is one of the smartest, has-her-shit-together of my friends I think it is likely that many people aren't getting this.  So I am going to lay it out as simply as possible.

First:  The EFF is suing AT&T, this much everyone has heard.  What exactly do they mean by "warrantless wiretapping"?  It is very simple.  It means that AT&T couldn't be bothered to keep track of those people who the feds had warrants to search and those who they didn't. 

They took all the content that was traversing their fibre optic cables, every email and text message and phone call, THE WHOLE EFFING PIPE and they split it.  Thus all communication from AT&T is also going to a secret room accessible only to the NSA.

Please note the use of the present tense.  Because this is still happening.  There has been no freeze on what appears to be a very clear violation of the fourth amendment.  You don't have to have AT&T for this to apply.  Can you say for sure that no one you are emailing or calling has AT&T?  Of course not.  It is more likely that they do.  Ask around.  Know anyone with an Iphone?  Maybe it is time to ask them politely not to call you anymore.  Certainly don't email me, I have just confessed as an AT&T user.  But even this is ridiculous.  Just because AT&T got caught doesn't mean the other companies aren't doing the exact same thing. 
View image
Of course none of this has been proven in a court of law, it is only a court case at this point and everyone gets the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty.  But don't take my word for it.  The engineer that hooked up the data stream put it this way:

"My job was to connect circuits into the splitter device which was hard-wired to the secret room, and effectively, the splitter copied the entire data stream of those internet cables into the secret room--and we're talking about phone conversations, email web browsing, everything that goes across the internet."  [This short video is worth watching.]

In my mind, this is bigger than Clinton's lie under oath, possibly bigger than Water Gate.  You upset about an administration that is lying to the American public?  Try lying to the American public and spying on them too.  It is very important that this case be allowed to continue so that the people understand what is at stake and those responsible are brought to justice. 

And there is no reason it shouldn't continue.  It's not like the House and Senate will get together and pass a bill giving them a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. The Congress wouldn't do that, they don't get involved in legislative affairs!  That's unheard of!..Oh, wait, that's exactly what they're doing. The Senate is passing a bill today that will give retroactive immunity to AT&T.  It already passed in the House.  "Retroactive immunity" is a fancy phrase that took me a while to wrap my head around.  It means that even if they broke the law, it's okay, we forgive them.  And it will kill the lawsuit.  Nothing to sue for. 

Why on Earth would they do this?  Everyone is shaking hands, saying what a great compromise this is.  Really, I listened to all two hours of it on C-span.  Those opposed were of the tone "This bill scares me to death..."  Those in favor spent their debate time with congratulatory messages, "I'd like to thank Representatives Bob and Jane for making this possible..." I'm not joking, that was really the gist of it.  There was no real argument for why the bill is a great compromise. It is more capitulation than compromise, here's a great fact sheet from Senator Russ Feingold for the scary details.  But in my mind, as long as retroactive immunity is on the table, this bill is totally unacceptable, unthinkable. 

The argument in favor says that they were only following orders so AT&T shouldn't be held responsible.  Give me a break.  No one pointed a gun at their heads.  They broke the law and now the Democratic Congress that we elected is giving them a free ride, and probably the administration too. You can be sure this is going to impact Kucinich's Impeachment bill.  How convenient that the court case that will undoubtably bring attention to the Bush Administration's trampling of the Constitution will be swept under the rug, along with the Fourth Amendment.  Wait a second, if the Democrats are rushing to the aid of the Republicans than who is supposed to be representing the people that want the Republicans out of office? 

On that note, the latest turn in this sickening display of blantant cronyism is the about-face from Senator Obama.  When he was trying to get the support of lefties he said he would fillibuster the FISA bill.  Today he announced he is backing it.  I thought I would have a few months of bliss before the luster wore off the man who gleams like a trophy on the podium.  I take little consolation in seeing those who support Mr. Obama to the point of worship change their position over night, simply because he has.

What we are looking right now is the death nell of privacy in the United States.  You may think that what you are writing is not interesting to the NSA but please don't think for a second it is not being read by the NSA.  No digital love note, no treasonist utterance, no meeting agenda, no late-night web-surfing, is safe.  Sure, they still need a warrant to knock on your door and rifle through your file cabinet and your underwear drawer.  But these days most of us keep our tax forms and our lingerie digitally; when this bill passes it will be like passing the keys to every house in America over to the NSA.  Because Big Brother is not only watching, he is recording it all for later.  And thanks to Congress, there's not a damn thing we can do about it.