Osama Bin Laden Killed by US Forces in Pakistan

Image by martin_kalfatovic via Flickr

President Barack Obama announced in a press conference shortly after 11:30pm EST on 05-01-11 that US forces had killed Osama bin Laden and taken custody of his body.  Reports are that this occurred several days if not a week ago, but announcement was held pending confirmation of a DNA test result.

May the families who lost loved ones in 9-11 finally begin to find some peace and be able to put that horrible day behind them. May the country find again and keep the spirit of patriotism and togetherness that we remembered we had in the weeks and months following the tragedy.

– “Left of Center”

Related Articles

• White House: Osama Bin Laden is Dead (benzinga.com)
• News Of Osama Bin Laden’s Death Spreads Like Wildfire On Twitter (techcrunch.com)

Catching Up, Part VI – Defundapalooza, Part II

Image via Wikipedia

Continuing a short breakdown of how the Republican House is ignoring the risks of de-funding several government agencies including the EPA, the Department of Energy, & the Department of Health & Human Services.

The Department of Energy is responsible for overseeing the operation and safety of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear power reactors, & nuclear waste disposal, among other things.  The amount of American lives potentially in jeopardy as a result of this makes any risk of losing the NHC look like nothing.  Reducing or removing the funding to carry out safety and maintenance of nuclear material is disgusting and shameful.

Removing funding for the Department of Health & Human Services is just another swing and a miss by Republicans to try and undo President Obama & the Democrats legislative victory at passing an admittedly flawed yet no less historic health care reform law.  By cutting the budget of the HHS to nearly nothing, it would be financially impossible to implement any aspect of the Affordable Care Act of 2008.  There would be no proactive prevention of insurance companies ending your coverage when you get sick and actually need it.  No way to pay for proactively ensuring that you don’t get denied for a pre-existing condition when you switch jobs.  None of the beneficial aspects of this law would be enforced.  Your only recourse would be to waste considerable time and expense after the fact to try and fight a protracted legal battle with your insurance company.  One you are almost certain to lose not because the law isn’t on your side, but because you will run out of money or hope (or if you are sick, you might even die) before reaching a resolution.

Thankfully, many of these items are not going to make it into the final budget because the chances of the Democratically controlled Senate passing this or President Obama signing it into law are next to non-existent.  However, there still remains the issue of Republicans putting forth these dangerous ideas.  Not only are they wasting tax payer dollars that they repeatedly say we can’t afford on these go-nowhere bills, but have no doubt in your mind if they regained control of both houses of Congress or the Presidency, they would move forward with these job killing, life threatening ideas.

– “Left of Center”

Catching Up, Part V – Defundapalooza Part I

Image by NASA Goddard Photo and Video via Flickr

The Environmental Protection Agency.  Planned Parenthood (more on this later).  The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.  NASA.  The Department of Energy.  The Department of the Interior.  The Department of Health & Human Services.  All of these agencies and more are potentially up for their budgets to be slashed by the new Republican House to the detriment of the entire country.

Reducing the EPA’s budget would damage their ability to prevent corporations from polluting our environment for profit.  Just a year after the worst man-made environmental disaster in modern history in the Gulf of Mexico, which is partially the result of oil & gas regulations being too weak, the Republicans want to make it easier not more difficult for corporations to do as they please, the health of our planet be damned.

One of the main jobs of the NOAA is running the National Hurricane Center.  The role of this group is to do research and gather data on current tropical weather systems.  With no funding for the NOAA, the NHC may not be able to operate.  Imagine, if you are in a hurricane zone in the United States, going through that 6 month period where there are no planes flying into the storms to find out how strong they are.  Imagine your local weather reporters having no tracking data on a storm potentially headed in your direction.  By removing or drastically reducing funding for the NOAA, American lives could be put at great risk. Is this a worse case scenario? Certainly.  The NOAA is more than just the NHC but my point is to illustrate how relevant and necessary they are.

– “Left of Center”

Decision 2010 Post-Mortem, Part I – Why Democrats Lost the House

Image by VJnet via Flickr

This one’s simple. The main reason was not something ridiculous like “a rejection of Obama’s far-left agenda”, though some will make this claim. They did this to themselves primarily through inaction. Nary a peep from any Democrats on what they have accomplished since the 2008 election.

Where were the fact-based attacks on Republicans for their loud calls to cut spending while still arguing for extending the Bush tax cuts at a cost of trillions? What about campaigning on the positively viewed individual items in the health-care bill? Calling Republicans out for talking about repeal of HCR that would return the power of companies to cancel your coverage once you get sick?

The growth of the GDP post-stimulus from a low point of -6% in January 2009 to a high point of +5% in January 2010? Not a peep.

Any talk about the significant progress in turning around the job numbers? Little to nothing.

Couple the Democrats almost complete unwillingness to actually campaign on their accomplishments with the mountains of cash from confidential donations and the barrage of false-hoods and outright lies from Republicans and it’s no surprise, even to this lifelong Democrat why, once again, Democrats have snatched a defeat from the jaws of victory.

– “Left of Center”

Valerie Jarrett Was Flat Wrong

Image via Wikipedia

One of President Obama’s Senior Advisors, Valerie Jarrett’s claim that Justin Aarberg made a “lifestyle choice” by being gay.  One could infer from this that she may believe that all LGBT Americans actually actively make a choice about who they are. If this is how she thinks, that is a very sad outdated viewpoint.

To anyone who thinks that homosexuals choose to be that way, there’s only one question that needs to be asked. Did you have to make a conscious choice to be straight? I know I didn’t, so it stands to reason logically that homosexuals clearly do not choose to be gay. The only choice they make is whether or not to be open about it. They choose if they want to live with the scorn, hatred, disrespect and possible physical harm that potentially comes with sharing the truth about who they are.

President Obama looks to this woman for advice. We are on the cusp of a time in this country where we’re starting to see the LGBT community gaining the civil rights they have been denied for so long. Because of this, Valerie Jarrett needs to be made to truly apologize for her remarks. A disingenuous apology for if her comments “offended anyone” or a calling of her statements “inartful” or “poorly chosen” will not do. If Valerie Jarrett truly believes that being gay is a choice, then she not only needs to apologize, but President Obama needs to demand her resignation immediately.

Return of "The Attack on the Middle Name"

Image via Wikipedia

During the 2008 election cycle, many Conservative politicians made frequent reference to President (then candidate) Obama’s middle name, Hussein. Why this even became an issue is shameful. That we can be so closed-minded as a country as to use a man’s name, given to him by his father, as a slur because it sounds foreign and people are scared by it.  In fact, even Mr. Obama’s opponent John McCain, called this action out as inflammatory and unnecessary.

Yet, as we’ve seen from the Republican Tea Party candidates they’ve decided to take their rhetoric, their viewpoints and their campaign even further towards the fringe right Conservative (regressive) end of the Social scale. Unsurprisingly, this means that the use of the President’s name in an unnecessary and hateful manner has returned to the campaign trail.

That the use of the man’s name in this context ever became an issue is reprehensible and appalling. To this logical, clear thinking concerned citizen, any American that uses the man’s given name as an attack lacks the personal ethics, class and strength of character to represent Americans responsibly.

Why? Two reasons. Firstly, the attack is meant to imply that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim. He is not, he’s stated he is a Christian. Secondly, why should it matter if an American politician was a Muslim? There is nothing illegal about that. There is nothing amoral about that. There is nothing scary about that. There’s nothing illegal about that. What it comes down to is that these cowardly Republicans are trying to invoke people’s fear of the unknown. They are trying to connect the President to Saddam Hussein and others who are enemies of the country.

In fact, there is nothing to be afraid of with the names Barack or Hussein. The name Barack means “to bless” or “blessed”. The name Hussein means “handsome one”, nothing frightening there. President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is named after his father. What the meaning of his name basically comes down to is that his parents felt blessed to have a handsome son. That’s it. That’s all. Nothing sinister. Nothing scary.

For more on the origins and meanings of the President’s name, please see this very well written article.

An Example Exchange Between Rational and Irrational, Part II

Image by hodag via Flickr

Since the last post was running long, I’ve decided to split this entry into two parts. Below is the second portion of the exchange on Facebook regarding the immigration history of President Obama’s aunt (see: Part I)

The Conservative’s Second Comment:
Wow, so because I stated my opinion, my statement is “borderline arrogant and Unchristian”? 1 question, do you want to be the pot or the kettle? You said – She stayed in this country despite her illegal status because she said she could not …afford to leave. Here I go sounding “arrogant and Unchristian” again, but her not being able to afford to leave really isn’t my problem. It’s hers. This country is drowning as is, and still, we’re out trying to save everyone else and fix their problems.

Much like being on an airplane, we need to put on our oxygen mask first, before we help someone else with theirs.

I’m not saying she shouldn’t be allowed to appeal her case. I’m saying she should have to do it from her own country while she appeals it. This country has a HUGE immigration problem. I get the whole tired, poor, hungry bit, I really do. But this country has spent generations robbing Peter in order to pay Paul, and now Peter and the future generations after him are BROKE, hence why if someone wants to come to this country, get permission first. You want asylum? Get it before hand. It is not our responsibility to save, and then pay for, the entire world to seek refuge here.

People in other countries are never going to learn to stand on their own 2 feet, and make their country better if we keep bailing them out, taking them in and/or rescuing them. You know, the whole – give a man a fish or teach a man to fish??

If you want to rescue the world, by all means, have at it. But do it on YOUR dime, because I’m tired of paying for people who don’t contribute a damn thing to live here.

My Response To This:
Your comment shows you’re not grasping the concept of asylum. It’s not like standard immigration. A person cannot be made to argue for this from their own country because they are asking for asylum here because they are *in fear of their li…fe* !!

As for the arrogance, my comment pointed out facts that were ignored (willfully or otherwise) by both the article you posted and by your statements. Therein lies the difference in my opinion. Facts are facts and if you perceive them arrogant, that is your concern not mine. The same cannot be said for opinion.

Do you know the full political and factual history of why this country is in such bad debt problems? If you’re truly concerned about not paying for people that don’t contribute their fair share you should be far far more concerned about the rich people who claim to argue for our interests while taking advantage of every loophole imaginable to not carry their weight rather than the far lesser problem of helping poor people have the chance to avoid being homeless and starving.

I stand by my statement that your viewpoint is Unchristian. Your recent comment only furthers that conclusion and it illustrates an apparent misunderstanding of why this country is facing the problems it is.

– “Left of Center”

An Example Exchange Between Rational and Irrational, Part I

Image by hodag via Flickr

I had a discussion on Facebook regarding this link that was posted:

Obama’s aunt not sorry she accepted public housing

I’ve posted the discussion below (with names changed to protect the ignorant). I’ll post any further comments as they are added to the Facebook thread:

My initial response
There is more to this situation than this article states. The woman came to this country on a valid visa in 2000. She asked for asylum for the first time in 2002 and was not denied until 2004. She became very ill and was hospitalized. Once she recovered she first lived in a homeless shelter and then was assigned public housing. She stayed in this country despite her illegal status because she said she could not afford to leave.

She’s been seeking asylum and it was not granted until 2010. She asked for safe legal refuge in this country and it took 8 years for it to be granted? Does that not point to a glaring flaw in our immigration system? Did she apply for asylum because she was broke? Because she was already illegal or was she really afraid of her government? Only she, possibly her lawyer and her God can know for sure.

If she applied for asylum because she liked getting a free ride and lied about being afraid of her government than clearly she is a bad person. Given that this case has 8 years of history, 6 of those years occurring before her nephew became President and, according to reports, aware of her status, how does this reflect negatively on the President?

The article is short on facts and details and comes across, at least to this reader, as a veiled attempt to blame this situation on President Obama despite any proof of influence. My bottom line is we should be striving to know the facts of any issue instead of accepting any report at face value. This article lacks the journalistic integrity to carry out that goal.

The 1st response from the initial poster
Her asylum was denied 6 years ago. Why was she not booted then? I think the point of the article was that she hasn’t paid into anything, yet is able to collect disability. Go collect disability in your own damb country. If you haven’t contributed anything, why should one be able to collect anything?

My second response
Your statement is ignorant of the facts I’ve outlined in addition to borderline arrogant and Unchristian. She contributed nothing because she had nothing to contribute. She was homeless for quite awhile and then jobless after that. Your attitude of sending her back to her country when she claims her life would be in jeopardy is shameful and representative of the largest problem we face in this country. People who think like you have lost the spirit of what America is. What happened to “Give us your tired, your poor, your hungry?”. When was that replaced with “I have mine, so screw you and die?”

As to why she was not kicked out of the country immediately after losing her case? She was appealing the decision. Regardless of immigration status, people are permitted to stay in the country while their case for asylum is active. Does this lead to abuses of the system? Certainly. There will always be a small amount of abuses, especially in regards to government programs. However, the difference between the ignorant and the informed viewpoints is that the informed do not jump immediately to the irrational conclusion that *all* people receiving benefits from said system are abusing it.

Was my reply insensitive? Certainly. I am not ashamed of that. Was my reply false or in any other way incorrect? No. I stand by my statements.

– “Left of Center”

Is President Obama This Generation's FDR?

Image via Wikipedia

The parallels between The Great Depression and the government actions that followed it & the situation we find ourselves in over the past 3 years continue to become more apparent.  In 1929 & 2008 the stock market crashed. Leading up to that in the early 20’s was a significant lack of regulation, and the early years of the new century rampant deregulation. This allowed for banks and wealthy individuals to play the stock & financial markets like a roulette wheel. To gamble with the economy and our future. They lost both times.

After these disasters the President in power has had to work with Congress to pass many legislative items that are unpopular overall, at least in the now. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal was a large package of government spending meant to help carry the American economy out of the toilet. After taking office in January 2009, President Obama worked with the Democrats in Congress to create and pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the Stimulus.

In the past weeks, we’ve begun to see calls to make massive spending freezes or cuts in several social and domestic programs under the misinformed viewpoint that we just can no longer afford them. In the late 30’s FDR caved to pressure to scale back many of the spending programs included in the New Deal for many of the same reasons. The result was a return to decline in the economy that had begun to show signs of life and improvement. Are we destined to make the same mistakes? Given that we are still not that far removed from the crash of 2008 and that the economy, while improving, is nowhere near as far into the recovery phase as we were in the late 30’s.

For decades we have spent countless billions overseas on supposed allies or in conflicts and wars that brought us little to no benefit. In that time, we’ve let our country weaken. The power grid, roads, bridges, and other items all over the country have been neglected. The fact that power can be out for weeks at a time after an average winter storm in the northern Atlantic region or after a hurricane in states along the Eastern seaboard in addition to bridge collapses and the recent gas line explosion in San Francisco are examples of why we need to spend here and spend now before the issue becomes catastrophic.

In the past week, President Obama has proposed just that in discussing plans for an additional $50 billion dollars of much needed infrastructure spending to address these very issues. Despite the unpopularity of the plans they put forward, both FDR & President Obama have stood by their belief in the importance of these items. History proved that FDR was correct and the spending cuts on New Deal items had to be quickly undone. He was eventually re-elected. Even if President Obama’s ideas are met with continued criticism, I strongly believe that history will also paint his administration as successful.

There are many parallels between FDR and Obama even though he’s only completed one half of his first term. I believe that these parallels will continue.

– “Left of Center”

Why I Support President Barack Obama — Part II

Image via Wikipedia

He’s nobody’s messiah. He’s nobody’s second coming of anything. Anyone who says those things would speak ill of the man even if he single-handedly found the cure for cancer or swam down to the bottom of the ocean and plugged the Deepwater Horizon leak personally. Those people have no interest in rational, honest, and fair politics. Those people want to continue to work against our better interest and our current President to continue to divide us.

No, President Barack Obama is just a person who I feel is extremely personally dedicated to doing his part to steer our country back to prosperity and honor, a place we have fallen far from in the past 10 years. Regardless of the nonsense that is used to attack him. Despite people saying he is a Socialist, a Communist, a Marxist and secretly a Muslim all at the same time, as if any of those things are in any way both the same thing or even possible (which they most certainly are not). Those people, including many Republicans in Congress and Conservative talking heads are in dire need of the knowledge acquired in a Political Science & Civics 101 class at their local community college.

In addition to that pathetic nonsense, the President has had to work through attacks against him that have zero connection to logic whatsoever. Items such as showing respect to leaders of other countries in that country’s tradition, chastised for his level of education by someone who took 6 years to complete one degree, having his parentage and citizenship status questioned, and more yet he still remains the statesman and tries to reach across the isle for Republican input on almost everything. It takes a much better person to rise above the hatred and nonsense.

At the end of his administration, whether it be one term or two, I remain positive that his extensive education, understanding of the Constitution and personal desire to do right by the American people even if some of them blindly hate him will lead to history seeing him as a successful president.

In closing I would like to leave you with the aforementioned keynote speech from the 2004 Democratic National Convention:

– “Left of Center”