How do you measure a year? January 20, 2010 marks President Barack Obamas first year in office. Some cable news shows have been rating Obamas performance using a letter grading system, some have been weighing his first year on a scale from 1-10, and others have simply been marking him as pass or fail. Although most polls show that Americans like the President as a person, there has been a significant decline in his approval rating.
During the 2008 presidential campaign we were swept away in a wave of idealism. Like any new relationship, Americas love affair with Barack Obama started off hot and heavy. We saw a young black man with strong convictions, touching our hearts with eloquent speeches that brought a tear to our eye. He said the most romantic things to us, like “all things are possible”, “this is our moment, this is our time”, and “we are ones we've been waiting for”. So, when Obama got down on bended knee and asked to be our President, we all walked in to that voting booth and said “I do”. With great pride and nervous excitement, we watched as he stood up with his right hand on the bible and made the most solemnest of vows. Now that the honeymoon is over, Americans seem to be having second thoughts. Like many relationships before, the idea of the man we loved failed to compare with the reality of the man we got. Though the Barack that was courting us brought us flowers and promises to fix the economy, the Barack we're living with farts in bed and leaves us with a 10% unemployment rate. Did the President really break all the promises we elected him for? Or did we just build him up so much, there was no place to go but down?
Politifact.com shows President Obama has really only broken 15 of his campaign promises, but has in fact kept 91 of those promises, and has a whopping 275 of his campaign promises currently in the works. Though Obama may not have ended poverty or stopped world hunger as we might have fantasized, he has established a credit card bill of rights and expanded loan programs for small business as he promised. And although we may be disappointed that he broke his promise to allow 5 days of public comment before signing a bill, we can take comfort in the fact that he is working on extending tax cuts for lower incomes, creating a consumer friendly credit card rating system and is working with schools to create a more healthful environment for children.
When we met Barack Obama, we were coming out of a bad relationship with a man who spent all of our money, ruined our credit, and abused his power. In 2012 we will have to decide if Obama was just our rebound President, or if he is the one. Perhaps if we learned to communicate our needs better, instead of just standing outside his house screaming obscenities, then we could all get a lot more out of this relationship. In the meantime he has three more years to prove to us that he truly deserves us, and that he is going to work hard to keep the promises he made, and we have three more years to try to learn the difference between fantasy and reality.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
WANTED: Scott Brown, for the Death of Health Insurance Reform
Republican candidate Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts on Tuesday. Browns previous claims to fame were his daughter reality TV's American Idol contestant Ayla Brown, his wife WCVB-TV news personality Gail Huff, his own nude photo spread in Cosmo, and....his truck. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Ma.) had said during his campaign that he will kill the health insurance reform bill.
As any cable news pundit will tell you, Dems losing the senate seat in Ma. means death for the health care bill. Is Scott Brown really the final nail in this bills coffin? Or is the Democratic party just grasping at excuses? It seems that all along Democrats have been dragging each other kicking and screaming all the way down reform road. It doesn't take James Roday
to see that Dems inability to agree and work together is the true murderer of health insurance reform.
The truth is that there is no logical reason why Democrats would not be able to pass a bill with an 18 seat majority. The real problem is not with Massachusetts or Republican filibustering. The problem lies with politicians who see themselves not as public servants, but as elected television personalities. The recent Paris Hiltonesque antics of politicians such as Dancing Tom DeLay, Alan “Die Quickly” Grayson and Joe “You Lie” Wilson are tragic exhibits of the fact that politicians care more about how many hits they get on youtube than how many bills they pass in Washington. If these Polebrities can end up the subject of a Glenn Beck rant or find themselves in Keith Olbermanns countdown
then they are more likely to rile up the base back home and get themselves re-elected, thus ensuring they don't end up in the unemployment line with the people they are supposed to be representing. I mean, really, who would want to give up those good government run health benefits our elected officials receive? I guess health care is something worth fighting for after all.
As any cable news pundit will tell you, Dems losing the senate seat in Ma. means death for the health care bill. Is Scott Brown really the final nail in this bills coffin? Or is the Democratic party just grasping at excuses? It seems that all along Democrats have been dragging each other kicking and screaming all the way down reform road. It doesn't take James Roday
to see that Dems inability to agree and work together is the true murderer of health insurance reform.The truth is that there is no logical reason why Democrats would not be able to pass a bill with an 18 seat majority. The real problem is not with Massachusetts or Republican filibustering. The problem lies with politicians who see themselves not as public servants, but as elected television personalities. The recent Paris Hiltonesque antics of politicians such as Dancing Tom DeLay, Alan “Die Quickly” Grayson and Joe “You Lie” Wilson are tragic exhibits of the fact that politicians care more about how many hits they get on youtube than how many bills they pass in Washington. If these Polebrities can end up the subject of a Glenn Beck rant or find themselves in Keith Olbermanns countdown
then they are more likely to rile up the base back home and get themselves re-elected, thus ensuring they don't end up in the unemployment line with the people they are supposed to be representing. I mean, really, who would want to give up those good government run health benefits our elected officials receive? I guess health care is something worth fighting for after all.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Will Wall Street Executives be Forced to Give A Portion of Their Bonus Back to the Treasury, or Just Leave it on the Nightstand?
President Obama plans to announce measures to recover taxpayer money used to bail out banks on Thursday. The as of yet unspecified plan could possibly include a tax on bank bonuses. The fee would be designed to bring in as much as $120 billion. Billions of taxpayer dollars were given to banks in 2008 in an attempt to recover from the devastating financial crisis.
What caused the financial crisis? In the early 1990's banks began issuing loans to people with poor credit ratings or limited credit history. The majority of the individuals receiving these loans were lower income people who believed housing was a good investment. Many of these loans were stated income loans, where the borrower did not need to provide proof of the income they alleged on the paperwork. In some cases the borrower could even get around making a down payment using seller funded down payment assistance programs. This may seem like a risky practice for lending institutions. One would think that people with poor credit, who aren't providing proof of income and did not have to give any money up front may not be the most likely to keep current on their payments. As most people know, banks make money from lending money with interest payments. When one makes a payment on their home mortgage, a portion of the total goes toward paying down their loan, and a portion goes back to the bank as a fee for the service of issuing the loan. If a bank loans money to someone who is unable to make their payments then not only does the bank fail to make a profit but it also loses the money it lent. So why would a lending institution do this? Because they could have cared less if the borrowers paid the money back. In most cases, the moment the paperwork was signed, the bank took that loan, bundled it with other loans, and sold the bundle as an investment to another company. Individually, the risky loan may have been worth nothing, but when bundled with many other risky loans it became a money making opportunity. Of course the purchasers of these loan bundles bought in to this philosophy, because as everyone knows a sack of crap has far more value than a single turd.
Wanting to live the American dream, many borrows bit off more than they could chew, purchasing houses they couldn't afford to maintain with loans they couldn't afford to pay back. Struggling to make ends meet, people began making their mortgage payments later and later, often going several months without making any payments at all. Most loans have a per diem, or daily interest rate, which means that if paid on time every time, your loan will be paid off in a set number of years. If you make your payment even one day late, then the the way your payment is allocated may change. The later a payment is made, the more of your payment is given to interest, and the less is used to repay your loan. Even if you made the payment before you incurred a late fee, you could still be adding to the length of your loan. If one managed to keep their home until the loan was paid off, in this manner you would end up paying far more for your loan than you borrowed, even more than your property is worth. Eventually, most of these sub prime loans ended up in default, causing thousands of Americans to be displaced from their homes with major damage to their credit rating and deep in debt.
The banking system that handed out billions of dollars in loans without asking any questions was now billions of dollars in debt and on the brink of collapse. How did the U.S. Government respond to this disaster? By handing out billions of dollars to the banks, without asking any questions. The U.S. Government created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which used tax payer money to rescue the banks. Why did American tax payers hand over $700 billion of their hard earned money to the failings banks that caused the second worst financial crisis in U.S. History? Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has said the bailout was necessary to protect the taxpayers. According to Paulson we needed the bailout to save us from the fragile market. Basically, we gave the money to the banks so that the banks could loan the money back to us. Only the banks didn't loan the money back to us. After all, we are in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, and with no legal requirement to lend, the major banks have decided it might be best to hold on to their money for a change. In fact, rather than lending money to tax payers in order to boost the U.S. Economy, many of the banks who received tarp funds have begun raising interest rates on credit cards already issued to financially desperate Americans.
Bank of America, Citi Bank and Wells Fargo began raising interest rates up to as much as 30% for any card holder who misses a single payment. JP Morgan Chase imposed a $10 monthly fee for any card holder who has had a large balance for more than a couple of years. This is a smart way for banks to make money. Knowing so many of their customers have been struggling to pay back home loans the banks gave them that they couldn't afford, there is sure to be a lot of people behind on their credit card payments. It's behavior like this that spurred groups like the folks at moveyourmoney.info to recommended that Americans move their money to smaller local banks in protest.
The U.S. Labor Dept. reports the unemployment rate is remaining at 10% and 58,000 jobs were lost in the month of December. Even more frightening is the fact that 40% of the unemployed have been out of work for 2 years or more. Despite the dire situation American tax payers are in, tarp fund recipient Goldman Sachs reported a $12 billion profit for 2009 and bonuses for Wall St. executives are ranging between 6-8 figures. When questioned, Bill George of Goldman Sachs said the outrageous bonuses were necessary to keep from losing their employees. With more than 10 million people unemployed in the U.S., one would think they could easily be replaced.
What caused the financial crisis? In the early 1990's banks began issuing loans to people with poor credit ratings or limited credit history. The majority of the individuals receiving these loans were lower income people who believed housing was a good investment. Many of these loans were stated income loans, where the borrower did not need to provide proof of the income they alleged on the paperwork. In some cases the borrower could even get around making a down payment using seller funded down payment assistance programs. This may seem like a risky practice for lending institutions. One would think that people with poor credit, who aren't providing proof of income and did not have to give any money up front may not be the most likely to keep current on their payments. As most people know, banks make money from lending money with interest payments. When one makes a payment on their home mortgage, a portion of the total goes toward paying down their loan, and a portion goes back to the bank as a fee for the service of issuing the loan. If a bank loans money to someone who is unable to make their payments then not only does the bank fail to make a profit but it also loses the money it lent. So why would a lending institution do this? Because they could have cared less if the borrowers paid the money back. In most cases, the moment the paperwork was signed, the bank took that loan, bundled it with other loans, and sold the bundle as an investment to another company. Individually, the risky loan may have been worth nothing, but when bundled with many other risky loans it became a money making opportunity. Of course the purchasers of these loan bundles bought in to this philosophy, because as everyone knows a sack of crap has far more value than a single turd.
Wanting to live the American dream, many borrows bit off more than they could chew, purchasing houses they couldn't afford to maintain with loans they couldn't afford to pay back. Struggling to make ends meet, people began making their mortgage payments later and later, often going several months without making any payments at all. Most loans have a per diem, or daily interest rate, which means that if paid on time every time, your loan will be paid off in a set number of years. If you make your payment even one day late, then the the way your payment is allocated may change. The later a payment is made, the more of your payment is given to interest, and the less is used to repay your loan. Even if you made the payment before you incurred a late fee, you could still be adding to the length of your loan. If one managed to keep their home until the loan was paid off, in this manner you would end up paying far more for your loan than you borrowed, even more than your property is worth. Eventually, most of these sub prime loans ended up in default, causing thousands of Americans to be displaced from their homes with major damage to their credit rating and deep in debt.
The banking system that handed out billions of dollars in loans without asking any questions was now billions of dollars in debt and on the brink of collapse. How did the U.S. Government respond to this disaster? By handing out billions of dollars to the banks, without asking any questions. The U.S. Government created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which used tax payer money to rescue the banks. Why did American tax payers hand over $700 billion of their hard earned money to the failings banks that caused the second worst financial crisis in U.S. History? Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has said the bailout was necessary to protect the taxpayers. According to Paulson we needed the bailout to save us from the fragile market. Basically, we gave the money to the banks so that the banks could loan the money back to us. Only the banks didn't loan the money back to us. After all, we are in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, and with no legal requirement to lend, the major banks have decided it might be best to hold on to their money for a change. In fact, rather than lending money to tax payers in order to boost the U.S. Economy, many of the banks who received tarp funds have begun raising interest rates on credit cards already issued to financially desperate Americans.
Bank of America, Citi Bank and Wells Fargo began raising interest rates up to as much as 30% for any card holder who misses a single payment. JP Morgan Chase imposed a $10 monthly fee for any card holder who has had a large balance for more than a couple of years. This is a smart way for banks to make money. Knowing so many of their customers have been struggling to pay back home loans the banks gave them that they couldn't afford, there is sure to be a lot of people behind on their credit card payments. It's behavior like this that spurred groups like the folks at moveyourmoney.info to recommended that Americans move their money to smaller local banks in protest.
The U.S. Labor Dept. reports the unemployment rate is remaining at 10% and 58,000 jobs were lost in the month of December. Even more frightening is the fact that 40% of the unemployed have been out of work for 2 years or more. Despite the dire situation American tax payers are in, tarp fund recipient Goldman Sachs reported a $12 billion profit for 2009 and bonuses for Wall St. executives are ranging between 6-8 figures. When questioned, Bill George of Goldman Sachs said the outrageous bonuses were necessary to keep from losing their employees. With more than 10 million people unemployed in the U.S., one would think they could easily be replaced.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Federal Judge to Choose Between the Right and Doing What's Right
It's Civil Rights vs. the Conservative Right in the Federal Court in San Francisco, Ca. this week. Lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies team up to challenge the unconstitutional nature of California's Proposition 8 against Charles Cooper, lawyer for Proposition 8 backers, who claim any marriage between gay couples could have an unknown effect on society. Judge Vaughn R. Walker will be presiding over the trial without a jury.
Olson and Boies are arguing that Proposition 8, which bans same sex marriage in California, is unconstitutional. This argument is not without merit. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". After Proposition 8 was passed the state of California denied to all gay persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the institution of marriage.
Judge Walker pointed out on Monday that gay couples do have the right to enter in to domestic partnerships in the state of California, which provides the same rights and benefits of marriage. The judge had asked "If California would simply get out of the marriage business and classify everyone as a domestic partnership, would that solve the problem?" Olson replied that would indeed solve the problem, but was not likely to be politically feasible.
Charles Cooper, who is representing Prop. 8 sponsors, mentioned in his opening statement the fact that only five states have opened the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, and three of them were required to do so by judges. It could seem that Cooper may have been inferring that states which legalized same sex marriages did so against the will of the people. In another instance it was said that the effect that legalizing same sex marriage will have on society cannot be determined because it is still a "social experiment".
There have been other instances in history when it was necessary for a judge to make controversial rulings to protect the civil liberties of a few, even when it was not popular. Jim Crow Laws, which were local and state laws, prohibited African American students from attending white schools in the state of Arkansas until 1957. African American children had all of the same rights and benefits of a white education, but they were only allowed to exercise those rights in a place that was separate but equal. In 1957 nine African American students challenged this ban on integrated schools in court. After the court ruled in their favor the state had to allow the children to attend an integrated school, because it was required to do so by a judge. One could wonder if the backers of Prop. 8 think that particular "social experiment" turned out well.
Opponents of same sex marriage often use the "family values" angle. Witnesses for the Proposition 8 sponsors are set to testify that governments have sanctioned [traditional] marriage as a way to promote responsible parenting. Prop. 8 lawyer Charles Cooper has already argued, "It is the purpose of marriage — the central purpose of marriage — to ensure, or at least encourage and to promote that when life is brought into being, it is by parents who are married and who take the responsibility of raising that child together". This has been a popular theme among Proposition 8 supporters. Protectmarriage.com states on their website that “monogamous and loving marriages ... provide the optimal environment to ensure the well being of children”. It remains to be seen how this argument will help their case. Unless the Proposition 8 backers intend to seek limitations on reproductive rights of gay people, children will undoubtedly continue to be born to un-married gay couples. It may seem to many that if the supporters of Proposition 8 were truly concerned with the well being of children, they would allow the multitude of gay couples who currently have, or may have children in the future to enter in to monogamous and loving marriages. If "governments sanction marriage as a way to promote responsible parenting", it leaves one to marvel at why the government would impose restrictions on marriage. One of the gay couples who are challenging the proposition said they "would love to have a family" however, "The time line for us always has been marriage first before family," "For us, marriage is so important because it solidifies the relationship..”
At one point judge Walker did note that President Obama's own parents would not have been allowed to get married in some states before the Supreme Court overturned state bans on interracial marriage in 1967, which may give some people hope that he realizes there is precedent for change in what is commonly accepted in regard to marriage.
Olson and Boies are arguing that Proposition 8, which bans same sex marriage in California, is unconstitutional. This argument is not without merit. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". After Proposition 8 was passed the state of California denied to all gay persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the institution of marriage.
Judge Walker pointed out on Monday that gay couples do have the right to enter in to domestic partnerships in the state of California, which provides the same rights and benefits of marriage. The judge had asked "If California would simply get out of the marriage business and classify everyone as a domestic partnership, would that solve the problem?" Olson replied that would indeed solve the problem, but was not likely to be politically feasible.
Charles Cooper, who is representing Prop. 8 sponsors, mentioned in his opening statement the fact that only five states have opened the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, and three of them were required to do so by judges. It could seem that Cooper may have been inferring that states which legalized same sex marriages did so against the will of the people. In another instance it was said that the effect that legalizing same sex marriage will have on society cannot be determined because it is still a "social experiment".
There have been other instances in history when it was necessary for a judge to make controversial rulings to protect the civil liberties of a few, even when it was not popular. Jim Crow Laws, which were local and state laws, prohibited African American students from attending white schools in the state of Arkansas until 1957. African American children had all of the same rights and benefits of a white education, but they were only allowed to exercise those rights in a place that was separate but equal. In 1957 nine African American students challenged this ban on integrated schools in court. After the court ruled in their favor the state had to allow the children to attend an integrated school, because it was required to do so by a judge. One could wonder if the backers of Prop. 8 think that particular "social experiment" turned out well.
Opponents of same sex marriage often use the "family values" angle. Witnesses for the Proposition 8 sponsors are set to testify that governments have sanctioned [traditional] marriage as a way to promote responsible parenting. Prop. 8 lawyer Charles Cooper has already argued, "It is the purpose of marriage — the central purpose of marriage — to ensure, or at least encourage and to promote that when life is brought into being, it is by parents who are married and who take the responsibility of raising that child together". This has been a popular theme among Proposition 8 supporters. Protectmarriage.com states on their website that “monogamous and loving marriages ... provide the optimal environment to ensure the well being of children”. It remains to be seen how this argument will help their case. Unless the Proposition 8 backers intend to seek limitations on reproductive rights of gay people, children will undoubtedly continue to be born to un-married gay couples. It may seem to many that if the supporters of Proposition 8 were truly concerned with the well being of children, they would allow the multitude of gay couples who currently have, or may have children in the future to enter in to monogamous and loving marriages. If "governments sanction marriage as a way to promote responsible parenting", it leaves one to marvel at why the government would impose restrictions on marriage. One of the gay couples who are challenging the proposition said they "would love to have a family" however, "The time line for us always has been marriage first before family," "For us, marriage is so important because it solidifies the relationship..”
At one point judge Walker did note that President Obama's own parents would not have been allowed to get married in some states before the Supreme Court overturned state bans on interracial marriage in 1967, which may give some people hope that he realizes there is precedent for change in what is commonly accepted in regard to marriage.
Monday, January 11, 2010
An African American by any Other Name
Authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin this month released their new book Game Change
in which they expose dirty laundry of politicians involved in the historic 2008 Presidential race. Several quotes from the controversial book have been dominating the headlines Monday morning, squelching reports coming out of the White House about jobs. Among the many disturbing quotes from Heilmann and Halperin's book, which include claims that Sarah Palin stated her V.P nomination was "Gods plan", were reports from anonymous sources which portrayed Senator Harry Reid and former President Bill Clinton as making racist remarks.
Former President Bill Clinton was quoted as saying (regarding now President Barack Obama) "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,". This remark was interpreted by many, as being a reference to Obamas skin color. While foxnews.com reports Al Sharpton as stating in an interview that President Clintons remarks were "disturbing", Rev. Sharpton gave an interview on MSNBC's morning show The Daily Rundown in which he stated that Clintons remarks would have been far worse if in fact the quote were accurate. In the Sharpton interview host Savannah Guthrie points out President Clintons statement was more likely regarding Obamas age, and that due to his youth, a few years ago he would have been a staffer fetching coffee.
The most popularly covered portion of the book was probably a statement made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) in which he said that Barrack Obama was the most viable candidate to be the nations first black President because he was "light-skinned" "with no Negro dialect".
Republicans have been comparing Senator Reid's remarks to the famed debacle in 2002 during Strom Thurmonds 100th birthday party in which Trent Lott spoke stating, "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." Strom Thurmond ran for President in 1948 as a segregationist. Soon after the speech was made, Lott resigned from the Senate. Rev. Al Sharpton says the comparison of Reids statement to Lotts speech was "an insult to the American public".
Senator Reid has apologized to President Obama for the statements he made in the book, and has similarly contacted African American leaders to make apologies as well. Obama and Rev. Sharpton have said they forgive Reid and want to put the incident behind them. Democrats seem to accept that Reid was not saying that he preferred Obama as a candidate because of the lightness of his skin or the dialect he spoke with, but rather that voters who may be uncomfortable with a non-white candidate would be more likely to vote for a black man with those traits.
The context of Senator Reids statement may not be offensive to some, but the use of the word negro may be difficult for most to fathom. Harry Reid was born in December of 1939, when the word negro was the most commonly accepted term in use. It wasn't until the late 1960's, when Reid was in his 20's, that because of the civil rights movement the term negro became associated with the long history of slavery and discrimination and was deemed a racial slur. Now the most acceptable terms in use are black or African American. The word negro can still be found in use in historical contexts such as in the name of The United Negro College Fund.
The ease in which many African Americans have forgiven Harry Reid may have been due to his long standing record of promoting and defending civil rights. In 2006 the NAACP rated Sen. Reid 96% in his stance on affirmative action. In 2009 the NAACP applauded Reid for his leadership and support in passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Reids voting record also includes: Voting YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women, voting NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage, voting YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation, voting NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.
The fact remains that Game Change, regardless of the deeply personal and at sometimes trivial nature of its content, has left Americans with many questions that we each need to ask ourselves. Is giving a public speech stating that electing a President who supports segregation would have improved the U.S. a comparable offense to using antiquated racial terminology in a private conversation remarking that a black man with light skin and an ethnically neutral dialect may be more palatable to American voters? Does forgiveness from a handful of prominent African Americans constitute an absolution from the entire black community, or is offending even one person, one person too many? Is a slip of the tongue, even with the best of intentions, unforgivable? Does a long standing record of supporting civil rights define a man, or can a single sentence reveal a persons true nature? The truth is that no one can know for sure what is in another persons heart no matter how much research is done or how many interviews are conducted. We can only hope for the best in people, but sadly more often than not, we assume the worst.
in which they expose dirty laundry of politicians involved in the historic 2008 Presidential race. Several quotes from the controversial book have been dominating the headlines Monday morning, squelching reports coming out of the White House about jobs. Among the many disturbing quotes from Heilmann and Halperin's book, which include claims that Sarah Palin stated her V.P nomination was "Gods plan", were reports from anonymous sources which portrayed Senator Harry Reid and former President Bill Clinton as making racist remarks.Former President Bill Clinton was quoted as saying (regarding now President Barack Obama) "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,". This remark was interpreted by many, as being a reference to Obamas skin color. While foxnews.com reports Al Sharpton as stating in an interview that President Clintons remarks were "disturbing", Rev. Sharpton gave an interview on MSNBC's morning show The Daily Rundown in which he stated that Clintons remarks would have been far worse if in fact the quote were accurate. In the Sharpton interview host Savannah Guthrie points out President Clintons statement was more likely regarding Obamas age, and that due to his youth, a few years ago he would have been a staffer fetching coffee.
The most popularly covered portion of the book was probably a statement made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) in which he said that Barrack Obama was the most viable candidate to be the nations first black President because he was "light-skinned" "with no Negro dialect".
Republicans have been comparing Senator Reid's remarks to the famed debacle in 2002 during Strom Thurmonds 100th birthday party in which Trent Lott spoke stating, "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." Strom Thurmond ran for President in 1948 as a segregationist. Soon after the speech was made, Lott resigned from the Senate. Rev. Al Sharpton says the comparison of Reids statement to Lotts speech was "an insult to the American public".
Senator Reid has apologized to President Obama for the statements he made in the book, and has similarly contacted African American leaders to make apologies as well. Obama and Rev. Sharpton have said they forgive Reid and want to put the incident behind them. Democrats seem to accept that Reid was not saying that he preferred Obama as a candidate because of the lightness of his skin or the dialect he spoke with, but rather that voters who may be uncomfortable with a non-white candidate would be more likely to vote for a black man with those traits.
The context of Senator Reids statement may not be offensive to some, but the use of the word negro may be difficult for most to fathom. Harry Reid was born in December of 1939, when the word negro was the most commonly accepted term in use. It wasn't until the late 1960's, when Reid was in his 20's, that because of the civil rights movement the term negro became associated with the long history of slavery and discrimination and was deemed a racial slur. Now the most acceptable terms in use are black or African American. The word negro can still be found in use in historical contexts such as in the name of The United Negro College Fund.
The ease in which many African Americans have forgiven Harry Reid may have been due to his long standing record of promoting and defending civil rights. In 2006 the NAACP rated Sen. Reid 96% in his stance on affirmative action. In 2009 the NAACP applauded Reid for his leadership and support in passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Reids voting record also includes: Voting YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women, voting NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage, voting YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation, voting NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.
The fact remains that Game Change, regardless of the deeply personal and at sometimes trivial nature of its content, has left Americans with many questions that we each need to ask ourselves. Is giving a public speech stating that electing a President who supports segregation would have improved the U.S. a comparable offense to using antiquated racial terminology in a private conversation remarking that a black man with light skin and an ethnically neutral dialect may be more palatable to American voters? Does forgiveness from a handful of prominent African Americans constitute an absolution from the entire black community, or is offending even one person, one person too many? Is a slip of the tongue, even with the best of intentions, unforgivable? Does a long standing record of supporting civil rights define a man, or can a single sentence reveal a persons true nature? The truth is that no one can know for sure what is in another persons heart no matter how much research is done or how many interviews are conducted. We can only hope for the best in people, but sadly more often than not, we assume the worst.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Lucy and the Sky with Carbon Emissions
History Channel
this weekend has been re-airing Earth 2100
, a 2 hour program originally aired on ABC in 2009. The program, narrated by Bob Woodruff, follows the fictitious Lucy, born January 1st, 2009, throughout her life as the effects of climate change destroy the world as we know it.
The story may be a work of fiction, however, the scenarios themselves are very real possibilities laid out by top scientists in fields relating to the earth and climate change. One of the main themes Lucy discusses is the futile attempts by a few individuals to use renewable green energy before catastrophe ensues. By the time the rest of the planet realizes that self sustainable "green" power is the only thing that can save them, it is too late.
The Center for a New American Security's simulation of a global summit on climate was another frightening scene. The real life Washington think tank staged this game in the summer before the program originally aired. The roles of global leaders were played by the worlds high level policy makers. Together they played out a scenario in which the year is 2015 and Miami and Bangladesh have both been destroyed by extreme weather brought on by climate change. Despite the fact that this was merely an elaborate political L.A.R.P., these policy makers were unable to even feign a compromise. China and India point out that America achieved it's status as an economic power house through it's industrial revolution. If other developing countries are not able to evolve similarly then they will never reach a point of economic relevance in the world. China and India continued to barter with the U.S. but in the end no viable compromise could be made about emission reductions. These events beg the question, if we can't even make rational, mutually beneficial decisions whilst playing pretend, what hope do we have to solve these problems in reality?
The airing of this program on the heels of President Obama's announcement Friday to award tax credits to U.S. companies that manufacture green technologies only strengthens the confidence of those who support the decision. No one can argue against the need for the 17,000 new American jobs this tax credit could potentially create, and now for many it seems clear that creating these jobs in the green technology sector has multiple benefits. Whether or not these "green jobs" could grow in to a global movement which could save our future is anyone's guess, but somewhere out there in story land, Lucy is crossing her fingers.
this weekend has been re-airing Earth 2100, a 2 hour program originally aired on ABC in 2009. The program, narrated by Bob Woodruff, follows the fictitious Lucy, born January 1st, 2009, throughout her life as the effects of climate change destroy the world as we know it.The story may be a work of fiction, however, the scenarios themselves are very real possibilities laid out by top scientists in fields relating to the earth and climate change. One of the main themes Lucy discusses is the futile attempts by a few individuals to use renewable green energy before catastrophe ensues. By the time the rest of the planet realizes that self sustainable "green" power is the only thing that can save them, it is too late.
The Center for a New American Security's simulation of a global summit on climate was another frightening scene. The real life Washington think tank staged this game in the summer before the program originally aired. The roles of global leaders were played by the worlds high level policy makers. Together they played out a scenario in which the year is 2015 and Miami and Bangladesh have both been destroyed by extreme weather brought on by climate change. Despite the fact that this was merely an elaborate political L.A.R.P., these policy makers were unable to even feign a compromise. China and India point out that America achieved it's status as an economic power house through it's industrial revolution. If other developing countries are not able to evolve similarly then they will never reach a point of economic relevance in the world. China and India continued to barter with the U.S. but in the end no viable compromise could be made about emission reductions. These events beg the question, if we can't even make rational, mutually beneficial decisions whilst playing pretend, what hope do we have to solve these problems in reality?
The airing of this program on the heels of President Obama's announcement Friday to award tax credits to U.S. companies that manufacture green technologies only strengthens the confidence of those who support the decision. No one can argue against the need for the 17,000 new American jobs this tax credit could potentially create, and now for many it seems clear that creating these jobs in the green technology sector has multiple benefits. Whether or not these "green jobs" could grow in to a global movement which could save our future is anyone's guess, but somewhere out there in story land, Lucy is crossing her fingers.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Can Green Jobs put Arizona Residents Back in the Black?
President Obama announced Friday the awarding of $2.3 billion in tax credits to companies that manufacture green technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines. The money for this tax credit is coming from the $787 billion already allocated for the economic stimulus program. He says the tax credit would create approximately 17,000 new jobs in the U.S. Obama then made a plea to congress to approve another $5 billion to create more "green jobs".
Obama's announcement comes at a critical time as pundits are already all a flutter with predictions about this year's midterm elections. Politicians spent the majority of this Presidents first year in office battling over health insurance reform and it's left little time available to focus on jobs or the economy. With the final outcome of the health insurance reform bill still up in the air small businesses seem reluctant to hire until they know what this bill will mean for them; effects of this are reflected in the latest jobs report showing a loss of 85,000 jobs in December. Creating an additional 17,000 jobs would not only be a boost to the U.S. economy, but could also boost support for Dems at the voting booth this coming November.
17,000 new jobs is great news for the country, but where will these jobs be? At the present time American owned green energy product manufacturers are few and far between in Arizona. Suntech Power, Chinas largest solar panel manufacturer, plans to open its first American plant near Phoenix later this year and will build panels from solar cells shipped from China. The Dry Lake Wind Project, Arizona's first wind farm, uses wind turbines manufactured by Suzlon Energy of India. President Obama's tax credit may encourage manufacturers to build new American owned plants in Arizona, and there may also be a "trickle down" effect spurring hiring increases with retailers and installers. With 273 days of sunshine a year Arizona is surely an ideal place to put solar energy to good use.
Obama's announcement comes at a critical time as pundits are already all a flutter with predictions about this year's midterm elections. Politicians spent the majority of this Presidents first year in office battling over health insurance reform and it's left little time available to focus on jobs or the economy. With the final outcome of the health insurance reform bill still up in the air small businesses seem reluctant to hire until they know what this bill will mean for them; effects of this are reflected in the latest jobs report showing a loss of 85,000 jobs in December. Creating an additional 17,000 jobs would not only be a boost to the U.S. economy, but could also boost support for Dems at the voting booth this coming November.
17,000 new jobs is great news for the country, but where will these jobs be? At the present time American owned green energy product manufacturers are few and far between in Arizona. Suntech Power, Chinas largest solar panel manufacturer, plans to open its first American plant near Phoenix later this year and will build panels from solar cells shipped from China. The Dry Lake Wind Project, Arizona's first wind farm, uses wind turbines manufactured by Suzlon Energy of India. President Obama's tax credit may encourage manufacturers to build new American owned plants in Arizona, and there may also be a "trickle down" effect spurring hiring increases with retailers and installers. With 273 days of sunshine a year Arizona is surely an ideal place to put solar energy to good use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
