What Do You Think: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Welcome to another edition of What Do You Think. Basically the way this works is that I’ll talk about something that’s been on my mind, throw out a bunch of questions, and you think about it and tell me what you think about the topic and the questions. Ready?

On Saturday the Senate voted to repeal the military’s controversial Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Thanks to this historic legislation gays will be able to openly serve in the military. Obama has said that he will sign it as early as Wednesday. I realize that many people on both sides of the aisle blindly support or oppose this legislation without actually thinking about it. I personally oppose it. I do think that gays should be allowed to serve in the military but the reason I oppose the legislations is that I think the impact it could have on troop morale is astronomical. The first question I thought of is what do they do for the showers? Obviously the gay members can’t shower with the straight members for the same reason that the males can’t shower with the females. But the gay military members can’t shower with the females because of fears of a straight person pretending they’re gay. So what about setting aside separate units for gay soldiers? To me this sounds like the best answer but something tells me that gays will not be satisfied with this solution. So what do you think? Should gays be allowed to serve in the military? What could it do to troop morale? Should this decision have waited till we are not in the middle of a war? Best case scenario how does the introduction of gays into the military occur? Worst case scenario? What do you think about a separate unit? Are people right in comparing it to allowing African-Americans to serve in the military? If not, how is it different?

I look forward to hearing from you guys in the comments.

What Do You Think: Obama the Speech Soldier

Welcome back to What Do You Think! Basically the way this works is that I will write about something I read recently and give a couple thoughts but no real conclusion. The point is to get you guys (my 4 faithful readers) the chance to think and voice your opinion.

So lately President Obama has been going on the offensive. He’s been calling out and attacking specific members of the Republican Party. He’s been bashing Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Experts say that this will unite the Democrats against a common enemy while Republicans say that all the name calling is just a sign of weakness.

Here’s my theory: Obama cannot be successful unless he’s attacking something or someone. Think about it: During the campaign he was most comfortable when he was attacking McCain, Bush, Republicans, and the government in general. After the election we had a period of relative calm. Then all of a sudden Obama was going after automakers for being irresponsible. Next came the health care industry. Finally Obama began attacking Goldman Sachs and Wall Street in general. Now it’s the Republicans again.  Here’s the thing, it’s not that Obama has to go after these people, it’s that he doesn’t really know what to do if he’s not attacking.

So what do you think? Is Obama only comfortable attacking people? Is this something a president should do or is it a sign of weakness? Do you think maybe he’s been too passive? Is there someone he should attack that he hasn’t? Is there some issue he should address instead of attacking corporations and his political enemies?

I’m Not An Anarchist!

So for those of you who don’t spend your time following the little details of the political world, let me sum something up for you, politics is an annoying business. Practically no one makes a decision based on what is good for the country.

What brought on this rant? Well I recently read a story about the GOP opposing the Democrats’ financial reform bill. Basically the Dems are accusing the GOP to using talking points from a memo by a man named Frank Luntz. Luntz was Newt Gingrich’s main pollster and he still gets involved in many key debates. Basically Luntz attempts to come up with the best arguments against key bills. For the financial reform bill, Luntz recommends tying it to the bailouts because the American people are opposed to the bailouts. Now the Democrats are blowing away this argument because “Frank Luntz wrote it so it’s not valid.”

So here’s my problem with this story: I don’t see anything wrong here other than the parties themselves.  Why on earth is an argument not valid just because it comes from Luntz? An argument is an argument no matter who it comes from! If you want to say it’s not valid than give me a better reason than who wrote it! That’s like saying that the sky is not blue because Hitler said it was blue and Hitler is evil! Give me a GOOD reason, don’t just counter with an idea that a 3 year-old would come up with! (and my apologies to all the 3 year-olds out there for suggesting that you would come up with a refutation this stupid!)

As for the GOP, their reaction is even worse! Rather than sit down and logically and rationally defend their point, they go on to say that Luntz copied them! The GOP claims that they’ve been making a similar point since 2008 and therefore Frank Luntz doesn’t matter. While their attempt to show that they are capable of original talk is good, their defense displays yet another weakness. You know if an argument that you’ve been making for 2 years isn’t working, it’s probably time to MOVE ON! You’ve been making this argument for 2 years and no one’s convinced? Did it ever occur to you to try a new tactic? Maybe attack this bill for a different reason? Do you even remember why you’re opposed to it in the first place? I know there are people who can say the same thing over and over again but they don’t normally repeat themselves for 2 YEARS!

In the end it illustrates once again that most of the time, Congress doesn’t act for the good of the people, but for the good of themselves and their party.

What Do You Think?-Same Sex Marriage.

I’m debuting a new feature here on the Random Blog. Rather than give my opinion on a current topic, I’ll ask your opinion of the topic. I’m calling this segment the What do you think? section.

Today I read an article about the two different branches of the Tea Party movement. There’s the Palin branch and the Paul branch. These groups are named because of their response to the question of who best embodies the ideas and ideals of the Tea Party movement.  Basically the most noticeable difference between the two is this: The Sarah Palin supporters  are not only angry about the economic direction of the United States, but the social direction as well. The Ron Paul supporters feel that the government should not meddle in social affairs at all.

There was one point in the article that drew my attention and that’s the question that I pose to my readers. In a poll done of the Tea Party protesters at a recent protest in Washington, the protesters (can someone give me a different word?) were asked to rank what issues they felt most angry about. Out of a list of 22 issues, the issue that drew the least anger was same-sex marriage with 24% of respondents saying that they were not at all upset about the issue. The interesting part is that 55% of Palin supporters were very angry about the issue.

So here’s my question: What is your stance on same-sex marriage? In today’s society what does marriage mean? Besides the rights that come with marriage why would a same-sex couple want the right to marry anyway? Besides for being morally right or good, why is it so important that couples marry? Outside of the church is marriage even relevant anymore? Should the government just dissolve the line between civil unions and marriage?

I realize that that’s a lot more than one question, but those are questions I’ve been thinking about lately. Please leave your answers/comments below. I don’t want to see this turn into a shouting match so try to be respectful of anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. But I would like to see discussion about this as well.

My thoughts on the Healthcare Bill

Well, the healthcare bill passed the House on Sunday. It was a narrow vote, 219-212. However rather than rehash what happened (as thousand of other websites will do) here are a couple thoughts I came away with:

• With a vote this narrow (for you non-math people, it’s 7 representatives) I feel that something must be done. I wish that there was a rule stating that if a bill passes with a margin of less than 10 representatives, it should be put before the people as a final vote. With a bill this controversial, it would be a great way for people to practically support or oppose this bill.
• One way that the media was able to diminish the effect of the tea party protesters was to make them a separate political party. Once a group becomes a traditional party instead of a group of concerned citizens, they lose their effectiveness.
• Congratulations to the 34 Democrats who opposed the bill. They are: John Adler (N.J. 3), Jason Altmire (Pa. 4), Michael Arcuri (N.Y. 24), John Barrow (Ga. 12), Marion Berry (Ark. 1), Dan Boren (Okla. 2), Rick Boucher (Va. 9), Bobby Bright (Ala. 2), Ben Chandler (Ky. 6), Travis Childers (Miss. 1), Lincoln Davis (Tenn. 4), Artur Davis (Ala. 7), Chet Edwards (Tex. 17), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Tim Holden (Pa. 17), Larry Kissell (N.C. 8), Frank Kratovil Jr. (Md. 1), Daniel Lipinski (Ill. 3), Stephen F. Lynch (Mass. 9), Jim Marshall (Ga. 8), Jim Matheson (Utah 2), Mike McIntyre (N.C. 7), Michael E. McMahon (N.Y. 13), Charlie Melancon (La. 3), Walt Minnick (Idaho 1), Glenn Nye (Va. 2), Collin C. Peterson (Minn. 7), Mike Ross (Ark. 4), Heath Shuler (N.C. 11), Ike Skelton (Mo. 4), Zack Space (Ohio 18), John Tanner (Tenn. 8), Gene Taylor (Miss. 4), Harry Teague (N.M. 2). So if any of these people are your representative go thank them for their opposition to the bill.
• At this point there’s no point arguing about the pros and cons of the bill. Learn what’s in it, and move on. Just recognize the mistakes and learn from it next time.

The Health Care Bill Summary

Well if there’s one thing the health care bill was good for is that it reawakened my ability to blog. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed the House on Sunday and will be sent to President Obama to be signed into law. The bill is the Senate version of the Health care bill and is about 2,400 pages long. Now that we’ve passed it and can see what’s in it, let’s take a look at some of the major parts of the bill:

— The bill will provide “Quality Health Insurance Coverage for All Americans” by prohibiting preexisting health condition exclusions from insurance coverage.

–Prohibits a health plan from rescinding coverage of an enrollee except in the case of fraud.

–Health insurance exchanges: requires states to establish an American Health Benefit Exchange for purchase of qualified health insurance plans. Creates a related entity to assist with small business health coverage.

–Directs states to establish one or more reinsurance entities for reinsurance programs to assist in health care coverage.

–Requires individuals to maintain minimal health care coverage beginning in 2014. Imposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage with exceptions for low-income individuals, members of Indian tribes, people who object on religious grounds.

–Requires employers of 50 workers who don’t offer coverage to pay a fee up to $750 per worker.

–Beginning in 2010, small employers can elect a tax credit for 50% of their employee health care coverage expenses. Small employers are generally defined as businesses with no more than 25 employees.

–On abortion, permits states to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an exchange in the state. It prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion services and requires separate accounts for payments for such services.

–The bill seeks to extend Medicaid coverage, beginning in 2014, to certain low-income individuals under age 65. States can expand Medicaid eligibility to these people as early as April 1, 2010.

–Sets new standards for Medicare payment to hospitals and doctors by linking “payment to quality outcomes under the Medicare Program.”

–Maintains Children’s Health Insurance Program funding for two years through fiscal year 2015.

–Medicaid Prescription Drug Coverage: seeks to close a gap in seniors’ prescription drug coverage known as the donut hole.

–Expands funding for Community Health Centers.

–Expands doctors and health care services, particularly in rural and underserved areas: increases loans made by schools to nursing students. Expands various health care professional training programs.

–To curb fraud and potential conflicts of interest, bill would require drug, device, biological and medical supply manufacturers to report “transfers of value” made to a medical professionals. Requires disclosure of physician ownership or investment interest in a manufacturer and new disclosure requirements for nursing homes.

–Implements the “Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009” that gives drug makers 12 years of protection, or exclusivity, to sell biologic medicines before facing the threat of cheaper, off-brand alternatives.

Tax increases:

–New excise tax on high premium insurance plans raises $149.1 billion over 10 years. This tax would be 40% of premiums paid on plans costing more than $23,000 for family plans and $8,500 for individual plans.

–New Medicare tax on wealthy: increases after December 31, 2012, the Medicare hospital insurance tax rate by 0.9 percentage points for individual taxpayers earning over $200,000, or married joint filers making more than $250,000.

–Imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices beginning in 2011.

–Imposes an annual fee on certain makers of branded prescription drug beginning in 2010.

–Raises medical tax deduction threshold from 7.5% to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning after 2012.

–Imposes a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning after July 1, 2010.

–Major provisions in the bill would not take effect until January 1, 2014.

I realize that’s a long summary, but if you’re curious about what’s in this bill, there you go!

GOP fundraisers are Fear-Mongering?

It’s funny that right after I wrote about stopping the attitude of fear in our country, leaked slides from an RNC fundraising presentation given to groups in Florida! Talk about timely eh?

For those of you who don’t know, the 72 page Powerpoint presentation was left in a hotel room where it was found and given to a reporter.The document presents the RNC’s fundraising pitch in simple terms. “What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate…?” one slide asks. “Save the country from trending toward Socialism!” Other parts of the presentation encourage fundraisers to appeal to the “ego” of big money donors and play to the “fear” among smaller donors. One page, titled “The Evil Empire,” depicts the president as the Joker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as Scooby Doo.

Right now the GOP is in damage control with everyone fighting to get as far away from these papers as possible. However right now there are a couple conclusions we can draw:

1. Looks like the GOP isn’t the party of no after all huh Obama? It’s the party of fear! Just kidding! In all seriousness this shows a real shift in strategy. Whether it works or not remains to be seen.

2. For all there talk of calming the extreme right, it looks like the GOP has realized that this year catering to the Tea Party movement is the only way they’ll win.

3. At the same time the GOP doesn’t want to lose the big business base it’s always had, so it’s attempting to be all things to all people.

4. Since this election is really the Republicans’ to lose rather than the Democrats to win, this could be huge. If all the moderate voters who were/are willing to vote Republican decide that they’d rather have the Democrats than a party that would stoop to such a low level.

Now of course is there a good reason for such tactics? Of course! If they hadn’t been discovered it may have been very effective. Have both parties tried similar tactics? Of course! However, I believe that “they do it too” is no excuse. Conduct yourself the way you think the other party should act, not the way they do act.

More Trouble for the USS Democrats

Thursday, President Barack Obama met with prominent members of the Senate and the House for a bipartisan health care summit. The summit was carried on CNN and was supposed to be a new turning point in health care reform.

Well…much to the absolute surprise of no one outside of Washington, the summit accomplished absolutely nothing. President Obama came out of the meeting looking frustrated and health care reform appears no closer to passing than it did before the summit. Really I still don’t see the point to it all. If you think about it, this meeting was simply a gathering of prominent members of Congress from both parties to discuss and debate a proposal to govern this country. However, last I checked, Congress was a gathering of prominent members of both parties to discuss and debate proposals to govern this country. If the bill couldn’t get anywhere in Congress, how would it do any better in this summit?

Meanwhile, things are looking pretty grim for our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. With the Democrats odds of keeping control in the House looking slimmer and slimmer, Pelosi is starting to feel the knife at her throat. She has promised to help every Democrat win re-election and many Washington insiders recognize that if the Democrats suffer on Election Day, most of the blame will fall on Pelosi. As if that’s not bad enough, she’s being pressured to get another version of health care passed in the House. While she claims to have the necessary votes, both parties know that this is simply not true. Besides getting over the Republicans, Pelosi needs to control the different factions of her own party. At this point the infighting  among the Democrats is worse than the political sniping going between opposing parties. Add to this the fact that voters are discontent after a year of complete Democtatic control of the government, and the odds of Speaker Pelosi retaining her political favor and her title are very slim indeed!

Whatever happened to Global Warming?

Seriously, where did it go? Has anyone noticed that the words “global warming” are never used anymore? Unless someone is cracking a joke about how unusually cold it is, you never hear it anymore. So what replaced it? Climate change. Don’t believe me? Google it! Google global warming and there are about 34,600,000 hits. Google climate change and there about 71,200,000 hits. Nearly double! So why is this replacement happening?

Before I answer that let me state that I think helping the environment is a huge priority. It should take second place to helping people, but still everyone should do whatever they can to take care of our planet.

So now let me answer the question I posed? I think that scientists are trying to hedge their bets. As late as the 1980’s and 1990’s there were concerns that we were headed towards another Ice Age. Now the trend is toward global warming. But if they call it climate change, the term can be used for any change in the global temperature. Therefore if the global temperature drops, then they can go ahead and call it climate change. If it rises, they can call that climate change as well.

However I’m going to bring the bottom line to what I think lies at the bottom of a lot of issues: Money! Now I don’t think that money motivates something like the renaming of an idea. However the more urgent the scientists can make climate change seem, the more money they get. So if the evidence goes against their global warming theory, they rename it and get to keep the funding without people noticing it.

As always I appreciate your thoughts, so go ahead and comment and tell me what you think!

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Thursday, the Supreme Court made what is (arguably) on of the stupidest decisions in American history. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court removed all restrictions on the amount of money that corporations can spend on federal races.

In other words, if Wal-Mart decides that they want Joe Six-Pack(thank you Sarah Palin for giving us this one!) to win an election, they could put their entire bank account into making sure that he wins. After all what could possibly go wrong with this idea? Aside from giving a HUGE amount of power to corporate America, possibly making elections solely about money, and the possibility of a corporation eclipsing a candidate’s message, nothing!

As we’ve seen from the 2008 elections, generally speaking, the candidate with more money wins the race. By allowing corporations to give without limits, we’re creating an election process that becomes a joke! Even if a corporation doesn’t win, we’re allowing them to throw more money at candidates during a recession! So if they don’t give money, the corporation may not like the decisions that the government makes.(Because after all it’s not like the governments represent the people instead of corporations, right?) If they do, then that’s less money to pay employees and other expenses.

You know what the best part is? The Supreme Court justifies the ruling by saying that it is about free speech. FREE SPEECH?!?! Are they serious? Since when do the corporations not have free speech? They could contribute money before and they could spread whatever message they wanted to. Besides as individuals, the people that make up the corporation can do and say whatever they want!

How does this affect the Democrats and Republicans? Well the Democrats are upset because traditionally, corporate spending has benefited Republicans. Republicans aren’t upset but they should be. Let’s say that the corporations back the Republicans and the Republicans start winning elections. What does this show? It doesn’t mean that the people agree with the ideas of the party or that the people are being represented. The basic idea of our government is that it is by the people and for the people. Thus by doing this the Republicans risk losing a significant part of their base. The Republican base wants their voice to be heard and if they feel that this is no longer happening, they should and will go somewhere else.

Some Congressmen are introducing legislation that will try to combat the effects of this ruling. I hope it goes through. After all if this ruling stands what could possibly go wrong?