Gravitas

The idea of an open and communicative government is wonderful. However, all of the childish prattling coming out Washington about who is at fault for creating the nation's debt and who is at fault for prolonging it is absolutely appalling. Op-ed columnists are naturally going to write the kind of pieces that will whip the American people into a furious lather, and that may be a good thing—Americans should pressure the government into making long overdue changes. In fact, it would be nice, if unlikely, to have that pressure result in meaningful, productive dialogue between the people and the government. Alternatively, I think the people should be able to realistically expect meaningful, informative disclosure from our duly elected officials as discussions progress. The dispassionate yammering currently issuing from members of Congress and, indeed, the Office of the President amounts to little more than the finger-pointing and name-calling tactics schoolchildren use to settle a playground dispute. It has become commonplace on the American political landscape, and it needs to stop. The people deserve a little more gravitas from the country's highest levels of leadership.

Off Limits

Call me a skeptic, but when I hear a government official say, "Nothing is off limits," with regards to budget cuts, I hear, "Only the obvious things are off limits."

In Honor of Rights Unchanged

In 1920 Congress passed the Nineteenth Constitutional Amendment:

The right of United States citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Although, the Nineteenth Amendment is commonly referred to as the amendment that gave women the right to vote, the wording of the legislation is unambiguous; the rights of women to suffrage were unchanged, only the ability of states to deny those rights were affected.

Over 90 years later many Americans continue to believe that state and federal governments are granting rights to people who don't deserve them. In truth, rights aren't given—we're born with them, and the government is charged with protecting those rights.

Arizona Legislature Out of Control

This is blatantly unconstitutional, right? OK, just checking.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I'm having a hard time finding factual information on the national health care reform bill, known officially as "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". I definitely oppose the $695 annual fine for not purchasing health insurance. Of course, I live in a state where buckling one's seat belt is mandatory, but it isn't worth fighting because it doesn't really cost me anything. On the other hand, I've heard health care reform compared to the Social Security system, but that isn't really working, is it?

You can download a full-text PDF of the bill from the Library of Congress or peruse the bill online.

For the curious, here are the most informative summaries I've found so far:

• CBS News - Very simple, very brief.
• The Wall Street Journal - More in depth, covers "major prvisions".
• Library of Congress Bill Summary and Status - This is more like a detailed outline.

Too Expensive

I read today that the US House failed in a bid to overturn President Bush's veto of a bill to expand health care. The program was to be funded by a tax increase on tobacco products. Among the reasons given by the White House for vetoing the bill are: Bush "wants to take care of poor children first" and "the bill was too expensive." Hm... too expensive. And how much does it cost to run a war in Iraq?

OK, Let's Sign 'Em Up

A recent conversation with one of my most thought-provoking friends veered onto the topic of presidential impeachment. I suggested that if we could get a million folks to sign a petition, our elected public officials would have know choice but to take notice. To this, her enthusiastic response was, "A million signatures? We can get that, let's do it!" It was my opinion, however, that by the time the impeachment process had come to a close, the 2008 presidential election would have run its course, and it isn't likely that the House Judiciary Committee would exert its efforts on such an ill-timed venture.

An interesting aside to this conversation was a brief, tangential debate on whether the office of President of the United States constitutes a job. I am of the opinion that any activity which one is regularly expected to do, and for which one is regularly compensated amounts to a job. She held that the office of the President is above an ordinary job. I can only pray that his secret surveillance program(s) didn't pick that up, as it can only lead to bad things (thanks Mel)....

It was a botched joke

While addressing a group of university students in California, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) unleashed a zinger:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.

Senator Kerry certainly looks like a jackass, doesn't he? In the face of the ensuing media free-for-all Kerry issued a statement which dismissed the comment as "a botched joke". The fact is, whether he intended to or not, Kerry did insult the troops in Iraq. The rhetoric from the Kerry camp claims that the senator's intent was to take a shot at the President. MSNBC.com reports that Kerry's prepared text reads as follows:

Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.

So why can't Senator Kerry simply explain that he didn't mean to insult the intelligence of America's troops, he only meant to insult the intelligence of America's Commander in Chief? Isn't it possible that Senator Kerry said exactly what he was thinking? It seems to me that Kerry's only real goof was speaking as he did without giving it enough forethought (or at least paying closer attention to his notes).