Exploring Insanity in America, Part I

Two news stories broke this April, both concerning the September 11th terror attacks and also illustrating the sheer lunacy of those on the political right.


One was the insane notion that the heroes--the firefighters, police officers, construction workers and other crew members risked their lives on September 11th would be forced to cross-check their names on the Terror Watch List before receiving their workman's compensation for illnesses contracted from the disaster. The other piece of outright madness was that 247 people on the terror watch list had legally purchased firearms last year. 247 people who the government suspects has ties to Al-Qaeda. People who wish to do harm to you and me. People who want us dead. But hey, they're only suspects, right?


Predictably, the National Rifle Association opposes any effort on behalf of the government to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. The AP story quotes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam saying what pretty much every NRA spokesman has ever said about any effort to keep guns away from criminals: "We think it's wrong to arbitrarily deny a law-abiding person a Constitutional right."


Leaving aside the question as to why some suspected terrorists are allowed to purchase guns and others are locked up in Guantanamo without formal charges against them (but seriously, what gives!), we still have a clear picture of how upside down Congress has its priorities: Those who worked to keep America safe from terrorists must prove they are not terror suspects in order to receive health care for diseases contracted from Ground Zero, whereas those who actually have suspected ties to terrorism can legally purchase guns and explosives.


How could this happen? What society could produce a human being as disgusting as Cliff Stearns, let alone elect him to Congress? How could such wild and utterly contradictory illogic take route and get passed into law in a civilized society? Why be skeptical of someone who will risk his life to save yours, but permissive to somebody who might want to kill you? That's not falling on the right of the political spectrum--that's outright lunacy that requires intervention.


Many on the political left would throw up their hands and say that America is a conservative country. I disagree. We live in an era where a confluence of factors have brought us in a situation where bad ideas can flourish--sometimes against the will of the majority.


A huge part of the problem is rooted in a remarkably poor reading of the Second Amendment. We know what the NRA thinks, and some have criticized Thomas Jefferson using vague language as to what the Amendment actually protects. The trouble is, Jefferson was pretty clear on what kind of military he wanted the United States to have, and what the function of a well-regulated militia was supposed to be. From the man himself:

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence [sic] until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."

In other words, Jared Loughner does not have the right to shoot a Congresswoman and point-blank range. People who are not crazy should have guns, but only for the purpose of doing away with a large, standing army. Taking up arms to overthrow the government is called treason, and the Constitution rightly forbids it.

What's really crazy is that one can read all these quotes from Jefferson (and more) at an anti-gun control website! Seriously. Somebody read the argument for the Second Amendment and is still polishing his rifle just in case the Feds come knocking. In my next blog, I'll further examine the origins of this loopy logic and it's implications on our political discourse--and what can be done to stop it.

In the meantime, feel free to call Cliff Stearns Office at (202) 225-5744. Ask him why he would sooner arm a potential terrorist than provide health care to someone who would keep him safe from terrorism.

Embrance populism, even if not George McGovern

My attempt to gin up support for a George McGovern presidency has met with mixed results. My McGovern 2012 Facebook group is limited to people on my friends list. Some have been so excited as to brandish their original McGovern for President buttons, others have questioned why I would pick anyone over the age of 89 to mount a campaign for President and ultimately occupy the White House. Perhaps I should clarify.

In your heart, you know you're right.

The point wasn't necessarily to persuade the 89-year-old George McGovern to give up his Florida winter home and start making speeches in Iowa and New Hampshire. The point was the American public believes in the core issue of higher taxes for better government services. Don't believe me? Check out these polls in Utah, Nevada, and yes, even George McGovern's home state of South Dakota. Even in these so-called "red states," people want government to work for the people. Oh, and Paul Ryan's plan to virtually replace Medicare with private insurance? That's not going over so well.

Yes, Democratic presidential candidates lost badly in 1972, 1984, and 1988, and I'm well aware of who just took control of the House of Representatives. But that doesn't mean Barack Obama or any other elected Democrat should simply cede ground to extremist corporate interests. Doing so only serves to further alienate the general public and re-affirm the belief that government doesn't work for the people among skeptics.


The time to turn things around is now. This is not the time to apologize for Barack Obama's inability to provide sufficient assistance the millions of Americans who are struggling financially because we perceive it politically unfeasible. Rather, the only reason he isn't running away with a second term is because he fell into a self-fulfilling prophecy that Americans didn't want more government. I merely proposed that the man partly responsible for this timidity among progressives unseat Obama and smash the myth of a "conservative" America once and for all.

Well, it probably won't happen with another McGovern presidency. But if the "sensible liberal" can understand that Americans want health insurance instead of bailouts for corporations and tax cuts for millionaires, that's an important step in the right direction.

Oh yeah, and in case you haven't seen it already, a video about the ultra-liberal state of North Dakota. They have another bank besides Wells Fargo.

George McGovern--2012

That's right. George McGovern for President. Now.

Soldier, you country calls you yet again!!

Who cares if he'll be 90 years old on election day and currently lives part-year in sunny Florida. There are two very compelling reasons why George McGovern should run for president next year.

First of all, Barack Obama has made a terrible case for his re-election. With economic recovery on shaky grounds and no viable exit strategy from Afghanistan, he has left little room for daylight between him and his predecessor. Rather than run on his accomplishments or what he intends to do during his second term, he merely implores the public to re-elect him because he isn't crazy. That's a terrible metric for success.

Second of all, today's Republican Party is so extreme and frightening in their own policies that candidates like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are deemed "too liberal" for the party base. Gallup notes that this is the first time in the history of their polling organization that no front-runner has emerged this late in the game, opening the door for a potential tea-party favorite to take the reigns. Should that happen, any Democrat--even Kucinich--would probably win in a landslide. Example: Barack Obama's approval rating is below 50 percent, and even he would defeat Sarah Palin by double digits.

Someone fix this with PhotoShop, please!

I say we take advantage of this opportunity by ending the myth of "conservative" America once and for all. Democrats have won the popular vote in four out of the last five presidential elections. McGovern and Mondale ran against popular incumbents and lost badly, and Michael Dukakis made several moronic decisions that doomed his candidacy. The Democratic Party has been scared of its own shadow ever since. What better time--and who a better person--to win the presidency and re-establish a government that actually works for the people than McGovern himself?

I say let's make this idea go viral as quickly as possible. We need a draft McGovern movement. Someone with access to FinalCutPro should put together some promo videos and post them on YouTube. McGovern may not ultimately run, but I sure would like to see his name come out on top against hypothetical opponents in public opinion polling. It would certainly send a powerful message to our flaccid leader on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Think about it: A president with the moral decency to end tax cuts for the super-wealthy and corporations, restore sanity to foreign policy, and reform our entitlement programs so that the reigns of populism are firmly rooted in the political left once and for all. If he wins, we all win! Sow how 'bout it! Tell your friends to spread the word! McGovern 2012!

President Obama's flawed address casts shadow over noble action

Let's be clear from the beginning. Yes, stopping a murderous tyrant like Qaddafi is the right thing to do. It is in the interest of free world to prevent genocide and the potential displacement of millions of people. If it must come by force, than so be it. What I can't understand is why Barack Obama continues to be so condescending, contradictory and almost comically illogical when he explains his actions. Last night's televised speech is his latest exercise in this endeavor.

Problem number one is that no matter what, President Obama will use terrible logic to insulate himself from criticism. Eliot Spitzer's article "Last Chance for Libya," summarized quite well that the Libyan rebels had nearly been quashed in Benghazi--and waiting any longer would have enabled Qaddafi to extinguish the torch of freedom. In making his case for intervention, Obama himself spelled out the disaster that was unfolding in human terms:

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

Pretty terrible, huh? I guess waiting for a month before acting was a failure that you should own up to, eh Mr. President?

Not exactly. Demonstrating that his arrogance knows no bounds, Obama congratulated himself for acting so quickly. "When people were being brutalized in Bosnia," he reasoned, "it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us only 31 days."

Imagine if Franklin Roosevelt had waited until February 7th, 1942, to declare war on Germany and Japan. Extrapolating on Obama's timeframe, Roosevelt could have reasoned, "It took Woodrow Wilson two years after the sinking of the Lusitania to confront the German Menace. I only waited two months!"

Perhaps more important was Obama's omission of Congressional approval. If we take him at his word that he "consulted with bipartisan members of Congress," why didn't he follow Constitutional procedure and schedule a vote? It took George W. Bush less than one hour to get Congressional approval concerning Terri Schiavo. No approval after 31 days for a noble cause such as this is nothing to boast about.

Why was a vote in Congress not necessary? And if it wasn't necessary in the case of establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone, why should the President ask for Congressional approval for upgrading our dilapidated infrastructure? Or funding our public schools? Or hiring more police officers in high-crime areas? These are are all noble goals as well, eh, Mr President? The same president who refuses to sign virtually anything into law unless he has 60 Senate votes--regardless as to how popular the legislation is with the general public.

And he didn't bother to mention any sort of exit strategy. It's not like the general public has over 100,000 reasons to be skeptical on that one.


I wish I had some sort of witty punch line to sign out, but I don't. I guess the take-away is that doing the job poorly is better than utter failure. I'm glad he's not Donald Trump, but the President needs to understand that he's not Abraham Lincoln either.