Young Voices
Exchanging ideas from the show and blogging about topics in the news from a range of perspectives.
July 8, 2007
A New Approach on Iran
by Rose Capozzi
“if President Bush follows Schweizer's advice, the United States will go on the offensive, like Ronald Reagan during the Cold War.”
There is bad news and there is good news. The bad news is that Iran poses a serious threat toward the United States. The good news is that there are steps we can take (short of war) to deal with the government in Tehran. Peter Schweizer offers some suggestions in the USA Today, taking a lesson from President Ronald Reagan's administration.
Schweizer points out a number of reasons for the United States to change its approach. First of all, Iran is working to get nuclear weapons and refuses to cooperate with the international community. Second, Iran has recently taken four innocent Americans hostage for "spying" and "undermining Iranian national security." Third, Iran is supporting insurgents fighting American troops in Iraq. And finally, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has voiced hopes to destroy Israel by "wipe[ing] it off the face of the map."
Up until now, the U.S. response has involved diplomatic talks. But, if President Bush follows Schweizer's advice, the United States will go on the offensive, like Ronald Reagan during the Cold War. Schweizer's advice (and that of many scholars) is to cut off Iranian access to oil. Though the nation is oil rich, it does not have the refinery capacity to produce the gasoline it demands. If the United States were to put a blockade in place, the Iranian economy would collapse. The impact would be immediate, and Iran would have very few ways to respond.
Diplomacy is better than military action, but when talking fails, the United States needs to be willing to do more than just offer stern warnings. After all, actions speak louder than words, especially words that fall on deaf ears.
July 3, 2007
Freedom and The Fourth
by Victor Marsh
“For some people...every day...is September 11th.”
Where am I? I am writing to you from a dorm room, at a language program in a large capital city.
Last Sunday, I had to show my passport to enter a church, because at the church I went to, the government does not allow its own citizens to go. I also get strange "error messages" whenever I try to go to the BBC News website. It seems that there is just too much "troublesome" information on that webpage.
After September 11th, I noticed an unfortunate back-tracking in so many of the rights we hold dear. If you oppose extreme measures, some even launch accusations of being soft, coddling the terrorists. September 11th shook America awake to new challenges that we had neglected. It should not - however - shake the foundations of who we are, and hope we represent to people whose internet is controlled, or whose house of worship is regulated.
For some people, who advocate indefinite detentions even for fellow citizens, torture by proxy in other countries, walls of closure around our borders that cannot work, and an expansion of Gitmo even when Bush opposes it - every day seems like it is September 11th. The concern about security takes over everything.
But I also see some positive trends. The need to never give up certain rights, to be an absolutist when it comes to our basic rights, is something that conservative Libertarians and liberal Democrats are 100% agreed upon.
Let's let every day be The Fourth of July - as we defend our liberties rather than allow terrorists to change who we are.
July 4, 2007
But he's still guilty, right?
by Jeremy Freed
“The mixed message sent by this decision exemplifies exactly why America has lost its moral authority in the world. ”
Don't mind that mean old judge, Scooter, everything's gonna be okay.
President Bush commuted the 30-month sentence of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff on Monday, letting him off with a quarter of a million dollars in fines and two years of probation. This after Libby was convicted of lying to federal investigators in the aftermath of the Wilson/Plame affair, essentially taking the fall for Cheney's role in fabricating the WMD story.
So why not a full pardon?
The answer to that is… HE COMMITTED A FELONY. He was found guilty and sentenced to more than two years in prison by a federal court, and this President Bush knows. Pardoning Libby, something 7 out of 10 Americans opposed in polls, would be too much. He did do those bad things he was accused of, after all. But the damage to Libby's reputation and the fine he'll have to pay are punishment enough, according to our president. And heck, he was only lying to protect Dick Cheney. Who wouldn't do that?
The mixed message sent by this decision exemplifies exactly why America has lost its moral authority in the world. Libby, convicted of attempting to circumvent the checks and balances that keep the government accountable to the people, is guilty. We can pretty much all agree on that (except Libby and his defense, who are appealing the convictions.) But not guilty enough to go to prison, according to our leader, no matter what the judge and jury may say.
At the end of the day we're left with the understanding that there are, in fact, two justice systems in America: One for the privileged, and one for everybody else. Prison is a place for drug dealers, freedom-haters, and the mentally ill, not for upstanding citizens like Libby, convicted felon or no.
July 9, 2007
Pro-Life?
by Victor Marsh
“[So]...you are "pro-babies"...is that a real test of faith?”
If you think it is okay for the government to kill people - even capital criminals - can you really call yourself Pro-Life?
The death penalty in this country is terrible for two reasons.
First, a principle I stand upon as a Christian is that life is a gift - not of man's constitutions' - but of Divine order. Many Americans agree with this. They even go so far as to say that one should not engage in the prevention of a human life from coming into being. But the sympathies end there. Congratulations, you are "pro-babies." But is that a real test of faith principles? A real test is how you apply your faith to a hardened criminal. Can you hold that life is Divinely-ordered and also think it A-OK for the government to execute people? That does not sound so pro-life to me.
The second reason why the death penalty is terrible is because it is administered so unjustly. Do we have "Equal Protection Under Law" when Texan juries ready the frying pan for anybody who blinks at the wrong speed, while my own state of Michigan consistently refuses to adopt such a penalty?
Do not even get me started on the race and class implications of our unbalanced scales of justice.
I suppose those who oppose such executions are just woosies. But enough about me - let's hear what you think in the comments section!
July 10, 2007
Michael Moore Lets Loose on CNN
by Jeremy Freed
“A health care system with an emphasis on providing care for the sick, rather than making money, just seems logical. ”
In a rare live appearance on “The Situation Room” yesterday, Michael Moore ranted for almost ten minutes in response to an allegation that he had “fudged” certain facts in his new film, Sicko. The criticism came in the form of a segment by CNN's medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who suggested, among other things, that Moore's film paints an entirely-too-rosy picture of healthcare in the rest of the Western world.
The allegations have since been officially rebutted point by point on Moore's website.
The segment can be seen here, followed by Moore's heated response. Also, there's a nice summary of the flying sparks from The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar.
My personal favorite moment comes at the end of the interview, when Lou Dobbs compares Moore to Hugo Chavez, “He has to love profit, what's he talking about?” Unfortunately, the point missed by Mr. Dobbs, and also by Paul Keckley, one expert quoted in the Gupta segment, is that the main problem with privatized healthcare, versus that provided by the government, is that governments have no interest in profits, and thus would not find it beneficial to deny patient care in order to make more money. Yes we would pay more taxes, but without CEO salaries to maintain and shareholders to appease with ever-greater earnings, there would be far more money to go around for the actual patients. A healthcare system with an emphasis on providing care for the sick, rather than making money, just seems logical. But maybe I'm missing something.
As a Canadian citizen, I remember being confused by Moore's assertion in his earlier film, Bowling for Columbine, that my countrymen rarely lock their doors or murder each other with handguns. This is blatantly false. In much the same way, I was disappointed by his utopian portrayal in Sicko of Canada's healthcare system. While it is far better than America's (doctor and hospital visits are completely free; can you imagine?) it's still far from perfect or comprehensive. Wait times for non-emergency procedures can be months, and drugs, while subsidized, are still expensive.
That Gupta appears to be wrong, and the amount of money CNN gets from drug companies notwithstanding, it's good to see some debate out there.
July 23, 2007
Jail Zealous Prosecutors?
by Victor Marsh
“These are solvable problems.”
When will America get really serious about dealing with the problem of wrongful convictions - innocent people going to jail? The motto that our law students learn is "it is better for a guilty person to go free than for a single innocent person to go behind bars."
But that is not how things work in America - especially if you are male and African-American.
So let's get serious. Let's even get creative.
Should we set a minimum sentence - 20 years in jail plus removal from the Bar for all prosecutors who send the wrong people to jail?
Sound too severe? How about a "3 strikes and you're out" rule for prosecutors? That might provide them with quite an incentive, and give a taste of what normal private citizens have to deal with in our criminal justice system.
We probably need some nice incentives too - like federal funds to train our police in the new research-proven methods to avoid jailing Black men every time we chew gum on the wrong side of our mouths.
Unlike my "get tough on prosecutors" approach above, the study by University of Virginia Law professor Brandon Garrett is actually constructive - explaining where the biggest problems are. The first big problem is eye-witness testimony. The second big problem is how some prosecutors spin crime scene evidence in the courtroom. For example, some prosecutors overemphasize to juries when some suspects blood type matches.
These are solvable problems. Solutions for errors in eye-witness testimony have been published since 1999 by the U.S. Justice Department. If any prosecutor or law enforcer in this great Union needs more than 8 years to implement modern techniques, then they should be out of a job, or perhaps worse.
But how do you feel about the issue?
July 11, 2007
Impeach Cheney? Sadly, unlikely.
by Jeremy Freed
“When it comes to our shotgun-happy VP, and the myriad shady dealings of his office, it seems worthwhile to ask why the case for impeachment remains such a shout in the wilderness.”
Ever hear of House Resolution 333? Yeah, me neither until yesterday. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that the resolution, which proposes to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, has about as much chance of being passed as its chief sponsor, Dennis Kucinich, does of snagging the desk in the oval office.
Whether Kucinich will be our next president is hardly worth debating, but when it comes to our shotgun-happy VP, and the myriad shady dealings of his office, it seems worthwhile to ask why the case for impeachment, with a growing list of representatives on board, remains such a shout in the wilderness.
A slightly over-the-top video released last week by Outfoxed producer Robert Greenwald, complete with villain music and footage of bleeding soldiers, outlines the articles of impeachment. In it, news clips show Cheney making connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and stating that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.” We all know now that these are lies, but whether Cheney knew this at the time will be difficult to prove, especially considering his penchant for destroying documents.
There is also the question of whether Cheney broke the law when he gave an order to shoot down commercial aircraft on 9/11, something he was not constitutionally authorized to do. According to James Ridgeway, Mother Jones' Washington correspondent, no one, including the 9/11 commission has yet taken him to task for this.
Cheney's misdeeds have been catalogued and scrutinized at length by the press, who have found his vice presidency to be one characterized by unprecedented power and extreme secrecy. The fact that Cheney's roles in the WMD setup, the Al Qaeda connection, and the 9/11 orders have not really been addressed until now says much about the amount of influence Cheney asserts in Washington, and gives a good indication of how Kucinich's impeachment resolution will fare.
Cheney has the lowest approval ratings of any vice president save Dan Quayle, and in a recent poll, 54 percent of adult Americans were found in favor of impeachment. Despite this, with Scooter Libby's full allegiance assured by his recent get out of jail free card, it looks like the man regarded as the most powerful vice president ever, who has repeatedly and fearlessly disregarded the limits set by the constitution and the interests of the American people, will once again get his way. Simply put: Dick Cheney will not be impeached because Dick Cheney has gone to great lengths to ensure it.
July 21, 2007
Sick of Health Care
by Rose Capozzi
“31% of people in my age bracket (18-24 years old) go without health coverage every year. What about the rest of us?
”
Democrats have come up with an interesting way to deal with uninsured Americans. They hope to expand the previously limited State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to nearly double the amount of children who are currently covered.
On paper, the expansion of SCHIP looks great. In reality, it only exacerbates a serious problem. Originally, SCHIP was created for families living on less than $41, 000 a year. The new legislation would expand the program to provide insurance for families earning up to $83, 000, roughly 71% of American children! In other words, even families who can afford proper health care for their children will get coverage for free, reducing their own accountability and increasing their dependency on government intervention.
And how will the American people pay for this new entitlement program? The low-income earners the program is meant to help will be picking up the tab, in the form of a 61 cent increase on the taxes of cigarettes.
Across the board, people agree that we have a troubled health care system. According to the 2005 U.S. Census, 11% of children were uninsured. Unfortunately, the politics of health insurance prevent Democrats from finding a real solution for the problem. After all, children are not the only fateful group at the hands of America's health care system; 31% of people in my age bracket (18-24 years old) go without health coverage every year. What about the rest of us?
More importantly, what about a sustainable and practical answer to the U.S. health care problem?
July 16, 2007
As Zimbabwe Nears Collapse, the AU Watches in Silence
by Jeremy Freed
“That 'total economic collapse' sounds even remotely like good news indicates just how bad things have become in the region, and begs the question of how this has been allowed to happen.”
It is hard to imagine things in Zimbabwe getting any worse, but of course every time we say that they inevitably do.
For years, the West, along with Zimbabwe's African neighbors, have watched its decline. Despite widespread popular outrage at the silencing of free speech, forced redistribution of land, and generally abysmal government policy, it seems yet again that things will get worse before they get better. This week, as government-ordered price slashing accelerates the country's slide into chaos, a departing U.S. diplomat assures us that ‘the end is near,' with total economic collapse predicted before the end of the 2007. That this sounds even remotely like good news indicates just how bad things have become in the region, and begs the question of how this has been allowed to happen.
The African Union, by continually refusing to hold Robert Mugabe, the country's aging strongman, accountable for running his once-prosperous nation into the ground, deserves much of the blame. Time and again, the coalition has cemented its compliance with Mugabe by refusing to confront his regime on human rights violations, rigged elections, and horrible mismanagement. Now, as African nations prepare for an EU-Africa summit in Portugal next December, they have an opportunity to correct this by supporting Zimbabwe's banishment from the talks. Their mediocre response to recent criticism, however, suggests it is unlikely that this will happen.
“Africa Must Unite,” is the motto of the AU. While this seems like a good enough idea, a united Africa that stands behind dictatorships like Mugabe's, is one with deeply flawed priorities. An African Union that silently watches the slow, painful collapse of one of its members looks like an ineffectual body at best, and a collaborator at worst.
July 20, 2007
Water Hope in Darfur
by Victor Marsh
“Could...digging some wells...bring some peace...?”
The genocide in Darfur has many causes. Chief among the instigators is the Sudanese government in Khartoum, which has won a higher place for itself on the annual Failed States Index.
Another cause of the war that led to genocide in Darfur is that good land used to be plentiful there, but the land has dried up. "Arab" nomad herders and "Black" farmers used to be able to share the land happily, because there was plenty to go around for such a small population. Over time, the land became more of a desert. The farmers versus herders conflict grew and grew.
Now there is a chance that one of the causes for the war in Darfur can be addressed. Scientists have discovered an ancient lake underground. Could it be that digging some wells would bring some peace between the farmers and herders?
Well, it certainly could help things. Maybe if the farmers and herders make peace, then the grand political negotiations would have more hope of being successful. My previous opinion on this blog was to just let all the people of Darfur who wanted to leave, to become refugees in the USA, do so. My assumption was that the land in Darfur is simply too dry, too scarce for everyone to return to their homes. But if there really is water, and it can be accessed for everyone, then there is a chance that my far-reaching idea would not even be necessary.
For a region ravaged by war and genocide, at this point, any good news is welcome. Let us hope.
July 24, 2007
Re: Sick of Health Care
by Jeremy Freed
President George W. Bush leads a discussion on health care in Landover, Maryland.
In an earlier post, my Young Voices teammate, Rose, suggested that the plan to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which proposes to give health coverage to 11 million previously uninsured children, would “exacerbate a serious problem,” and ultimately make matters worse for both the children it insures and the rest of us.
The article cited in her blog, by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, states that the proposed legislation would over-insure America's kids, by covering those in middle-class homes who already have private insurance. It goes on to say that the money required to provide government health coverage for all of these children would effectively saddle them with debt in their adult years, “…equivalent to giving a $170,000 mortgage to every child in America but without the house.”
My initial response was suspicion: Where can you buy a house for $170,000? Have you checked the foundation? Did its previous owners run a meth lab? The metaphor, shaky as it is, seems especially suspect considering the monumental debt these same children will be paying for the Bush government's wars and generally ruinous fiscal policies, which The Heritage Foundation enthusiastically supports. Given the choice, I'll go out on a limb and say that the uninsured kids of today will probably rather have their taxes spent on health care than no-bid contracts with Halliburton. But I digress slightly.
The SCHIP plan, bipartisan as it is, contains a definite Democrat-inspired lean towards universal health care, something hardly popular across the board. President Bush has spoken out against this, and it is an issue over which he threatens to veto the bill, potentially leaving those uninsured kids in the lurch. The Democrats cannot be blamed for pursuing their declared agenda of universal health care, but both sides should be faulted for using children as hostages in this partisan battle.
Rose asks for a “sustainable and practical answer to the U.S. health care problem.” This exists in the form of Congressman John Conyers' H.R. 676, a universal health care plan for all Americans. Funded by a 3.3% payroll tax on employers, a 5% tax on the top 5% of income earners, and a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, it seems like a solid, sensible plan. Why give health care just to children when you can give it to everyone?
July 25, 2007
Think of the Children!
by Rose Capozzi
In the course of debate between my Young Voices teammate, Jeremy, and I over health care in America, an interesting point came up. Are we spending too much money on the War on Terror and not enough on domestic entitlement programs?
There seems to be a major misconception floating around about where our hard-earned tax dollars are spent. While anti-war protesters demand that we move money earmarked for the war to health care, they fail to understand the reality of the cost of "free" health care.
According to a well known and highly respected economist, Joseph Stiglitz, the United States will pay a total of $2.2 trillion on the War on Terror between 2003 and 2015. That sounds like a lot of money. Yet, it is dwarfed by the increasing size of the United States economy.
The annual GDP (gross domestic product) of the United States has reached an incredible $13 trillion a year, which would easily make it affordable for us to fight more than one small war. And, despite the amount of news coverage devoted to them, Niall Ferguson of The Wall Street Journal writes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are small in comparison to World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War as a percent of GDP.
Ferguson explains that In a comparison with any other decade in which the United States has gone to war, President Bush has kept the defense budget remarkably low. In the 60s, 8.4% of the U.S. GDP was used for defense, in the 70s it was 5.6%, in the 80s it was 5.7%, and under Bush it is only 3.6%. In fact, Ferguson suggests that our failure to secure Iraq and Afghanistan may be because we have not spent enough money to be victorious.
Obviously, you can't put a dollar sign on the human cost of war. But, when we are pointing the finger of financial irresponsibility at the Bush Administration, there are many better examples of waste than the War on Terror.
To suggest that the War on Terror will leave our children and their children in debt is blatantly false. Everyone loves children, and to say that President Bush is choosing to fight an unpopular war and funnel the extra cash into his cronies is a misrepresentation of exactly where money is being funneled. What will leave future generations in the hole is increasing entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and even a program that is meant to help children, SCHIP.
July 30, 2007
Speak Up, Ladies
by Rose Capozzi
“After more than 40 years of being an integral part of the American workforce, what gives?
”
Women earn less money than men. It starts after we graduate from college and continues throughout our careers. Regardless of whether we take off time to have children or not, we earn less. Regardless of our professions and education levels, we earn less.
After more than 40 years of being an integral part of the American workforce, what gives?
If I was paranoid, or an old-fashioned 60s feminist, I would attribute this "glass ceiling" to blatant sexism. However, according to a new study out of the Carnegie Mellon University, women simply do not speak up for more cash. When it comes to negotiating salaries higher, 51 percent of men do it. 83.5 percent of women do not even ask. As a result, those who negotiate are rewarded with a 7.4 percent higher wage.
The simple solution would be for us girls to simply speak up and demand the same wage as our male counterparts. But that is easier said than done. The study also found that men are less willing to work with women who attempt to negotiate their salary. In fact, the negative effect for women negotiating is two times more than that for men. Maybe paranoia has its place, after all.
Women in America face a crossroad. We can either take the salary that is offered, and likely settle for a salary less than men, or we can take our chances and speak up for ourselves. Decide for yourself. But, keep in mind that the kind of people and the kind of workplace that cannot appreciate a woman who has the nerve to haggle probably is not worth haggling for.
July 29, 2007
Shake Hands With the Devil
by Jeremy Freed
Filming Shake Hands with the Devil. Photo Credit: Chris Reardon
General Romeo Dallaire was a U.N. commander stationed in Rwanda in 1994. He was assigned to oversee what he thought would be a fairly routine peacekeeping mission, but what turned into one of the largest genocides in recent history. Dallaire recounted his experiences in Rwanda in his 2003 memoir, Shake Hands With the Devil, a remarkably personal and moving account of his powerlessness to change the course of events that led to the slaughter of more than 800,000 people. The U.S., France, and Belgium refused to act, despite explicit warnings of the impending crisis; the U.N., mired in bureaucracy, did next to nothing. While Dallaire's command was able to save the lives of nearly 30,000 people, he watched as many more died unspeakably horrific deaths.
Dallaire's memoir, which has already been turned into an award-winning documentary, has now been adapted into a feature film, which could appear in theaters as early as this fall. Filmed on location in Rwanda using many locations described in the book, Shake Hands With the Devil promises to raise again the difficult questions of how this was allowed to happen, and perhaps more importantly, how genocides continue to be perpetrated in the world, free from outside intervention.
In a 2006 commentary, Philip Gourevitch wrote in the New Yorker about the United States' historical and continued reluctance to avert genocides, citing a long list of conflicts in which we stood silently by while thousands perished. Currently, it seems, the trend continues, with official denouncements of the atrocities in Darfur mostly constituting our government's response to the killing there. When Bill Richardson, who has worked closely with the Save Darfur Coalition, recently suggested boycotting the Beijing Olympics to pressure China into exerting its influence in the region, he was met with skepticism.
Romeo Dallaire's account of the Rwandan genocide, along with Paul Rusesabagina's, and others', were instrumental in bringing the world's attention to the terrible acts committed there. These witnesses hoped that their testimony might prevent similar genocides from happening in the future. For the moment, however, while genocide appears to remain less important than sports, and while governments continue to drag their feet on Darfur, we are likely to witness more deaths before anything changes.
July 10, 2007
Keeping the Faith
by Rose Capozzi
Pope Benedict XVI
Pope Benedict XVI has turned out to be more influential than most people expected. After the passing of Pope John Paul II and the confirmation of Benedict, a 78 year old, many suspected that he would simply serve as an interim Pope between the dynamic John Paul and the next influential, younger pope.
However, Pope Benedict, who had retired before being called upon to lead the Catholic Church, has brought his belief in traditional Catholic values to the people. Recently, he sanctioned Latin masses, a practice that was banned during the Second Vatican Council. Today, he took another conservative step; he permitted an official statement of the church to be released saying that Orthodox churches are "defective" and Christian churches, outside of Catholicism, are not true churches.
Pope John Paul II was a universally loved figure, who did more than any other pope to bring people into the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict is a divisive character who seems to care more about bringing the church back to theological purity than filling seats. As a Catholic, I see the importance in both spreading the message and keeping the message true. The hardest part of being the head of a recognized religion, I would guess, is getting the balance right. I am hopeful that the Church will eventually be able to do so.
July 17, 2007
GOP Voters Choose: None of the Above
by Victor Marsh
“...sad to see [McCain's] boat sinking so fast...”
A recent AP poll reveals that as of now, nearly a quarter of Republican likely voters would choose "none of the above." It seems on the whole that Democrats are strongly supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and also give support to Sen. Barack Obama and others.
On the Republican side, there seems to be deep dissatisfaction, even with the front-runners such as Rudy Giuliani.
The campaign of Sen. John McCain has been described as "imploding" by many, as he had trouble keeping staff on board. I am sad to see his boat sinking so fast - given that he was the only Republican candidate in the entire field to stand up against using torture as a tactic in the War on Terror (during the CNN debate). McCain, who was himself tortured in Vietnam, is the only one who understands that torture does not help our national security because it leads to bad intelligence, and it is completely against American values.
Could the September 27th "All-American Presidential Forum" revive McCain's campaign among Republican voters?
July 17, 2007
A Pre-Primary Pillowfight!
by Jeremy Freed
It's so nice to see young people getting excited about politics.
Yesterday, Giuliani fans were treated to as glowing an endorsement as anyone could want, in the form of a new Obama Girl video, a viral offering of BarelyPolitical.com. This second installment features not only Obama Girl (and friends), but a whole new faction of nubile young women in presidential primary puppy love, their attentions focused on none other than New York's big-toothed former mayor. What follows is an all out dance-off, as the rival factions stare each other down on Gotham's city streets, shaking their booties as if the primaries depended on it.
The lyrics to the new song prove as feisty as anything seen in a presidential debate so far, with the Rudy camp cooing, “I'm gonna be wife number four/ he warms my globe just like Al Gore,” to which Obama Girl fires back, “Giuliani Girl stop fussin,'/ at least Obama didn't marry his cousin.” Oh snap!
Perhaps the most tantalizing part of this new video, apart from the climactic pillowfight scene, is the all-too-fleeting glimpse of Kucinich Girl, standing quietly off to one side, seemingly waiting for the opportunity to jump in and steal the show.
Could this suggest a three-way smackdown to come? Watch this space for further developments.
July 13, 2007
The Race to the Bottom
by Rose Capozzi
“I guess Democrats will learn, just as President Bush has, that there is a downside to being in power. ”
Just when you think the opinion of President Bush cannot get lower, Congress steals his lowlight. According to an AP poll released Friday, the American people believe the Democratically-led Congress is doing worse than the president, scoring an underwhelming 24% in public satisfaction.
There could be many reasons for this all time low. Democrats have failed to make good on many of the promises that brought them to Washington in November. The most obvious example is that they have failed to push their Iraq agenda and bring back the troops. Outside of the war, they have also failed the American people on far-reaching domestic topics like immigration, social security, and ethics reform.
If you are thinking that the Democrats are not the only ones responsible for Congress' shortcomings, you are right. Republicans have been less than cooperative in advancing the liberal agenda (not to mention, the conservative agenda). But conservatives in Congress don't get any of the blame in the media coverage because they are in the minority. I guess Democrats will learn, just as President Bush has, that there is a downside to being in power. The bigger you are, the harder you fall. Accountability sucks.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend