Bill Maher and Ridiculous Republicans

I thought some people might enjoy this video...

SNOWE SET TO VOTES YES

From the Huff Post

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said Tuesday that she intends to vote for passage of the Senate Finance Committee's health care reform package. She cautioned that her vote should be seen as a sign of her faith in the process going forward and not as support for the final package that will arrive on the Senate floor.

"It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow," she said. Snowe's yes vote keeps her at the negotiating table and at the center of the health care reform debate.

Her vote, she said, comes amid knowledge that Democrats don't need Republicans to pass the landmark legislation.

"The majority has the votes. It has the votes in the House. It has the votes in the Senate," she said.

Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was thrilled at the news, complimenting Snowe for her "very thoughtful statement. It'll be well remembered and I thank you for it."

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), also a finance committee member, said that Snowe's vote bodes well for final passage. "It sets the stage," he said on MSNBC. "Susan Collins will likely come with her fellow Maine senator when this bill hits the floor."

This is closest we have come to good health care in a long, long time.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/snowe-voting-yes-on-senat_n_318745.html

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to American, Conservatives Go Crazy With Rage

Today President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to create diplomacy throughout the world. While many individuals question the award, only three groups outright objected to it: the Taliban, claiming he has done nothing to pursue peace in Afghanistan; Hamas, because the American government still does not recognize the nation of Palestine; and American Conservatives, because he is President Obama.

It is a stark, and possibly even radical, comparison to make of Conservatives and radical Muslim groups however their unwillingness to admit wrong or defeat and their eagerness to use radical means towards a goal is strikingly similar. Over the past year Conservatives have abandoned their unmatched patriotism that supported two wars for an unprecedented 'hate' for President Obama. After laughing and cheering when the United States of America loses the Olympics, and then throwing a fit of rage when he President of the United States of America wins the Nobel Peace Prize, some organizations such Media Matters are compelled to ask the question "If not America, then who are the Republicans rooting for?". It is a question that should be asked.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee their choice was one of confidence in Obama to gain global support for his diplomatic policies such as nuclear non-proliferation. They praised the President for creating " new climate in international politics.". This justification, although, is not enough for critics of the award who claim Obama has done nothing in office. However, just by taking a look at America alone, one can see that criticism is unfounded. Just in the time Obama took office until now, according to a poll of 25 countries from Pew Global Attitudes Project, America has found itself with double digit boosts to the percentage of people who view America favorably all across the world. In Germany , over 90 percent of people approve of America, compared to the 12 percent that approved America a little over a year ago. This is no minor accomplishment. Obama is being awarded for setting the stage for a most peaceful world in the history of the Earth--a world where America can recognized as an active leader and participant.

Take the word of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, "[The peace prize confirms, finally, America's return to the hearts of the people of the world...".

If the new approval ratings don't convince you of Obama's impact on international community, the praise he has received will. Upon receiving the prize Obama received praise from leaders all across the world including: Mikhail Gorbachev, the regime of Hamid Karzai, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, just to name a few.

However, to Republicans, overwhelming international praise and major feats not enough for the Nobel Peace Prize, and they are quick to offer their opinion on the issue-- even more proof that the GOP is disconnected with the rest of the nation. Glenn Beck said that Obama setting a new stage in the world for peace was not enough for the award, and that it really should have been awarded to a movement he started that featured posters and propaganda that depicted Obama as a Nazi and witchdoctor. RedState's Erick Erickson credited Obama's award towards affirmative action-- does that even make sense?

In the past week we have seen a peak into the conservative party that is shocking and disturbing. The Olympics and the Nobel Peace Prize have shown the world that this unparalleled patriotism conservatives claim to have was never for the United States of America, it was for a rich white America, and right-wing America, a Conservative America. Anything else is the enemy.

Shame on Max Baucus for killing the public option

(This article will be featured in the New University on Monday)

There was one a moment in the history of the health reform bill (H.R 3200) where passing reform through Congress seemed like an easy task--and it was. That was back in early August. That was before the health care bill met Sen. Max Baucus. Since the bill came in contact with Baucus it has been ripped, shredded, smeared--the works, and it is mostly because of Sen. Baucus.
On August 1st, H.R 3200 had passed through four out of five committees in the senate with relative ease. Ideally, the bill was supposed to pass through the fifth with the same grace. Obviously that was not the case. Why? Sen. Baucus called for a bi-partisan effort and stopped the bill dead in its tracks to make the infamous "gang of six", composed of conservative democrats and allegedly moderate republicans (if you can call Sen. Grassley a moderate). Since then the health reform bill has been cut down inch by inch and has been muddled with countless concessions and compromises--one of those compromises including the public option. Now, bi-partisanship is wonderful, however it has been more than evident the republicans are just looking to kill any bill that is proposed. So, here we are today, with a health care bill watered down with concessions Sen. Baucus has given away, still with no republican votes. Sen. Baucus is literally destroying proper health reform-- and now he is paying the price for it with his political career.
As of late, certain liberal organizations such as Progressive Campaign Change Committee and Democracy for America have retaliated against Sen. Baucas with ads that calls on the American public to hold Sen. Baucus responsible for watering down and stalling health reform and killing the public option. In the ads, set to air in Montana and Washington D.C, Baucus is slammed for receiving upwards of a million in campaign contributions from the health care industry, and is threatened with a loss in the primary elections in 2010. The ads features a man, named Bing Perrine, from Baucus' state, Montana, who has racked up $100,000 in debt from medical bills due to heart problems. Perrine closes the ad directing a rhetorical question towards Sen. Baucus, "who's side are you really on?".
Unfortunately, this type of hardball politics is what pro-reform activists need. It seems as if without them--without these ads--nothing productive will get done on the left side of the isle. This is not to say however, politicians should never make mistakes if they have a hope for getting re-elected. If Sen. Baucus created the "gang of six", realized the Republicans wanted no part of bi-partisanship and then fought to keep health care reform strong, that would have been appropriate. However, that is not what happened. Sen. Baucus continued to make the same stupid mistake of assuming, or allowing, the GOP was there to help pass reform. This level of ignorance at such a crucial time such as this one is utterly unacceptable, and Baucus should be held accountable for his disregard of proper reform. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Sen. Baucus has been fooled for two whole months. So shame on you Sen. Baucus--you do not deserve to be re-elected.
Of course it is important to note not all of the blame can be put on Sen. Baucus. A number of democrats have had this same attitude of appeasement; they too have been targeted. Sen. Mike Ross and independent Sen. Olympia Snowe have had similar ads run against them. While any democrat without a spine at this point deserves to have their political career put in jeopardy, the person who deserves the ads the most is Sen. Baucus. He had the most power to pass reform in the senate and he failed miserably. He watered down the bill for republican votes, but got none. The, when he realized he had no republican votes, he did not have the piece of mind to strengthen the bill again. Worst of all, he voted against adding a public option in the bill during the amendment process. He is the reason a public option becomes a less likely of an option every day. He deserves those ads against more than anyone else in the senate. He should have to reap what he sewed.

"War on Drugs" creates more battles

In the 1920's alcohol was banned from the United States in an attempt to reduce crime, poverty, and increase the overall living conditions of the United States. As a result of the ban, alcohol consumption skyrocketed, organized crime rates went through the roof, and caused severe corruption in certain law enforcement agencies. This prohibition of alcohol was without a doubt a failed policy that not only was incredibly ineffective but it was actually detrimental to its cause.

One would think after almost a century of studying these events in history books the United States would learn their lesson about prohibiting drugs. Unfortunately we haven't. For the better part of the century the United States of America has waged another prohibition campaign called the "War on Drugs". The result has been almost identical, if not worse, to what happened in the 1920's: an increase in organized violent crime, corruption on a global scale.

Just like in the 1920's the prohibition campaign on drugs is a failed cause that ultimately leaves the entire world, on a security level, an economic level, and moral level worse off.

It seems that most, but not all, proponents in favor of the war on drugs are conservative, so it is appropriate to identify first how our security as a nation, and a world, is ultimately threatened by the war on drugs. Just as in the prohibition of 1920, organized crime and ruthless gangs have surfaced that have posed a threat to the country they occupy--including any Americans abroad.

While most of these ruthless drug cartels occupy reside outside of America--that is not to say that in future years to come they will not spread back home as well. In fact, research trends indicate they will. The New York Times reports that markets have began to expand away from traditional markets such as Iran and Columbia to places who have been more or less void of drug problems such as China or Indonesia. The market has even spread to western nations such as the Netherlands and Britain; it has even taken root in neighboring countries Mexico and Canada. It is naive to think the market will not take a larger grip on America as well. That means all the repercussions that come along with the drug market--organized crime, corruption, increasing violence--will be right here in America.

As if that is not enough, the "War on Drugs" also funds terrorist organizations that are rather anti-American, to put it lightly. Opium's inflated value due to prohibition has given the Taliban a substantial income to fuel their battle against NATO in Afghanistan, and more critically allows them to purchase expensive weaponry each year. How expensive? Hundreds of millions of dollars.

Then there is the issue of increasing corruption in countries who are riddled with these drug markets. Again, like in the 1920's, the revenue accumulated from the lucrative narcotics trade funds the bribes that corrupt the morality of governments such the administrations in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea Bissau. The most alarming example of a corrupting government is Kabul, a government propped up by NATO itself. When NATO, and the government itself props up becomes corrupt due to a prohibition on drugs, there can be no question that the "War on Drugs" is a failed policy.

Finally there is the economic strain the "War on Drugs" provides, and the potential economic boom legalization is capable of. It is common sense that whenever a war is being waged, whether it is a literal war or a figurative one, money needs to be invested. Thus, this whole "War on Drugs" is being funded by taxpayer dollars. As if that is not bad enough, the problem compounds itself because prohibition fund terrorist organizations which we fight in a completely separate war, hence the "War on Terror". Thus, the "War on Drugs" eats up more tax dollars than people think, because it funds the very organizations that tax payers are fighting to contain. This is just on an international level. On a local level, the situation is not any better. According to drugwarfacts.org there were over 1.5 million arrests due to drug possession or drug trafficking--almost half of the 1.5 million based on marijuana possession alone. Why is this a problem? The average cost to incarcerate an inmate is $49,000 taxpayer dollars. If you do the math, that is more than 73 billion tax payer dollars we are losing due to the prohibition of drugs in this country alone.

The economic situation concerning drugs takes a complete 180 degree turn when considering decriminalization. If the drug war ends, whatever money we spend on fighting this "War on Drugs" goes right back into taxpayer pockets. Whatever money we are spending on incarcerating those who sell or have possession of drugs? Right back into tax payer pockets. Whatever extra money we spend on the "War on Terror" because of the funding the "War on Drugs" provides terrorists? Right back into taxpayer pockets. However, it doesn't stop there. Essentially what happens, is an entire new market is created which helps create jobs, new sources of revenue, and the best part, because drugs are a health factor, the government will impose a heavy tax on them which will provide even more capital. Where does all this money go? Right into the taxpayer pockets.

Common sense tells us the "War on Drugs" is a detriment to society. Outdated notions and morals tell us otherwise. It is time we follow common sense and actually begin to help the world. Stop the "War on Drugs".

Bill O'Reilly Backs Public Option

Now, I didn't see the entire segment, so correct me if I am wrong, but I just read in the Huffington Post that Bill O'Reilly supports the public option. This caught me off guard quite a bit. In previous posts I stated that until the Republican Party and its talking pundits comes off the far fetched notions they have been promoting the Republican party will continue to lose credibility. Is this the beginning of the move towards the middle from the Republican Party?

Transcript:

O'REILLY: The public option now is done. We discussed this, it's not going to happen. But you say that this little marketplace that they're going to set up, whereby the federal government would subsidize insurance for some Americans, that is, in your opinion, a public option?

OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.

You are a jackass

We are back from Sea World--and did not feel like writing today. So here is cop out. Obama calling Kanye West a "jack ass" after the VMA's.




Q: Were your girls as hacked off as mine were that Kanye gave Taylor Swift the Joe Wilson treatment?


Obama: I thought that was really inappropriate. You know it was like she's getting an award -- why are you butting in? I, I hear you -- I agree with you.

Q: So does that count as the first question?

Obama: The young lady seems like a perfectly nice person. She's getting her award. What's he doing up there? He's a jackass. (Laughter) No, now -- this -- all this stuff -- I'm assuming all this stuff. Where's the pool? Come on guys. Cut the president some slack. I got a lot of other stuff on my plate. Yeah. Cause I remember last time it was the fly thing. Now that was the highlight of (trails off)

Q: No that worked out well for you. You were a ninja.

Obama: Except PETA... (laughter)



---We promise some more solid stuff tomorrow. Until then take care!