Speechless

From Politico--

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day.(Good job Sarah, you read a newspaper) Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

The prospects of this woman actually being nominated as a presidential candidate is terrifying. Obama should "toughen up", and start a war. Nice. Palin's take on foreign policy sounds like a drunken college frat boy playing alpha male and trying to impress a girl.

And then there's this gem--

Palin, who slammed Emanuel last week for calling liberal activists "f---ing retards," declined to ask conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for using the term "retards" on his nationally syndicated show, saying Limbaugh used the word as satire.

"I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people who he did not agree with f---ing retards and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. There's a big difference there," said Palin, whose youngest son Trig has Down Syndrome.

Palin made the comment after Wallace asked her about this Limbaugh quote: "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. ... I mean these people, these liberal activists, are kooks."

"Should Rush Limbaugh apologize," Wallace asked.

Palin responded, "They are kooks so I agree with Rush Limbaugh."

I can't even comment on this because I know people who support this woman, and I don't want to insult them. I don't even know what to say. She is an absolute joke. The hypocrisy is just astounding. Just decry Limbaugh's comment! But she can't. And that's how bad it's gotten.

REPEAL DON'T ASK DON'T TELL!!!... later?

I used to support Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the grounds that it would be just weird and gross to shower with openly gay men. I argued that since we don't put men and women in the same bunks and have them shower together, then we shouldn't allow gay men and women to shower with other men and women. Later, however, I changed my mind. For one, I argued that the policy was dumb because gay men and women already serve in the military. The situation already was a reality and there hasn't been any huge incidents that I'm aware of. Two, we have fired many valuable soldiers who just wanted to serve their country like their hetro counterparts, and this is especially troubling since our troops are spread thin. And three, because we wouldn't expect any hetro soldier not to talk openly about his wife or girlfriend, so why should we force gay soldiers to stay silent on the subject of their loved ones. But as of late, I have kind of been on the fence about this issue.

I was listening to NPR today, and they did a story where they interviewed several marines concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Many of the soldiers preferred not to talk about it, one said he was for repealing it, but another said he thought we needed to leave it alone... at least for now. His argument was that soldiers are increasingly becoming more and more stressed. And indeed, suicide among soldiers is up, and many are suffering from PTSD and other psycho-social problems. This soldier believed that if DADT is repealed right now, then we could possibly see another Matthew Shepherd incident. Repealing DADT right now, he said, could be bad for the military, the country, and the gay community.

Yet often times doing the right thing comes with a price. Should we have kept slavery legal because a lot of people died making it illegal? Still, we've lived with this policy for well over a decade, gay people technically can serve in the military, and I have to heed the warning of an individual who has been a marine for a long time and knows what that life is like. So while I'm for repealing it, maybe it won't hurt to wait.

Why I Love the Daily Dish

This is just awesome. I almost peed my pants.

Obama Says F*ck It

SuperNews | MySpace Video

Also, interestingly enough, a libertarian defense of the health care bill.

Another Victory for Plutocracy

Years ago when I took political science we started off our first class discussion on the topic of power. I didn't understand the significance at the time. I thought politics was all about being a conservative or liberal, and I thought we'd be spending our time discussing that. But politics, as it turns out, is really all about power, and so is the rest of life. And just like everything else in politics and government yesterday's Supreme Court decision wasn't really about freedom of speech, like the Right argues. It was about the concentration of power.

Yesterday's decision essentially allows corporations and unions (but let's face it, unions are weaker than they have every been, and don't have nearly as much money as corporations do) to use as much money as they can to create political ads supporting candidates, with the stipulation that the ad identifies who is sponsoring it. Republicans hail this decision as a victory for free speech. They argue that we have an open market place of ideas and anyone should be allowed to pay for any ad supporting any political candidate or view one wants. Add to that the warped idea that corporations are people, and the denial of allowing corporations to do this amounts to denying a person their freedom of speech. The problem is, there are good reasons why we've restricted this.

The main reason is the issue of corruption by money in politics, not that there isn't already enough of that. If a corporation spends millions on ads supporting a candidate, then that corporation will have significant influence over that politician. Furthermore, a corporation can bribe or blackmail politicians with the threat or offer to spend millions on getting him or her elected. Politicians are already representing the interests of corporations rather than the interests of the people, but now things are only going to get worse. Because let's face it, my letter to my congressman is going to have much less influence than Lehman Brothers letter that includes a 2 million dollar check. What this amounts to is the further concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy few and out of the hands of the people. This decision was anti-democratic and anti-freedom. Which shows that despite all the freedom rhetoric, Republicans don't really give a damn about freedom since the majority of corporate dollars goes to their candidates. Just like they really don't give a damn about judiciary activism, seeing as this decision was a result of that and I have yet to hear a Republican point that out.

So if you hated the amount of political ads that aired in the last election year then get ready, because you ain't seen nothing yet. And just know that most of those ads won't be for candidates that have your interest at heart, but rather for the banks, Wall Street, big insurance and energy companies.

Negro Please!

This whole Harry Reid "scandal" is absolutely absurd, and is nothing more than a symptom of the vile political climate in this country. Was what he said less than tactful? Of course. Did he use an archaic term from a more racially fractured time in American history? Yes, and he probably used that term because he grew up in said period of time. And lastly, is what he said true? I think that if we were honest with ourselves we would have to answer in the affirmative. So he made an off the cuff remark using a racially insensitive word that just so happened to be true. He apologized to the person he made the statement about and that person forgave him. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that our system is so screwed up that either side will do anything to score cheap political points. The idea that Reid should resign over what he said is ludicrous-- almost as ludicrous as these disingenuous schmucks on the right feigning outrage. And then to make it worse, the arguments Republicans are making about double standards, citing the Trent Lott remarks about Strom Thurmond, further displays their dimwittedness on race matters. Trent Lott lamented that a man who ran on a segregationist platform did not win the presidency. Let me see, saying "Gee Strom, I wish you would have become president and crushed the civil rights movement" is a little worse than Reid's inappropriate comment. But they don't seem to grasp that. The second a drop of blood hits the water, they just swarm. Because really, the truth is that they could give a damn about what Harry Reid said, they just want to take him down and gain power.

And that's a shame, because I really want to believe that there are good Republicans and Democrats who actually do want to work together for the good of the country. But as the Obama presidency has gone through it's first year, I struggle more so every day in believing that. And if I was honest, I would say that one side is worse. Above I said that "either side" will do anything to score cheap political points, and in the past that has probably been true, but the more I pay attention to politics (especially with the last election), the more I see the cheapest, most desperate and underhanded attacks coming from the right. For instance, the right has used everything from fear mongering about government takeovers to fear mongering about death panels to derail meaningful healthcare reform. And I can't help but believe they're now playing the race card to that end as well.

Done!

It's hard to believe that I started blogging almost three years ago. I started doing this as I began my pre-requisite classes for my BSW. I felt that I was beginning a new chapter of my life. I had recently finished a second degree for something I was less than passionate about and only for the purpose of making more money. All along, while I was getting that degree, I was planning on going back to school simply to study what I loved whether I made money from it or not. I was excited to take a college history course, sociology classes and economics. I started blogging at that time to improve my communication skills, and learn to better articulate my thoughts. Yesterday, as I finished the internship I began in August, that chapter of my life closed.

In the past five months I've had some wonderful and challenging experiences. I've experienced moments of great hope for humanity, as well as, increasing cynicism. And blogging has been a significant factor in this experience. For all the times people have knock blogging, I truly believe it's helped me along in this journey. I know that I wrote better papers in a shorter amount of time because I blog. I know that as I worked with patients over the last six months I was able to communicate with them better because I blogged. So now that I'm done with my internship, maybe I'll do it more.

How About Now?

Maybe this will finally get middle-American, populist conservatives on board with health care reform. Just wondering...