First, I want to make clear that I will rarely write about electoral politics, and when I do, it will never be from the horse-race, who’s-ahead-and-why point of view we see so much in the mainstream media.
That being said, I recently read a piece online from Newsweek magazine headlined “Andrew Sullivan: How Obama’s Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics“. Aside from being an unabashed apologist for Obama, Sullivan seems satisfied with the notion that because Obama is better than the Republican alternative, and his time in office has been better than a third Bush term or a first McCain term would have been, and he would do so much more in a second term, he should be reelected.
I agree with the conclusion that Obama is better than the GOP alternative, but I vehemently disagree with the underlying premise that we should accept the fact that we have a binary choice of Obama or the GOP nominee, Democrat or Republican, A or B. What Sullivan doesn’t understand is that many of us are no longer comfortable with the two-party paradigm because though there is a difference between the two major parties, it’s not big enough that we feel truly represented by either.
As long as we judge Obama’s performance solely against the Republicans, we shortchange ourselves and the nation. To be clear, I never saw Obama as a liberal hero who would change the American political landscape, so while I am disappointed, I am not surprised. I greatly preferred Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney over Obama. I believe a significant number of Americans may have also liked what they heard from Kucinich and McKinney — if they heard it. But the mainstream media pretty much kept them out of the conversation. Same story with Ron Paul and candidates from the Libertarian and Constitution parties.
On the bright side
One positive product of the Republican primary process so far is the inclusion of income and wealth equality in the overall debate. The continued analysis of Mitt Romney’s wealth, and how he obtained it, as well as his record as a “job creator” has at least shone some sunlight on topics that are not normally discussed on cable news, such as the practices of private equity firms and tax policies that overwhelmingly favor the wealthy. This isn’t real change — yet. It may not lead to real change in the near future. But it is a small step forward.
Here’s a story showing progress in U.S. law enforcement. In this case,it seems to have come ridiculously slow, but it’s progress nonetheless. From USA Today:
The FBI is changing its long-standing definition of rape for the first time to include sexual assaults on males following persistent calls from victims advocates who claim that the offense, as currently defined in the agency’s annual crime report, has been undercounted for decades.
Under the current definition, established 85 years ago, many of the sex crimes alleged in the ongoing prosecution of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky would not be counted in the bureau’s Uniform Crime Report, one of the most reliable measures of crime in the United States. Sandusky is accused in alleged assaults and sexual misconduct involving 10 male victims.
Rape is currently defined as the “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
The new provision will define rape as any kind of penetration of another person, regardless of gender, without the victim’s consent. It also includes a broad range of rapes involving both males and females in which attackers use objects to penetrate their victims.
“Rape is a devastating crime and we can’t solve it unless we know the full extent of it,” said Vice President Biden, who worked closely with advocates on the issue. “This long-awaited change to the definition of rape is a victory for women and men across the country whose suffering has gone unaccounted for over 80 years.”
Benjamin Franklin did it. Henry Ford did it. And American life is built on the faith that others can do it, too: rise from humble origins to economic heights. “Movin’ on up,” George Jefferson-style, is not only a sitcom song but a civil religion.
But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
To many of us, this is hardly news. We long ago abandoned the fantasy of the American dream being real for more than a small minority. But what surprises me a bit is that some conservatives are acknowledging the truth. Of course, the question is how they intend to tackle this problem, if they indeed see it as a problem at all. One can only hope they have more to prescribe than simply more tax cuts and less regulation.
The beating of children being encouraged in certain segments of Christianity is a topic I’ve heard about occasionally in recent years. A recent AlterNet article by Frank Schaeffer, titled “Beating Babies in the Name of Jesus? The Shady World of Right-Wing ‘Discipline’ Guides” highlights the issue.
There is a brutal movement in America that legitimizes child abuse in the name of God. Two stories recently converged to make us pay attention. Last week, a video went viral of a Texas judge brutally whipping his disabled daughter. And on Monday, the New York Times published a story about child deaths in homes that have embraced the teachings of To Train Up a Child, a book by Christian preacher Michael Pearl that advocates using a switch on children as young as six months old.
What many people may not realize is that in the evangelical alternative universe of the home school movement, tightly knit church communities and the following of a number of big-time leaders and authors, physical punishment of children has been glorified for years.
As the Times illustrates — “Preaching Virtue of Spanking, Even as Deaths Fuel Debate” — the books of Michael Pearl and his wife Debi have been found in the homes where several children were killed.
They’re not the only right-wing Christians who advocate these methods. Some of the most respected evangelical discipline gurus have made beating children not just “respectable” in conservative religious circles, but even turned it into a godly activity.
Maybe there’s a way some of these methods can be used without being abusive, but I’m not sure how. Encouraging people en masse, without knowing what kind of judgment they have, to use physical punishment against a child is playing with fire. Tragically, it’s the child who gets burned.
This New York Times story caught my attention and made me wonder how many more judgments like this happen in the U.S.
Does downloading child pornography from the Internet deserve the same criminal punishment as first-degree murder?
A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.
…
Paul Cassell, a former federal judge who is now a law professor at the University of Utah, said there was no question that “consumers of child pornography drive the market for the production of child pornography, and without people to consume this stuff there wouldn’t be nearly as many children being sexually abused.”
Mr. Cassell is involved in efforts to get restitution for victims of child pornography, and has filed a petition in one case with the Supreme Court. But he said that while he was not familiar with Mr. Vilca’s case and did not know what other facts might be involved, “in the abstract, a life sentence for the crime of solely possessing child pornography would seem to be excessive.”
“A life sentence is what we give first-degree murderers,” he said, “and possession of child pornography is not the equivalent of first-degree murder.”
Once again, an American state is ready to execute a man whose guilt is shrouded in legitimate doubt.
The Austin American-Statesmanprinted an op-ed written by former Texas Governor Mark White and former FBI Director William Sessions about the upcoming Texas execution of Hank Skinner. These are not death penalty opponents like myself. Instead, they are death penalty proponents experienced in law enforcement and concerned about its implementation, and for good reason.
State and federal courts have the opportunity to order DNA testing. If the courts drop the ball, however, Gov. Rick Perry should intervene so Skinner won’t be executed before DNA testing can be performed.
We hope the courts’ actions will reflect the belief of the majority of Texans that inmates should have access to DNA testing that could prove their innocence. This belief also is shared by more than a dozen current and former elected officials and former judges, prosecutors and law enforcement, who have joined together to urge state officials to test the DNA evidence.
We agree that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes. But we also are united in our deep conviction that when it comes to the death penalty, there is no room for uncertainty. The DNA testing that Skinner seeks could prove that he committed the murders, or it might prove he didn’t.
The ongoing Occupy demonstrations have me hopeful. Maybe this is the start of something many of us had hoped for, but thought unlikely if not impossible.
I have not yet joined my own community’s Occupy movement to find out first-hand what motivates individual protesters, and what objectives they have in mind. Instinct and observation tell me the motivations and goals are varied, and that a unifying statement is hard to put into words. Maybe the phrase “we are the 99 percent” is the best way to say it at this point.
A movement like this isn’t born out of comfort and satisfaction, but it also can’t be sustained without hope that it can make a difference.
So much has been said and written about the young movement already. I encourage you to read this piece in AlterNet, whose headline is also the title of this post. I don’t think anything or anyone speaks for a diverse group of protesters, but this article gives an excellent insight into the mindset of someone who feels both the frustration and hope that are necessary for the Occupy movement to achieve lasting success.
Capital punishment has been in the news recently, but the news has hardly been encouraging. The audience at a recent Republican presidential debate cheered Rick Perry for executing 234 people as governor of Texas.
Now, we are on the verge of an execution in Georgia of Troy Davis, despite his guilt being anything but clearly established.
What the hearing demonstrated most conclusively was that the evidence in this case — consisting almost entirely of conflicting stories, testimonies and statements — is inadequate to the task of convincingly establishing either Davis’ guilt or his innocence. Without DNA or other forms of physical or scientific evidence that can be objectively measured and tested, it is possible that doubts about guilt in this case will never be resolved.
However, when it comes to the sentence of death, there should be no room for doubt. I believe there is no more serious crime than the murder of a law enforcement officer who was putting his or her life on the line to protect innocent bystanders. However, justice is not done for Officer Mark Allen MacPhail Sr. if the wrong man is punished.
In 2007, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles issued a stay of execution for Davis and took the admirable position that it would “not allow an execution to proceed in this State unless and until its members are convinced that there is no doubt as to the guilt of the accused.”
Because this case continues to be permeated by doubt, the Board of Pardons and Paroles’ stance continues to be the right one. In reality, there will always be cases, including capital cases, in which doubts about guilt cannot be erased to an acceptable level of certainty. The Davis case is one of these, and it is for cases like this that executive clemency exists.
Those responsible for clemency play a vital role in ensuring our legal system includes a measure of compassion and humanity. The death penalty should not be carried out, and Davis’ sentence should be commuted to life.
I did not watch any of the TV specials dedicated to remembering 9/11/2001. I was certainly aware of the date, and of the television coverage. But I didn’t want to watch politicians exploit the 10-year anniversary just as they exploited the original events. Nor did I want to be confronted with images of overt patriotism, or be reminded once again that as a nation, the past decade has not been our finest.
Ten years later, it’s clear that we did not take away from that terrible day the one lesson that could have led us down a vastly better path in the ensuing decade: that hatred and violence are not the answer. Not then. Not now. Not ever.
I do not fully accept the official version of what happened that day, but it must be understood that questioning the government’s story is not the same as saying 9/11 was an “inside job”. All I know is that many people in power have tried to keep us from finding out the full truth. Maybe some are trying to hide their own shortcomings. Maybe some are driven by sincere motives. Maybe some have something sinister to hide. I do not know, and I probably never will know for certain.
I do know that politicians and others used the events of 9/11 to push a previously held agenda, whether it be related to foreign policy, restricting civil liberties in the U.S., or simply making more money somehow.
I feel terrible for the 9/11 victims and their families. I admire the heroes who risked their own lives in an attempt to save others.
But I also feel terrible for the innocent people in several countries who have lost their lives because of my country’s irrational response to 9/11. And I admire those who have had the courage to say that what is wrong when done to an American is also wrong when done to anyone else.
While I understand the need for many people to remember 9/11 in a special way, I did not spend much time thinking of it this weekend. It was a terrible day, and in some ways, it’s been a terrible decade since. However, I’d rather honor the memory of all innocent victims of atrocities by trying to play a role, no matter how big or small, in the reforms of policy and thought that must be undertaken for us to emerge stronger and more peaceful, as a nation and a world.
This blog is part of my quest for an understanding of how to do that.
I often wonder what would have happened if Al Gore had been president instead of George W. Bush. Many from another generation dream of how life would have been different if George McGovern had beaten incumbent Richard Nixon in 1972.
This documentary takes a look at the 1972 campaign, and while watching it, I couldn’t help but think, “What If?”
