While we'd hoped that the U.S. Senate, one of the most famous deliberative government bodies on Earth, would have at least shown the courage on Tuesday to DEBATE the Defense Authorization Bill, we were sadly proven wrong.
By filibustering the Defense Appropriations Bill in the way that Republicans did on Tuesday, Republicans - and Congress as a whole - showed the world that the mere idea of even DISCUSSING an idea is enough to scare them into temporarily freezing all financial moves for the world's greatest military.
To make it clear: On Tuesday, a MINORITY - less than half - of the members of one of the most famous deliberative government bodies on Earth were cowed into inaction by an idea. Our Senators were SO afraid of even DISCUSSING the idea that some gay Americans want to serve their country in the military, that they were willing to put off for months the fiscal security of the world's greatest military.
The amendment on Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) included in the appropriations bill would NOT have immediately struck down DADT. Rather, it would have allowed the military to repeal DADT, WITHOUT further authorization from Congress, should the study commissioned by the Secretary of Defense and due this December, recommend repeal.
DADT isn't the only amendment in the Defense Appropriations Bill that was also blocked from discussion in Congress on Tuesday. The DREAM Act - which, like DADT is also favored by a majority of Americans - was also denied the chance to be debated by a minority of Senators, mostly Republicans. This, in spite of the fact that the current DREAM Act specifically assists military recruitment AND helps solve immigration issues, two things that politicians of ALL kinds claim to be in favor of.
The largest current problem with Congress isn't that just one party or the other has more seats. The problem is that instead of working together on issues that both sides agree need to be fixed, like DADT, hyper-partisans continue to hold the Senate - and Americans - hostage, with their arrogance and intransigence. Ideas that are common sense, that most sane Americans agree with, regardless of political affiliation, are no longer being given a forum in the primary American government body responsible for discussion. That, in itself, is a shameful indictment.
We shouldn't have to repeat it, but we will: the soul of effective government is compromise. If you choose to vote for candidates this Fall who agree with the stonewalling techniques of past Democratic and current Republican congressional members, it's not just the Senate that will continue to fail.
So will you.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Foaming At The Mouth: Who Bit Whom?
We are aware that other stories may be making the headlines elsewhere today. For example, the Senate vote on DADT (which is really the Defense Appropriations Bill), or that the NBER declared that the Great Recession technically ended in June of 2009 (even though no one really believes that). Still we're tackling a story today that's been brewing for several months, now.
As a part of the media, we take a look from time to time at the conduct of our colleagues and attempt to evaluate what in the name of Heaven and Heck they think they're doing.
We're not taking about the freak show appearances in the media like the GOP candidate for Senate in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell. The Republicans really don't want to claim her - and frankly, we can't blame them. We all agree she's an outlier, not really what most sane Republicans are like. That doesn't excuse the media feeding frenzy around topics like her - or the incredible amount of poorly researched journalism promoted throughout the media in this day and age.
The coverage of Islam - and the Islamaphobics - has been especially sloppy these past few weeks. The facts that were muddled surrounding the Islamic community center in Manhattan were shameful. The mistakes and missed facts surrounding the anniversary of 9/11 were inexcuseable. The elevation of the "Pastor" of a tiny church in Florida for his threat to burn copies of the Koran to a position far beyond what his sad little display warranted was an example of the media inmates running the news cycle asylum.
We understand that many times in our modern media landscape news consumers have a skewed view of their relationship to media. From "reality tv" to "iReports" and "reader sourcing", the amateurs continue to get the impression that they're in control of the media - and that they should be. But just as you wouldn't take your car to be repaired by preschoolers, or you wouldn't want your heart surgery assigned to an English major, media consumers shouldn't expect to get reliable information from "Some Guy With An iPhone."
That doesn't excuse those within the professional media from missing or failing to distribute key facts, like the existence of a real mosque four blocks from Ground Zero long before 9-11, or the existence of two Islamic worship sites WITHIN the World Trade Center towers - both of which were common knowledge in New York. If anything, the amount of legitimate user-sourced facts available to those in the media should make us BETTER journalists, not worse.
The time for the media's dog-whistle coverage and foaming at the mouth excuses is over.
As a part of the media, we take a look from time to time at the conduct of our colleagues and attempt to evaluate what in the name of Heaven and Heck they think they're doing.
We're not taking about the freak show appearances in the media like the GOP candidate for Senate in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell. The Republicans really don't want to claim her - and frankly, we can't blame them. We all agree she's an outlier, not really what most sane Republicans are like. That doesn't excuse the media feeding frenzy around topics like her - or the incredible amount of poorly researched journalism promoted throughout the media in this day and age.
The coverage of Islam - and the Islamaphobics - has been especially sloppy these past few weeks. The facts that were muddled surrounding the Islamic community center in Manhattan were shameful. The mistakes and missed facts surrounding the anniversary of 9/11 were inexcuseable. The elevation of the "Pastor" of a tiny church in Florida for his threat to burn copies of the Koran to a position far beyond what his sad little display warranted was an example of the media inmates running the news cycle asylum.
We understand that many times in our modern media landscape news consumers have a skewed view of their relationship to media. From "reality tv" to "iReports" and "reader sourcing", the amateurs continue to get the impression that they're in control of the media - and that they should be. But just as you wouldn't take your car to be repaired by preschoolers, or you wouldn't want your heart surgery assigned to an English major, media consumers shouldn't expect to get reliable information from "Some Guy With An iPhone."
That doesn't excuse those within the professional media from missing or failing to distribute key facts, like the existence of a real mosque four blocks from Ground Zero long before 9-11, or the existence of two Islamic worship sites WITHIN the World Trade Center towers - both of which were common knowledge in New York. If anything, the amount of legitimate user-sourced facts available to those in the media should make us BETTER journalists, not worse.
The time for the media's dog-whistle coverage and foaming at the mouth excuses is over.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Time To Face Facts
In states from Washington to California, Nebraska to Michigan, and Virginia to Florida, state governments are beginning to ramp up their 2011 budget plans and projections.
It's a topic on which we've been ringing the warning bells for a very long time now.
The way that some lawmakers want to go after cutting budgets is nearly dhabihah: a traditional Muslim method of killing animals for consumption that's sometimes considered cruel by Western standards. We're fairly certain some of the same politicians pandering to the far right would have an apoplectic fit if they discovered the budget cutting method they're promoting also conforms with Sharia law.
Political fits and hyperbole aside, the facts are quite simple and remain as we've said they have been for some time. Even if we simply continued to fund every government project at the same percentages we are now, more actual dollars would be needed.
We're not going to say that no cuts in services should be made. Certain cuts are, in fact, called for - and should have been made some time ago. An example would be tax cuts in Nebraska that were created on the premise the state had extra money at one time to dole out. If the state ever had money like that, it's long gone - and the tax cuts that can no longer be afforded should go with them. We have no problem with tax cuts, just so long as such cuts generate jobs and revenue here at home. If the money is merely going to be squirreled away by those who already have more than enough, such tax reductions are as wasteful as burning dollar bills for heat.
The plain fact is that more revenue also needs to be generated by government agencies at most levels - and it needs to be generated from those who have money to spend.
During some of the most productive and economically stout periods of the last century - specifically, the post-World War II period from 1945 until the 1960's and 70's - the Federal marginal tax rate (the rate of taxes paid on amounts of incomes above a certain level) was nearly double what it is now. Many state and local tax rates were also significantly higher than they are now. Those tax rates weren't just a higher level of taxes paid by the wealthy; they represented a significant investment by the public in their own infrastructure - and the future we now occupy.
People will get the things they feel they need one way or another. Whether they take what they need by force through higher levels of crime and violence, or they receive what they need through opportunities created by combined public and private investment in America; that is up to the citizens of each state and local area. This is the same argument that our elders faced during the Great Depression - and they wisely chose to invest in America.
We apppeal to sane partisans on both sides of the political divide to take that same past wisdom into account when facing the budget decisions they're beginning to make now.
It's a topic on which we've been ringing the warning bells for a very long time now.
The way that some lawmakers want to go after cutting budgets is nearly dhabihah: a traditional Muslim method of killing animals for consumption that's sometimes considered cruel by Western standards. We're fairly certain some of the same politicians pandering to the far right would have an apoplectic fit if they discovered the budget cutting method they're promoting also conforms with Sharia law.
Political fits and hyperbole aside, the facts are quite simple and remain as we've said they have been for some time. Even if we simply continued to fund every government project at the same percentages we are now, more actual dollars would be needed.
We're not going to say that no cuts in services should be made. Certain cuts are, in fact, called for - and should have been made some time ago. An example would be tax cuts in Nebraska that were created on the premise the state had extra money at one time to dole out. If the state ever had money like that, it's long gone - and the tax cuts that can no longer be afforded should go with them. We have no problem with tax cuts, just so long as such cuts generate jobs and revenue here at home. If the money is merely going to be squirreled away by those who already have more than enough, such tax reductions are as wasteful as burning dollar bills for heat.
The plain fact is that more revenue also needs to be generated by government agencies at most levels - and it needs to be generated from those who have money to spend.
During some of the most productive and economically stout periods of the last century - specifically, the post-World War II period from 1945 until the 1960's and 70's - the Federal marginal tax rate (the rate of taxes paid on amounts of incomes above a certain level) was nearly double what it is now. Many state and local tax rates were also significantly higher than they are now. Those tax rates weren't just a higher level of taxes paid by the wealthy; they represented a significant investment by the public in their own infrastructure - and the future we now occupy.
People will get the things they feel they need one way or another. Whether they take what they need by force through higher levels of crime and violence, or they receive what they need through opportunities created by combined public and private investment in America; that is up to the citizens of each state and local area. This is the same argument that our elders faced during the Great Depression - and they wisely chose to invest in America.
We apppeal to sane partisans on both sides of the political divide to take that same past wisdom into account when facing the budget decisions they're beginning to make now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)