Waiting for a Convenient Moment

With any difficult decision someone will always be mad, so with that said here we go.

Alright, this may be the second time that I’m in slight disagreement with President Obama. Although I believe I understand why he’s taking the position he’s taking in regards to prosecuting ‘Certain High Profile Government Officials’ for torture, war crimes and a list of other international offensives. I am forced to ask the question. Believe me I really don’t want to ask the question, but I am afraid no other supporter of President Obama will have the courage to honestly ask him the question.

Now, I want it understood that I do understand the reasons politically and have a feeling when he will move on this issue. To be honest I can understand the strategy and if I’m to take a partisan position, I can go along with it. With that said, I must still ask the question with respect.

Mr. President, with all of the evidence of the torture by the orders of ‘Certain High Profile Government Officials’ of the previous administration, why the delay on prosecution?

I’m sure you understand this. It’s just as bad to prevent the investigation and/or prosecution of these crimes than it is to commission it. I’m not sure if the political convenient moment that I believe you may desire will hold that long. This is a political boomerang Mr. President and I don’t want it to hit you. It also can become a moral boomerang too, that will be much harder to dodge.

It is a political gamble you will be taking, but there are not many effective political strategies available other than prosecution. The risk involved is possible relinquishing some political capital and power to an opposition intent on sabotage. But the other side of that risk is you may gain more admiration for sticking to principles and adhering to law. To be political, that can be used as a ‘stimulus’ to any political capital lost.

We already have multiple instances of proof to prosecute. All is needed is the word.

I know there are many advisers who are wise in their recommendations of this being very unpopular to start prosecuting Bush Officials, I mean ‘Certain High Profile Government Officials’ at this time.

Although I clearly understand the political ramifications of how this would likely be perceived with all sides of these issues, please allow me to offer my ‘armchair political adviser’ advice of a possible middle ground. You have no reason to consider what I’m saying, but just think about it. This is may be the way to have your cake and eat it too, even if the cake is a little dry and tasteless.

Now this will upset some Bush/Cheney supporters and those who agree with the policy of torture in the name of protecting America. This will upset some Democrats and those who take the position against torture. Like I said back in January, I may disagree with you on an issue here or there I basically am with you.

The Passive Strategy

Since it’s becoming increasingly difficult to remain silent on this issue, why not demonstrate some level of appeasement on this issue to those ‘chomping at the bit’ for some Red meat and restart the investigation or “Truth Commission” on lower level operatives to help build the case. So you can finally pressing charges against the ‘Certain High Profile Government Officials’ that makes this whole thing politically inconvenient?

That may hold you until the 2010 mid-term election. Now if the Democrats hold their seats and pick-up at least two or three seats then you can begin to progressively move forward without much fear politically.

Keeping 2012 in mind you can prosecute the offenders and use the convicted as leverage in efforts to reduce their sentences help bring the biggest offenders, those ‘Certain High Profile Government Officials’ into question. Now depending on how the election of 2010 & 2012 go determines how swiftly you finally press charges against those ‘Certain High Profile Government Officials’. If the election goes bad, just prosecute them before you leave. Either way it would be a good parting gift.

The Principle Strategy

Now if you do not want to be hammered for taking a passive approach by Democrats and allowing Dick Cheney and friends to make this into a policy issue in efforts to deflect prosecution I advice you to take this approach. Bring all of those ‘Certain High Profile Government Officials’ in for questioning on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and any other thing you can think of. Let them be tried and prosecuted. As I cry tears of joy seeing George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove hauled off into prison for their crimes you will be able to campaign on the merit of principle and be judged by the content of your character. That I promise can be used very effectively in a political campaign.

Conclusion

Now that’s my partisan ‘armchair political advisor’ campaign/policy strategy for the President. I believe he will listen to what he knows is the right thing and not to all of the advisors who are political and partisan. Regardless of how difficult it may appear to be you must stand up for justice, stand up for truth and behold what may come your way. You will be smeared for you actions, but at least you took a stand instead of sitting down.

The Audacity of an Insurance Giant

AIG Hypocrisy Alert Edition

While everyone including myself are outraged at the complete disrespectful regards to the American Taxpayers who have saved AIG from going under many ask a simple question, how could this happen? While some are taking the opportunity to gain political points and blames the Obama Administration for this oversight. Well let’s take a closer look before we start pointing fingers.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is a member of the Senate Finance Committee. Last month he and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-MA) added an amendment to the stimulus bill that would have prevented companies, such as AIG the ability to distribute bonuses. But that amendment along with others was taken out of the bill. Hmmm… I wonder why and who pounded their fists in hypocritical outrage in regards to ‘earmarks’ and who helped hinder regulation that helped eliminate this amendment?

By-the-way, isn’t Sen. Snowe one of the three Republicans that voted for the stimulus package? (Reference Source) I believe she was, so she, the other two Republican Senators and the Democrat Senators are not to blame since they originally had this amendment. Perhaps they should have fought against the Republicans that didn’t oppose this a little harder. I guess that’s the only honest area of blame.

If I remember correctly Sen. Snowe is one of the Republican Senators the GOP was upset with? I believe Chairman Michael Steele even suggested something about withholding campaign money from the RNC and supporting their challengers because of this. (Reference Source)

So I suggest that we first investigating before we start pointing fingers, pounding on podiums with righteous indignation towards each other and getting on any form of media in efforts to promote what is essentially what I call a Scampaign against the truth in order to gain a measure of support. There’s plenty of blame to throw around, but I believe this one should be firmly directed at the crooks at AIG and not politicians of either party who are honestly working together to fix it.

You may argue with me, but I believe this is fair.

Now, in regards to the AIG $160 Million of ‘retention bonus’ money here’s the results of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s investigation of how those bonuses are being distributed.

• One person who is no longer employed with the company is getting a ‘Retention Bonus’ of $6.4 Million U.S. Dollars.
• The top 7 bonus earners received $4 Million U.S. Dollars each.
• The top 10 bonus earners received a combined $42 Million U.S. Dollars.
• There were 22 other bonus earners who got $2 Million U.S. Dollars each.
• And wait for this one… 73 additional people at AIG got $1 Million each.

Now I feel really cheated now, because I’ve created some useful stuff at previous employers and the few times I did get a bonus it was absolutely no where in the vicinity of what the people who basically destroyed AIG is getting. Maybe it’s different at your job, or perhaps I’m in the wrong industry.

Of course the Democrats are suggesting the bonuses and/or any firm that the government holds 79% or more stakes to have a hefty tax imposed and bonuses capped.

Republicans, well at least the only one we’ve heard of that has a plan, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) seem to have a different method of getting back the funds from the bonuses… “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them, if they had followed the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, “I’m sorry,” and then either do one of two things, resign or go commit suicide.” Yahoo News – 03/17/09 “Senator Suggests AIG Execs Should Kill Themselves”

U.S. Treasury Secretary is recouping the funds from AIG $30 Billion bailout. Since AIG got this in writing I think this is a logical and equally legal move by the Secretary.

Personally, I would be just as iron fisted as AIG and many others on Wall Street and just take the money. Once they’ve threaten to take me to court I would simply tell them to sue me, before I completely take over the company. Once I’ve taken over I would simply carve out this division that caused this mess into its own individual entity and allow it to fail. I would get quite a few people upset with me on many sides, but to deal with a gangster you do what they do, but only legally.

Tell me what you think about this AIG hypocrisy and what you would do?

References & Inspirations

Media Matters – 02/26/09 “AP Ignored Democrats’ Response to Earmark Criticism: 40% are from Republicans”

Saving the Greenbacks

I guess when you actually have a plan that can not be reduced to the proposal of some that consists of doing nothing and allowing several fortune 500 companies to fail, you begin to feel optimistic.

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress in February that the prospects for the recession ending this year and a recovery taking root in 2010 hinges on the difficult task of getting banks to lend more freely again and getting the financial markets to work more normally.

It’s difficult to dispute and for some to accept that the ‘wild west’ environment that was previously in place for years along with the lack of some enforced regulations aimed at protecting the consumer instead of the company the severity of this current crisis may not be so hard. It’s not the fault of on single administration or ideology. The philosophy of government is the problem has landed those who followed that policy to ask the government for help.

Face it, that philosophy along with elected officials on all sides who promoted an ideological agenda of the other side is trying to ruin the country has almost ruin the country. Republicans are as much to blame for this mess as is Democrats.

If the roof is on fire you don’t sit there and argue about who caused the fire or who can best put the fire out. You shut-up and work together to put the fire out. This is one way to look at the recession we’re in. One side is chanting, ‘the roof is on fire’, but the other side is arguing that ‘we don’t need no water let the…burn’. Now how stupid is this?

What President Obama and his administration are working to accomplish is to save the house walk from these failed policies.

In addition to the difficult task of fixing what others broke? The are faced with the task of convincing everyday people that they matter and to believe in the ingenuity, determination and tenacity that America promises. You have to get use to the fact that we now have an Administration that doesn’t think you’re stupid, but we have to act as if we’re not stupid. I know some Republicans are still upset and some Democrats are happy, but let us stop the non-sense campaigning against each other and start campaigning for each other.

When the Fed Chairman was asked about the biggest potential dangers now, Ben Bernanke suggested a lack of “political will” to solve the financial crisis. Now I really could get partisan for a moment, but I really don’t think I need to say anything because it has already been well established and publicized of who doesn’t want the President or his policies to succeed. So why should I beat a dead elephant, I mean horse.

We all have the right to be upset, but let’s stop fighting each other and fight what caused this to happen again.

So as we watch the spin machines rev up on both sides you may wonder who will benefit politically from a recovering recession?

If you are seeking to gain political points in the shadow of the 2010 mid-term elections just think about what you’re doing. If your position prevails doesn’t that mean you are endorsing the worsening of an already bleak situation and failure of the current agenda in order to gain power again? There’s no need to be in a Rush to say that you’re not, if your actions says otherwise.

If you are among those who are in support of the current efforts to walk us out of this mess in hopes that it will benefit your candidate in 2010 I just want to advise you to be careful. Although this is a coalition of liberals and moderate conservatives let’s not be so eager to count our eggs before they’ve hatched. It can still fail. The lack of will of some if not proven ill may prevail.

The difficult task for those who publicly oppose everything to campaign honestly against something when what they opposed may actually help move us towards better days. We may not always agree on the tactics, but when the fire is still raging there is no time to fight each other because the fire will win each time. Once this fire is put out there are many other fires we got to help put out.

I hope the Fed Chairman is correct, not necessarily for political reasons but for reasons that we all may benefit from. At least there’s some in Washington willing to speak and work honestly.

References & Inspirations

Yahoo News – 03/16/09 “Bernanke Says Recession Could End in 2009”

The Omnibus Earmarks

This one is a little meaty, but it gets down to the substance of the disingenuous criticism of President Obama and the hypocrisy of those who offer the criticism. In regards on H.R. 1105 aka the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act lets take a look at this bill before I or anyone else commence criticizing anyone.

I was taught growing up to always ask questions if I didn’t understand something or was curious. So let’s ask some questions. But first let’s listen to what President Obama has to say about all of these earmarks.

Well that was clear, but I still have some questions.

1. What is this Omnibus Appropriations Act for?

Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) offers a good summary that answers this question. You can read the one page consolidated release by clicking here.

2. Why is it coming up for a vote now?

Again, Rep. Dave Obey; House Appropriations Committee Chairman offers an easy to understand explanation of why this is coming up now. In short it is political in its nature. The previous administration didn’t want to deal with it and congress didn’t either, so here we are.

3. What would have happen if it didn’t pass?

That one is pretty easy to answer, but allow me to reference Section 5 of H.R. 1105 which offers the Statement of Appropriation.

The following sums in this Act are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. (Source: Library of Congress H.R. 1105)

You can check out the breakdown of the bill here >> Library of Congress – H.R. 1105

I remember hearing The President repeat something about earmarks that was on his campaign website.

On the final vote of the bill in the senate there were 62 Yea votes and 35 Nay votes. Out of those 35 Nay votes 32 of them were from Republicans. That would mean that the other 3 nay votes were from Democrats. I wonder if I can find out who voted for shutting down the government.

Thanks to the OpenCongress.org we have a detailed list of Democrats and Republicans who voted on the H.R. 1105. Out of those 32 Republicans who voted to allow the government to shut down, 28 of them had earmarks.

Instead of criticizing the President for signing this “imperfect bill” and applying what was McCain’s campaign promise to veto any bill with earmarks to Obama and not his campaign promise of reforming earmarks. But I guess it is just apart of the scampaign to discredit Democrats by any means possible.

References & Inspirations

U.S. House of Representatives – 02/23/09 “2009 Appropriations Bill”

Yahoo News – 03/10/09 “U.S. Senate Passes Omnibus Appropriations Act with Vital Aid to Small Firms”

The Hill – 03/11/09 “GOP Waits for Obama’s Move on Earmarks”

The White House – 03/11/09 “President Obama declares turning point on earmark reform”

The Boston Globe – 03/10/08 “Obama Joins Call for Earmark Hiatus”

Open Congress – 03/10/09 “Senate Roll Call #96 Details”

President Obama’s Address to the Joint Session of Congress

Pres. Obama Address to Congress

Republican Response: What speech did Gov. Jindah watch?

Presidential Press Conference: 02/09/09

If you can not view this video, please click here.

Total Time = 58:42

Side Note: I like the analysis of Chris Matthews of MSNBC had to say about the Press Conference. >>Read More

Someone Like Me

On this day in 1870 the U.S. Congress ratified the 15th Amendment of the Constitution. This amendment gives the right of all American citizens of legal age the right to vote. It ensured that their right to vote was not to be denied or abridged by the United States or any of its states on the account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

This amendment empowered many African-Americans (Blacks) across the country, specifically the South during Reconstruction that had political aspirations. In fact thousands of Blacks were elected to political office during that time. Congress and state legislatures began to pass radical bills  to help eliminate all race-based laws.

Many Blacks holding public office and their Republican allies saw hopeful signs of progress, while the mostly defeated White Democratic power structure saw it as an intolerable threat. Although President Grant had to send federal troops to New Orleans to dispel an angry white mob who did not like interracial government, but it was his successor, President Hayes that withdrew those troops in 1877 that ended the protection and adherence of many of the policies enacted to protect Blacks.

Black politicians were voted out, southern legislatures passed poll taxes, literacy tests and various segregation laws. Jim Crow, the son of the south was born.

It wasn’t until the efforts of the countless and far too often nameless people of the Civil Rights Movement that help get American back on track to civility. The passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a full ninety-five (95) years after the ratification of the 15th Amendment. Essentially the  struggles, fights, sacrifices and deaths that lead to President Lyndon Johnson to sign the Voting Rights Act into law was basically the re-ratification of the 15th Amendment.

Today, I can see someone like me hold elected offices and positions of power through the land. It’s still a struggle for the most part, but when I look at a Mayor such as Cory Booker (Newark, NJ) or a formal U.S. Congressman such as Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN) or J.C. Watts (R-OK), a Governor such as Duval Patrick (D-MA), a chairman of a major political party and former Lt. Governor such as Michael Steele (R-MD) and even the President of the United States Barack Obama I am appreciative and hopeful for the allies of both major political parties, Republican & Democrat can see someone like me as the constitution currently states it, equal.

Regardless of our disagreements on policies we are in this game together. Civil Rights is not some passive movement of long ago, nor is this amendment, a political party, specific top politicians or chairmans accountable to just a single group of people. February is called Black History Month, but there are many people who were not Black who helped make this history along with many Blacks. I hope we all can work to not discount the significants of each others personal triumphs and collective achievements.

I take this opportunity to congratulate one more time the Republican Party in the election of it’s new party chairman former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Chairman Michael Steele and the Democratic Party in the election of our 44th President of the United States, President Barack Obama.

Campaign Promise Kept: Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act

During President Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention he said that “now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal days work, because I want my daughters to have the exact same opportunities as your sons.”

Ms. Ledbetter discovered the pay inequity when she was nearing retirement. Her male colleagues were earning much more than she was. (Boy does this sound familiar, but I’m not a woman) A jury found her employer, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company guilty of pay discrimination. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court threw out the case, ruling that she should have filed her suit within 180 days of the date that Goodyear first paid her less than her peers.

While Former President George W. Bush was still in office the Congress tried to pass a law that would have effectively overturned the decision, but the Bush White House opposed the bill. (Isn’t that a fine example of compassionate conservatism, but I digress)

The opponents contended that it would encourage lawsuits and argued that employees could delay filing their claims in the hope of reaping bigger rewards.

Well the New Congress passed the bill, which restarts the six-month clock every time the worker receives a paycheck. (Now what was that thing we heard during the campaign about Obama was a socialist or redistributionalist, whatever that means.)

Ms. Ledbetter will not see any money as a result of the legislation, but what she has received is sweet personal satisfaction and vindication.

“Goodyear will never have to pay me what it cheated me out of. In fact, I will never see a cent. But with the president’s signature today I have an even richer reward.” – LILLY LEDBETTER

Now I clearly understand that the President will not be able to keep each of the promises made during the campaign, no President ever has. But let’s give him the opportunity to try before criticizing his policies and character. Just like all Presidents before him, they must deal with Congress. That’s not an easy task regardless if you’re dealing with Republicans or Democrats. The refereeing of political egos and posturing can be treacherous at times if not down right dangerous. It’s like swimming naked with piranhas; you’re going to get…

References & Inspirations:

Washington Post – 01/29/09 “Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Act”

New York Times – 01/29/09 “Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation”

Legislating Morality

In a 11th hour ruling from the Bush Administration that gives healthcare workers, hospitals, and insurers more leeway to refuse health services for moral or religious reasons.

The rule was issued on December 19th and becomes effective in just 30 days. It’s main provisions broadens the number of healthcare workers and institutions that may refuse care based on “sincere religious belief or moral conviction” to provide care or referrals to patients.

So why don’t we just segregate healthcare again.

Where’s the lawmakers and individuals who are so outraged and oppose desegregated schools, Affirmative Action and anything against the constitution? Where’s your outrage now?

Some may say that Affirmative Action, School Desegregation and the Constitution has nothing to do with refusing healthcare based on moral or religious basis. And I would say you’re wrong. It’s very similar.

The argument against Affirmative Action is that it promotes preferences based on race. Refusing healthcare to someone who needs it based on your moral or religious beliefs is just as unfair as those who are against Affirmative Action.

Opponents of School Desegregation argue that you are forcing children to attend a school not in their neighborhood due to race, economics and community. Why bus them across town when there’s a school 5 blocks away? How is that different than the Atheist or Muslim who lives two minutes from Baptist Hospital who is experiencing chest pains and need medical attention? Because they are not Christian and you are you as a Doctor, Nurse or Insurer refuse to help them.

“This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.” says Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt in a statement.

What sense does this make? Why take the Hippocratic Oath?

I guess the Bush Administration assumed that since the Hippocratic Oath is an obligatory oath it could run this through the darkness of night.

The ruling, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, covers an estimated 571,947 “entities” including doctors’ offices, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, medical and nursing schools, diagnostic labs, nursing homes, and state governments.

Each of these entities is required to certify in writing that they will comply with the ruling. Failure to comply may be punished with loss of federal funding.

A wide number of medical groups strongly oppose the new ruling. These groups include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 27 state medical associations.

The Catholic Health Association, representing the Catholic hospitals that care for about a sixth of U.S. patients, strongly supports the conscience ruling. The group says it’s seen a number of efforts to force doctors to perform — or make referrals — for abortions and sterilizations.

The Family Research Council, which strongly opposes abortion, also supports the ruling.

I don’t have a problem with you being for or against abortion, but this ruling is about more than just abortion and sterilization. It’s about putting your moral and religious beliefs before a person health.

If you’re Pro-Life shouldn’t you Promote Life in all areas? Refusal of medical service on the basis of a health professionals moral or religious beliefs seems Pro-Choice to me.

Since we’re legislating morality now, why not go to the place many of the supporters of this ruling seek their selective comfort.

Where’s the morality in your religious beliefs if you refuse to tend to the man who was car jacked, injured and left on the side of the road? (Reference to Luke 10:25-37)

For the Christian supporters of this ruling I ask another question that I would like you to consider. When Jesus (The Great Physician) sent out the twelve apostles with the instructions to go among the Gentiles and preach the message that the kingdom of heaven is near, heal the sick, cleanse the leper what does that mean to you?

It’s not the healthy or those who believe as you who need the doctor, but the sick who needs the doctor. Jesus didn’t heal the sick believer, he healed the sick. (Mark 2:13-17)

It is because of your political affiliation, religious belief or disbelief, constitutional value and morality you should speak out against the Bush Administration’s legislation on morality.

References & Inspiration
WebMD – 12/19/08 “Controversy Over New Conscience Rule”

Ahmadinejad

At the first Presidential debate we saw this exchange between McCain & Obama regarding Iran and the statements of McCain adviser Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Since John McCain has known Henry Kissinger for 35 years and Henry Kissinger himself has changed his previous report to backup John McCain’s assertions why did Dr. Kissinger say this to the Washington Post Monday, July 31, 2008 on Page A-15? (Link)

Also I wanted to be fair and wanted to see what the non-partisan group FactCheck.org had to say in their investigation on this subject.

Fact Checking Debate No. 1:
“Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.”

I already know the answer I’m going to get. Whenever anyone disagrees with McCain or the Republican establishment they’re accused of being “in the tank” of the Obama Campaign. So what about FOX News? Obviously they’re in the tank of the GOP.

You see I’m fair enough to admit when my candidate is wrong or even skewed the facts, why can’t McCain supporters do the same instead of spouting off ridiculous and often incorrect assertions. Whatever, it’s all a game. We’re in the forth quarter anyway and we’re up by one touchdown now. Let’s see how well the defense holds while the star quarterback steps up his game on the next drive. We’re going to see the backup Quarterback (Joe Biden) put some big numbers on the board come Thursday.

Are you ready for some football? Go Titans! (Hold up, I’m sorry I got caught up there for a moment.)

Reference:
Washington Post – 07/31/08 “The Next Steps With Iran”
Miami Herald – 09/27/08 “McCain misstates some facts in debate on foreign policy”

Republican Sterilization Proposal

John McCain endorsee Louisiana Republican State Representative John LaBruzzo told reporters that he’s researching an idea to pay poor women to get sterilized and to pay rich people money to have more babies. He says that it’s a strategy for trimming the welfare rolls in his state and to preserve more electoral hopes for conservative candidates.

He says, “If your livelihood is based on government handouts why would you vote for someone who will lower your taxes?”

As usual he claims that his proposal has nothing to do with race.

Really? What color is the sky in your world?

If you would like to learn more about the topics of eugenics and/or racial hygiene click the links below.

• Eugenics
• Racial Hygiene

I encourage you to stand-up against this and other acts of discrimination whether it is class, economical, educational, and racial, age or gender. If LA State Rep. John LaBruzzo’s mother had the option of getting paid to get sterilized before John was born would he still make this proposal?

Where’s the Pro-Life Groups when you need them?

Reference:

New Orleans Times-Picayune – 09/23/08 “LaBruzzo considering play to pay poor women $1000 to have tubes tied”

Now AIG

Another One Bites The Dust, but John McCain says the fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Imagine

IMAGINE

It’s amazing how we didn’t hear what McCain will do on any of these issues.

Ruthless Villain

Ruthless Villain — I’m not talking about MC Ren from NWA, but a book by Gary Chafetz. Mr. Chafetz is a Boston journalist who set out to chronicle the scandal involving conservative gun-for-hire and super-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Instead he uncovered a Shakespearean tragedy of deceit, betrayal and political vendetta in which the true villains are Presidential aspirant John McCain, the Washington Post newspaper and the U.S. Department of Justice–all of whom participated in the railroading of an innocent man.
Chafetz benefited from exclusive and unconditional access to the jailed Abramoff and to many never-before-released documents. The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process–a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue. The true story, as Chafetz recounts in The Perfect Villain, is even more riveting and compelling.

In stores on Tuesday, September 16^th. click here to purchase this book

References of Interest:

Washington Post – 09/05/08 “Abramoff Gets Reduced Sentence of Four Years in Prison”

Alaskan Sex Positions

You see the freaks do come out at night and in the day time too. I knew that would get you.

Now that I’ve got your attention let me say that it shouldn’t be a big surprise to anyone who monitors politics that the McCain Campaign has wisely broke this story before others did. Barack Obama and many other candidates have said that the children are off-limits. Although that doesn’t always happen I agree unless they inject themselves into the campaign.

In this case I choose not to talk down about Sarah Palin’s children. Although Sarah herself is a target, her children should not.

You will see that I have not mentioned Gov. Pailin’s daughters name or said anything about her children. I actually wish her the best and encourage her to always consider first of the child over her own interest. I’m sure she will. This may give you an indication of some of my views, but I only want to look at Alaska and Sarah Palin’s positions on sex related issues.

Here are a few sex related issues that I could think of, but you can comment on the ones I missed that you believe should be mentioned. Remember this is for Alaska Only.

Age of Consent

In Alaska the age of consent is sixteen (16). This is the age at which an individual may consent to have sex with someone over the age of eighteen (18), legally. It applies both to heterosexual and homosexual acts.

The minimum age to marry in Alaska is eighteen (18). People under the age of eighteen (18) can marry with the consent of both parents. The prospective bride and groom should bring certified birth certificates, and their parents should present valid identification.

Statutory Rape

Alaska sexual-consent laws are such that they cover almost any situation, depending upon the interpretation of a presiding judge (if it comes to that). The age of consent is 16 for both male and female. It is considered sexual abuse if the person is at least 18 and lives in the same household or holds a position of authority over anyone 16 or 17 years old. With anyone under the age of 16, it is considered a crime of rape regardless of the circumstances. However, there are many other laws that can be applied in regard to age differences, e.g., the unlawful exploitation of a minor.

So this should end the discussion on the statutory rape argument.

Teenage Pregnancy

Alaska has the 30th highest teenage pregnancy rate of any state. I want to go into detail, but

there’s a lot of demographic statistics. So here’s a link to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy website state profile for Alaska.

HIV/AIDS

In 1982, the first known HIV/AIDS case was reported in Alaska. As of December 2004, there were approximately 1002 HIV/AIDS cases statewide. Of this number 228 were Alaska Natives living with HIV.

Due to the number of statistics regarding the HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) in Alaska I’m providing a link to the Alaska Health & Social Services epidemiology documents page. In addition to the resource link above I’ve included another one from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) has a HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet for Alaska Natives.

STD (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)

Healthy kids make better students. A number of avoidable behaviors put the health of young

people at risk. Addressing adolescent health determinants, especially behaviors that put

young people at risk for HIV, other STDs, and teen pregnancy remain a challenge.

People aged 13 to 24 accounted for 13 percent of HIV cases reported in areas with confidential HIV reporting. Each year approximately 3 million cases of STDs occur among teenagers and

approximately 870,000 teenagers become pregnant. HIV, other STDs, and teen pregnancy can impact students’ capacity to excel at school and can be a contributing factor in decreasing high school graduation rates. The nation has seen a drop in teen pregnancy rates; however, rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted disease infections have not declined. (Source: Alaska Profile of HIV, STD & Teen Pregnancy)

Abortion

In the Anchorage Daily News on 11/03/07 The Alaska State Supreme Court ruled that teens can make own abortion decisions.

WOW!

Out of the 1,923 abortions performed in Alaska in 2006, 126 were obtained by girls 17 or younger.

Again, WOW! I won’t get into this too much, but this decision is crazy.

Comments

Sex Education is not a bad thing. Having a sex education program doesn’t imply that you should have sex, but helps educate you about sex. If or when you choose to engage in sex wouldn’t you want to know something about it; the risks. Often individuals who are opposed to sex education take the position that it somehow encourage and endorses sex. Many teens engage in sex due to peer pressure and curiosity. That curiosity stems from a lack of understanding. If you know about something there are few reasons to be curious about it.

Abstaining from sex until marriage, sexual transmitted disease, HIV, Aids, pregnancy, abortion, contraceptives, parenting, child birth and rape are parts of educating yourself and youths about sex shouldn’t be a taboo subject.

If you don’t tell them who will? If you don’t know about these subjects why not seek out someone who does? Education is the key to prevention.

Some may say NO to sex education for various reasons, but it’s an issue of health and knowledge.

Governor Sarah Palin does not endorse sex education although it was recently reported that she backed abstinence only education according to the 2006 Eagle Forum Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire. I agree with Obama and McCain in saying that the children of the candidates are off-limits. You see I have not mentioned her name or said anything about her children. I only want to look at Alaska and Sarah Palin’s positions on sex. (No Pun Intended)

Reference Footnotes:

Associated Press – 09/02/08 “McCain fought money on teen pregnancy programs”

Eagle Forum Alaska: 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire