A Response to a Like Minded Energy Responsible Democrat

I strongly agree with Lily's editorial and have a few extra things to add. In early 2009, President Obama directed his Secretary of Transportation to issue a mandate towards car manufacturers in the United States which required the average milage of a company's complete vehicle lineup to meet or exceed 35.5 miles per gallon of gasoline by the year 2016. As a Toyota technician, I have already seen the increase in Hybrid vehicles and smaller engine cars. In addition to that, the more efficient vehicles require much less maintenance than larger trucks or SUVs.

Back to your editorial, I agree that using renewable resources such as wind, solar, and nuclear power is the way to reduce power sources that harm our environment (coal, oil, ect.) This will become especially useful in the near future when car companies begin selling electric vehicles in mass quantities. The day is coming where you can plug in your electric powered Chevy Volt or Plug-in Prius and the only energy you are using is from the wind and sunshine. While these solutions are not here yet, the willingness of the government to address these problems and start creating solutions is a large step forward for this country.

The Wide Spectrum of Republican Presidential Nominees

While the Democratic Party has already begun rallying its volunteer base to reelect Barack Obama, Republican nominees are now beginning to surface for the 2012 presidential election. Some familiar faces from the previous election have already declared their candidacy, such as Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Some newcomers to the list are Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty. This is not to mention the very likely nominations of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

And then there is Donald Trump.

There is about a year before the Iowa Caucus, the first step for any presidential nominee, but the fear mongering, mud slinging, and general insanity of the elections has already begun. While it is obvious that some nominees, such as Romney and Huckabee, which are taking the next step in their political career, some candidates, namely Trump and perspective candidates Palin and Bachmann, seem more concerned with attacking Obama on fringe issues (such as gay rights and his birth certificate) than on presenting viable plans for this country's well-being on a larger scale. While I understand the need for a variety of candidates early on in the race, I feel the Republican Party needs to step up and end this farce before it causes harm to legitimate candidates.

The law allows anyone to run for president, provided they have the money and the signatures. Donald Trump will have few barriers to his meeting these requirements. However, his insistence on bringing back the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate, an issue that respectable politicians have long put to rest, is embarrassing to the real candidates in this race and should be considered an unacceptable publicity stunt. Every time the increasingly ridiculous political media gives Trump an interview (and candidates like Mike Huckabee respond), they are giving legitimacy to his attempt to become the leader of our country. If Republicans want to "take back the White House" from Barack Obama, they need to respect their own party a little more and make sure it is Romney (a more moderate candidate, whose Massachusetts health care program could attract even more liberal independent voters) or Huckabee (a religiously conservative but not reactionary candidate)  who are the ones getting interviewed and sharing their plans for the country.

Polygamy Revisited

This post is in response to Deserah Alvarez's blog post.

I think the primary problem with your argument is that gay marriage and polygamy are inherently different. Polygamy has been outlawed because it leads to abuse of women, both physical and emotional. Not all polygamists are abusers, but the situation lends itself to an attitude about women that is unhealthy: they are possessions of their husband, their sole purpose is to give birth, they are disposable or replaceable. Gay marriage on the other hand as well as being contrary to your argument, is a firmly established historical practice and is between two consenting, loving adults.

America's primary moral is personal freedom. However, that freedom should not infringe on the freedom of another person. This is why polygamy is outlawed by most states and the Mormon church. While I have not seen this program you mention, I do know that popular culture can only affect a person's opinion so much. Just because I am interested in a show about an altruistic serial killer who gets away with murder (Dexter) doesn't mean that I am going to go out and rid the streets of crime one body at a time. My example is a bit on the extreme side but I would venture to guess that after viewing Sisterwives, you do not have a sudden desire to enter a polygamist relationship.

Planned Parenthood at risk

A major issue this past year has been the attempt by Congress to balance the budget. Part of that process is deciding which federal programs will receive funding for the coming fiscal year. The Republican controlled Congress has been pushing to remove funding for several national programs including PBS, NPR, and, most controversially, Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood has been around for more than 90 years, providing sexual education and health resources to both men and women. Some Congressmen act as though this health center is nothing more than a government funded abortion clinic. There is no denying that Planned Parenthood offers abortions, but this service is only one of the many they offer. Their website claims that one in five American women has chosen to use Planned Parenthood and their resources at least once. The services include STD testing, pregnancy test, free or low cost birth control including condoms, and cancer screenings.

Some may point at a common trend that the Republican Party is following; they are simultaneously trying to get rid of Planned Parenthood and the Health Care bill, both of which are powerful health aids to people that can not afford traditional private health care or clinics. Statistics show that the United States is at the top of the list in terms of teen pregnancy per capita in the developed world. Countries at the bottom of the list, such as Japan and the Netherlands, have far reaching and mandatory sex education programs.

I think that the funding of Planned Parenthood should remain, however the funding could be aimed specifically at the other services that this group offers. By splitting apart the separate services, a compromise could be reached that would be better for both sides. I’m sure that both parties would agree that cancer screenings are both helpful for the public and free from any moral gray area. Although in the big picture, the 75 million dollars that is allocated to Planned Parenthood is a raindrop in the ocean that is our national budget.

A Circular Cycle in US Involvement

I am once again choosing to write about the conflict that is currently taking place in Libya. While it is not our government, because of our involvement, it places this topic as one of national concern. The United States military is participating in a multi government enacted no-fly zone turned offensive over the unstable country of Libya by attacking key targets using cruise missiles. Unfortunately, there have been innocent civilian casualties.

Medea Benjamin’s main point is that if the US ended the sale of weapons and support to foreign dictators, we would not be put in situations where we must step in to handle these same leaders. Medea speaks to those who wonder why we are in a situation where violence is the only obvious answer to stopping Gaddafi. Her view is that the government would rather safeguard its resources and protect its oil interests than refuse to stop helping oppressive regimes.

Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the web site Codepink a hyper liberal site that is extremely anti-war. Benjamin’s views, while valid, are tinged with heavy personal opinion and a strong liberal standpoint. The information is quoted from legitimate sources but she never states anything from an opposing viewpoint. While the blog is well written, it also is difficult to digest her argument as she comes across as a radical.

That being said, I agree with her views 100 percent. We have a long history of supplying countries with weapons and support and then seeing those same weapons and bolstered leaders present against us in future conflicts. This includes a big example of America backing Iraq financially during the Iraq-Iran war and then fighting against the same corrupt dictator, Saddam Hussein, during the War in Iraq.

The US Reaction to Libya

A hot topic on the news lately is the possibility of a joint nation enacted no-fly zone over the unstable country of Libya. Gaddafi has recently been using his air force to strike against protesting civilians and a no-fly zone would curb his ability to maintain control of the country through the violent means that have characterized his presidency. A no-fly zone is a more diplomatically acceptable way to achieve this without sending in troops to physically invade the country. John F. Kerry, a democrat from Massachusetts, argues in support of a no-fly zone in this Washington Post editorial.

Kerry speaks primarily to those who are concerned for Libyan civilians and the Libyan democratic movement but are not sure if they want the United States to be involved directly. Some are not even sure what our options in Libya are. The author explains what a no-fly zone would entail as well as which international organizations we should move through, specifically NATO. For those who question the necessity of a United States intervention, Kerry references Bosnia and Kosovo, historical instances where the United States has helped Muslim countries as they seek democratic governments. To Kerry, this situation is no different.

John Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He writes this article coming from a background of diplomatically engaging with other states. While some politicians such as Newt Gingrich say we should go into Libya guns blazing, Kerry is suggesting a more peaceful, and frugal, approach in the long term.

While the current chain of revolutions in the Middle East are getting increasingly violent, there is a glimmer of hope throughout the intense bloodshed. Revolution leads to change, and in the cases of Egypt and Tunisia it lead to positive government and social change. Through better social freedoms and potential increase in the standard of living, these revolutions can lead to more permanent stability in the Middle East. And if you will remember not too long ago, we were part of a revolution that lead to the start of a pretty awesome country.

Obama and DOMA

    Some people say that gay rights are the Civil Rights of our generation. Everyone has an opinion and it has been a controversial topic in our past few elections. Recently, President Obama has withdrawn federal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which would define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. This article in The Washington Post is a followup to the announcement showing the Republican response to Obama’s decision. The article quotes John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, as saying that his party sees this as Obama stirring up controversial issues just as the 2012 presidential elections are in sight.
    I believe that this article is important to read because it reinforces my opinion that politicians are always playing the public for re-election. For instance, Republicans have formed a platform around Obama’s economic failures while Obama knows that his strong stance on gay rights helped him in the election due to the high number of young voters that back same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, I believe that this action of Obama’s is a step in the right direction for the civil rights of America.