I don't have a lot to say about the State of the Union address the President gave last night. Other than the announcement of the spending freeze, there weren't really any surprises (and the only surprising thing about the freeze was that he decided to go ahead with it, there had already been reports he was going to announce one). Just more of the same old, same old. This was both good and bad. The good part of it was that he still seems committed to some very noble goals. The bad is that he still refuses to see that no matter what he does or says, every time he reaches his hand across the aisle, the other side is going to slap it away. The Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship. They've made it clear since the day Obama was elected that they planned to oppose him at every turn, no matter what. Last night, the President made note of the fact that the Democrats hold one of the biggest majorities they've had in a long time. It would be nice if he started ACTING like he was aware of this fact. He needs to start pushing things through. He needs to pass what he can with the Democractic votes he has. If some of the Republicans want to join the Democrats on some of these things, great ! If not, then screw them !
Oh, and one other thing. The President talked about working with Congress and the Joint Chiefs on repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on gays in the military and allowing them to serve openly. This is something he promised to do during his campaign. And he has been getting a lot of flak from the LGBT community about the fact that he hasn't done so yet. So he threw them that bone last night, basically saying "I want to do this. Hopefully, Congress and the Joint Chiefs will be willing to help me with it." Here's the thing. He doesn't need to work with anyone on this. When Truman desegregated the Armed Forces, he did it by Executive Order. Obama could do the same. With one stroke of the pen, he could end discrimination in the military and allow men and women who want to serve their country to do so without having to hide who they are. So why not just do that ? Good question. When it comes to equal rights, he talks a good game, but doesn't seem willing to put his money where his mouth is.
Obama said in an interview recently that he would rather be a really good one-term President than a mediocre two-term President. If he doesn't start governing as if his party holds the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress (which they do), if he doesn't actually start fulfilling some of the promises he made to those on the left who were instrumental in getting him elected (things like closing Guantanamo and repealing DADT), then he will be a one-term President, but he won't have been a really good one.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
One nation under Corporations....
Last week, the Supreme Court overturned decades of limitations and a previous ruling handed down 20 years ago on the ability of corporations to donate to political campaigns. The Court basically decided that the First Amendment rights of the corporations were being restricted unfairly. Not surprisingly, of the 5 judges who ruled in favor, 3 of them were on the bench deciding Bush v Gore and all voted in favor of Bush then.
As soon as this happened, people on the right did what they always do when years of precedent are struck down, they started railing against "activist" judges. HA HA ! I'm kidding, of course. Judges are only accused of being "activist" and "ignoring the Constitution" when their rulings benefit the poor or those who are being discriminated against. In a case like this, where the people who benefit are the rich and powerful or the corporations which the Right are all buddy-buddy with, then it's ok. In fact, quite a few people on the right were quick to praise this decision.
Corporations already have more influence than they should on elections. They are not people, therefore to consider them as having the same 1st Amendment rights as people is ridiculous, especially when you consider that this ruling doesn't make any distinction between U.S. owned corporations and foreign owned corporations, which means that a foreign owned corporation operating in this country would be considered to have the same free speech rights as a U.S. citizen and would be given free reign to influence an American election.
This is unacceptable. Luckily, the President and the Congress are already working on ways to put limits back on corporations in ways that don't conflict with this ruling (and therefore, hopefully, can't be struck down by the Court). I would strongly suggest that you write to your Representative in Congress and the Senators from your state and let them know how outraged you are at this ruling and your desire for something to be done about it.
You can do something else as well. You can go to this website: www.movetoamend.org. You can sign a petition there asking for a Constitutional Amendment that would overturn this Supreme Court decision. Although this would be a much slower process than getting new laws through Congress and might be derailed by corporations making sure that officials in State houses and U.S. Senators are elected who will stop the ratification, perhaps just having enough signatures will get the attention of those in Washington who might be hesitant to join in a bipartisan effort to do something about this horrible ruling and let them know that it's what the people want.
By the way, I know the next Presidential election is 3 years away and Obama has plenty of time to start doing the stuff that those on the Left who helped him get into office expected him to do. However, I also know there are many people like myself who are already very disappointed in him, some of whom may already be thinking of voting against him in the next Presidential election. For those people, I say, look at this ruling. The next President will probably be appointing at least one new Supreme Court justice, maybe more. If a Republican gets elected in 2012, I can guarantee you will end up with more judges who will hand down rulings like this, something to think about....
As soon as this happened, people on the right did what they always do when years of precedent are struck down, they started railing against "activist" judges. HA HA ! I'm kidding, of course. Judges are only accused of being "activist" and "ignoring the Constitution" when their rulings benefit the poor or those who are being discriminated against. In a case like this, where the people who benefit are the rich and powerful or the corporations which the Right are all buddy-buddy with, then it's ok. In fact, quite a few people on the right were quick to praise this decision.
Corporations already have more influence than they should on elections. They are not people, therefore to consider them as having the same 1st Amendment rights as people is ridiculous, especially when you consider that this ruling doesn't make any distinction between U.S. owned corporations and foreign owned corporations, which means that a foreign owned corporation operating in this country would be considered to have the same free speech rights as a U.S. citizen and would be given free reign to influence an American election.
This is unacceptable. Luckily, the President and the Congress are already working on ways to put limits back on corporations in ways that don't conflict with this ruling (and therefore, hopefully, can't be struck down by the Court). I would strongly suggest that you write to your Representative in Congress and the Senators from your state and let them know how outraged you are at this ruling and your desire for something to be done about it.
You can do something else as well. You can go to this website: www.movetoamend.org. You can sign a petition there asking for a Constitutional Amendment that would overturn this Supreme Court decision. Although this would be a much slower process than getting new laws through Congress and might be derailed by corporations making sure that officials in State houses and U.S. Senators are elected who will stop the ratification, perhaps just having enough signatures will get the attention of those in Washington who might be hesitant to join in a bipartisan effort to do something about this horrible ruling and let them know that it's what the people want.
By the way, I know the next Presidential election is 3 years away and Obama has plenty of time to start doing the stuff that those on the Left who helped him get into office expected him to do. However, I also know there are many people like myself who are already very disappointed in him, some of whom may already be thinking of voting against him in the next Presidential election. For those people, I say, look at this ruling. The next President will probably be appointing at least one new Supreme Court justice, maybe more. If a Republican gets elected in 2012, I can guarantee you will end up with more judges who will hand down rulings like this, something to think about....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)