Righteous Liberal Rage
May 15, 2008Keith Olbermann says it all in 12 minutes. Watch it here.
Finally - Some Compassionate Conservatism
May 6, 2008I rarely agree with the Sutherland Institute. Paul Mero, the president of the conservative think tank, has penned opinion columns in the Tribune that make me want to simultaneously laugh and cry.
But a Deseret Morning News editorial directed my attention to something from Sutherland that I can agree with: the call for a sane and compassionate immigration policy, particularly within our state. The Sutherland Institute also released an essay, explaining their positions, citing heroes of the right from Milton Friedman to Thomas Sowell to William Buckley, Jr. explaining why a compassionate policy makes sense morally, politically, and economically.
President Reagan, who has “been nearly deified by political and intellectual conservatives alike, signed the 1986 immigration bill,” which granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Money quote from Reagan:
I have thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land…and the price of admission was very simple…any place in the world and any person from these places; any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live an a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here…I believe that God in shedding His grace on this country has always in this divine scheme of things kept an eye on our land and guided it as a promised land for these people.”
The “promised land” language always makes me nervous, but in this context, I find Reagan’s words reverberate with me.
Being the Sutherland Institute, the people who brought us Quiverfull “movement”, of course, they couldn’t fail to mention that many Hispanic immigrants have as strong, if not stronger, a reverence for the family as many Utahns (read: Mormons). Sutherland’s point here, of course, is that Hispanic immigrants fit well within Utah’s family culture and could contribute to strengthening it.
I know some liberals might consider it heretical to agree with a far-right wing group like the Sutherland Institute. Then call me a heretic (and this guy, too). When it comes to good public policy, particularly on an issue as emotional as immigration, we need all the allies we can get.
Bush Endorses Chris Cannon
May 6, 2008In almost any other Congressional district in America, of course, this would be a kiss of death.
C’mon, Utah county. Reality isn’t that bad.
Horse Race Over?
May 4, 2008The irony of this is too sweet. Don’t miss the comments, either.
“For Big Brown, undefeated but having raced only three times, the Derby (4 p.m. ET, NBC; post time 6:04) is a chance to validate the hype that has made such an inexperienced colt the favorite among oddsmakers to win the most prestigious event in American horse racing.”
A Health Care Proposal that Might (Gasp!) Pass?
May 4, 2008The Healthy Americans Act, a health care reform bill co-sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Bob Bennett (R-UT) may have just gotten the certification it needs to pass through both chambers of Congress.
As reported by the Salt Lake Tribune’s Matt Canham, The Congressional Budget Office completed an analysis of the bill, and found that it would be budget neutral by 2014.
Wyden’s plan would abolish employer-provided insurance. Instead, citizens would be responsible to purchase their own insurance through a state exchange. Insurers would be required to provide a minimum baseline of coverage to everyone, couldn’t charge different customer’s different premiums, and couldn’t deny coverage.
It’s not a single-payer plan, which would be my preference. But it is promising.
Update: I forgot to mention: The American Prospect has a great special feature on health care reform in this month’s issue. Be sure to see Ezra Klein’s article titled, “The Elusive Politics of Reform,” which gives a good description of Wyden’s bill.
Kafka Comes to America
May 4, 2008That’s the title of a new book about the American prison at Guantanamo Bay, and, by all accounts, an accurate description.
Truth be told, I probably won’t read it when it comes out - not for lack of interest, but rather, lack of intestinal fortitude.
I just read Nicholas Kristof’s astute opinion column in the New York Times detailing some of the absurdities of Gitmo, and I’m working my way through Charlie Savage’s Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy (just released in paperback), where Gitmo is but one illustration in Savage’s larger picture of executive abuse of power.
Even these brief accounts of the injustices of Guantanamo are enough to turn my stomach. As Kristof notes today, “it would take an exceptional enemy to damage America’s image and interests as much as President Bush and Mr. Cheney already have with Guantánamo.”
A few examples of the excesses of Gitmo, as chronicled in Takeover:
- Despite Bush administration claims to the contrary, few of the inmates at Guantanamo are “hardened terrrorists.” A 2006 Seton Hall University School of Law study revealed that 60% of the inmates had “no definitive connection to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.”
- 86% of the detainees were not caught in combat, but rather, were turned over to U.S. forces by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance when the U.S. was offering cash bounties.
- Most of the detainees were simple peasants who had been conscripted into Taliban militias against their will.
And this, of course, isn’t even the worst of it. Maher Arar’s is as Kafaesque, and as shameful to America as anything you can possibly imagine. And of course there are also the stories of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi.
It’s easy to forget the many ridiculous abuses of power of the Bush administration. There are just so damn many. But Guantanamo and the Bush administration’s assertion that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply are among the most egregious, and the most damaging to America’s image abroad.
Does Your Pastor Love America as Much as You Do?
April 18, 2008I didn’t get to see Wednesday night’s debate on ABC, but I’ve read enough on the Internets to know that I’m glad I didn’t see it.
Hillary and some members of the press think that Barack deserved some “tough” questioning about things that were on people’s minds - like lapel pins, if Jeremiah Wright loves America as much as Barack (seriously: wtf kind of question is that?), etc.
Fair enough.
As Cogitamus asks, why isn’t John McCain being asked equally tough questions? What about his relationship with fraudster Charles Keating? What about his adulterous past? What about his wife’s drug abuse?
If it’s fair to expect the Democratic front-runner to answer barely-relevant, personal questions, then surely it’s fair to ask similar questions of St. McCain.
Sorry for the lack of posts…
April 18, 2008…but not really, because since my last post I became a daddy!
My wife is doing great and our beautiful baby girl is healthy and wonderful.
