John Boehner is lying...or he lives in a cabin in the woods

Hey everyone,

It's been a long time since I've written anything here, but today I was reading an article and I thought, "wow I wish I had a blog so I could respond to that". So I'm back!

Earlier this afternoon, Politico reported that House Minority Leader John Boehner claimed that he has yet to meet any American (aside from Democratic Congressmen) who support any type of public option in the current health care reform efforts. He goes on to state that the public option is as unpopular as a "garlic milkshake" (which I'm not sure would be that bad if made well).

As Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com has best explained, the polling on the "public option" has been all over the place, as most people don't know what the public option refers to, or the pollsters are interpreting their results wrongly. Despite these issues, almost every poll I have seen measures American support of the public option at 40-60% of the population. So either John Boehner lives in a cabin in the woods surrounded by deer and right-wing anti-government extremists, or he is furthering the Republican party as a gigantic lying mess.

Or maybe he simply wants to goad thousands of people who support the public option to overwhelm his office. Which is what I think you should do. You can shoot an email to John Boehner expressing your support of some type of alternative government option to private insurance HERE. For those of you who are telphonically inclined, the number is (202) 225-4000. Make some noise.

Europe failing in foreign aid?

BBC News has a strong article up today accusing France and Italy of completely failing in meeting their pledges to provide assistance and debt relief to African countries. The accusations come from the anti-poverty group ONE, as well as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and refer to the pledges made by G8 countries during the 2005 Summit in Scotland. While I, like many others, tend to believe that European countries are at the forefront in terms of foreign aid, this article clearly shows that the United States, Canada and Japan are closest to meeting their aid commitments. Just some food for thought.

Amazing in Egypt

I'll write about this in greater detail when I have more time, but Obama's speech in Cairo today was truly one of the most powerful moments in recent political history. Whatever your opinions are on the various policy arguments he presented, Obama undeniably shifted America's dialogue with the Islamic world towards civility and even mutual respect. A variety of things he did in this speech - his tone, use of Qu'ranic verses, a historic re-telling of Muslim achievements, choosing to say "violent" extremists, instead of "Islamic" extremists - demonstrated that our policies and politics regarding Muslims will no longer be fixed in the post-9/11, War on Terror framework. While we will have to wait and see if hard policy changes follow, I for one am optimistic about America's new, empathetic approach towards the Arab and Islamic world.

P.S. While earlier reports indicated that Obama would not mention the struggle for more democracy in Egypt by opposition movements (the focus of my senior thesis), I am glad that Obama gave some time to this issue, guaranteeing support for "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose". However, he was generally vague, and did not go far in calling upon the Mubarak regime to open up the political system and civil society in Egypt. Hopefully this speech just marks the first engagement with an issue that is of vast importance to Egyptians, and Arabs in general.

"The Mellowing of William Jefferson Clinton"

An amazing article in the NYTimes Magazine by Peter Baker, I recommend everyone to give it a look. It really gives you a look inside Clinton's life and mind as he is further and further from his time as President. Check it out.

And just for fun, here is a favorite photo of the man himself:

A new approach to Israel-Palestine doomed to fail?

A very important shift is occurring under the Obama Administration in America's approach to the everlasting Israel-Palesetine peace/conflict process. To a degree unseen in recent history, the President is taking a forceful line on Israel, demanding it to adhere to its various commitments under international agreements such as the Road Map. Hillary Clinton's comment that Americans intend to "press the point" that Israel must halt all settlement activity is definitely a radical departure from the Bush Administration's unwavering acceptance of Israeli politices. It wil be interesting to see if Obama will be able to sustain this approach in the face of the pro-Israel lobby, which surely will be motivated to act in response to what the Guardian calls the lowest point in US-Israel relations in two decades.

The ironic aspect of the new, and in my opinion, superior, United States approach is that in terms of the peace process, both Israel and Palestine are in the worst shape in recent history. Netanyahu's new government is heavily influenced by the far-right policies of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, as seen by their recent moves to impose a loyalty oath on Israeli Arabs and punish commemoration of the Nakba (mourning over the Palestinian displacement in 1948) with a three-year jail term. It is difficult to see how Palestinians would be willing to negotiate with an Israeli side that has still not expressed support for a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel, not to mention potentially engaging in discrimination against Arabs in violation of their Basic Laws.

Palestinians are also severely weakened in their ability to work towards peace. The difficulties arising from the division between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in West Bank are well-known and at this time seem intractable. A Hamas-Fatah unity government is unlikely to materialize, and even if it were created, would cause Israel to immediately leave the negotiating table. Furthermore, Abbas' own movement has voiced no confidence in his current government, causing friction within the West Bank. An unstable and fractious Palestinian leadership will be unable to gather the support to even begin substantive negotiations, let alone present a set of coherent and persuasive demands towards a "final status" deal.

Whether Obama's more engaged approach will yield peace dividends requires time, patience and bold ideas between Israel and Palestine--things that both sides don't seem to have these days.

Tweet tweet?

So I have to admit, I have been curious and a bit dumbfounded by the Twitter craze over the last couple months. I had heard a lot about it, but never really checked it out...until now. I must admit that I had been very confused by Twitter: is it a place to share unimportant details of one's everyday lives (e.g. AIM away messages and G-chat status), a source of pithy insight and inspiring (or cliche) quotes, or merely a venue where extensive use of online short-form ("lol ill brb b4 u no it tweet tweet tweet") is not only appropriate but encouraged. I really don't know, it's probably so popular because it's all of the above.

I guess I'm still confused. I'm pretty sure that the rise of Twitter signifies the end of complex thinking and writing, a massive increase in people's attention-deficit, a further movement towards a media system that displaces facts with opinions, and perhaps the downfall of intelligent and informed society. But it's also very cool to me, at least for now.

So here you go: http://www.twitter.com/flonard

Bachmann Strikes Again!

Representative Michele Bachmann is back with some more delving insight, commenting on how she found it an "interesting coincidence" that the last outbreak of swine flu happened under another Democratic president, Jimmy Carter. The Republican representative from Minnesota is perhaps the darling of blogs, and the source of many late-night TV jokes, from calling Barack Obama and other Congressmen anti-American to naming the expanded AmeriCorps as "youth re-education camps".

As Jon Stewart notes below (around 2 minutes in), the last outbreak of swine flu actually occurred during Gerald Ford's term as President.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Snoutbreak '09 - What to Call Swine Flu
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

More on Specter

The NYTimes has a good little discussion on its website about what type of Democrat Arlen Specter will turn out to be. A couple quotes that indicate to me that this move by Specter is a potential gamechanger, and really exemplifies the current declining state of the GOP.

"The sclerotic far-right has a death-grip on the Republican Party. Meanwhile, a third party has emerged within the Democratic party. Moderate “Rockefeller Republicans” in the North, like Senator Specter and, arguably, Joseph Lieberman, Democrats like Bobby Bright in the South and Jon Tester and Max Baucus in the Rocky Mountains have brought independents into the Democratic Big Tent...Senator Specter’s switch is based on shrewd politics, on unique voting factors in Pennsylvania. But his move is good for America." (Rachel Kleinfeld)

"Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele today mocked what he called Mr. Specter’s “left-wing record.” But the claim that Senator Specter is “liberal,” “left-wing” or even “moderate” reflects how far to the right both the G.O.P. and our overall political spectrum has shifted." (Glenn Greenwald)

"Senator Specter’s statement noted that he has been a Republican since 1966. If he were just starting out his political career today, does anyone doubt that he would be a Democrat? In 1966, Republicans were the more socially liberal of the two parties and the G.O.P. had plenty of room for politicians who were skeptical of tax cuts and friendly to new government programs." (Ramesh Ponnuru)

Specter's Big Move

Needless to say, Senator Arlen Specter's announcement that he will be switching to the Democratic party for the 2010 Pennsylvania primary elections and beyond is HUGE news. Coupled with Al Franken's likely victory in Minnesota, the Democrats would have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Of course, Specter makes clear in a statement today (below) that he will be no more of a "party-line" voter for the Democrats than the Republicans.

What's even more important about Specter's decision than the shift of power in the Senate is that this is perhaps the highest figure within the Republican party to offer public and even harsh criticism of the GOP. While Specter has always been "mavericky" and moderate, it is hard to write off comments like "the Republican Party has moved far to the right" by a 29-year Republican lawmaker. I guess we'll see the real impact of this decision in the days to come.

------
Specter's statement:

"I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank especially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America."

Celebrate Earth Day, GOP-style!

So as further proof that the Republican party is in very real danger of becoming an irrelevant, outdated political entity, we need to only look at recent comments by important GOPers on the environment. Recently, Republican House Leader John Boehner claimed that the idea that carbon dioxide is bad for the environment as "almost comical" (video is below). He supported this claim by explaining that not only do humans exhale CO2, but cows fart it out.

While Boehner's fact-deprived argument seems ridiculous enough, check out what two of the leading ideologues of the conservative movement did to celebrate Earth Day yesterday. Rush Limbaugh decided to celebrate the coal industry and the inventor of the dense plastic bag. Glen Beck, our favorite prophet of apocalypse, decided to honor the Earth by attempting to cut down a forest. You can't make these stories up people! Of course, there are perfectly rational reasons to disagree about environmental policy (that will arise in the upcoming debate over the climate change bill), and there are numerous Republicans (Senator Voinovich among others) who are providing alternative perspectives with the ultimate goal of improving the environment and correcting the damage of global warming. But too many of the leading conservative figures are, like Boehner, simply abdicating any responsibility to urgently work on environmental policy; others, led by the Rushter and Beck, are in fact resolutely anti-environmental. While this type of political stance may have had considerable support in the past, I think the Republicans have to realize that Americans, while perhaps in disagreement over exact policies, are increasingly sympathetic to finding solutions to the environmental crisis. Cutting down forests won't help with that.

My Letter to the Republican Study Committee

It's been a long time since I've posted here at FreeThoughtAlert, there's been no real reason except for my inability recently to convert thoughts into written rants. I'm going to try to keep this blog fairly updated for now, as there's a lot of stuff (always) to think about.

Today I wrote a letter to Representative John Carter, a Republican from Texas, who was recently quoted by Politico in their story detailing how many Republicans are calling for Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to step down because of the recent report on right-wing extremism. Check it out...comments are welcome, and appreciated!

- - - - -

To the Honorable John Carter:

I am writing regarding your recent comments about Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. According to Politico.com, you stated that "Singling out political opponents for working against the ruling party is precisely the tactic of every tyrannical government from Red China to Venezuela...The first step in the process is creating unfounded public suspicion of political opponents, followed by arresting and jailing any who continue speaking against the regime.” This statement was intended to support your and the Republican Study Committee's claim that Secretary Napolitano should be ousted because of the recent report released by the Department of Homeland Security about the possiblity of rising right-wing extremism.

While you and other leaders in the GOP have concluded that the release of this report is a political maneuver by the Obama administration to criticize and silence members of the conservative movement, the report was initated by the Bush administration (see CNN's story, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/extremism.report/). Furthermore, the DHS under Obama released a report detailing left-wing extremist threats in January, also initiated by the Bush administration. I wonder how Republican Congressmen can make the claim that Napolitano should step down for an objective report that was commissioned by the previous Republican administration! Moreover, I am curious as to why Republicans are finding this report to be an attack on the mainstream conservative movement, when the report in question focuses on white-supremacist groups and the like. Surely the Republican party is not considering these fringe groups to be part of the conservative movement?

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing your opinions on this matter.

Regards,
Neil K. Sawhney