Still Here

Dear readers,

Despite the dearth of activity here, I am still actively checking the site and will start making posts again soon, once school is settled out more. If you are interested in contributing, please feel free to post here under the comments section – I’ll get your e-mail from Blogger.

Happy school year,

Matt

The Unsung Legacy

by Matt

President Bush will have a mixed legacy for many years after he has left office, if his legacy is not looked down on by most Americans. His stances on the Middle East, the environment, tax cuts, and civil liberties in wartime will be debated for decades to come, and are largely responsible for his currently dismal approval ratings. There is, however, one aspect of the Bush legacy that is likely to go overlooked, despite the fact that it is a radical break from tradition and a brilliant way to balance fiscal conservatism with providing desperately-needed services. It is the Bush Administration’s faith- and community-based grant program.

For decades, the debate over providing social services in America has come down to whether the private sector or the public sector is superior. The private sector is efficient, cost-effective, and often able to provide higher-quality services than the state could ever manage. However, the private sector lacks the sheer size, organization, and resources that the government has. The Bush Administration has found a brilliant, decentralized way to provide much-needed services by balancing the government and citizen groups.

Rather than privatizing social services, the President has sought to streamline their delivery. This streamlining came through the “third sector,” the vibrant non-profit community in America. Non-profit organizations rooted in community service and faith have been providing for people for centuries. Groups ranging from the YMCA to America’s Second Harvest are proven leaders, capable of assisting millions of needy Americans. Unlike the federal government, they are not bogged down by bureaucracy and political concerns. Unlike the private sector, they are not motivated by profit or positive awareness for a company. They are efficient, effective, and a critical part of America.

The Bush Administration has wisely sought to distribute federal welfare and aid dollars directly into communities. Rather than relying on middlemen and bureaucrats, this approach focuses on the town food banks, the church shelters, and the volunteer after-school programs to assist ordinary Americans. This system of decentralized grants authorized to tried and true organizations is one place where the Bush Administration has not received due credit. It is an innovative approach that has the ability to transcend the conventional argument about how to provide social services by combining the best of both worlds.

Despite the fact that there needs to be a strong anti-discrimination clause in the law to prevent organizations, especially faith-based organizations, from denying assistance to homosexuals or members of different faiths, the idea is brilliant. America’s strength has always been in its people, and its resources have always been with its government.

Wise Americans will ensure that this program and its radical approach do not end with the Bush Administration. If we continue to provide services in a decentralized, efficient manner, we will be able to overcome the problems in both the private and public sectors to better the quality of life for all Americans.

No Tigers in Republican Cage Fight

by Matt
Of course I’m not *sniff sniff* gonna *sniffle* hate you, Ben *wipe tear away from eye*. There are other *voice trembles* emotions that will express themselves. *Uncontrollable wailing*

That cried, the debate was really unimpressive. McCain seemed really “friendly” to everyone, my friends, although, my friends, he had a really touching moment with the sister of the man who gave his life in Iraq. Giuliani was charismatic, but his answers were not that different from anyone else, except that apparently the wrath of God descended upon him a few times. Meh. It happens.

Speaking of God, a person’s beliefs on creation and the Book of Mormon really don’t matter. As long as an individual isn’t going to drag theology into the science classroom, whatever.

Was it just me, or did the candidates freak on gays in the army? They all seemed like they had something to hide… did anyone notice Romney jump frightened into Rudy’s arms when the question came out?

The only hotly contested part of the debate, apart from some dovish comments from ex-Libertarian Ron Paul, was the immigration debate. Tancredo made some strongly xenophobic remarks that were borderline racist. If he had his way in 1620, this post would be in Algonquin, and I’d be assimilated into a stylish Mohawk warrior hair cut by now. Not that that would be a bad thing, mind you. Kudos to McCain for having the spine to answer that bigot en espanol. Me gusta el senador de Arizona.

McCain’s my favorite still, although his libertarian spark definitely conceded the night to trying to take some conservative support back. Hopefully, he’ll be able to pull through as the mainstream American candidate, with or without the social conservative vote.

Blogging the GOP Debate at OO08

Matt’s going to hate me, but I’m having trouble with BSO tonight.
I’ll still be live-blogging the GOP Debate at:

http://www.ovaloffice2008.com

Blogging the GOP Debate

Hello Everyone,

I’ll be blogging thoughts throughout tonight’s GOP debate, here at BSO. I’ll be doing it every so often, hoping to provide some commentary.

For more up-to-speed observations, I’ll be Liveblogging at www.ovaloffice2008.com.

Ben

Liveblogging the CNN Debate…

Hello all…

I’m going to try to live-blog tonight’s CNN debate…starting at 7!
Not all quotes from candidates are word for word.

I want to mention that here at BSO I’m blogging in the format of COMMENTS, and at OvalOffice2008.com, I’m blogging in the form of a regular updated Blog post.

Both posts are different … some pieces of the debate may have more detail than another, and some might be the exact same way.

So…feel free to check out both posts, and let me know which style you like better, so I know what to do next time.

(I’ll probably, hopefully, blog the GOP debate on Tuesday).

7:03 first question to Sen. Obama

Obama: Next President much “phase out the war in Iraq” and finish the battle in Afghanistan.

7:05 Edwards: “War on Terror” bumper sticker.

7:07 HRC: Not a “bumper sticker phrase.” Invokes 9/11.

7:08 Kucinich: Patriot Act Unconstitutional.

7:08 Biden: [voted to continue war funding] References vehicles anti-IED vehicles — Don Imus told Biden to bring them up on his show a while back.

Forget the times…too tough to do.

Edwards: Obama and Clinton did not speak on how were going to vote until on floor of Senate, and among last to vote. Dodd was loud.

HRC: “George Bush’s War.” — Didn’t she vote to Authorize?

7:17 PM

Richardson: (Lists Credentials) … hate to say it, but Gov. Richardson has the confused look on his face again. Says we should deauthorize the war.

Mike Gravel!

“Democrats war also…”

“Remember Vietnam…all the dominoes are gonna fall! “

7:21

Kucinich: “This war belongs to the Democratic party because they were put in charge by the last election.”

Biden: Not funding the war, funding the safety of troops there.

HRC: Vote did what needed to do; got rid of Saddam Hussein.

Edwards: I agree with some of what ‘Hillary’ said…we disagree, I should have NEVER voted against this war. Sen. Obama deserves credit for being against war from the beginning.

Obama: voting to authorize war not a ‘disqualifier’ for President.

Gravel: “we have killed more Americans than was done on the eleventh of September…MORE AMERICANS died because of their decision that disqualified them for President.”

7:30

Richardson: doesn’t support immigration legislation that divides families

Biden: We don’t need a fence.

Gravel: believes English should be official language of the United States.

Obama: That type of question is designed to divide us.

Edwards: Obama’s plan is not universal.

Obama: The difference between Edwards and Obama’s plan is Edwards wants universal healthcare for all, the real problem is families can’t currently afford insurance.

7:45 PM

Edwards: We need a law that everyone in America needs to be covered.

Kucinich: HR 676 — MEDICARE FOR ALL.

… another question for HRC… Gravel has gotten TWO by my count.

Richardson: Pro-civil unions/domestic partnerships

GRAVEL:
would send Bill Clinton as a roving ambassador, send his wife with him.
Bill Clinton “wimped out” on gays in the military.
Wish BC had been like Harry Truman who made it possible for Colin Powell to serve by desegregating the military.

Richardson: Israel “great ally.”

I can’t stand Hillary’s laugh.

7:58 PM

Dodd: Plan would require by 2017 50 MPG standard and a Carbon Tax

Richardson: Former Sec’y Energy

New Mexico: Incentives for Clean Energy

Richardson Oil companies not involved in price gouging.

…

Break

…

Blitzer needs to tone it down.

Richardson: “Hero’s Health Care Card” – provide service ANYWHERE for Veterans.

My arms are tired…going to take a break…

DARFUR: Richardson, Edwards: US should boycott Olympics if China doesn’t use Darfur influence.

Gravel: Should be 4 years of school for 1 year of military service

rest of debate commentary at ovaloffice2008.com

sorry, guys!

Pro-life and Pro-family? I Think Not

by Matt

For eight years, President George W. Bush has courted the support of social conservatives and pro-life Christians by calling for America to embrace a “culture of life.” Specifically, the President has opposed abortion and embryonic stem cell research while in office, even going so far as to veto a bill to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

I am pro-life, and share the President’s opposition to legal abortion, although my view on embryonic stem cell research is different. There is a tragic flaw in the President’s support of the pro-life movement, however: a little-known law in Texas that Bush signed as governor, permitting hospitals to end treatment of patients, even if the family opposes the decision.

For all of his talk about family values and the right to life, Bush’s record suggests otherwise. The law became the center of a medical ethics debate in April when Catarina Gonzales’s infant son, Emilio, was born with a serious genetic disorder. He was unable to see, speak, or eat, and needs a respirator to breathe for him. He passed away after only 19 months on Earth when doctors removed his respirator, against the wishes of his mother, a devout Catholic.

The law, signed by Bush and called the Advance Directives Act, allows doctors to stop treating a patient whose ongoing care they deem to be medically futile and gives families 10 days to find another doctor or facility willing to treat their loved one, according to the Austin American-Statesman. Ms. Gonzales could not afford an alternative way to save her son, and so her right to decide whether or not he remained on a respirator was waived.

It is disturbing that a self-proclaimed “pro-life” president is willing to endorse a law allowing medical personnel to have more of a say over end-of-life decisions than a family does. It is disturbing that an individual’s right to make their own decisions regarding whether or not they continue to receive care when doctors make a diagnosis can be overridden. It is hypocritical that the same man who pressured the courts to order that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube remain in place against her husband’s wishes in order to “defend life” once enabled doctors to take precedence over personal liberties. The only non-hypocritical aspect of these two cases is that Bush opposed a family’s rights to make life and death decisions twice.

The President’s views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research may be sincere and heartfelt, but he is not pro-life in my eyes. It is disturbing that medical efficiency and saving money is more important that human life and family values. Apparently, Bush fails to see the hypocrisy in his words and decisions.

Fight Me, Please?

by Matt

Come now, fellow BSO contributors. No way should I be able to post almost two pages calling for socialism in America without a fight. Are you even still out there? Have you been conscious for the past week? Please, please post and give me a worthy debate. Democracy, or at least our dearly beloved site, are in serious trouble if there is no dissent posted.

A Vision of American Socialism

I am an American socialist. The term “socialist” has many different meanings. It is an umbrella term for any number of visions on the economic left. For communists, it is an intermediary stage before government eventually gives way to absolute freedom. For democratic socialists, it is a liberal, highly-regulated form of capitalism. For libertarian socialists, it is a vision of a world of syndicated, anarchist communes. I do not believe that any of these visions match my own. I do not believe that any of these visions offer a real promise to the working class. They are rendered ineffective because of inefficiency, they fail to provide any real democracy for the common man and woman, or they offer up nothing less than anarchy.

My vision is a simple one, based on a firm belief that working people and their families deserve a voice in their workplaces, and that it is they who deserve a stake in their own livelihoods. I believe that the fruits of labor should go first to the laborers, and that no human being should be treated as an instrument for profit. I believe that the goal of an economy is to better the well-being of those who make it possible. The welfare of working people should always come before the excesses of the wealthy.

 

I also believe that the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and promise of America enshrine a belief in equality that is balanced by opportunity. I believe that it teaches that freedom and equality go hand in hand, and that neither can exist without the other. It is these ideals that have shaped my vision for American socialism and a truly democratic economy.

 

The greatest component of my vision is that companies belong in the hands of their employees. I believe that every company should, by legal mandate, be at least 60% worker-owned and voted. I believe that every employee of a company, from the top executive to the entry-level employee should have an equal stake within that 60%, and that every employee should receive an equal number of votes in all shareholder decisions. The remaining 40% of the company could be owned by employees and executives, or by investors. This is a necessary mechanism to ensure that there is still money available to grow businesses and expand opportunities. It also allows average people to have freedom with their own money and choose where to invest it.

 

All employees need to be given an equal voice and vote to have an impact in their workplace. Every major decision by a company, whether it is outsourcing or executive pay, must be reached by a consensus of its workers. This form of economic and industrial democracy will ensure that the will of those who are responsible for the success of a company is heeded. It will also promote a great redistribution of wealth. I do not believe that most workers in this country approve of the fact that 33% of the net wealth in this country belongs to the richest 1% of the population. I believe they are rightly appalled at the fact that 71% of the wealth belongs to the richest 10% of the population. I believe that, given the means to do so, workers would demand better wages, more domestic jobs, better health care plans, and guaranteed pensions before such an intense centralization of wealth. I believe that, given the means to do so in the workplace, the workers will demand an end to excessive outsourcing, record executive profits, and price gouging at a time when inflation is rising, basic necessities are increasingly out of the reach of the common people, and high-tech jobs in America are disappearing.

 

I believe that this system of decentralized socialism, with its emphasis on all workers standing for what they believe in and making their voices heard, will ensure that the needs of the people are met. Under a cooperative-oriented system in which labor and management make decisions together based on plurality, while still having access to investment funds from outside sources, the economy will benefit the people in a way never seen before.

 

Please consider this vision of a new America: an America in which everyone has the power to ensure their well-being and provide for their families, an America in which the men and women who are the foundation of the economy enjoy the benefits of their labor.

 

I believe that this is the way to fulfill the promise of democracy in America. It is how we can all enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness together, and share fully in the bounty of our great nation.

 

Democracy and socialism are the way to unite in freedom and equality. Long live democracy.

Hatred Kills

I eagerly await the coming of this weekend, when many of our BSO contributors will begin to regularly post again. I assure you that I have a very controversial post for this weekend, and that I cannot wait for the return of the contributors for a lively debate. For now, this is my take on an issue that really should not be controversial. Thanks to an overly polarized federal government, the issue of hate crime legislation has become something terribly debatable. While the government deliberates on semantics and terminology, more and more Americans needlessly suffer from hate-based crime.

In 1998, Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die. Two attackers left him mortally-wounded, and Shepard died only hours later. The motive for this tragic murder was simple: Shepard was homosexual.

In 2003, four deaf individuals were raped in the Boston area over the course of four months. Although it is entirely possible that these crimes were coincidences, there was no investigation into the possibility of a hate motivation. In the entire history of this country, only one disability hate crime has ever been successfully prosecuted.

This week, the House of Representatives passed a bill to expand federal hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation, gender, and disability by a vote of 237 to 180. The Senate already passed the bill by a vote of 65-33. This bill is an essential protection for American citizens who are most vulnerable to hate crime, and it is necessary to expand federal hate crime laws beyond race, religion, color, and national origin. It seems obvious to me that every American needs federal protection from intimidation, harassment, and acts of extreme violence. Whether or not one supports expanding gay rights in general, every person in our country has the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When local law enforcement cannot or will not ensure these rights, the federal government must step in.

The reason I am posting this article, in addition to the fact that I believe it is a critical protection for vulnerable Americans, is that the White House has suggested that President Bush will veto the bill when it reaches his office. The President is bowing to the pressure of socially conservative groups who feel that the new hate crime legislation will threaten their rights to protest homosexuality.

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and intimidation. Hate crime laws do not prevent individuals and organizations from peacefully protesting policies or commenting on lifestyles. What they do is prevent the total dehumanization of people based on immutable characteristics, such as disability, gender, and sexual orientation. For too long, groups have been allowed to intimidate and verbally assault people with alternative sexual orientations under the guise of religious freedom. Far too often, these verbal assaults bring about tragic acts of violence. For too long, people with disabilities have been invisible victims of hate crimes, with no protections to fight back against abuse.

America needs expanded hate crimes legislation to protect every person living here. Hate crime laws ensure that our civil political debates do not cross the line, and are an invaluable tool in fighting hate-motivated violence.