I was walking into my Defense Industrial Policy class today and heard a conversation in the hallway of the ICC. I was readying myself for 2 hours of defense policy and theory, when I heard a young man say something that grounded me back in the reality of it all. The man was a little older than me, apparently a graduate student, who was remarking that it was Veteran's Day and that the day used to mean something else to him.
He had been in ROTC during college, but I gathered he had done his time. He noted that he was glad to have followed the path to grad school instead of into the army professionally, because, "Heck, I'd probably be over there in Abu Ghraib."
It quickly saddened me to hear him say this. A once proud member of Reserves, he no longer respected the armed services as he once did, he didn't long to be a part of it any longer - it has somehow lost its shine, its pride, maybe even some of its strength.
Today is a day we should remember the fallen heroes and the ones who are still fighting, as well as those like this young man who have put in theirt time. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves the respect and dignity awarded to a person who fights for democracy and freedom. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves more respectable leadership than one that would allow our army and our country to the army and the country of Abu Ghraib.
We deserve better. Our brothers and sisters in uniform have worked for such respect and it is up to us, as young voters, to make our voices heard and ensure the next group of leadership and Chief Executive don't take it away from them.
Please take a moment today to think about the people across the world fighting for us. The young men and women who are not able to be in college, begin their first jobs, or start their families because they are dedicating themselves to our freedom, but also are subjected these flawed policies and undermining leaders.
I walking into my Defense Industrial Policy class today and heard a conversation in the hallway of the ICC. I was readying myself for 2 hours of defense policy and theory, when I heard a young man say something that grounded me back in the reality of it all. The man was a little older than me, apparently a graduate student, who was remarking that it was Veteran's Day and that the day used to mean something else to him.
He had been in ROTC during college, but I gathered he had done his time. He noted that he was glad to have followed the path to grad school instead of into the army professionally, because, "Heck, I'd probably be over there in Abu Ghraib."
It quickly saddened me to hear him say this. A once proud member of Reserves, he no longer respected the armed services as he once did, he didn't long to be a part of it any longer - it has somehow lost its shine, its pride, maybe even some of its strength.
Today is a day we should remember the fallen heroes and the ones who are still fighting, as well as those like this young man who have put in theirt time. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves the respect and dignity awarded to a person who fights for democracy and freedom. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves more respectable leadership than one that would allow our army and our country to the army and the country of Abu Ghraib.
We deserve better. Our brothers and sisters in uniform have worked for such respect and it is up to us, as young voters, to make our voices heard and ensure the next group of leadership and Chief Executive don't take it away from them.
Please take a moment today to think about the people across the world fighting for us. The young men and women who are not able to be in college, begin their first jobs, or start their families because they are dedicating themselves to our freedom, but also are subjected these flawed policies and undermining leaders.
This morning, President Bush vetoed one of the most meaningful pieces of legislation to pass in the current congress. As usual, the administration sought to confuse the American people into believing they had their best interest in mind.
Dana Perino stated that the Bush administration was concerned that the cigarette tax in the SCHIP bill, which promised to help so many uninsured children, would hit the poor the hardest because they are more likely to smoke. This is a ridiculous statement.
One, shouldn't we be creating policy to discourage the poor (and all Americans) from smoking? Maybe a 61 cent increase in their prices could keep a few of us from getting lung and mouth cancers, among many other awful diseases. Republicans, stop answering to the calls from Big Tobacco.
Two, Mr. Bush, have you considered the beneficiaries of the bill? Oh, yes, that's right, the same impoverished people you are so concerned with keeping their cigarettes are just the people whose children need this legislation so they may have health care. What an admittance that this administration does not have its priorities in line.
I think my even bigger problem with the veto is this: Rep. Emaneul released a statement, in which he broke down the costs of this SCHIP legislation. This bill, which would cover the health insurance of 10 million children, will cost only the same as the cost of 41 days in Iraq. Despicable. Just over a month of killing in an endless, increasingly aimless, war or an entire year of ensuring that our great country fulfills a human right, that American children get the health care they need.
The Hotline's Wake-Up Call today said, "Number of days since we've had a good caught-in-the-bathroom-mid-solicitation scandal: 40." I mean, seriously, is this the party we want defining morals and winning elections because they are bringing religion back to government (since we Democrats supposedly have none)?
This is unacceptable. Just this summer we've had Senator Vitter, FL State Rep. Bob Allen, the Chair of the Indiana Young Republicans, and now Senator Craig (and who could possibly forget last year's Rep. Foley affairs?).
It's important to realize that I am not saying Republicans are evil and should be completely ignored as moral leaders. I am sure there are perfectly respectable ones out there, they just don't seem to be running for President. Even as they all say they will work to ban gay marriage, promote abstinence-only education, and ensure the teaching of creationism, these men can't be separated from their past of divorces, infidelity, and other indiscretions.
So, what am I saying? I'm saying that I hope that soon people will realize that even politicians represent the diverse, and human, population of our country. Maybe we can see that even politicians make mistakes and so we should be more careful to cast judgment on people's lifestyles and try to legislate the choices people are making in the way they live. No, I don't think we should hope for cheating spouses and rampant divorce, but I think we have to accept the right of all people to make such choices as free-thinking individuals (and ensure that those who have harmed others are punished rightfully).
I hope that one day both Republicans and some Democrats can stop worrying about and legislating against the gay population of our country, and that then their friends and coworkers can stop hiding in bathroom stalls and start living a healthier, happier life in the open. I also hope that the next generation of moral leaders in our country are not those who say certain things and then act in a different way. I hope that our generation will be one of leading by example. I hope that ours will live good, honest lives so that others will be influenced and understand how to do the same.
Posted by Liz Fossett at 10:16 AM 0 comments
Labels: ~liz fossett, church/state, gay rights, sexually repressed Republicans
The AFL-CIO debate last night with 6 of the Democratic contenders for 2008 might be best summed up by the Chicago Sun-Times - "The winner last night was Big Labor" - but, in this debate, there were many honorable mentions.
This decade opened with 9/11, continued with Hurricane Katrina, and is now ending with awful heat waves, mines collapsing, and bridges crumbling. Instead of divisive issues like gay marriage and abortion, the Democrats last night got to finally talk about things that matter to working people everyday.
From Kucinich's passionate lines about NATO and the WTO to the disabled man, with tears in his eyes, asking "What's wrong with America and what will you to do to change it?" to Hillary's "I'm your girl." - this was a debate for everyone with the voices of average Americans being heard.
It's easy to be pessimistic after such a great debate; it's easy to see the father whose daughter had to buy part of her soldier's uniform in Iraq and the woman whose husband had died in the mine in West Virginia last year and think about the many obstacles the next administration has. But, this debate made me optimistic. These trials had truly made these, and all, Americans ready for something more. They were ready to ask the tough questions, while putting themselves on the line on national television, and this gives me hope that one of those Democrats onstage can help to start bringing this country back in the right direction.
Basically, if you didn't see the debate last night (and who thought they wanted to watch another in the long series?), you really should YouTube it/watch as many clips as possible/read some live-blogging. This very real debate was a refreshing break from the campaign non-realities we all get so caught up in.
On myDD this morning, a post analyzing a recent Quinlan Rosner poll explains that unmarried men and women are wayyy more likely to vote for Democrats.
Go ahead and read RFK Action Front's post, because he probably did a better summary than I could, but think about this interesting poll. He says that marriage is a better indicator of voting preference than income, age, education or income. Bottom line, Quinlan Rosner explains that if unmarried women (ahem, young women...) would vote in larger numbers, they would probably swing elections everywhere - in our favor!
From a Edison/Mitolsky/CNN Network 2006 exit poll
Married Men voted Democratic 47%; Republican 51%
Married Women voted Democratic 48%; Republican 50%
Unmarried Men voted Democratic 62%; Republican 36%
Unmarried Women voted Democratic 66%; Republican 32%
Dean Judy Feder of the Public Policy Institute announced at the start of June that she would again seek Virginia's 10th District Congressional seat. Upperclassmen may remember Ms. Feder when she spoke about healthcare policy with former Senator Daschle in White-Gravenor in the spring of 2006. She is a strong, spirited woman with great ideas on health policy and I'm very glad she trying again!
In the fall of 2006 the College Dems did some campaigning in NoVa, mainly for both Judy Feder and Senator Jim Webb. My greatest memory from this coordinated campaign work was the amount of people who did not realize Rep. Frank Wolf had any opponent. Rep. Wolf is in his 14th term and had never really had much opposition, so many just assumed they had no choice.
Take into account that Cook puts VA-10 at R+5, a 26-year incumbent with enormous name recognition (as well as having been in the majority for a while so he could tout the pork he brought back), and her mere 10-month race (as well as the DCCC's late arrival) and Feder's 41% doesn't seem so bad.
Feder has already filed the paperwork and begun raising money. In fact, she raised about $110,000 in the first month of her campaign, not bad! Her name recognition is up, as are gas prices, discontent with the war, and continuing disgust with the Republican party. 2008 just might be the year for her, so keep your eye on this hard-working member of the Hoya family!
Zogby's Iowa Telephone Polling from January 15-16
DEMOCRATS
Edwards 27%
Obama 17%
Vilsack 16%
Clinton 16%
Biden 3%
Kerry 3%
Kucinich 1%
Richardson 1%
Not sure 13%
Read the entire article on the John Edwards blog:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/17/162741/659
Posted by Liz Fossett at 11:44 AM 0 comments
Labels: ~liz fossett, biden, clinton, edwards, kucinich, obama, richardson, vilsack
Since I'm back in Kentucky, I've been reading the local papers a bit. This article made me so angry.
The Republicans are up to it again. The article above is quite long, describing the benefits to the Commonwealth and President Bush, should Johnson not be allowed to serve his term (thus giving Sen. Mitch McConnell majority leadership). I'm glad my state could possibly benefit with better earmarks, but we all know the United States will definitely be better off under Democratic leadership.
Besides, the Senate has apparently never made anyone leave because of his mental capacities (think Strom Thurmond).
I'm going to go ahead and ramble on about Dean and his 50 State Plan again...
Sure, I am no Deaniac, but his 50-state plan is great (don't get me wrong, I love the Ragin' Cajun as much as anyone...). Reading DailyKos today allows me to remind you how important it is to keep Dean and how we lost the South in the first place. This is what not to do now:
"Now, this doesn't mean we need to abandon the South, belittle the South, mock the South, piss on the South, or ignore the South. A national party with a real mandate needs to be competitive in every corner of our great nation."
He's exactly right. I read What's the Matter with Kansas and hated it. But, I am (sort of) from the South and I understand exactly what Kos and Thomas Frank are saying. The people of the South have been mislead, just as much of the Midwest had been, by Republicans but the Democrats need only to step in. The South was written off bu all of us, especially after '04 with the maps detailing "JesusLand" (http://www.basetree.com/graphics/jesusland.jpg) as everything that was not California, New York, and Hawaii. If I considered myself a true Southerner and planned on living in the South forever, I would have become enraged and voted with the party that was accepting me. Clearly the left wanted nothing to do with the South!
Coming from Northern Kentucky, where a Democrat 2-term incumbent couldn't beat a one-term, Republican party liner, George Bush lover to win his Congressional seat back, I could very much say "Write it off, the South is done! It's finally over", but the Democratic party can not. This year, we picked up seats in the South, which should tell us that these people are just looking for the quality candidates they have not gotten in years. We finally have a chance to encourage good Democratic candidates to run and bring the South to the good side. Let's keep putting money (and faith) behind these Dems in the South and they might just win.
I'm glad we're all still celebrating the major wins from Tuesday (as we will be throughout the weekend I'm sure...), but I want us to take a moment to remember how we got here and how to ensure we stay in power of the Congress.
It looks like we have finally taken down Reagan's legacy; we have stopped the Republican machine and we are moving in the right direction (well, most of us, Northern Kentuckians are, as usual, a few years behind). This momentum should lead to a great push to find meaningful legislation on the issues that are bothering Americans (Iraq, healthcare, border security), but this momentum can be easily lost, just as fast as Bush's approval ratings plummeted in winter 05/06.
Today, the Republicans are not necessarily viewed as the moral guides of our country. Amid Republican money contribution scandals, deceitful campaigns, and more inappropriate sex than Clinton could've imagined, the Dems are back on top of the world. This Congress can not forget how it happened. The party leaders need to make it clear that they will not tolerate these happenings under their watch; the Dems can not muck it up this time. The things that have happened in the last six years have been awful and our country's economy and respect in the world can't take much more. If the Democrats somehow make news with similar scandals in the next few months, we may not get the chance again for this amazing feeling we all have after watching the results come in on Tuesday night.
It's pretty sad that I am even concerned so early with my party messing things up, but history often repeats itself and we must remember our huge loss in 2004 in which many voted for a Republican only because of a Democrat's lack of sound judgement in the Oval Office. The Democrats have got to keep on the right track; we have a lot at stake and need to keep this power for a while...heck, if we continue, maybe we'll have all three branches in 2008. Anyway, two out of three ain't bad!
I just found out about this website for Progressives to check out. The site gives a 'voter guide' from other Progressive voters so you can vote for the right candidates!
The page is: http://theballot.org/ . I know most of us have already sent in our absentee ballots at G.U., but it's something to look at and use in the future.
Well, she surprised us again. Anne Coulter acted hypocritically and, gasp, might be a felon.
According to this news article, she voted at the wrong precinct in February and could now be in jail for five years! How great is that? She might even write an updated version of Mein Kampf?
Here's the article: http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=42819
Republicans this week have not only failed to protect 16 year-old pages, but also 4 have died and 9 were wounded in the three schools shootings in the United States of America. This is despicable and unnecessary.
Because so many right-wingnuts get huge contributions from the NRA, any true form of gun control is difficult to come by. A government run by an organization whose leadership says thing like: "America’s problem with gun violence is due to its “mixed ethnicity.”" and "Gun control is using both hands", is not a government that is good for the people. In 2000, more than 9 people a day, under age 19, were killed by a gun [http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/].
These school shootings should be further proof that the NRA must be curbed and we, as a country, not blue vs. red, must consider gun control to be a top priority. I am not saying that we need to outlaw hunting or anything else extreme, but it is necessary that ban assault weapons and work to keep guns out of hands in which they do not belong.
Who Killed the Electric Car? hasn't gotten nearly the amount of hype as Gore's 'glorified powerpoint presentation', but I saw it this weekend and I want to recommend it. The film is about an hour and a half and explores the 5 years in which the United States manufactured high-quality electric cars (that could reach over 80 mph and were the same size as normal cars) and then destroyed them all. It also explains the massive limitations of the types of fuel-efficiency in which we are currently investing - hydrogren and hybrids.
The film impressed me and stressed the importance of enviromental sustainability (something that I sometimes forget amidst other important issues...). A popular website (www.ev1.org) highlights some of the issues, but I definitely suggest checking out the film. Not only is it narrarated by our favorite President, Martin Sheen, but there are a few clips of Mr. Ralph Nader discussing green stuff (not to mention quite a bit of healthy, Bush-environmental-policy bashing).
I'd like to share my recent experience with our neighbors to the north. This weekend, I traveled to Detroit as part of my fellowship with the YP4 and FLLA program. When I arrived in my hotel room in the GM Center, I realized that Windsor was merely across a river. I knew I needed to take advantage of this during my free time Saturday night and four other fellows decided that they would join me in my international experience.
I had been to Canada once before, but had needed a birth certificate and ID. This time, I was told, I needed only my driver's license. So, around 11pm on Saturday, five FLLA fellows got into a cab and headed for the border. Of course, we all had IDs, because we had just flown to Detroit the day before. All of us except for me, because (as I found after I had left the U.S. and entered Canadian customs) I had left my only identification in my carry-on luggage - not the purse I was carrying.
After about 20 minutes of inspections and ID checks (of my friends), I was officially allowed into Canada. At this point, I had two choices: head back to the border in hopes that the U.S. patrol would allow me back in since I'd only been gone a half hour or have some fun in Canada and worry about entering after the night was over. I chose the latter; I knew it would be difficult to get back in and I'd already paid for a cab to get there!
At about 3:00 am, the five of us decided to go back to the homeland. After waiting about a half hour in line with the rest of the underage Americans leaving after the bars had closed, we reached the customs gate. I quickly explained to the officer that I did not have any identification, but that she could search my purse and see my credit card if it would help me to get into the country.
After being explained to that it was the fault of ID-less people like me that we can't keep our borders safe, jokes to my friends that I was a terrorist/illegal alien, and about 5 minutes of background checks - I realized what a good idea it was to stay and have fun, when I was let back into the country. Now, I'm not sure if it was my exhaustion-induced, slight southern accent, my white skin, my companions all clearing the test, or a combination of the three, but I absolutely should not have been let across the border so easily. My bag, from the store at which I had considered buying Cuban cigars as souvenirs, was not even searched.
Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that I was allowed to get back to Detroit that night (not that Canada isn't a wonderful country), but I'm appalled at the ease with which I entered the U.S.A. The officer was correct; I could have been a terrorist or illegal alien. I could have hidden bombs in the trunk of my cab without anyone knowing, as it was not checked (though it was checked while entering Canada). This experience has led me to believe that perhaps our borders are no safer than they were five years ago; as I said, when I went to Canada 6 years ago, I needed not only my ID, but my birth certificate too. I'm not sure what the answer is, but until we have actual secure borders we can't claim we've made our country safer and we're just paying customs officers to talk to border-crossers. This is a bipartisan issue that needs to be talked about; we're not being snobby Americans if we have a secure border, everyone does it and it's just plain good policy. I mean, seriously, it's easier to enter the United States than it is to enter Canada? O, Canada, what irony.
Just in case you weren't watching, today:
- George Bush called for diplomacy with North Korea (you know, after they played with nuclear weapons), but warned that it would take some time. Funny how we're willing to wait for conversation with North Korea but couldn't wait for Saddam to talk...I guess NK at least has WMDs. How can we trust him to take care of this issue? This is more about national security than Iraq ever was and we need someone strong and capable to keep us safe.
- The New York Supreme Court decided it was not unconstitutional to ban gay marriage in the state. The judges went so far as to state that stability was an issue with gay marriages and that because of this, children could be potentially hurt if not raised in a household with a man and a woman. Stability? Do they know what the divorce rate is in NYC?
- Last night, the man who committed one of the largest fraudulent crimes in history, died of a heart attack. Where's the justice, people? Ken Lay didn't have to live with guilt, knowing that he had taken away the retirement of thousands of innocent, hardworking Americans. The man died in his vacation home in Colorado without ever even seeing his jail sentence (not that I think a jail sentence was enough...).
- And, on top of all of this, 3 people were arrested for trying to sell Coke's recipe to Pepsi. That's right, 3 Americans were trying to cheapen the wonderful, caffeinated concotion that we all adore. I mean, I'm downright offended. I'm not kidding when I say that the fact that Georgetown is a Coke campus definitely helped me make that tough college decision...
With all of this news, some days I just feel like I should turn off the news and get back to sleep. We all need to keep hoping that we wake up to a better, bluer 2006!
read more...Dear George,
Well, you did it again. You went back on TV and told me about how important it was that you and your cronies work to change my Constitution to protect marriage. In your first speech about the Defense of Marriage, not only did state that marriage is the "most fundamental institution of civilization" (yeah, Britney Spears ruins the fundamentality of every institution...). But the most important thing you said in your speech was that the government should listen to the people on an issue as important as this one.
George, this Amerian wants to be heard (along with at least 47% of the population, including your wife and VP). How dare you try to change my Constitution into a vehicle for hate and inequality. How dare you try to use your religious agenda to gain more votes and call yourself compassionate! Compassion is about trying to understand others and you have tried only to understand Christian conservatives.
I think you should try being compassionate about AIDS. You may have forgotten (what with the war and oil problems), but the world is facing an epidemic. I think instead of protecting Americans from gay people, we should protect Americans (and all people) from AIDS. Today marks the day that people were first introduced a strange pneumonia 25 years ago. This 'pneumonia' later became known as AIDS, a disease that has destroyed the lives of countless millions (we may have forgotten about Poland, but you, my friend, have forgotten about Africa).
The only protection I want to hear you talk about today is the condom (which is one of the best sources of protection against HIV, besides your favorite, abstinence). Besides, you should be worrying about the protection of your precious Republican house. Let the states worry about protecting their people from gay marriage!
Here's to hope for a cure. Let's be the generation that ends AIDS.
