Mistake, Apologies

Why isn't Boulder's Mayor proud of CU?

Boulder Mayor Susan Osborne had to recently change both her Facebook profile page and her official profile on the city’s site because, as it turns out, she didn’t truthfully graduate from Vassar College.

The school she actually graduated from?  Boulder’s own University of Colorado.

Why would the Mayor of a very University-oriented town be hesitant to list that University as her own?

She claims it’s because she feels more connected to Vassar then to CU.

"I feel as though it's where my allegiance is," she said. "The reality is it's the college that I claim as my own. But my actual BA degree is from Boulder."

Doesn’t something seem a little off about this?  Though I don’t doubt that the Mayor feels special about her time at Vassar, should any official be able to claim a different school for his or her education?  Facebook is one thing, but the fact that she listed Vassar as her undergraduate education on the official Boulder City website just doesn’t feel right.

Worse yet, the school she actually graduated from, but for some reason she doesn’t want to claim, is at the heart of the town she now governs, both culturally and economically. 

I don’t expect Boulder City Council to be cheerleaders for CU.  But given that the University has been struggling with it’s reputation in some ways lately, I would hope that if anyone on the city council, especially the mayor, was a CU alum, they would be proud of the school, at least publicly.

CU is incredibly important to Boulder, and vice versa.  Though I’m sure the University and the town are at odds often, it would be nice, as a CU student, to see some support from the city.  Mayor Osborne’s choice to not claim CU as where her “allegiance” lies doesn’t show any support or pride for the school at all, and I think it’s something seriously disappointing to both the University and the town as a whole.

Where does America fit in?

On the front page of the Denver Post today (okay, I know reading an actual newspaper is outdated these days), there’s a pretty striking graphic on America’s new political spectrum.

The pie chart that divides America’s political leanings isn’t just divided into three, for liberal, conservative, and moderate, but eight sections.  Not one of each of these sections comprises more than 15 percent of the population either.

The data comes from the Pew Research Center, and provides some interesting insight to the future of politics in America.

Notably, those in the middle have some of the strongest and most well-defined points of view.  The middle of the spectrum is quickly become the largest, and also most diverse area of American political beliefs.  No longer is the middle just for uncertain, or impartial voters.  The findings suggest that just because a voter doesn’t completely associate with the views of staunch liberals or staunch conservatives, it doesn’t mean that they don’t hold strong political values.

Take for instance, two groups the research puts in the middle: the “Post-Moderns” and the “Disaffecteds.”  The “Post-Moderns” genuinely believe that both government and big business can work together, and are fairly supportive of both, while also more hold liberal beliefs on social issues.  The “Disaffecteds,” on the other hand, are  socially and religiously conservative, but remain critical of government and especially Wall Street.

Both of these groups could be considered in the middle compared to staunch liberals or conservatives, perhaps even “independents,” yet they are truly opposite on the political spectrum.  Politicians trying to appeal to the middle are going to soon have to realize that the middle can be just as diverse and ideological as those voters on the fringe.  Moving more towards the middle no longer means an easier path to election or re-election.

The data also shows the rifts growing in both of the parties.  Both the “Disaffecteds” and the “Post-Moderns” show that people don’t have to be against government to be in favor or business, and vice versa. Likewise, there is a growing movement of “Hard-Pressed Democrats,” who are both critical of business and don’t believe in the effectiveness of government either.

The political spectrum of the American voter is changing rapidly, and it’s going to be fascinating to see how this affects future campaigns, and also the direction of the parties.  Voters define themselves much differently than in the past, and it’s going to take very big tents from either party to keep the voters involved and supportive, especially the growing, and increasingly ideological middle.

Seriously?

Late Sunday night, history was made.  The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden is truly an event to be remembered for years to come, both nationally and globally.  It’s brought our nation together, and provided a much needed boost in morale and a victory for the American people.

But it wasn’t long after President Obama announced the news that the pundits, media, and politicians began degrading the event by simplifying it in terms of political debate, to show who won and who lost politically.  Some argued that it would be huge political boost for the President and he deserves more respect now, others argued that other things still matter for the 2012 election, the rally cry “Obama got Osama” has been coined on the internet, new polls have been conducted; it seems like pundits everywhere want to throw their opinion in.

To me, this is simply ridiculous.  Now, I’m not an idiot.  I know this is going to have a huge effect on politics, and on the 2012 election.  But do we seriously have to start talking about that already? Can we not just celebrate this moment as a nation united and for once leave the politics out of it?

I understand this probably all sounds hypocritical coming from a post on a Politics blog. I know that a lot of people are interested in what this means for the upcoming election, and the media is maybe just trying to appeal to them.  It makes sense for people to look at this is political terms, but I feel like that is only because it’s how we are trained these days.

The circus of politics and polling and election has almost overshadowed the actual issues, and I honestly am starting to believe that both the media and the campaigns want people to analyze each little thing, gaffe, mistake, victory, declare someone a winner and someone a loser.  

But I would hope we could rise above all that for once in the presence of such an historical event.  We, as media and as Americans, shouldn’t be looking for political losers or winners in this, we should be proud that our nation and our quest for peace are prevailing.  This should be a time to be united.  This is not a time for politics.

Donald J. Trump for President?

Donald Trump is a master of media exposure. The Trump seems to always have his name in the media whether it is his television show, The Apprentice, or his potential presidential bid. Since he has become a potential presidential candidate he has been nothing but pure entertainment. In the past month Trump has been trumpeting the tune about President Obama and his birth certificate.

On April 25^th, the Trump went further in his smear campaign against Obama by saying that he was too dumb for the Ivy League. It’s hard to take an objective stance on this issue without seeing his admission records from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, but something tells me there is no conspiracy theory here, as much as I’d like there to be.

Can the Trump win the presidency after making all of this noise? He certainly didn’t endear himself well to the CPAC audience.

The Trump has the cash needed to fund a political campaign. According to Forbes the Trump is worth $2.7 billion. Senator John McCain raised $368 million but lost. President Obama raised $745 million during his presidential campaign, so money is not a problem for the Trump.

The question then becomes what can stop the Trump from trumping Obama if he receives the Republican bid? I believe only one person can stop the Trump from winning.

Trump.

Trump’s aggressive, matter-of-fact demeanor won’t win him any allies, especially comedian Jerry Seinfeld. Needless to say Jerry will not be contributing to his campaign should he win the primary.

And this isn’t Trump’s only instance of insensitivity. Trump recently responded to Gail Collins in the New York Times. I think it is refreshing when someone drops the sugarcoat and just says it like it is. Could you imagine if Obama became fed up with Fox News and blasted them in a letter like Trump did to this editor?

As a Republican I have mixed feelings about him. As a foreign diplomat he would scare the hell out of a lot people. I’d be interested to see how he reacts to someone like Vladimir Putin. Both the Trump and Putin are exceptionally stubborn, plus Putin is one of the shadiest prime ministers in power today. Imagine if the Trump ever got on Putin’s bad side. If nuclear war was ever possible, I believe those two responsible for it.

One thing I have to say about the Trump is that he can turn any situation into a success. Today Obama released his full birth certificate, and Trump says he is proud that he could make Obama show it. Only Trump can turn tin cans into gold like this, which is what he’s been doing since the 80’s.

Overall, the Trump presents an interesting quagmire. He, for lack of a better word, has the balls to stand up and say anything. He wouldn’t pussyfoot around an issue; instead he’d mount a full frontal attack. I would think he would do his best to solve our country’s economic issue by helping businesses with tax breaks and other business friendly legislation.

His downside is his lack of political experience. I’d be more inclined to vote for him if he ever held a political office. I don’t know how much this hurts him in the eyes of America, but I could see him becoming president in the 2016 election after becoming a congressman or governor first.

Is the Tea Party willing to support Romney?

The 2012 Presidential Election is still very, very far away.  Even the primaries are close to a year from now.  Yet, for better or worse, the 2012 Election is already dominating political discussion, and I’ll admit, I’m one of those people that always fall prey to the hype that surrounds the election.  It’s fascinating to see how the election progresses, how the issues evolve, and especially how the individual campaigns shape up.  It’s an addicting two-year long political drama.

Realistically, there’s no absolutely clear front runner for the Republican field, but barring any surprise announcement or dark horse candidate really catching steam (N.J. Gov. Christie, for example), the field of candidates has probably been pretty established.

The general  discussion so far has been that there’s a rift in the party between those on the far right and the Tea Party and those more aligned to the center.  Many on the further end of the spectrum prefer a candidate like Huckabee  or Bachmann who better represent their ideals, while those more towards the middle feel candidates like Romney and Pawlenty have more of a chance of beating President Obama.  

On one hand, the GOP wants to elect the candidate with the best possibility of beating an incumbent President, yet there’s a strong fear that a candidate like Romney (whose healthcare reform in Massachusetts is considered to have been the model for Obama’s national plan) would make the far right factions feel disconnected and angry, possibly throwing support behind a third candidate or not voting at all.

Just recently, Romney had an impressive showing in a New Hampshire poll, as the only Republican candidate that would beat Obama.  If this is a start of a national trend, is Romney starting to gain support from the Tea Party?

An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 70 percent of Tea Party voters would favor Romney, and he actually beat out Huckabee and Palin.  The issue of “Romney-care” is a big one for sure, but its beginning to seem like it’s not going to be the deal breaker for the Tea Party as was previously thought.

Could this be the start of a true front runner emerging? Or are we still in for some surprises?

The Budget Debate

On April 14th Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-09) went on MSNBC to defend his position on the budget debate, and aside from the standard Republican rethoric, the false claim that taxes are too high and keep getting higher, he also belives Obama started class warfare. 

Graves was referencing Obama's April 13th speech from George Washington University where he revealed to America his apparently divisive opinion that when poor Americans are taxed harder than rich, something is amiss. 

It's not much of a mystery to those who do a bit of fact checking, which apparently Graves is not a fan of, that taxes are lower than they have been in 50 years.  This is especially true for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. 

But someone has to pay for things like Medicare, Medicade and Social Security.  Someone has to pay for two and a half wars.  Someone has to pay for roads and buses, cops and firefighters and teachers.  And slashing and burning the salaries and payouts of state funded workers and programs is, for some reason, the only foreseeable way Republicans can find to solve the budget problem. 

They have also somehow turned raising taxes on the rich into a socialist agenda, making the patriotic thing to do carving out as much from the public sector and middle/lower class as possible. 

But Republicans are certain about one thing.  We should never punish the rich, and especially Wall Street, for their success. 

After all, according to Graves, none of our current debt and economic stagnation can be contributed to Wall Street.  None.  It's all high spending on things like middle school teacher health benefits, and making sure another generation of Americans is able to retire. 

Anyone who says otherwise is just conducting class warfare.

This is not intended to be a factual post

Every once in a while, we are treated with a political gaffe that explodes in the media, quickly becoming the popular, fashionable, and overexposed joke of the day.  Gerald Ford tripping, George W. Bush choking on a pretzel, pretty much anything Joe Biden has every said, the list could go on forever.

Sometimes, these gaffes are harmless, the jokes about them are funny, and no real damage is done.  We forget about the mistakes, and they quickly become a thing of the past.

One of the most recent gaffes however, is a much more alarming and perhaps terrifying sign of what’s happened to debate in the U.S. Congress.

While arguing for the removal of  funding for Planned Parenthood from the federal budget, Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona, claimed that “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does” is abortions.

Pretty alarming statistic, that’s for sure.  Only it’s not true.

It turns out that the number is only 3 percent, and when Kyl’s office was reached for comment, the statement put out read that Kyl’s argument “not intended to be a factual statement.”

Of course, when The Daily Show and The Colbert Report heard of this, they struck comedy gold.  Stephen Colbert has even started a topic on twitter #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement with posts such as “Jon Kyl has a shrine to Scooter from the Muppet Show” and “everything you would only do in the privacy of your own home, Jon Kyl prefers to do on a subway car.”

Since Colbert started the topic, it’s blown up on Twitter, with thousands of users joining in.

The argument could be made that it’s absolutely disgusting that a politician can state wrong information on the Senate floor, and later, instead of offering a correction, only say it wasn’t ever made to be factual, and in essence, admit to lying while representing the people of Arizona.

But I’m sure there are dozens of other people already making that argument.  Instead, I think it’s much more fascinating to think about how the influence of Twitter will affect the situation, and future ones like it. We now have a way for the public to hold onto this remark and make it last longer than usual late night joke cycle lasts.

Just as we’ve seen social media be a huge influence in recent revolutions and political uprisings, we could be starting to see how social media can be used to keep current politicians in check.  No longer will a politician be able to hope no one catches a mistake, or that a gaffe or error will fade with time.  A screw up, an ignorant remark, or a “not factual” statement now can be broadcasted to millions of people, and those people can comment on it, make their own jokes about it, explain their disgust about it, and the entire world has an opportunity to see it.

Jon Kyl is not only going to have to deal with stories and media mentions about the remark itself, but now he’s also going to have to deal with stories about the issue exploding on Twitter.  This remark is quickly turning into something much bigger than he could have ever expected. Fifteen years ago, this might have been a comment that would disappear fairly quickly.  But that’s not the case anymore, and I guess we have Stephen Colbert to thank for that.

On March 3, Circuit Judge Richard Nielson decided a case in Florida using a fairly unorthodox law, or strictly orthodox depending on your religion. His ruling will consult a source normal to some, foreign to others and frightening to Glenn Beck.

This source is of course Sharia law. Judge Nielson will settle on a lawsuit involving a local mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, and if parties properly followed the Koran in obtaining an arbitration decision from an Islamic scholar.

Several men filed a lawsuit claiming they were improperly removed from the board of trustees in 2002. Whoever wins the case will control the $2.2 million received from the state in a sale of land for a road project.

To understand why a judge would ever allow a law that is not state or federal, one must understand Sharia law. But what is Sharia law? Sharia, or Islamic, law is the authority in many Muslim countries. Sharia law governs every part of a person’s life for example: marriage, divorce, prayer and murder. Some interpretations of Sharia law justify cruel punishments like beheadings, stonings and honor killings. These interpretations are rare, but according to the United Nations thousands of women die each year in honor killings.

Some countries can balance secularism and Sharia law. In 2008, Britain allowed Sharia law to govern marriage, divorce and inheritance if both parties agreed.

The reason America is so great is because everyone is of a different background yet able to work together under the same law. This land has a set of laws like every other portion of land in this world, and you can’t bend these laws. People should learn to accept that when they are in this country they have to follow our laws.

Our law is what makes America, America. The freedom of speech, religion, petition, press and assembly separate us from countries like Saudi Arabia. If we bend the laws to allow Sharia law, then every other group will want laws bent in their favor. Eventually we won’t know who is subject to which law.

Luckily for Judge Nielson, the mosque didn’t want Sharia law to decide their case. Their attorney Paul Thanasides said, “The mosque believes wholeheartedly in the Koran and its teachings. They certainly follow Islamic law in connection with their spiritual endeavors. But with respect to secular endeavors, they believe Florida law should apply in Florida courts.”

Bargaining Rights

First Wisconson, now Ohio. Who’s next? 

As Republicans in some states continue to strip away the collective bargaining rights of unions, according to the USA Today, the majority of Americans strongly oppose these measures. 

According to a USA Today/Gallup Poll, 61 percent of Americans would oppose a law that would take away the bargaining rights of public employees.  33 percent favor it.

 

And if you talk to cops and firefighters in states where these rights are on the chopping block, like in Ohio, it's easy to see why.

According to an article by the Associated Press, "police and firefighters won’t be able to bargain with cities over the number of people required to be on duty. That means they can’t negotiate the number of staff in fire trucks or police cars, for instance."  

Obviously the police and firefighters might be concerned about how many people ride in a squad car with them or run into a burning building with them, it's not just their jobs, but their lives.  

But we should be concerned too.  After all, it's us they are running in for.

It might be easy for some in the private sector to bash teachers, who have things like pensions and health benefits, because the corporations have slowly done away with this kind of thing.

But again, it's our kids, and their brains, that teachers are in charge of every day, eight hours a day.

Perhaps when we try to squeeze a buck from here or there, we should start from the top.  In fact, some estimates claim we could have saved almost a a trillion dollars by eliminated the Bush tax cuts, but that's old news.  

Now all we should do is ask, "are teachers, firefighters and cops really the kind of people we should be holding upside down and shaking for every last dime?" 

The Libyan Situation

On March 18, the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize military action and a no-flight zone in Libya. Barack Obama launched a “limited military action” one day after the U.N.’s decision.

Obama’s plan was to use tomahawk missiles to knock out Libyan radar and communication centers around Tripoli, as well as Misurata and Surt. As of March 21, Obama has committed five combat ships, including one equipped with guided missiles, three submarines with tomahawk missiles and 42 F-16 fighter jets.

Normally one would think that Obama needs permission from Congress to engage in war, but a “limited military action” does fall under the presidential powers. If the military action continues then the president must consult Congress before continuing, even if the target is a Looney Tune of a dictator like Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Ousting Qaddafi might not be the best move for Libya. State Rep. Robert Castelli (R-NY) believes the potential replacements are just as bad as Qaddafi. “Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) was particularly unhappy with Obama’s decision stating the military action “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”

Former Reagan Spokesman Mark Weinberg described Obama’s move as a rookie mistake. “Not one we should expect from an administration more than 2 years old -- especially one headed by a former U.S. senator.”

Obama plans to hand off control of the operations to European allies soon, but no such takeover has taken place yet. This marks the third Muslim country in the last decade that has seen U.S. military intervention, two under a Republican president and one under a Democrat president.

If the Libyan situation escalates, it will vindicate Former President George W. Bush because Obama’s reasons for attack are the same as Bush’s in 2003.

Saddam Hussein ordered the deaths of 300,000 to 500,000 people during his regime. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s death toll is estimated between 200 and 1,000 people since the start of the uprising in late February. According to the Energy Information Administration, Iraq had known oil reserves of 115 billion barrels of oil in 2001. According to the EIA, Libya holds 46.4 billion barrels of oil, the largest reserve in Africa. Iraq had an estimated population of 25,175,000 in 2003. Libya’s population is just a fifth of Iraq’s.

Both countries have oil and both countries were run by unstable dictators who killed their own people. Sure, it’s not proven that either country has weapons of mass destruction, but how is Obama’s reasoning any different from Bush’s reasoning?

Obama voted against the Iraq war in 2002 and in 2007 promised to bring home troops within 16 months. It’s 2011, we still have about 47,000 troops in Iraq and Obama is engaging in a tickle fight with Libya over small potatoes.

Why waste precious U.S. resources on a country like Libya when we have two other wars to fight with more to gain?

Red, Green and Black

Last December, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed Order 3310, and started what is sure to become one of the most contentious land debates for a long time to come.

Order 3310 would inventory lands currently under the Bureau of Land Management for “wilderness characteristics,” or lands that provide things like ecological, cultural and economic benefits.  If the BLM finds the land is worth protecting, it would be designated as “Wild Lands.”

 As with land that is protected now, there would be no development by oil and gas companies on the newly protected lands or access by off-road vehicles.  3310 also means that all future oil and gas production is now on hold in areas that will be surveyed, until a final decision is reached.

Naturally, oil and gas companies are up in arms about the issue, while outdoor recreational enthusiasts and environmentalists couldn’t be happier.

While both sides claim to have strong economic impacts, and very different views on how much acreage oil and gas companies need and use, what can’t be argued is the Republican’s need to run to the rescue of oil and gas ever time they cry afoul.

Every single lawmaker’s signature from the Jan. 28 letter drafted by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), which asked Salazar to rescind the order, was a Republican one, totaling 57 in all.

According to OpenSecrets.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog group, Republicans far outweigh the Democrats in terms of campaign contributions.  In fact, the contribution gap in Congress has been growing steadily each year since 1994, hitting its peak last year, with an average Republican contribution of about $32,000.  That is compared to an $13,000 contribution average on the other side of the isle.

In the Senate, the gap remained relatively stable until 2008, when it jumped from under $56,000 to close to $140,000 per Republican senator contribution.   This compares with a measly $30,000 per Democrat. 

Not biting the hand that feeds you comes to mind.      

Sources:  
 OpenSecrets.org
MotorcycleDaily.com