Last November, moments before then-Senator Barack Obama broke the ceiling of 270 electoral votes to clinch the presidency, major news networks had announced that Virginia had moved into the Democratic column for the first time since LBJ defeated Goldwater in 1964, sending shockwaves through the party. Many of us believed that Obama’s revolutionary candidacy had brought about a new, unbreakable majority, best exemplified by an impressive seven-point victory in the Old Dominion.

But for most Democrats, last November seems like a decade ago. The Virginia Governor’s race, seen by many pundits as a referendum on President Obama’s increasingly unpopular domestic policies, has taken a drastic turn for the worse. Moderate Democrat State Sen. Creigh Deeds, ahead early in the race, now trails his Republican opponent Bob McDonnell by 8.8 points according to the RealClearPolitics average. Read the rest of this entry »

There is a Supreme Court case coming up the political pipeline that could result in all of us saying goodbye to the Senator from California and Congressman from Texas, and welcoming the Senator from Hewlett-Packard and Congressman from Exxon-Mobil. This case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, is being used as a springboard by special interests to eliminate all limits on campaign finance laws and unleash corporate money into our government. Read the rest of this entry »

You don’t have to go far on a college campus to hear someone railing against corporations in America. “Corporations control our government!” is a fairly common sentiment among liberal crowds, but does anyone really know what that means? Why are corporations able to apparently control our legislators and the sausage-factory of congress more than any of us? Before this starts, lets define a corporation. A corporation is an entity created by the state that gives the people who create the corporation limited liability and in return, the state grants them a charter in order for them to “serve the public good.” I’m not talking about all businesses right now, only those that have been chartered by the government to have limited liability in return for a commitment to serve the public good, and thus should be held to a higher standard than all other businesses. So how did we get to a point where corporate power seems to seep through every pore of our government? I give you the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Read the rest of this entry »

A common meme heard from right-wing commentators on Sunday morning talk shows is that “Europe is moving to the right,” presumably because they hate their inept government healthcare and don’t want to suffer under high tax rates anymore. This is simply a lie, and can be proven by looking at the actions of “conservative” leaders of Europe and the party platforms of those “conservative” parties in Europe. One of my personal favourite examples is that of Angela Merkel and the Christian Democratic Union in Germany.

While it’s easy for Pat Buchanan to say that the election of Angela Merkel means that German people hate their healthcare and “socialist” government, her government’s actions speak otherwise. During the depths of the recession in the past year, in order to curtail layoffs, the Merkel run German government offered to pay 90% of worker’s wages if those companies kept them in work…how conservative of her. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, another supposed “conservative” made similar moves in France, and a few months ago we saw that both Germany and France were officially out of recession and had growing economies again. Apparently when government ensures workers the right to a job and makes sure that they’re making real goods, wealth is created…who knew? Meanwhile, we’re left with unemployment and right wing conservatives in this country who would hardly let President Obama pass a public works bill. Read the rest of this entry »

Many liberals, myself included, support a healthy minimum wage with enough purchasing power so that most people can buy the bare essentials on a full-time salary. A common way of maintaining this purchasing power is by tying the minimum wage to the prices of basic commodities — in short, adjusting it to inflation. But with consumer spending down across the board, the ever worrisome trend of deflation is leading Colorado to become the first state in the nation to lower its minimum wage. Public hearings are soon to follow.

Is it as bad as it seems, though? The law was meant to keep a balance between the purchasing power of the working poor and the ability of businesses to cope with the wage changes. If consumer prices are down, it’s because businesses can’t afford to charge normal prices and maintain their payroll. Forcing businesses to pay an artificially high (relative to recent deflation) minimum wage could end up meaning new layoffs. With the federal minimum wage ($7.25) as a safety net, states should feel free to tie wages to the consumer price index — regardless of the economic climate

Politico reported today that Bob Wexler is resigning to take a policy position in the Obama administration. With a few minutes or research, I discovered that President Obama has yet to appoint an Ambassador to Israel. As a strong advocate for Israel and pro-peace organizations such as Seeds of Peace, he would be an ideal fit for this position. Will this happen? I think it’s likely, and worth giving up a Congressional seat for. For now, it’s just speculation.

When the Indian embassy was bombed in Afghanistan, the Indian government did not respond by launching air strikes, or sending troops, or railing against Muslim extremism. Instead, they invested in building Afghani infrastructure, including a power grid and road system…

The book “Three Cups of Tea” by Greg Mortenson describes the author’s experiences in Afghanistan after he was injured in a climbing accident and was taken in by a small village to heal. During his time in the village he learned the local traditions and customs, mainly that the Afghani culture is one of hospitality, meaning that if you are given assistance or aid you incur an obligation to return the favour. When he was healed he paid back that debt by raising money to build schools in rural/tribal areas, especially for girls who receive little to no education. Mortenson’s experiences showcase the sort of policy that we should have in Afghanistan: we should be building schools in villages instead of bombing them. There is a time and place for conventional war, but history proves that Afghanistan (the “Graveyard of Empires”) is not the place for it. The key to understanding a hospitality culture is that it is also a retribution culture, as in, if you build schools for them they will like you, and if you bomb their uncle they might want to kill you.

The problem in America is that our foreign policy has for too long been run by frightened people, who say that the strong way to implement foreign policy is bombing villages and sending our young men and women to die, instead of doing the real strong and principled work of creating peace in Afghanistan. A couple weeks ago Newsweek ran a cover article that featured interviews with Taliban leaders, the main message of which being that these people will not give up, and killing their brothers and sisters will only embolden them. One of the men lived a very happy life selling vegetables until his father, a relatively peaceful Muslim cleric, was beaten and killed by American soldiers. He immediately joined a Taliban insurgent group to kick out the “invaders.” This word is crucial, it shows that we are being viewed through the lens of revenge culture, not through the lens of hospitality culture as we intended. We cannot achieve our goals in Afghanistan if we are seen as invaders, and we will be seen as invaders even more if President Obama sends more soldiers into Afghanistan. The debate shouldn’t be over whether to send more soldiers or not, it should be over whether we send an army of contractors (the non-Blackwater kind) and builders, or to cut our losses and get every American man and woman out while we can. On this point I find myself slightly undecided, but what I know for sure is that more fighting men and women isn’t the right answer. I think they’ve given enough anyway.

Many, including me have watched in awe in the past few months as unemployment and underemployment have skyrocketed in our nation’s economy. When the federal government creates expenditures it can go into debt in order to make those payments. State and local governments must have balanced budgets. While the government can spend money they don’t have by borrowing money and printing more money to finance expenditures, state and local governments can only really effectively sell bonds, levy taxes, or reallocate funds. Usually this isn’t a problem. Today, unemployment is sucking the resources of state and local governments as well as local non profits and charities, while concurrently the tax base is shrinking due to stock market losses, property devaluation, and unemployment. Read the rest of this entry »

With the National Equality March and Same-Sex Marriage Vote in DC on the horizon, it is hard not to find oneself pondering one of our Nation’s greatest ills: the existence of second class citizens. While several minorities in this country still have a ways to go before achieving de facto equality, the gays and lesbians are in a unique situation. Their country refuses to recognize them as human beings. Unfortunately, a large majority of our country finds delight in this legally sanctioned discrimination, offering inane arguments to justify their hate.

To examine the claims that homosexuals undermine familial and moral values would first involve recognizing that they are grounded in some iota of truth; thus, they are not even worthy of consideration. What has caught my attention, however, is the new cry among anti-gay groups, such as Stand4MariageDC, to “let the people vote.” This idea of holding a referendum may have some sway with moderates as our country holds the ideal of majority rule and believes in the sacred nature of the vote. Yet we must not forget the other fundamental principle grounded in our Constitution - that of the protection of the minority. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m afraid I have to disagree with my friend, Matt, below. There are two ways to look at President Obama’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize — whether he deserves the award, and whether he is helped by it. On both counts I say he’d be better off politely declining to accept it.

Off the top of my head I can’t think of a person who was especially noteworthy in the peacemaking business for the last 12 months. Obama did set some peacemaking goals this year, such as the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons and a reinvigorated (if ham-fisted) effort to re-start the Arab-Israeli peace process. Not one of his major reconiciliation initiatives has panned out, though — partly because he conducted some of them poorly, but mostly because he simply hasn’t had enough time yet. There is a case to be made for “aspirational” peace prizes that encourage certain policies, but we should be clear that that’s what they are meant to be.

On the question of whether the award helps him, I think it’s a resounding “no.” People in this country have already been wary of Obama’s star power abroad, and I certainly detested foreigners saying that, ‘Yes they did.’ Uh, no — we did. There’s no question that increased respect abroad helps our foreign policy, but Obama risks falling into the trap of Israeli President Shimon Peres — a man loved abroad but not at home. It’s a fine formula for a secretary of state or an ambassador, but not POTUS. Plus, the GOP gets to throw out the Jimmy Carter epithet with ever greater authority.

P.S. Due respect to the Democratic National Committee, but I don’t appreciate being labeled on par with Hamas and the Taliban for questioning the day’s news:

In an e-mail to reporters, DNC press secretary Hari Sevugan suggested that Steele’s statement, which said Obama’s “star power” had overshadowed more deserving recipients, was similar to reactions from Hamas and the Taliban.