On Obama's First Year

I've been asked why I don't blog much any more. The basic answer is simple... My guy won! Much of my ranting in recent years has been largely therapeutic. Lost in a sea of overwhelming 'conservatism', I felt as if the voice of those with views similar to my own were being irrationally dismissed. Knowing I was largely speaking, or yelling, for myself - it felt good to yell. I knew I would not change minds or hearts. I knew that the whole thing was really an exercise in self-indulgence. Now that my own ideal candidate is in the White House, my need for yell-therapy is greatly diminished. Hey, those who've heard me in person get... shall we say 'intense'... would much rather I yell in writing than in their faces! 8)

As President Obama approaches the end of his first year in office, I just want to stand up and say that, despite news hype about his base support leaving him, this liberal could not be happier with President Obama's performance. That's not to say I'm happy with all the results. I'm just a realist who understands that the massive machinery of government moves slowly, political capital must be spent wisely and the power of the presidency is limited by design.

In the final analysis, it is not about left/right, liberal/conservative or even right and wrong. It is about what we value. It is about how we prioritize that which is important to us in life. From the moment I finished 'Audacity of Hope', I knew this was a man who's values were nearly identical to my own. I bask in the knowledge that my voice is being heard because Barack Obama's voice is the closest to my own of any political figure in my lifetime. This book is required reading for all who honestly seek to understand before passing judgment.

I'm content in the absolute knowledge that President Obama is doing everything in his power to change the world according to those shared values and I will continue to support him in any way that I can.

On the death of Senator Kennedy

I mourn the loss of "the greatest legislator of our time," as he was eulogized by President Obama. For those of us who remember the Sixties, Ted Kennedy's passing represents the end of more than an era. As the sole surviving Kennedy brother, this passing also brings to a close the 'Kennedy mystique' that I grew up with. For those who are too young to remember both the idealism and tragedy of that era, the JFK assassination is nearly as removed as Lincoln's. For those who were there, however, the values represented by the better nature's of all the Kennedy brothers represented the very best this country could hope to be.

Senator Kennedy was well loved by Republican colleagues as well as Democratic. He worked hard at true bipartisan cooperation and negotiation despite his generally liberal perspective. It is my hope and prayer that the memory of his political life and service may inspire a renewed effort toward finding common ground among our political leaders.

One of Senator Kennedy's lifelong goals and priorities was health-care reform. Debate over this tremendously important issue is appropriate and necessary. Honest divergence of opinion will always exist. It is impossible for me to honor the memory of this great American, however, without expressing disdain for the way in which our current health care debate is being conducted. It is unquestionable that factual discourse is not valued by, or even relevant to, many of those opposing health-care reform. Many are purposefully spreading lies to incite wholly irrational fear for their own gain. These tactics disgust me. I am certainly no expert but, from personal observation and common sense analysis, here are a few thoughts:

• Anyone who believes that government has a lock on wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy has not spent enough time in Corporate America. The only difference between public bureaucracy and private bureaucracy is that private corporations are, by definition, motivated by profit. Profit is not inherently bad, but neither is government. For-profit entities do, however, prioritize the bottom line above all else. It is their reason for existence and their responsibility to their stockholders.
  
• Anyone who believes our current health care insurance industry represents free-market capitalism must be blessed with a quickly disappearing model of employer-provided health care. As a self-employed consultant, I pay ridiculous premiums for nothing more than catastrophic care. I am prevented from competitive shopping for alternatives due to pre-existing condition rules. Others I know of suffering a catastrophic health crisis have been canceled by their insurance companies. This is not insurance - it's a prepayment plan where the insurance companies have free reign to do whatever they like to maintain their profit margins. If you don't believe there is a health-care crisis then I don't believe you're seeing the situation for what it is.
  
• Medicare, a federal government program, is generally held in very high regard by many health-care professionals I know as a well run program - more efficient and effective than the vast majority of health-insurance providers they must deal with.
  
• The Lewin Group is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group - one of the largest health insurance companies. This source for many of the statistics used to blast the idea of any government health care intervention claims to be fully independent and states on their web site that they have complete editorial autonomy from their parent organization. Even if I accept this as true there is still no doubt in my mind that the employees of this company also know who provides their salaries. Every employee of this company has a clear conflict of interest and is undoubtedly motivated to make the source of their livelihood look good. I know I would be. It doesn't mean they're lying but it is certainly only simple common sense to know that they are at least selective with the statistics they choose to publicize.
  

Every citizen of this great nation has the duty be as well informed on the issues as they can possibly be -- has a duty to look past the sound bite and try to distill fact from fiction. I am not favoring any particular solution to the health-care crisis here. I am simply asking everyone to get past the stereotypes, past the fear-mongering, past the lies and try to be as objective on the issue as possible. Senator Kennedy was hated by many for his belief that government must take an active role in social justice issues. Even if you disagree with his philosophy, I ask you to honor the memory of this veteran's half-century of service to our nation by honestly taking a step back and considering his lifelong advocacy of health-care reform. Challenge yourself to look closely for the lies you may be believing, for the fear you may needlessly be feeling.

Iranian Proxy Server

Wow. I have put my geek-ness into action.

Perhaps some of you have seen the news reporting that much of what we know about events following the Iranian elections is being provided directly by Iranians via the Internet. This is true despite the fact that the Iranian government is censoring Internet access. This is happening because of a thing called a 'proxy server'. Proxy servers allow the Iranians to access censored material by doing it through an alternative web address which serves as a proxy for the real thing. The proxy server goes to the censored site, retrieves/sends the material, and feeds the results back into Iran - all via a seemingly innocuous internet address.

I am proud to say that I have put my values and my geeky talents into action and set up just such a server. I will not provide details here but have done so to the appropriate channels. The Iranian government is doing everything it can to find these proxy servers and shut them down.

Of course this does present some level of risk. The machine I am using as a server has nothing on it that is either secure or irreplaceable. If it is hacked -- there is nothing they can hurt. The rest of my network is fully fire-walled. I've taken every sane precaution while still taking action.

I know little about Iranian politics. What I do know is that the relative freedom of information is one of this country's most precious and productive gifts to its citizens. Without accurate information - accurate conclusions are impossible. I see this act as simply facilitating the free flow of information.

Affirmative Action

I have written about Affirmative Action on a previous blog. The current heightened media coverage, however, prompts me to do it again. Even the most liberal of media outlets do not cover this topic correctly - and it surprises me. Affirmative Action is completely misunderstood by the vast majority of US citizens. This is not opinion -- it is a fact. I am not a lawyer, but I happen to be associated with a Washington D. C. law firm that specializes in employment law. The following are facts:

• Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin is illegal.
  [Notice that sexual preference is not a legally protected class of citizens. This is one reason gay rights is currently such a hotly debated topic.]


• So-called 'Reverse Discrimination' is also illegal. There is absolutely no distinction in the law that provides preferential treatment for anyone.


• Quotas are illegal. Quotas favoring women over men, for example, are obviously reverse discrimination. Discrimination against a white man is exactly as illegal as discrimination against a black woman. Discrimination is illegal.

Affirmative Action is designed to prevent discrimination... not institutionalize it. The Affirmative Action reporting requirements for federal contractors do sometimes result in the establishment of placement goals. These goals are based upon the percentage of minorities and females (aka 'protected classes') in the qualified labor pool using census data by geographic area and occupation, as well as, the labor pool inside the company for internal promotions. These goals are only established when the incumbent population of a protected class for a given group of employees is significantly less than the qualified labor pool. The following are facts regarding these placement goals:

• Expressed as a percentage, the goals represent the expected rate at which the protected class would be hired/promoted based upon the qualified labor pool.


• Goals are not quotas.


• Goals do not provide justification for:
  1. Extending preferences to any individual
  2. Selecting any particular individual
  3. Adversely affecting any individual's employment status on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin


• Goals may not be used to supersede merit principles

In other words, employers have the full legal right to always and only hire the absolute best qualified candidate for the job. Period! If a placement goal was not met, the employer is only obligated to demonstrate with adequate record keeping the reasons that one candidate was chosen over another. As long as these reasons are merit-based, an employer has broken no laws and has nothing to fear.

If anyone believes they have been discriminated against or been given preferential treatment because of Affirmative Action, they are factually mistaken.

If your employer has stated or behaved otherwise then your employer has acted illegally. Though I am confident in my facts here, I am also confident that the gross misunderstanding of these facts certainly extends to employers who have violated these laws. My intent here is not to deny the reality of reverse discrimination. Rather, my intent is to inform. Reverse discrimination certainly exists. Like ALL discrimination, however, it is illegal.

If you think I'm wrong, consult a good labor attorney. I'm not. If you care about facts instead of propaganda, you will spread these facts in any conversation about Affirmative Action and call out the propaganda for what it is!

Justice Souter retirement

The moment I've been waiting for has arrived. The supreme court is the single most important reason that I so emphatically hoped for a Democratic president. I believe strongly that the whole constructionist/activist argument is wholly bogus. To say that there is exactly one correct interpretation of the constitution is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as saying there is only one literal interpretation of the Bible. Language is always imperfect and imprecise. All words are necessarily interpreted based upon the receiver's values and life experience and our rightfully revered constitution is no different.

The second amendment is a hotly debated current example. The text is quoted here exactly:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My opinion on gun ownership is irrelevant. The point here is that there are easily at least two interpretations of this sentence. One argument is that the individual 'people' are granted the right to bear arms, the other is that the collective 'people' in the form of a 'well regulated Militia' have the right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of anyone's personal belief it is undeniable that the other argument exists among constitutional scholars. To say a 'strict constructionist' judge would only interpret for the individual right and would call the collective militia argument 'activist' or 'legislation from the bench' is simply without merit. Either is fully in keeping with the strict letter of the constitution and depends on your point of view. To believe that the language of laws is self-evident, requiring no interpretation, denies the very need for a judiciary and blasphemes the very core of our constitution. By the way - Obama has stated, as a constitutional lawyer, that he personally believes the right to bear arms refers to the individual right. No hard core liberal there!

I dread the inevitable onslaught of propaganda as President Obama nominates his first supreme court justice. It is the price we pay for freedom of speech. Obama's remarks today laying out his criteria for selecting a judge were absolutely perfect from this voter's perspective. I would generally label myself as a center-left voter. More left socially and more right fiscally. I have agreed with nearly every word I have heard from President Obama even though he is often slammed from the left as well as the right. In this case, however, I will be hoping for as liberal a judge as can possibly be appointed. Justice is not and never should be blind. True justice must see the suffering of humanity. True justice must see the raping of our planet. Yes, true justice must even see the abhorrence of abortion. That does not mean legal decisions are made from a bleeding heart perspective, but it does mean that judges seeking true justice must temper the necessary and constitutionally mandated interpretation of literal law with the entirety of their being.

Vacation Pics

Yes... I do have a life outside of my political passions. Alice and I had a glorious week in California. Visiting Lake Tahoe and Yosemite National Park. Here are a few pictures.

We happened to be in Yosemite during three days of record-breaking Spring heat creating rapid snow melt. The waterfalls are rarely flowing as full as they were during this time. The first picture is Yosemite Falls.

The rainbow effect around the edge of Bridal Veil Falls below is completely genuine. The shot was taken from the "Tunnel View" lookout point with the rainbow from the mist

Full shot of Tunnel View with the rainbow on Bridal Veil Falls.

The intense water flow created equally intense mist making rainbows common in the afternoon sun. Following picture is just below Vernal Falls after hiking the Mist trail followed by a full shot of the same falls.

Lake Tahoe was equally amazing.

Newt Gingrich is wrong.

There are many descriptors I'm tempted to use, but I'll settle for 'wrong'. Gingrich is calling Obama's foreign policy a 'fantasy'. This statement can not even pass for opinion. If I give him the benefit of the doubt, it is more accurately labeled a delusion. President Obama has been extraordinarily consistent throughout his campaign and early presidency. He has never limited military force as an option, he has always acknowledged that evil exists in the world and 'must be confronted'. To implement a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy over brute force is not a fantasy, Newt. It is called a vision. Our greatest leaders have always been visionaries. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of seeing the mountaintop, equal rights for people of color in this country were as much of an impossibility as world peace is today. Dr. King maintained the vision and pragmatically, courageously, led this country toward realizing that vision. He knew it would not happen in his lifetime but the vision, the goal, remained unchanged. Seeing potential does not imply blindness to reality. Seeing the end of the road in the distance does not imply ignorance of the roadblocks along the way. The vision of a better world is vital to achieving a better world. No one, including President Obama, believes the goal is easy to reach. Thankfully, we now have a president who is both a visionary and a pragmatist. Yes, Newt, it is possible to be both. To honestly believe Obama is conducting a fantasy foreign policy is, at best, naive and grossly misinformed of the facts.