And to this I say finally.  Finally a congressperson on the left stands up and says it how it is.  Notice the reaction from this woman.  It was as if she had her Oxford-style legs cut out from under her.  She didn’t continue arguing.  She seemed humiliated, as if she walked up in front of the crowd wearing a clown suit expecting nobody to call her out when the person that happened to do so was standing at the podium in front of her.

Today I applaud Barney Frank, who has done nothing but piss me off up to this point.  In a time of stark partisanship, he is certainly a polarizing figure.  His manner of delivery often makes me think he does more harm than good, but I can honestly say that today I have become a new fan.  He has done what none of his peers have had the guts to do thus far.

I sincerely hope that this becomes a turning point for the left.  Stop fearing the debate, and certainly don’t let whackos like this woman stop you from having a logical, civil discourse on the topic of health care reform in the US.  Meet them with the truth and bludgeon them with their own shortcomings.  Stop being so flippin’ political.  We didn’t elect you to garner votes for the next cycle.  We elected you to be honest and fight for your beliefs.  Start taking notes.

Way to go, Mr. Frank.

Everyone meet Orly Taitz.  This is the face of the “Birther” movement, the organized efforts of a small extremist part of the world community to prove President Barack Obama was born in Kenya and thus not qualified to be president.  Orly is the lawyer for Stefan F Cook.  You may remember him as the US Army Reservist who declined to serve active duty in Afghanistan because he didn’t think President Obama met the qualifications to be Commander in Chief.

Conveniently, a birth certificate has sprouted up proving that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya.  It has been largely debunked as a forgery, even by Karl Rove himself on his Twitter page.  The nail in the coffin for this document likely came when an Australian citizen publicly LOLed after he realized someone had used his birth certificate as a template for a forged Obama certificate.

I’ve said all I’ll say about the details.  Things that crack me up:

• Orly Taitz is an off kilter whackjob.  I wouldn’t trust her with a butter knife.
• People think he would have been on the ticket if there was any doubt he was a US citizen.
• Stefan F. Cook was fired from his job with a defense contractor after all of this.
• Sean Hannity eagerly jumped the bandwagon and sympathized with the plaintiff on TV.
• Not even Karl Rove will hop on this bandwagon.

Seriously, this whole thing is just laughable.  It all boils down to one thing: racism.  Tell me otherwise.  Go on, try.  I’ll never forget the first time I heard about this conspiracy theory.  I was in a drive-through liquor store in Akron, Ohio buying some cigarettes and the cashier saw my Obama pin.  It was right around election day.  He spoke in a thick midwestern drawl.  “You know he isn’t even from here,” as if in a last ditch effort to avoid having a black president he was completely and totally willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.  “He wasn’t born here.”  I was surprised he made it through his whole presentation without tossing an “N” word out.  See, I know these people.  I’ve lived around them, worked with them, and seen them in public.  I would call many friends and some family, but it doesn’t change the fact that opposition to this president and racist tendencies often go hand in hand.  For the first time in US history, white citizens look to the top and see someone different from themselves.  Some simply can’t handle that, and they’ll latch onto any hope they can find in regards to ousting him, even if it means believing that anyone in power in the United States would let a non-citizen become president.

If you’re going to disagree with this president, do so on the issues.  He was born here, and if you don’t believe that, you’re a moron.  Plain and simple.  Go read a book.

Happy birthday President Barack Hussein Obama.

“Anybody who values life like I do, and is pro-life, recognizes that the way you change minds is not you yell at people”

As I was typing the title to this post, I had to stop and think.  Abortion is one of the few topics that is difficult to talk about no matter what side of the fence you’re on.  OK, maybe not for people like this woman, but for those of us that value the feelings and beliefs of our neighbors next to us it is.  To say the issue of abortion is polarizing would be the understatement of the century.  It seems that siding pro-life or pro-choice isn’t enough.  Demonizing the opposition comes with the territory.

So, where is the middle ground?

The truth is that both sides are right to an extent.  This is what boggles my mind about the electorate and especially our elected officials on hot button issues like abortion, gay rights and immigration.  I need to preface this by saying that I am certainly pro-choice, but what I am about to say is largely independent of that belief.

I can sympathize with the pro-life crowd, and I can even defend their position!  There is sound logic to both sides of this argument.  Saying anything less would be lunacy no matter what you believe.  I’ll use cliches because they serve this argument so well:

Pro-life: A young teenage couple comes to the realization that the female is pregnant.  They are unable to support a child in the way they would like to and both parties fear the scorn that having a child might bring from friends and family members.  They decide to seek an abortion.
Argument: First of all, it isn’t your right to kill a living thing.  Second, there is some family out there that would gladly adopt your child.  Third and possibly most importantly, this era of ducking responsibility on a choice as sacred as the choice to have sex is both bad for our children and bad for the children they may have borne.  It lends itself to premarital sex and a lack of accountability.

Pro-choice: A young couple is excited to have their first child.  Upon a visit to the doctor, they are told that the child has only a 20% chance of survival after birth.  The expected defects could leave him or her horribly deformed.
Argument: This is an event that could traumatize this young family for years to come.  The final months of the pregnancy term would be full of sleepless nights and worry for all parties involved, including extended families.  Nobody should tell someone in this position what they can or can’t do in relation to their family.

These juxtapositions have been used for decades to argue for and against legal abortion in the US.  I’m using them to say that both are valid arguments and neither is wrong, persay.  They both warrant merit.  Dammit.

The abortion issue has always been one that split the electorate pretty evenly, but what does that mean when it comes to enforcing the law?  This is when I want to start beating my head against the desk.  I am going to operate under a couple of commonly-accepted assumptions here.  There are exceptions to these rules, to be sure, but for the most part I’ll stand behind these assertions.  OK, bear with me…

1. Conservatives generally are more apt to be pro-life than liberals
2. Conservatives generally want a smaller federal government than liberals

Empowering the federal government to ban abortion (which has already been deemed legal by the Supreme Court) is a federalist move.  Conservatives are anti-federalist by their own design… or are they?  Using the federal government as a conduit to impose conservative values on the electorate is like Mark Sanford doing a PSA about the dangers of adultury.  Its pure madness.

My idea of a solution?  Make a move back to anti-federalist ideals.  Put the power in the hands of the states.  There is an intrinsic problem with this solution right now because so many state governments are defunct, mismanaged and impotent.  However, placing more governing responsibility on the states would promote an entirely new foray into civic leadership from the local level, and it would allow people with all sorts of beliefs to find a home here in the United States.  On the subject of abortion, this is largely how the system already works.  Should someone be able to leave their state to get an abortion if they live in a pro-life state?  No, because their tax dollars paid for a different frame of mind.  However, as an American I should have the choice to live in an environment of my choosing.  If I support strict gun control, am pro-choice and believe homosexuals should be able to marry, there should be a state in the union for me, and it shouldn’t piss you off if I choose to be around like-minded individuals.  These are decisions that split the electorate.  There is no grand consensus, so let the system support coexistence.

Why does one party always have to be right?