Motion for a Recess

Bob Barr, once the ardent Republican representative from Georgia and currently the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President, has finally come to terms with one of his many controversial positions - the War on Drugs. It was Barr who was a vocal supporter and policy-maker for the War on Drugs and repeatedly defended his position. He repeatedly blocked any medical marijuana legalization initiatives started in D.C. by claiming:

There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief…

But now the Libertarian, who is increasingly viewed by many Republicans as to what Nader is to the Democrats, has reversed his position on marijuana and the War on Drugs. I’m glad that he can finally admit to his failures and move on from there. Whereas some politicians hide behind statements or subtly make changes to fit the political arena, I think Barr made a wise decision by admitting outright that he was wrong and his policy was a complete failure.

…when government attempts to solve our societal problems, it tends to create even more of them, often increasing the size and depth of the original problem. A perfect example of this is the federal War on Drugs.

Good job, Barr. Although I don’t support you, I do greatly respect you and your (new) views.

Last week, Clinton finally conceded the Democratic nomination to Obama after a grueling primary season. She proved to be a tenacious and somewhat ironic ‘comeback’ candidate who proved pundits and others wrong with her continued support and wins in the many latter primary states. But the math finally became obvious and the Clinton spin team ran out of gas. She unequivocally backed Obama in her concession speech on Saturday; a speech which left critics wondering, had the same content and tone been used throughout the primary season, she might have built her base with more support to clinch the nomination.

Her speech was meant to unify the badly bruised and seemingly divided Democratic party. Some supporters immediately backed Obama, others did so reluctantly. But a few others decided that instead of not voting at all, they would back John McCain. The same McCain that promotes policies counter to those of Clinton (and Obama, since they nearly have the same policies sans healthcare). The same McCain who, at least in this Senate, has one of the most conservative voting records. To me that makes absolute zero sense. That tells me that those ardent Clinton supporters were not really supporting her for her policies. It’s fine that they won’t vote for Obama but when you go a complete 180 and support someone who is the complete opposite, that is just ludicrous.

The Co-Chairs of University of Iowa Students for Hillary also released a memo today indicating that they would vote for McCain. They advocated the rest of the group’s members to do the same:

We do not agree with him [McCain] on everything, and this is why we urge you to strongly support Democrats up for re-election to congress. He served our country, he is right on immigration, right on global warming, and he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned Marriage Equality.

I guess since they agree on these three issues, that makes him a good alternative to Hillary. Interesting deduction, people.

In a previous post, I advocated increasing taxes on gasoline to wean our country off oil and start spurring up interest in public transportation or alternative sources of energy. At the time, Hillary Clinton and John McCain were pushing for their own (failed) gas tax holiday plan. Most economists and policy wonks (as well as any person who possesses logic) thought it was a joke. Nonetheless, it seemed that calling for a higher gas tax would incense Americans who are already struggling with higher food costs. But as gas prices are on the rise, more and more people are recognizing the need for higher gas prices.
[Read more →]

Furman University of Greenville, South Carolina invited President Bush to deliver this year’s commencement speech to the graduating class of 2008. Almost immediately, an opposition of over 200 students and faculty signed a statement aptly named ‘We Object‘ which listed their reasons for objecting to his visit, among them are the Iraq war and the administration’s environmental policies (or lackthereof). Conservative students charged back with their own “Support our Seniors” statement claiming the objection is “an empty message” and that the faculty is turning a day of celebration “into a forum to air their political differences.” In most circumstances, I’d agree with Furman’s Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow but in this case I do not.

President Bush has created his own mess and thus has become such a polarizing figure that you either hate him or love him. So much of what is going on in this country is attributable to his administration’s flawed policies and his insistence that they are above the law and the constitution. It’s understandable that some would see it as a gross misrepresentation of their values and beliefs. And to say that the faculty lacks discipline to practice what they preach (tolerance, open-mindedness) is somewhat distorted considering that the President has had a blatant disregard for the growing opposition and weariness to the war while impinging on our civil liberties.

It must be disheartening to those students who will not get to see some of their professor’s in attendance but they must not confuse what they see as a lack of open-mindedness or intolerance with what is essentially a remonstration.

I, like many other Americans, are offended by Bush’s comments yesterday in Israel. I’m sure if you’re reading this, you already know what he’s said so there’s really no need for me to copy them again. I was reading responses all over the web and watching political commentary on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Opinion was mostly split down party affiliations. But honestly this shouldn’t be an issue of partisan politics like taxes or gun control. It’s about being diplomatic and non-confrontational. Just because we disagree with someone doesn’t mean you go and bomb the hell out of their home or threaten them with your gang. It’s these type of mendacious and presumptuous statements that cause enemies to further their malicious agendas, cause our allies to back away from us and some friends to question their support, and even cause war.

The best commentary I have read thus far comes from Will Bunch of Philadelphia Daily News. Some lines that stood out: [Read more →]