In California, an ardent anti-gay politician, State Senator Roy Ashburn, admitted to being gay after his high-profile DUI arrest last week. Senator Ashburn, who has voted against numerous gay rights issues, will continue to vote according to the majority beliefs in his district. It’s funny because once he’s out of office (he doesn’t plan to run again after his term is up), he’ll be discriminated against for being the man he is now. But I guess what happens will happen. Ashburn said he’ll continue to “drawing on his Christian faith, and he asked people to pray for him.” Ha.

It seems, as of late, that Mr. Volcker’s suggestions have been ignored by the administration that called on him to save the country from the closest we have been to economic wreckage since the Great Depression. Why, you may ask, are they ignoring a prominent economist and knowledegable expert? Volcker has been suggesting bringing back a modern form of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that was passed during the Great Depression. Its provisions included the prohibition of bank holding companies from owning financial companies, presumably those involved with stocks and other derivatives. The Glass-Steagall Act was effectively repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, allowing banks and brokerages to combine and reap tremendous profits at the expense of the average citizen. Of course, most big banks are completely against such an action (how can they make those fat profits they’re starting to make again?). The banking lobby is calling it an antiquated law that would be ineffective in today’s climate and consequently make America much less competitive on a global scale. Volcker, understanding these criticisms, retorted:

“People say I’m old-fashioned and banks can no longer be separated from nonbank activity…That argument,” he added ruefully, “brought us to where we are today.”

Economist and Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz has echoed the same sentiments as Volcker but fully cognizant that the former Fed Chairman is “embarked on a quixotic journey.” Former Citigroup CEO John S. Reed has joined the small chorus of Glass-Steagall-ites and has endorsed the same proposal saying it would “go a long way toward building a more robust financial sector.”

I agree with these men in saying that banking activities should be completely separate from other financial activities. Unless President Obama’s new proposal has better guidelines for these banks, what’s to stop them from repeating their actions with a resulting taxpayer-funded bailout? Limiting executive pay? That’s almost a laughable offense if they weren’t serious. Maybe the new “Too Big to Fail” bill will reveal the insights to which way the administration and Congress are planning to deal with the current crisis.

Recently, a California law requiring the disclosure of nutritional information at certain restaurants came into effect. You’d be amazed at how much people would deter towards eating certain foods when shown the nutritional information. Especially considering how many calories there are in many restaurant items. Coincidentally, an experiment done on monkeys showed that restricting your caloric intake could lead to a longer and healthier life.

It’s great that these necessary steps are being done to make consumers aware of what goes into their body. We often trust what is served to us on a plate just because there’s a sign in the front marked ‘A’ (the restaurant sanitation grade). Too much money is wasted on preventable diseases (read: obesity and diabetes). Information is a huge part of the reason why all of these things happen. Overall, they are great steps towards creating a healthier future. These new movements along with some type of universal health care are what will improve this country.

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.

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.

Indeed, if we increased the tax on gasoline to the level that many experts consider optimal, we could raise enough revenue to eliminate the corporate income tax. And the price at the pump would still be far lower in the United States than in much of Europe.

Don’t laugh. I’m serious.

Then again, think about it. With higher gas prices will come the need to innovate and create sustainable energy sources. Once these are developed, our interest in the Middle East is all but dwindled. Why do we need to be friendly with some of these hostile nations if they have no leverage? The only need for us to deal with them would be to protect Israel’s livelihood. Even Venezuela fits into this scheme.

There are many other reasons to love high gas prices.

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.

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

But what Bush did in Israel this morning goes well beyond the accepted confines of American political debate. When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders…but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives.

We are Americans.

Exactly. It’s like when a husband and wife fight, they each tell their close friends about the fight in an attempt to win them over for support. But really, the friends don’t want to get involved as it isn’t their place. Oh, and to the man who stopped golfing to honor the mothers of those brave soldiers who died in the war:

To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve.

The whole spiel is worth a read.