The title on this article is very misleading as the majority of her critiques are about Common Core. There is a decided bent on the corporatization of education, though, and the incredible profit there is to be made in shifting toward test prep and related materials.
As a libertarian, I've long been a fan of charter schools, but I've noticed a change in the way many of these private/public schools work. Instead of being laboratories where different education theories and teaching techniques can be practiced, these schools are becoming arms of their corporate sponsors, owned and run by the people who are selling the tools to cope with the abysmal Common Core movement.
If anyone tries to tell you that Common Core is nothing but a move to minimal national standards, point to articles like this one. There's a lot more to these federally-mandated standards, and increasingly, our schools are becoming captive markets for multi-billion dollar companies and their federal supporters.
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/12/public_schools_under_siege_diane_ravitch_warns_salon_some_cities_soon_will_have_none/
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Friday, June 7, 2013
You Want Us to TRUST You?
Tell me again why we're supposed to trust that our government has our best interests at heart. Because I'm having a hard time reconciling that worldview to reality.
Let's go down the list, shall we? Nile Gardiner at the London Telegraph had made it really easy for us, with a nice, easy to follow list.
1. The American public is losing trust in Obama.
Frankly, Obama's adminsitration has given us no reason to trust them. Regularly they insist on conducting their business behind doors. Whether it's the clandestine seizure of journalists phone records and the subsequent closed-door briefing to issue guidelines to journalists on how they should behave in leak investigations, or it's classification of drone activities, or completely redacted FOIA requests, Obama's administration has made it clear that they have plenty to hide. This coming from the "most transparent administration".
And it doesn't stop there. I'd like to expand that to cover the rest of our government. Congress has repeatedly approved of the measures Obama has used to spy on American citizens, hunt down people on American soil, and the indefinite detention of terror suspects.
Tell me how we're supposed to trust them? Our government has declared they are above the law, even as they impose new and more onerous regulations on citizens.
The coincides perfectly with number:
2. The Obama Administration is imperial in style and outlook.
I'd once again like to expand that to cover the rest of our government. This isn't an issue of Republican versus Democrat or right versus left. It's an issue of a rapid expansion of powers coinciding with an increase in abuse of those powers. Consider the PRISM program that forces internet providers and major internet companies to provide direct access to their servers and through that the data of millions of American citizens. The defense is that it's perfectly legal and the real problem is the fact that issues pertaining to national security were leaked to the media.
Let me restate. The problem isn't that our government has granted itself unrestrained powers to monitor and spy on its citizenry. The problem is that someone let us know about it...
I wish I was making this up.
Obama's further defense is that these programs weren't secret because "hey, we told Congress about it, and they said it was cool. Don't worry. We're using this information in the right way. We've established our own oversight, and they said we're cool."
...
I'll be unpacking some of the other points later either tonight or this week. So stay tuned for more outrage to come.
Let's go down the list, shall we? Nile Gardiner at the London Telegraph had made it really easy for us, with a nice, easy to follow list.
1. The American public is losing trust in Obama.
Frankly, Obama's adminsitration has given us no reason to trust them. Regularly they insist on conducting their business behind doors. Whether it's the clandestine seizure of journalists phone records and the subsequent closed-door briefing to issue guidelines to journalists on how they should behave in leak investigations, or it's classification of drone activities, or completely redacted FOIA requests, Obama's administration has made it clear that they have plenty to hide. This coming from the "most transparent administration".
And it doesn't stop there. I'd like to expand that to cover the rest of our government. Congress has repeatedly approved of the measures Obama has used to spy on American citizens, hunt down people on American soil, and the indefinite detention of terror suspects.
Tell me how we're supposed to trust them? Our government has declared they are above the law, even as they impose new and more onerous regulations on citizens.
The coincides perfectly with number:
2. The Obama Administration is imperial in style and outlook.
I'd once again like to expand that to cover the rest of our government. This isn't an issue of Republican versus Democrat or right versus left. It's an issue of a rapid expansion of powers coinciding with an increase in abuse of those powers. Consider the PRISM program that forces internet providers and major internet companies to provide direct access to their servers and through that the data of millions of American citizens. The defense is that it's perfectly legal and the real problem is the fact that issues pertaining to national security were leaked to the media.
Let me restate. The problem isn't that our government has granted itself unrestrained powers to monitor and spy on its citizenry. The problem is that someone let us know about it...
I wish I was making this up.
Obama's further defense is that these programs weren't secret because "hey, we told Congress about it, and they said it was cool. Don't worry. We're using this information in the right way. We've established our own oversight, and they said we're cool."
...
I'll be unpacking some of the other points later either tonight or this week. So stay tuned for more outrage to come.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Benghazi Hearings: What difference does it make?
Today partisanship was on full display as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took to the House and Senate floors to defend her department's handling of the attacks on Benghazi in September of last year. Those attacks took the lives of four Americans including the Libyan ambassador and two CIA agents who allegedly disobeyed orders to get Americans out of harms way. For more information, look here.
The partisanship in the issue was in how this testimony was handled.
Republicans have attacked both Clinton and Obama for mishandling the affair, for knowingly and recklessly putting Americans in harms way, and for lying to the public about it. They claim that the Obama administration and Clinton's State Department covered up the fact that this was a planned attack meant to target the American embassy on the anniversary of September 11th.
The thing is, right after the attack, Obama and various officials including UN Ambassador Susan Rice claimed the attacks were a spontaneous demonstration emerging from a protest over a YouTube video. They claimed this for weeks afterwards and downplayed the idea that this was a planned terror attack. Those claims lead to accusations by the Republicans of lying to the American public when they knew all along that the attack was planned well in advance and executed in accordance with those plans.
If that was true, Republicans say, then it shows either a gaping hole in American intelligence in the area, a failure to act on gathered intelligence, or blatant disregard for the lives that were lost that day.
When new senator Ron Johnson angrily accused Clinton of misleading the public to cover up the fault of the department, save her own job, or protect Obama in an election year, Clinton angrily replied:
"With all due respect, the fact is that we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"
The partisanship in the issue was in how this testimony was handled.
Republicans have attacked both Clinton and Obama for mishandling the affair, for knowingly and recklessly putting Americans in harms way, and for lying to the public about it. They claim that the Obama administration and Clinton's State Department covered up the fact that this was a planned attack meant to target the American embassy on the anniversary of September 11th.
The thing is, right after the attack, Obama and various officials including UN Ambassador Susan Rice claimed the attacks were a spontaneous demonstration emerging from a protest over a YouTube video. They claimed this for weeks afterwards and downplayed the idea that this was a planned terror attack. Those claims lead to accusations by the Republicans of lying to the American public when they knew all along that the attack was planned well in advance and executed in accordance with those plans.
If that was true, Republicans say, then it shows either a gaping hole in American intelligence in the area, a failure to act on gathered intelligence, or blatant disregard for the lives that were lost that day.
When new senator Ron Johnson angrily accused Clinton of misleading the public to cover up the fault of the department, save her own job, or protect Obama in an election year, Clinton angrily replied:
"With all due respect, the fact is that we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"
The Difference It Makes
The thing is, it really does make a difference. Though the Republicans are largely focused on this ridiculous "cover up" angle, the real difference is in determining why these attacks happened.
I'm not talking about knowing exactly what the motivation was of those who attacked our embassy. We can guess any number of reasons why Libyans would attack Americans on their soil, and most of those reasons would hold some relevance.
The issue is that if we knew there were planned attacks (and it seems the State Department definitely did), and if we failed to respond adequately or in a timely manner (and it seems that there were multiple failures in communication and deployment of assistance as reinforcements took over 7 hours to arrive), and if similar attacks in the future are handled in a similar way, then we will lose more lives while Congress bickers at each other.
There were very real failures in the Benghazi attacks, and it does make a very big difference if the attacks were the result of a planned militant action against multiple US targets or just a bunch of guys deciding to "go kill some Americans." But using this as an opportunity for political posturing, blame throwing, and conspiracy spinning is beneath even the jokers we elect to make our laws.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Last Week's Jobs Posting
It might not seem like it, but today's newly released job numbers are actually really bad news for Obama.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released today news that the unemployment rate had dropped from 8.1% in August to 7.8% in September. Awesome, right?
Maybe not.
Let's analyze: the report says that according to the Payroll Survey, we gained only 114,000 jobs in September. Also the labor force participation rate has held flat at 63.6%. Then, later in the report we are told that the labor force grew by 873,000 new jobs according to the Household Survey.
Anyone else confused? How did unemployment fall to under 8% for the first time since 2009 if labor participation rate is unchanged? And how do we have such radically different job counts in the same report?
The reasons are why Obama may be in for some bad news if people latch on to these numbers too much.
The Household Survey and the Payroll Survey are two different surveys that attempt to analyze the same data from different perspectives. The Household Survey contacts approximately 60,000 households as to their current employment status and includes the declared self-employed, family workers, agriculture jobs, receiving any money for any work, and those who are absent from their jobs without pay. The Payroll Survey is of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and includes none of the "jobs" I just listed.
Though they often track well together, you can probably see why results from one can dramatically differ from the other. Beyond the sample size differences, the way the data is reported in the Household Survey can skew wildly depending on a number of factors. In fact, the Household Survey is fairly volatile, leaving lots of outliers in the tracing of employment trends.
My intuition is that this month was an outlier. Either the respondents to the survey over-reported jobs or the smaller sample size skewed the results.
If this month's number is relied on by the Obama administration to prove a recovery and it is belied by next month's numbers, It could end up costing Obama the election.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released today news that the unemployment rate had dropped from 8.1% in August to 7.8% in September. Awesome, right?
Maybe not.
Let's analyze: the report says that according to the Payroll Survey, we gained only 114,000 jobs in September. Also the labor force participation rate has held flat at 63.6%. Then, later in the report we are told that the labor force grew by 873,000 new jobs according to the Household Survey.
Anyone else confused? How did unemployment fall to under 8% for the first time since 2009 if labor participation rate is unchanged? And how do we have such radically different job counts in the same report?
The reasons are why Obama may be in for some bad news if people latch on to these numbers too much.
The Household Survey and the Payroll Survey are two different surveys that attempt to analyze the same data from different perspectives. The Household Survey contacts approximately 60,000 households as to their current employment status and includes the declared self-employed, family workers, agriculture jobs, receiving any money for any work, and those who are absent from their jobs without pay. The Payroll Survey is of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and includes none of the "jobs" I just listed.
Though they often track well together, you can probably see why results from one can dramatically differ from the other. Beyond the sample size differences, the way the data is reported in the Household Survey can skew wildly depending on a number of factors. In fact, the Household Survey is fairly volatile, leaving lots of outliers in the tracing of employment trends.
My intuition is that this month was an outlier. Either the respondents to the survey over-reported jobs or the smaller sample size skewed the results.
If this month's number is relied on by the Obama administration to prove a recovery and it is belied by next month's numbers, It could end up costing Obama the election.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
From the Atlantic
This morning I found a great follow up to my recent series of posts. I'd encourage you to read the entire post by Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic.com on "Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama." It's insightful and actually lays out some of the exact reasons I expounded on in my essays.
For those who don't have time, here are a few choice quotes:
"Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in."
"I can respect the position that the tactical calculus I've laid out is somehow mistaken, though I tire of it being dismissed as if so obviously wrong that no argument need be marshaled against it."
"But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more -- and who constantly hides the ugliest realities of his policy (while bragging about the terrorists it kills) so that Americans won't even have all the information sufficient to debate the matter for themselves?
How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you're a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes."
For those who don't have time, here are a few choice quotes:
"Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in."
"I can respect the position that the tactical calculus I've laid out is somehow mistaken, though I tire of it being dismissed as if so obviously wrong that no argument need be marshaled against it."
"But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more -- and who constantly hides the ugliest realities of his policy (while bragging about the terrorists it kills) so that Americans won't even have all the information sufficient to debate the matter for themselves?
How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you're a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes."
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Voting Philosophy: Part 4
In my opinion, then, there are several problems with our system. Those problems rest with the presidency itself, the two party system, and, finally, the significance with which our votes have been imbued.
The Problem with the Presidency
Over the past two decades the office of the president has assumed a much more prominent and visible role in our government and in civic life in general. Rather than just the executive of the government, the commander in chief, and the occasional symbol of its people, the president has come to be a very active and prominent part in all aspects of legislation, adjudication, and moral standards for our nation.
I don't think this is a good thing either for the kinds of people who are drawn to office or for the people who look to the president to solve all their problems. Those who believe the president can pay their mortgage, put gas in their cars, send them to college, and save their souls are more likely to accept a lot of the allowances that presidents have granted themselves in the name of the greater good.
The thing is, almost everyone who runs for office goes into it
with the best of intentions. They want to change the world, make it better, fix
problems and help people. They go into office thinking that they now have the
keys to a social change machine. If they push the right buttons and pull the
right levers, then they can make a difference. They can fix what came before.
The problem is, government doesn't work that way. The president can't single-handedly save the economy or control gas prices or save us all from evil corporations. If he could, then he would also have the power and authority to act in ways with which we disagree. He could impose martial law, disband companies he dislikes, lock away his enemies, and take anyone else's earnings and give them to those he deemed more worthy.
Both of our most recent presidents have suffered and thrived under this set of expectations. They have enlarged their power to respond to serious issues and as a result they have had even more expectations laid at their feet.
Now, there's nothing wrong with people wanting to make the world a better place. But who really knows what is best for your life? For mine? For the millionaire or for the destitute? Who knows how best to address the ins and outs of each and every American's life and would make the exact right decisions that would benefit even most of them? And what do you say to those harmed by your policies? Altruism is a good thing, but what do you do when it starts to impeded on the freedom of the people. Freedom means not just the freedom to make good choices but to make one's own bad choices as well. Freedom also means being able to deal with the consequences of those decisions.
Am I saying that there shouldn't be a safety net to help catch those who have been screwed by the system? No. I believe in a minimal safety net. But a net that captures all is not one for safety but for fishing.
The other danger in altruistic presidents comes when they start
believe the ends justify the means. That the rules are in place for other
people, but that because their mission is so important, they can bend the rules
and it will be okay. It's how we get the NDAA, Guantanamo Bay, drone strikes,
the PATRIOT Act, extra judicial detention, executive orders, outrageous
congressional compensation, and more.
Will our economy survive another Obama presidency? Probably. Will
the integrity of the Constitution? Less likely. Will Romney be able to reverse the tide of
social change when it comes to the major issues today? Probably not. Will he
likely continue eroding the freedoms our nation was founded to protect? Almost
assuredly.
The Problem with the Two Party System
The second problem is with the two party system. I can't tell you who will win in November, but I can tell you it will be a Republican or a Democrat. A Republican or a Democrat will also win in 2016. And probably in 2020. We have been limited to only two options for the entire history of the United States, and while they weren't always Republican or Democrat, they did divide along roughly similar ideological lines: conservative and progressive.
Therefore it's easy to draw lines in the sand.
"You're either with us or against us."
"You should vote against the other guy. At least our guy isn't (a homophobe/a socialist/a misogynist/a communist/out-of-touch/a Nazi/out to destroy America/etc)."
"A vote for a third party is a vote for the other guy."
"A vote for a third party is just wasting your vote."
Often that last one is actually true. Usually there's no other viable choice. Any third party offerings are usually so radical that they could never appeal to the mainstream, middle-of-the-road American. They offer things up as single issues, trying to sway the two parties to support as part of their platform some new idea that they feel passionately about.
This year is a bit different. The Libertarian Party has offered up a legitimate candidate who has experience on the national stage, who has worked across both party lines, and who has an actually decent set of policy positions. In fact, I might agree with almost everything he supports.
I could go on at length about why I'm voting for him specifically, but you've read almost enough already. If you want more, go read what my friend Jacob had to say about the Johnson/Gray ticket. Also, I've met Judge Gray a handful of times, and if any man deserves your respect, it's Jim Gray.
The Problem with the Vote
Finally, I think there is a huge problem with the significance of the vote, at least as they have been reflected in analysis and research and the media.
Every time a candidate is elected of late, they are said to have a mandate from the people to act on the platform on which they campaigned. If they campaigned on lower taxes, decreased regulations, clean energy, and no marriage equality, once elected they believe that they are supported in all of their platform because they have the people's mandate. Nevermind that the majority of people voted only for the first three reasons and abhorred the fourth. It was part of his platform and therefore he will see through "the will of the people."
Or the other guy who runs on a platform of ending the war, improving infrastructure, abolishing the 14% sales tax, and instituting a 90% tax on anyone making over $100,000 a year. Every time he will push through that 90% tax on the "rich" because he now has the people's mandate. Nevermind the fact that the people just really hated that 14% sales tax and wanted the potholes on Main Street fixed up.
Every time we vote for the bastards in office, they are imbued with more power to keep doing what they're doing--the good and the bad. Every time we elect someone new with a message full of vim and vigor, we get the vim along with the vigor.
I know a lot of you are voting for Obama because you support his social message. You believe that Romney will roll back the progress we've made in vital areas and that his influence as president will threaten many of our dearly held social causes. Nevermind what Obama will do with the capital gains tax or the rights of terrorists; more important things are at stake.
I know a lot of you who are voting for Romney are terrified about what Obama will do with health care, with the economy, and maybe with foreign policy. You fear that Obama will bury innovation in regulations, that his pursuit of clean energy will make gas and cars even less affordable, and that his healthcare policies will leave us all as wards of the state. Never mind what Romney does to gays in the military or how much he opens our government to corporate and money influences; more important things are at stake.
Yet a vote for either one of these guys for the reasons you want him is (in our current system) a vote for the reasons you don't. I can't support either of their policies with any conscience because the things that I don't agree with them on are that much worse.
So I will be placing my vote and my voice and my small shred of electoral power in someone who supports the things that I do, that recognizes and regularly vocalizes his understanding of the limitations of government, and who isn't beholden to the moneyed power behind the throne that is the two party system.
I'm voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray in November, because it's a vote I can stand behind.
Or the other guy who runs on a platform of ending the war, improving infrastructure, abolishing the 14% sales tax, and instituting a 90% tax on anyone making over $100,000 a year. Every time he will push through that 90% tax on the "rich" because he now has the people's mandate. Nevermind the fact that the people just really hated that 14% sales tax and wanted the potholes on Main Street fixed up.
Every time we vote for the bastards in office, they are imbued with more power to keep doing what they're doing--the good and the bad. Every time we elect someone new with a message full of vim and vigor, we get the vim along with the vigor.
I know a lot of you are voting for Obama because you support his social message. You believe that Romney will roll back the progress we've made in vital areas and that his influence as president will threaten many of our dearly held social causes. Nevermind what Obama will do with the capital gains tax or the rights of terrorists; more important things are at stake.
I know a lot of you who are voting for Romney are terrified about what Obama will do with health care, with the economy, and maybe with foreign policy. You fear that Obama will bury innovation in regulations, that his pursuit of clean energy will make gas and cars even less affordable, and that his healthcare policies will leave us all as wards of the state. Never mind what Romney does to gays in the military or how much he opens our government to corporate and money influences; more important things are at stake.
Yet a vote for either one of these guys for the reasons you want him is (in our current system) a vote for the reasons you don't. I can't support either of their policies with any conscience because the things that I don't agree with them on are that much worse.
So I will be placing my vote and my voice and my small shred of electoral power in someone who supports the things that I do, that recognizes and regularly vocalizes his understanding of the limitations of government, and who isn't beholden to the moneyed power behind the throne that is the two party system.
I'm voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray in November, because it's a vote I can stand behind.
Voting Philosophy: Part 3
This Election Season
Now I’m faced with what seems to be the same choice all over again: elect the
lesser of two evils. To everyone else, it seems, one is far worse than the other. To me, it's not so clear.
Consider our options:
On the one side we have a challenger who was brought to the fore by a reactionary and emotionally vocal group of grassroots individuals.
Romney is wildly out of touch with the American public and seems to only find his justification from polling and then pandering to the Tea Party activists. He chokes on his silver spoon every couple of days and then spends his time defending ridiculously stupid statements when he should be using that time to present an actual plan for our economy. He's against the Affordable Care Act, but he doesn't seem to have anything to offer to a medical insurance and health care industry that is collapsing on top of its patients.
He does seem to appreciate the role of entrepreneurs in stabilizing our economy and the fact that government too often gets in the way of innovation. But he doesn't seem prepared to recognize the dangerous role that large and wealthy companies play in setting policies in this country, policies that protect their own interest while hindering the development of overall well-being. He does want to lower the tax burdens on small businesses and the middle class, but he wants to do so by supporting those huge donors and companies that support his campaign.
He also truly seems to not care about huge swaths of the American population. His 47% statement has been taken out of context a lot recently, but even in context, he admits that he isn't really interested in addressing the concerns of those who would never vote for him. He truly does not care about gay marriage, but he's willing to pander to the bigots who do care if it gets him elected. I don't think he cares either way about women's rights or the right to choice, but if it will get him elected, he'll cut right through the issues. (And I'm not talking about the issue of government funding abortion on demand, so don't try and color the argument that way. Women's health issues are dramatically being cut by insurance companies with no claim to religious freedom or government funding. That's another post, though.)
Romney is a politician--nothing more and nothing less. He will treat power much the same as any other that has been elected in recent years. A vote for Romney, though, will be seen as an endorsement of everything he stands for. Even if someone votes for him because they support his economic policies, their vote will be seen as an implicit endorsement or at least acceptance of his stand on social issues as well.
So let's consider his opponent.
President Obama rode into office on a riptide of enthusiasm. His message of hope and change was exactly what a worried and depressed nation needed. We had great hopes for him and his presidency. He was going to change things, right?
Well let's look at the record.
Gay marriage? Finally! We have a president who supports marriage equality. Granted, it took him until this year to actually come forward and say so. And even then, he refused to go further than to say that he personally supported marriage equality. He still holds the official position that it is an issue for the states to decide. So... a qualified success?
Healthcare? Managed to pass a huge bill that has made absolutely no one happy. The process it followed to get passed was all but completely illegal, it may actually increase the cost of healthcare for almost everyone involved, and it served as the ultimate gadfly to coalesce an unhappy right into a powerful voting bloc.
International relations? Strained at best. Obama skips out on meetings with world leaders and allies to appear on Jimmy Kimmel and the View. At times he seems to care more about posturing and electioneering than attending to the duties demanded of him as a world leader. It's not to say he doesn't care about riots in Libya or Syria, but when he calls casualties "road bumps" he comes across that way.
Increased transparency? Obama has dramatically failed on his promises for increased transparency while claiming the mantle of the most transparent administration in history. He has actively prosecuted whistle blowers, failed to provide open documents on many issues even when ordered to do so by Congress, and he has invoked executive privilege in 4 years as much as Bush did in 8 years. Freedom of Information Act filings are routinely ignored or supplied with heavily blacked out reports that obscure the intent of the law.
No bid contracts? Actually up in the past 4 years. Guantanamo Bay? Still open for business. Regulations? Increased. Government spending? Dramatically up. The deficit? Growing at a record rate. The economy? Still tanking.
I know a lot of these issues he has little to no control over. So let's look at some things he does have control over.
Extrajudicial detention? Obama has argued consistently for the National Defense Authorization Act which allows him to ignore things like the 4th and 5th amendments. Habeas Corpus has been suspended for countless combatants and even American citizens. Indefinite detention is now a power that the president can unilaterally employ.
Extrajudicial executions? The president has authorized and defended the use of drone strikes against enemy combatants and American citizens alike. The Defense Department has defended the use of drones saying that there is no geographic limitation on the use of drones and that "US citizens do not enjoy immunity" from targeting. They argue that such executions are not illegal because they are used in self defense. Considering these practices have been used against mourners at funerals and killing rescuers for injured on the ground, one must question their reasoning and a president that would support and condone these practices. The existence of a "hit list" is likewise terrifying to me.
Respect for States Rights? Well he says he wants to leave marriage equality to the states, right? But when he's confronted with an actual issue of states rights, Obama and his administration have failed miserably. Several states have approved medical marijuana and have licensed select dispensaries and clinics to provide the substance to those with a prescription. In response, Obama has specially ordered his ATF, DEA, IRS, and DOJ to raid these clinics and arrest anyone operating there. They confiscate goods, money, and property through asset forfeiture, costing legal business owners hundreds of thousands of dollars. All of this is done though they the dispensary operators are working legally under state law, his administration has said that federal drug law trumps the issue.
These are serious violations of civil and human rights on display. Couple these policies with Obama's financial policies, and there's almost no way I can vote for him in good conscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)