Writings on Welfare

The following statement was written in response to an ignorant chain letter about welfare. Parker Jarnigan eloquently states:

In 1996 Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress passed the welfare reform act which, among other things, made the sum limit for persons to receive any type of federal aid at 5 years. so there aren't any cadillac welfare queens. also, most welfare recipients are children and most women who receive welfare are white. the prevailing idea that most welfare dollars go to lazy minorities is untrue. finally, most people who don't like welfare are against it because they see it as a huge waste of their tax dollars going to finance the lives of millions of lazy people. this isn't true. individual welfare costs less than 1% of the federal budget and less than 2% on average of state budgets. by comparison, the conservative Cato Institute estimated that in 2006 alone, the federal government spent over $92 billion in so-called 'corporate welfare' in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, money grants, and special treatment. the recent episode of $1.1 billion being sent out by the USDA to the estates of dead farmers for subsidies seems much more wasteful than the myth of welfare "free riders."

The government gives everyone tax breaks when they pay for our education and roads and fire stations and cops. Without any of that, we would all be stupid, walking, on fire, and dead.

"Celestial Choirs Will Be Singing"

In any other election, this could be seen as a low blow, but this isn't any other election. Obama has made his vague "change" mantra the focal point of campaign instead of health care, Iraq war, or the economy, while he and his supporters blast Clinton for wanting to focus on issues and not "inspiring." Attacks directed toward his utter reliance on pretty words are fair game.

Conservative Alignment

I feel guilty. I have aligned myself with conservative pundits in this fading primary season. They realize that Obama will most likely be the Democratic nominee and have started their attacks, and I am still not giving up on Clinton. David Brooks of the New York Times wrote a terrific article about "Obama Comedown Syndrome." He offers important points about Obama's actions vs. Obama's rhetoric and explains how that distinction will most likely be ignored by the Obamabots.

Barack or Deval?

I honestly don't think it is a big deal for politicians to use one-liners or themes from fellow politicians, etc. The problem that I see with Obama using Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's words is that Obama has built his campaign, well movement, on his ability to inspire the masses that will potentially incite change. He doesn't speak about policy specifics in his speeches, so one would think that he would have plenty of time to come up with his own material. His supporters cite his genuine inspirational nature (as opposed to that robot bitch, Hillary) as his major accomplishment / reason that he should be our president. Should his supporters excuse this (which they will), it is hypocritical (an overused term that I HATE to use). I have always credited Obama with his ability to inspire America, so this is a let down for me as well. Maybe we should credit Patrick with America's renewed hope. Just a thought.

Obama's Biggest Weakness

Obama's supporters must get it together and do some, oh I don't know, research on him. It is inevitable that the Republicans will jump all over his inexperience and empty rhetoric in the upcoming months should he become the nominee (which is looking inevitable at the moment). His supporters don't need to give them more ammo than they already have. GET EDUCATED ON YOUR MAN. Please take a few minutes to examine his website. Also, see my previous post about this phenomenon of ignorance among seemingly bright individuals.

The Candidate and His Supporters

The following criticism (which is very fair and necessary) of Obama and his supporters will be published in Centenary's weekly student publication, The Conglomerate, this Friday. Only those familiar with Centenary College of LA will understand the beginning, but just try to go with it. I also would like to thank Parker Jarnigan for inspiring me to come back to the blog.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that President Schwab announced that he intended to depart Centenary College. A new committee formed to assist the Board of Trustees in selecting his replacement (I don’t know if it works like this, but go with it). After months of searching, interviewing and discussing, the committee and board narrowed down their applicants to two. The decision won’t be easy. The incoming president has to address Centenary’s current problems: a poor financial situation, smaller than preferred student body, lower than preferred retention rate, an unpopular student life office, grade inflation, and the loss of political science professor Dr. Phil Barker to Austin College. The incoming president has to act to solve these problems in a timely and competent fashion to prevent the problems from worsening or stop new problems from emerging.

The first applicant is a personable, well-liked individual. He has an optimistic but vague vision for the school. At his previous administrative jobs, which are few, he kept a low profile. Not much was accomplished, but he certainly didn’t do a poor job. The second applicant is also personable, but not to the same degree as the first applicant. Some of her ideas and decisions have faced criticism, but her mistakes pale in comparison to her several years of administrative accomplishments and her dedication cannot be legitimately questioned. Her vision for Centenary is not steeped in flowery rhetoric like applicant #1, but it is filled with heaps of substance. Who would you choose as the replacement?

The purpose of this hypothetical should be clear at this point. Centenary is the U.S., Applicant #1 is Senator Obama, Applicant #2 is Senator Clinton, and President Schwab is President Bush (sorry President Schwab). While analogies are problematic, this one allows me to do three things. First, it allows me to get a jab in at Centenary’s administration. Second, I’m able to send a shout out to Dr. B. Finally, and more importantly, it places the ever contentious Democratic primary in a useful context. For the most part, middle to upper-middle class students who are insulated at a white, private, liberal arts college neither see nor are affected by the explicit effects of a war, a failing health care system and a grossly under funded public education system like other groups in society do. The effects of Centenary’s problems mentioned earlier (which are not hypothetical, by the way) are more evident and have a direct effect on us. It is my feeling that when faced with the choice between the applicants for the Centenary job, most students would prefer the second applicant.

The 2008 presidential election, which is infinitely more important than the status of Centenary, yields a different scenario. As people are dying, hungry, and illiterate in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, college students are flocking to applicant #1, not #2. The same lens used to view Centenary’s problems should be magnified by 100 and focused on the state of our union. College students, however, can afford to let Obama entrance them with his beautiful serenade, but most Americans need progress from day one to curb these social ills. This is reflected in voting trends during the primary season. A majority of college students and higher income Americans give their support to Obama, while the working class stands behind Clinton, which is significant because they will suffer the most if they have to wait for Obama to get his feet wet. It would be possible for me to write for days about Clinton’s résumé, but that usually falls on deaf ears. College students scoff at Clinton’s experience and accomplishments. They label her as the establishment candidate and speak of Obama as if he is a revolutionary storming the Pentagon— the U.S. version of France’s la Bastille. In reality, he is entrenched in the system that he claims to fight against. They think that he will ascend to the executive branch and flip a switch to solve complex problems. “Inspiration” and the prospect of “change” is why he’s their main presidential squeeze. Beyond an imagined “outsider” status, warm fuzzy feelings, and vague rhetoric, there’s not much to their support for him. A friend last week informed me that she had been “converted” to Team Obama. I politely asked her why. She gave the reflex-like response about “change” that is so typical among Obamabots. When pressed to go beyond her one-word explanation, she told me that I put her “on the spot” and that she would have to get back to me via e-mail. She never did. Another friend sent me the lyrics to James Brown’s “Funky President” with the caption, “This song by James Brown describes exactly why Barack Obama needs to be President.” Should Obama become the nominee, I wonder if he will invoke the Godfather of Soul in his debate against 3 term U.S. Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain. The last exchange with an Obama supporter that I’ll mention was more impressive, but still weak. His retort to Obama’s inexperience and lack of substance was an election reform advocated by Obama while he served in the Illinois legislature, better access to the media than other politicians and appeals for bipartisanship. My favorite reason given by my friend is that Obama “isn't fake” because he admitted that he used illegal drugs the right way, unlike Clinton who claims that he “didn’t inhale.” While my Obama experiences with my friends are not representative of all students, my hunch is that discussions with other students wouldn’t deviate from this trend.

Before I go too far, please don’t misunderstand my position in this 2008 election. As a good Democrat and progressive, I will enthusiastically support Obama should be become the candidate: the bumper sticker goes on my car (to the consternation of my father), I register with his campaign as a volunteer and I begin my liberal tirades against the prospect of a McCain presidency. Obama is a smart individual who loves America and wants to help average Joe and Jane. On the flip side, some decisions made or supported by Clinton do not sit well with me, but when someone has been active in public policy for as long as she has, no one will agree with every decision. Clinton and Obama will both enact progressive “change” to counter the destructive policies of W. and the Republican Party, but I am convinced that Clinton will be more effective and swift in these frightening times. I’m also not convinced that she lacks the ability to inspire. Her long history of advocacy on behalf of disadvantaged groups stirs inspiration in many, including me. Obama’s heart-felt appeals to our hopes and dreams are truly beautiful and the ability to inspire a nation is one of the greatest gifts one could possess, but Clinton put it best when she stated that “Speeches don’t put food on the table.”

Thoughts on Iraq

Last Wednesday a poli-sci friend, who happens to be an editor of the school paper, asked me to write an article concerning the third anniversary of the Iraq War. Here's what I said:

In an effort to conjure support to engage in a preemptive war with Iraq, President Bush and the usual suspects like Cheney and Condoleeza Rice told the American people that a war with Iraq was necessary because Saddam hadWMDs and he assisted bin Laden in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As a bonus,the administration told us that the war would be quick, relatively cheap,and the troops would be welcomed as liberators. As the Iraq debacle moves into its fourth year, it is painfully obvious that the administration’s claims were false. There was apparently no exit strategy, terrorist arenow pouring into Iraq, and the country is on the verge of civil war. The Iraq war has been handled incompetently and the administration lied.

Although the intricacies of the Iraq War are important, especially as more lives are taken with each passing day, it is far more useful to understand the Iraq War as symbolic of the foreign policy doctrine that has run amokin the White House. The Bush doctrine stipulates preemptivewar/peace-through-war and the ultimate goal of achieving Americanhegemony. The guiding principles of the administration’s decision toinvade Iraq were rooted in the belief that the U.S. should push for democratization in the Middle East. Of course, everyone wants a world where individuals can be protected by the securities that are provided by a democracy, but with Bush, there is a catch. The Bush doctrine advocates democratization brought about by the U.S. military, which will then allowthe U.S. to thwart any potential threat to its superior world power (American hegemony).

Students: For the 2008 presidential election, don’t let politicians running for president who adhere to the same foreign policy principles fool you. The U.S. did not invade Iraq in a good will effort to save the oppressed Iraqi citizens. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it was perceived as an avenue to further secure the U.S.’s dominant standing in the world.

James King
Centenary College Democrats, President
jking@centenary.edu

I didn't get any hate e-mail or nasty comments, which probably means that everyone who read the article completely agreed or changed their mind ;)

Meet Satan's Children

OK. I guess it has become apparent that I am not too fond of Bush and his followers, but I don't hate all Republicans. There are just a few, well hundreds, but whose counting? Here are some people who should be on the FBI's most wanted list:

Ann Coulter is seriously the most horrendous, evil person in the world. Check out the Adams apple. Maybe Ann Coulter is really Andy Coulter?

Sean Hannity is loud and stupid, although he kind of looks like my dad. Scary

There is no way this crazy is getting into heaven. Jerry "I can't stop eating" Falwell. I hope his wife leaves him for another woman.

Does he really need a caption? Rush Limbaugh shouldn't smoke because it causes cancer, but I guess that is my silver lining. I am kidding, I don't wish that illness on anyone. Rush, however, does.

Aww, look at the sweet, old grandpa. NOT! He is another crazy that convinces his moronic followers that gay people are going to take over the country and rape children. Say hello to James Dobson

This is the leader of the Senate Republicans, Bill Frist. He pretended to care about Terry Shiavo. He is buddies with Dobson.

Women, word of advice: If you need an abortion, don't go to this guy. Senator Ted Coburn (Oklahoma) thinks abortion doctors should be put to death. Another crazy in the Senate

I am pretty sure that if you don't detest Ken Star, you lose your license to be a Democrat. I need to check the rules on that.

There are tons more, but this will do for now. On a serious note: these people are hurting America. They stand for denying American citizens rights in the name of God and majority rule.

Can it get any worse?

Here's to our "moral" and "Christian" president:

Skewed tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest

The failure to protect our country from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Prior to 9/11, Richard Clarke was in the White House in which he constantly harped about terrorism, but Bush was obsessed with Iraq. Bob Woodward, Paul O'Neal, and Richard Clarke all confirm this.

The manipulation of 9/11 to garner political support for terrible policies. Why was Bush so popular after 9/11? He was popular because 3,000 people died. It doesn't make sense. Our country failed to protect people and we rally around the president as a hero?

The civil liberty-eroding Patriot Act

Guantanamo Bay

Lying to the American People to enter into a war that has benefited the U.S. in no way. It has alienated our global allies and resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of civilians and soldiers.

Abu Ghraib

Hurricane Katrina

Illegal Wiretapping

Port Security: Bush and all of the swooning Bushies often claim that he is "Strong on Terror!" Yet he didn't even KNOW that port security was being handed over to a company owned by a country that has been supportive of terrorism. When Bush did find out, he strongly supported it.

There is more, but I am getting frustrated typing this. Here is the sad part: I did this off the top of my head. Bush's failures are beginning to be such common knowledge, but I tried to be as least partisan as possible ;)

I find it so troubling that he was reelected. It says a lot about our country. We don't value anything but stopping gays from marrying and hijacking Jesus.

I hate the people in this country sometimes. I would rather shake hands with a convicted drug dealer than an Evangelical who is dumb enough to say that Bush represents Christian principles or that he is just in what he does because he is a "good" man.

Tom DeLay's Face Makes Me Cry

Here is the following letter DeLay sent to the House resigning his post as Republican Majority Leader. I wish I could truthfully say that the text in red is the Lord up above talking, but alas, it is just me. This letter is from CNN.com and it was posted January 7, 2006

Dear Colleague,

Today, I have asked Speaker Hastert to convene our conference for the purpose of electing a new majority leader, You asked? No way in hell did you want this, Republican leadership is getting ready for the midterm elections the position I have been honored to fill these past three years through the trust and confidence of our colleagues more like bribery, pressure, and threats.

During my time in Congress, I have always acted in an ethical manner within the rules of our body and the laws of our land um, can we say gerrymandering? your wife on the payroll? do I need to go any further?. I am fully confident time will bear this out when it is covered up by getting the right-wing radio and media to tout your innocense and sound off on how the liberals are all lying and trying to kill baby Jesus (ok, a little too far maybe).

However, we live in serious times and the United States House of Representatives must be focused on the job of protecting our nation and meeting the daily challenges facing the American people. History has proven that when House Republicans are united and focused, success follows The last couple of times House Republicans were truly united would have to be to vote for the disastrous war in Iraq, the civil liberty-eroding Patriot Act and to impeach a President for lying about sex... Talk about a cohesive body.

While we wage these important battles, I cannot allow our adversaries to divide and distract our attention. Mr. DeLay, you have always been at the forefront of dividing and distracting the public's and lawmaker's attention away from the very important issues I will continue to stand up for the issues I care so deeply about and work with you all on these priorities What issues? Stopping them there homosexuals from getting hitched? Tax cuts for the rich? I am constantly thankful for the support of my constituents in recent days as well as over the years they have allowed me to serve them. I will continue to work every day to fulfill their trust, and yours. Give me a break

Regards, Tom DeLay