Happy Independence Day!

2009 July 4
by Brian Krenz

I’ve been on vacation so I haven’t had much time to blog lately. But today deserves at least a passing comment.

American Flag 2Beyond the cookouts and the fireworks, this day serves (or should serve) as a reminder of the genius of this nation’s founders. They imagined a nation of laws in which individual people had the opportunity to achieve success and rise to prominence. They spoke of equality and freedom – not just with empty rhetoric, but with a force that still rings true today.

Every July 4th I make my family sit through a reading of the Declaration of Independence (and, if I’m lucky, some other prominent historical texts). The Declaration is short, but it contains more power, more emotion than its length would suggest. It perfectly sums up what America can be when she’s at her best. It is an ideal that we should increasingly strive more for in these difficult times. If you have the chance, and if your family or friends have the patience, take this opportunity to read this important document and think about its contribution to each of our lives and to the nation’s life.

And happy Fourth of July!

The text of the Declaration follows:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Share:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Franken Wins!

2009 June 30
by Brian Krenz

That took awhile.

Share:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Obama’s “Bipartisanship”?

2009 June 29
by Brian Krenz

On Sunday’s “This Week” David Axelrod made this statement about bipartisanship on healthcare legislation:

The bill will be bipartisan by definition.  The Senate health committee accepted 82 Republican amendments. Republican ideas will be included with this process, we hope it will come with Republican votes as well.

George Stephanopoulos responded by saying that the definition of bipartisanship seems to have changed.

While it’s true that bipartisanship has come to be measured in terms of how many opposition votes a bill gets, that definition is somewhat arbitrary.  Axelrod is correct that the healthcare bill has had Republican input.  To call the bill bipartisan is not a stretch by any means.

But the more important point is the potential signal that the White House won’t give in to Republican wishes for a watered-down, non-reforming piece of healthcare reform legislation.

If the White House has to change the meaning of “bipartisan,” they should go ahead and do it.  It’s over-rated anyway.

Share:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Some Good Points…

2009 June 26
by Brian Krenz

…that I haven’t had time to address.

Jabbering Stooge was quick to pick up on Fox News’ labeling Gov. Sanford as…what, any guesses?

repsac3 added a little postlet at the Zone the other day.  An excellent parallel to Obama’s handling of the Iran situation.

PoliShifter highlights the hypocrisy of those who whine about spending $2 ts on healthcare while never seeming to mind similar or more outrageous spending on things like war.

And Matt Osborne comments on the wave of non-stop Michael Jackson coverage – Anna Nicole Smith redux.  I’ll grant that his death is newsworthy, but not for more than a couple of hours.  This will last days.

Share:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Nate Silver Understands Healthcare

2009 June 23
by Brian Krenz

Nate Silver, god of electoral number-crunching, has a must-read post on the healthcare debate.  In it, he critiques an argument made by George Will (and many others) that the government can’t possibly provide a reasonable, cost-effective public option.  The excerpt below doesn’t do the piece justice, so be sure to check out the full post at FiveThirtyEight.

Insurance [...] is a volume business, the main requirements for which are that (1) you have a lot of money pooled together and that (2) you’ve been around for awhile.

CIGNA and Aetna have a lot of money pooled together and they’ve been around for awhile — but they don’t have as much money, nor have they been around as long, as the federal government. It’s possible, certainly, that the profit motive in the insurance industry has driven more innovation than we’re giving it credit for. But that isn’t my bet, and it isn’t George Will’s: There’s no obvious reason that the government couldn’t provide more for less. And if we are wrong, we would find out soon enough: if the public option can’t deliver more bang for the buck than private insurers, it wouldn’t gain much market share from them, and Will will have nothing to worry about.

What Will’s position reflects instead is ideology: who cares that the federal government could build a better mousetrap? They’re the government and that’s bad. His argument is really no more sophisticated than that. If a libertarian conservative wants to make this argument, more power to them, but they absolutely should not be turning around and suggesting that a public option would raise health care costs. They’re saying, rather, that they’re morally opposed to the cost savings that would ensue.

Quite frankly, I wouldn’t care if having a public healthcare option did cost an arm and a leg.  It is practically morally treasonable for the wealthiest nation on earth to not provide such basic benefits to its people.  I’m not sure how George would disagree with that, but I’m sure he’d find a way.

Share:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

President Obama Gets Tough on Iran and Jon Stewart Gets Tough on the Media

2009 June 23
by Brian Krenz

President Obama used much stronger language in denouncing the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown at a press conference this afternoon.

Here are some of his remarks from that press conference:

First, I’d like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

Again, given the changes on the ground in Iran, the continued shifting of Obama’s language seems very appropriate.  Will this placate the John McCains of Conservatopia?

In Iran-related news, Jon Stewart took the media to task last night in his usually diligent and humorous manner for their insistence on making the events in Iran be about the United States and President Obama.  I probably shouldn’t lump these things together, but here’s a clip nonetheless:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Crisis in Iran
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran
Share:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Iran Struggles

2009 June 21
by Brian Krenz

Update below.

It’s well known by now, but the Iranian regime has really stepped up the violence.  I keep thinking that we in the United States have no idea what they’re gong through in Iran right now.  I’ve linked to this before, but it deserves a more overt mention: Nico Pitney has been live-blogging the events in Iran since the get-go.  It’s a fantastic resource for keeping up-to-date with what’s happening on the ground.

Right now, things are scary.  Home invasions, beatings, murders…it’s impossible to overstate how brave these Iranian protesters are.

Yesterday, President Obama upped his rhetoric, speaking out more forcefully against the violence.  I wrote at The Swash Zone that Obama’s understated approach was the perfect one, but a lot has changed since then and the president’s more pointed language is welcomed by this blogger.

Here’s his statement:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

Update:

Fareed Zakaria had some very interesting things to say about Iran in an interview with CNN.  Excerpts:

CNN: As you’ve seen the situation in Iran develop over the last week, what are your thoughts?

Fareed Zakaria: One of the first things that strikes me is we are watching the fall of Islamic theocracy.

CNN: Do you mean you think the regime will fall?

Zakaria: No, I don’t mean the Iranian regime will fall soon. It may — I certainly hope it will — but repressive regimes can stick around for a long time. I mean that this is the end of the ideology that lay at the basis of the Iranian regime.

[...]

CNN: What should the United States do?

Zakaria: I would say continue what we have been doing. By reaching out to Iran, publicly and repeatedly, President Obama has made it extremely difficult for the Iranian regime to claim that they are battling an aggressive America bent on attacking Iran.

[...]

CNN: But shouldn’t the U.S. be more vocal in support for the Iranian protesters?

Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush’s cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush’s concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush’s basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.

Share:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • E-mail this story to a friend!