PoliticAL on Tap

Hello all and welcome to PoliticAL on Tap! First off I’d like to say thank you for even showing up, I hope we can make this a frequent haunt of yours. This is a new site and things are just getting up and running, so bare with us while we build the content up. Please sign up to day so that you can take part in upcoming discussions and also check out What is PoliticAL on Tap? and our Team bio pages. Check back soon for more (and better) content.

Got an update for you guys. In your manage screen (where you edit your profile), you are able to subscribe to the posts that you want. You’ll get an email each time a new post is put up in the categories you want. Check it out!

Sterling High
PoliticAL on Tap Fearless Leader and part-time stunt driver
sterhigh@politicalontap.com

As some of you have heard, there is a study that was released at the end of 2008 concerning the effectiveness of abstinence pledges. The study was conducted using around 900 students and it compared the individuals that took a pledge of abstinence against those that did not make a pledge. The study found that when it comes to rate of virginity there was no difference in the pledge and non-pledge groups. Also and perhaps more importantly, pledgers were less likely to use birth control by a 10% margin.

What does this mean? Well, to me it’s just more support for my argument that the abstinence only culture the social conservatives are trying to propagate is a farce. The people who advocate this head-in-the-sand type of education do a great disservice to the kids themselves and this country as a whole. They insist on facts that are not true, demand actions that lead to higher rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease and push kids toward a life of confusion and more than likely bad choices. 

I do not dispute that abstinence should be taught and encouraged, because it should be part of a comprehensive sexual education program. But, I have never been an advocate for abstinence only programs and this recent study further reinforces my stance. Find out more about this story at Yahoo News.

Sterling

PS: Check out Think Progress’ on Mississippi having the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation. What do they teach? De Facto abstinence only education. Thank you social conservatives for being the problem and not the solution.

I have been wanting to say something about the recent happenings in Illinois concerning the Blagojevich Senate seat appointment, but have been lacking in the time to do it. Hopefully this doesn’t come across as too little too late on my part. My main point in this blog is that because of Blagojevich’s actions, the Democrats don’t have a solution that they can win with. I think recently the Senate leadership has chosen a prudent middle path and in my opinion it is close to the only politically viable decision. 

Before I break into the two extremes of what could have happened, let me say that I think that Blagojevich is completely selfish in his actions when it comes to this. He is trying to present himself as business as usual, but it is to the detriment of the Democratic party as a whole and the Senate leadership in particular. He has stuck Harry Reid with a nuclear-hot potato that Reed can’t really do anything positive with.

If Blagojevich had any class and had the gumption to do the right thing, he would realize that especially on this issue, he should defer. He is in fact being investigated for selling the Senate seat and it is in my opinion not based on shaky evidence. To me, the voice recording of him and his wife is quite graphic, very incriminating and extremely saddening. So with that out of the way, lets look at the stellar choices that Ole Blago handed Harry Reid:

1) If Reid allows the seat to be filled then it will always be looked at as tainted fruit by every person on the Hill. It will also be a lasting reminder of the corruption of Blagojevich and Democrats by proxy. The person in the seat will not be treated as equal and that is not fair to the person appointed, nor the people of Illinois who deserve a full complement of Senators in good standing.

2) Reid could flat out deny the appointment. This could lead to a very nasty fight amongst Democrats. In-fights are never good. This scenario reminds me of the stance that if you get into an argument with an idiot, people start losing track of which one is the idiot. Another bad point of this choice is that technically Blago still has the power to appoint someone and that particular someone will probably be qualified to take the seat and stopping him from taking the seat could come across as Democrats stopping someone from getting what they are legally entitled to. 

These were the extremes that all other choices fell between. Reid chose a good middle ground in my opinion of basically allowing him an office and small staff and access to the Senate floor, but no vote. And thank god someone in Illinois has half a brain. I am referring to the Illinois SoS refusing to endorse the appointment, which is needed by law to fulfill the appointment. That move took a lot of the pressure off of the Senate leadership. 

One thing that you probably noticed I didn’t include was the actual person who was appointed by Blago: Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris. I left him out because the choice wasn’t about him and it never should be about the person caught in the middle of this. I personally feel extremely bad for Burris who is from what I have read a good public servant and is now probably tainted goods.

So lets all give Rod Blagojevich a big round of applause for being a cowardly, selfish human being that couldn’t be “man” enough to do the right thing by not appointing someone. Thank you Blago for giving the Democratic party a choice between worse and worse.

Sterling

Happy New Year folks! I apologize about my absence the past few weeks. The holiday season is always crazy and hopefully I can get back on here in a more regular fashion after the new year gets up and running. But I just wanted to share an experience that I had today. It was probably one of the most emotional and inspiring experiences of my life. It could even be considered a religious experience by some.

Some background: I am up here in DC visiting my fellow PoliticAL on Tap contributor Courtney Evans. We went site seeing today and the number one place to visit for us at least was the Library of Congress. This is a place that we have both talked about for many years as one of the coolest places in the US, not just because it is physically a beautiful place, but also because it is an institution so rich in history and significance.

We both walked into the main hall and were immediately in awe of the grandeur of the place. There was not one inch in there that was not intricately painted, masterfully sculpted or adorned with a poignant quote. Not to mention the stained glass ceiling and the view DC itself. Gorgeous. It would take me many hours to soak it all in! And that’s just the main hall.

During my short trip there I was also able to observe the main reading room, which I plan on getting into when I get my library card (yes to the Library of Congress, how cool?). Again, the visuals were awesome. But then, as I was drifting from one cool exhibit to another, I looked up and there it was. The whole basis for the Library of Congress: Thomas Jefferson’s personal collection.

A chill literally went down my spine when I saw the collection. And as I walked into the room with them I couldn’t help but get a little emotional. I was in the presence of books that were owned and read by one of my personal heroes, not to mention one of the best statesmen and minds this country has ever seen. The collection of books that I was mere inches from helped to guide the formation of our country via one of it’s greatest fathers.

I looked through the books to find volumes that I had read in school and for leisure. Jefferson had Hobbes, Kant, More, the list goes on and on. There was a bit of everything from Korans all the way to maritime law. I have never wanted to just dwell in a place and soak in the experience more than I did then. It’s just amazing that the books used to shape our country are the same that I have read and will read in my lifetime. To be that close to greatness through knowledge is a very powerful feeling. Almost makes you feel like you can do anything.

The Library of Congress will definitely be a haunt of mine and I suggest that anyone who is up this way stop by and experience it.

Sterling

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in favor of three former detainees from Guantanamo Bay. The court stated that since the Boumediene v. Bush decision the three British citizens had a right to have their case heard by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Some Background: The three Brits were held at GTMO and they state that they were tortured and subjected to religious persecution. They filed for suit against Rumsfeld and the case was dismissed on appeal based on the fact that the Brits had no right to file. More recently some Bosnian citizens who were detained and held at GTMO took their case against Bush up the court chained, eventually getting ruled on by the Supreme Court in favor of the Bosnians. This brought back life into the Brits case because SCOTUS ruled that the individuals there DO have a right to file cases in US courts. 

Here’s links to the NY Times article and a review of the Brits case.

My thoughts: 1) I “know” these Brits. I have met them and talked with them. If I’m not mistaken these are the famous Tipton Trio. Also, keeping in mind that I don’t know how much I can say, these guys were, in my experience with them, treated far better than any other detainee. That being said, I don’t know what happened when I wasn’t around so I am not saying they are lying either. 

2) This case isn’t about their claims of torture and persecution, it’s bigger than that. This is just reinforcing the fact that our own Supreme Court has ruled that the people detained in Cuba have habeas corpus rights. This means that they are able to challenge their detention in US courts. 

It’s only right that people who have been denied fundamental human rights finally get their day in court. You know the Bush administration could have handled this situation in a better manner than to just throw those taken off the battlefield into a legal black hole and hope that nothing comes out. To that I say “Time brings all things to light…I trust it is so.”

Sterling

So I’m sure all of you have heard about the shoe incident involving President Bush, an iraqi journalist and the iraqi’s shoes. Quick recap: Bush was with Maliki giving a press conference in Iraq when an iraqi journalist shouted at Bush in Arabic and then threw his shoes at Bush, narrowly missing him. 

Now don’t get me wrong, this was quite comical to look at and I got a good laugh out of it. Also, it really couldn’t have happened to a more appropriate person. But lets look it this another way:

Yes Bush has been the worst President (especially when dealing with foreign policy) that we’ve had since I can remember. Yes because of this war tens of thousands of Iraqis have died and millions more have had to endure the unendurable. Yes Bush is a symbol for all the hatred and anger that comes from that war. 

However, Bush is still the sitting President of this country. Bush still (shudder) commands our armed forces. Bush is still a figure head for America. Where I’m leading with this is simple: I can talk about my momma, but you can’t talk about my momma.

Taking cue from the inquisitive look on your face I will explain. It’s perfectly okay for you to criticize your family members but when someone else criticizes them it just doesn’t sit well with you. I guess it stems from the fact that people want to protect their own and take care of their own short comings. Also people get defensive when outsiders try to tell them what to do or how wrong they are. It’s just human nature.

So I will repeat the phrase with a few changes: I can talk about my president, but you can’t talk about my president. Then again, as I sit here writing this I am thinking more and more that maybe the Iraqis have much more justification to throw shoes at Bush than any American ever will. 

Sterling

Mike Griffin, the head of NASA, has been in the headlines lately about his efforts to tightly control that agency’s transition. Supposedly he is not cooperating the way he should and actually has instructed employees of the agency to follow a script when discussing NASA projects to the transition team. He even went so far as to call Lori Garver, the transition teams leader, “not qualified” to review his programs. 

Griffin was brought in a few years ago by Bush to develop a new program that would return humans to the moon. This project is called “Constellation” and is currently behind schedule and over budget. You can read more about the transition drama at the Orlando Sentinel.

What this transitionary trouble that Griffin is causing means to Huntsville is unclear, but it could be devastating. Marshal Space Flight Center is helping to develop the Ares program, which is the replacement for the shuttle. I don’t think it is directly involved in the Constellation program, but either way, programs are probably going to be cut, scaled back or given less funding in the future and it will certainly effect Huntsville. I also don’t think Griffin is helping NASA’s case with this childish “my toy” attitude he is giving to the transition team. 

Sterling

Before the civil rights movement and laws were enacted to prevent it, many black voters were disenfranchised from voting in a variety of ways. Sometimes tests of general US history were given before each ballot. This was done because most blacks back in that time were illiterate or not educated and so would therefor fail, losing the ability to vote.

Other methods designed to keep blacks from voting included intimidation, one of the most famous examples being dogs at the front of polling places. When a white person would walk up the dogs would sit quietly, but when a black person walked up the dogs were given a signal and would start barking and snarling. The effect was that the blacks would be too scared to vote.

These practices all meant one thing: Yes blacks had the right to vote, but they definitely had restrictions and obstacles and hardships they had to get past in order to do so. This greatly diminished the black population from participating, if they chose to do so, in the democratic process. 

Fortunate for blacks in particular and America in general these particular practices are no more. But there is another right that is being usurped by such tactics? The right: Choice. The snarling dog: in this particular case, South Dakotas recent abortion laws. Lets discuss.

I remember hearing about South Dakota pushing through a rather draconian set of abortion laws that severely restricted womens choices when it came to reproductive healthcare. I was getting out of politics at the time and so didn’t really read too much about it. But today I was reading the current issue of Newsweek and spotted an article about South Dakotas abortion laws. 

Essentially it is this: Each doctor that is involved in an abortion procedure is bound by law to read certain passages verbatim to the woman involved. Some of the things that the doctor has to read to them is that they are about to “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being” that the mother has an “existing relationship” with. They also have to inform these women that women who have abortions are at a higher risk for suicidal thoughts and suicide. Not only that, the women involved have to sign each and every page that is being read to them. Wow! 

Furthermore, the law is so ambiguous that it does not define what an abortion is. This leaves the door wide open to interpretation by pretty much anybody involved in women’s healthcare. I know someone who thinks that taking birth control pills is a form of an abortion because it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching. So for example, the neighborhood pharmacist could in theory subject a woman to this.

South Dakota is forcing doctors to not only use scare tactics to try and shame and frighten women out of getting an abortion, but they are also forcing doctors to LIE about medical and psychological facts! What I mean is this: A recent Johns Hopkins University study found that women who had abortions were no different in terms of psychological health from those who have not. They are making doctors give false information to their patients, all for ideology. 

Also remember that a recently enacted US law allows healthcare workers to deny women reproductive healthcare (ie sell birth control) if they are religiously or ethically opposed to such practices. The right knows that it cannot overturn the right of a woman to choose so they are slowly chipping away at a woman’s ability to choose. 

I could go on and on and on about this subject, but I won’t. I will just relate past occurrences with recent events: That is that though a woman still has the ultimate right to choose her path of reproductive healthcare, there certainly are some snarling dogs placed along the way.

Sterling

I just so happen to love the West Wing TV series. I am sure that many who read this also enjoyed watching such a well thought out and cleverly produced show. Where I am going with this is the fact that I just realized something wonderful and it all started while watching the first season of the West Wing. Prepare yourself for a rant, as well.

Somewhere near the end of season one Martin Sheen (who plays the President) was giving a townhall type address at a university somewhere in Virginia. He was answering questions with thoughtful and quite cerebral answers using historical examples and philosophical concepts. And I was thinking to myself how awesome it would be to have an intelligent person such as Sheen in the White House. One who strives to learn more about the world around them. One who can understand and actualize complex theory and concepts. One who is an intellectual. 

I was also thinking that never in my lifetime have we had an intellectual president. I was born during the Reagan years, he could speak quite well but was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Then came Bush 41 who was a solid thinker but not just not really anything special in terms of intellect. Clinton came along and though he was a great orator, I wouldn’t really consider him an intellectual.

Now we have Bush Jr., for whom I can’t even begin to describe the lack of interest he has in the world around him. He just really doesn’t have any desire to expand his worldly knowledge. He is nothing less than an embarrassment to this country in my opinion. If he is Americas face to the world, then we are sorely misrepresented. 

This also brings to question of why Bush got elected and re-elected (aside from underhanded campaign tactics)? Lets face it, because of personal bias and the blathering of the right-wing media a lot of people in this country have not only turned away from those who are intellectual, they actively oppose them in all that they do. No longer is it okay to really think critically about the world around them. If you don’t accept things the way that they are presented then you are shunned. Questioning and learning and critically thinking are taboo in this country and look where it has gotten us.

We would rather sit on our rears and let the TV bathe us in it’s mind-numbing light all day than pick up a book. We would rather be spoon fed our opinion from talking-heads than study the topic ourselves. At the same time that the age of information is dawning the age of scholastic curiosity is ending. It’s ludicrous and it just doesn’t make sense to me. 

So what is so wonderful, you may ask?

For the first time in at least 28 years, we WILL have someone who is an intellectual, who is learned and who does care about learning more of the world around them. He is even a constitutional scholar! Seriously, in terms of an intelligent president, you can’t ask for much more and I am glad for it. So maybe the drive for knowledge isn’t totally dead.

And perhaps one day I can turn on my TV and see a president that is answering questions with rational and complex answers and not have to be disappointed by the rolling of the credits. Perhaps that day will be soon. 

Sterling

Recently, as most of you know, there have been two prominent Democrats to get in a lot of trouble over corruption charges. The two that I am talking about are Rep. William Jefferson from Louisiana and Governor Rod Blagojevich from Illinois. The charges against them range from taking bribery in the amount of $100,000 to soliciting people to buy a Senate seat. My thoughts are this: I don’t want corruption no matter where it lurks, especially in the Democratic Party.

I cannot stand to see someone who has been given a public trust to uphold the law and execute their duties in an ethical manner just slap the people of their district in the face! It really does piss me off. And to make it worse, not only will every right-wing blow hard use these cases as “proof” of Democratic corruption, but the average voter and citizen will take this to heart, too.

I am not saying that these individuals are guilty, that is for a jury to decide. But if they are found guilty, then they deserve exactly what punishment is dealt to them. There are few professions that I expect to maintain ethical standards and elected office is one of them. Yes it could be considered naive, but I cannot allow myself to just accept the notion that corruption and public service go hand in hand. I can’t write off the desire to expect more out of people who have been given the peoples trust.

Just my thoughts.

Sterling