The Republican primary contestants and some leaders in the Catholic Church claim that the provision requiring religious insitutions who offer healthcare must include coverage for birth control is a violation of religious freedom. The Democratic pundits and several women's groups claim it is a violation of womens' ability to have the personal liberty to guide their reproductive health. They are both wrong.
Health care and health care providers have a sacred duty to provide health care to those they represent. Religious health care providers can choose not to work in heath care sectors which offer services they do not believe in.
Consumers of health care plans can choose not to receive services they do not believe in. Catholic women do not have to take birth control pills even if their insurance plan will pay for them. Just as catholic men do not have to purchase condoms in a drug store if they have a religious objection.
Following the logic of those that cry religious freedom is attacked because an option is made available, drug stores should not be allowed to sell condoms. But what about the religious freedom of those that do not have a moral opposition to birth control?
Following the logic of those that claim this provision restricts womens' ability to choose what is best for their reproductive care, then that assumes all women have an inability to wisely choose where they receive their health care.
An independent solution realizes why we have a separation of church doctrine and state policy. It also realizes that individuals ultimately have the personal ability to make their own choices. The outcome of birth control is that unwanted pregnancies are prevented. The ultimate birth control, according to many religious beliefs (and in practical reality) is abstinance. Objective data shows abstinance only programs in the public sector are inneffective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. The personal teaching of abstinance to family members may be more effective. Health Care policy is, and should remain a public sector decision. How parents weave their religious beliefs into what they teach their children should remain a private matter.
For those that choose birth control, unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates will be lower. This is a policy result that those that argue either position on this topic can be happy about.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Friday, March 04, 2011
Jack Kelly is Wrong
Jack Kelly's Jan. 3 column ("Blowing Up Liberal Shibboleths") is typical of his style and what has come to dominate opinion pieces: a distortion of facts for partisan bickering. Mr. Kelly, like writers on both sides, offers selective information to support his opinion, rather than arriving at his conclusion after reviewing the information.
He describes the Transportation Security Administration as a "bumbling empire" when it successfully assists 10 million commercial flights a year to operate safely in the United States. He then opines that "hurting the feelings of Muslims" affects President Barack Obama's security policies. Mr. Kelly should also know that of the 1 billion people who practice the Islamic faith, fewer than 1 percent are involved in active radical jihadist activities.
What Mr. Kelly really exposed is not a weakness in Mr. Obama's approach, or an issue with Islam, but the weakness of his writing. Why is someone who distorts facts given space in the Post-Gazette?
He describes the Transportation Security Administration as a "bumbling empire" when it successfully assists 10 million commercial flights a year to operate safely in the United States. He then opines that "hurting the feelings of Muslims" affects President Barack Obama's security policies. Mr. Kelly should also know that of the 1 billion people who practice the Islamic faith, fewer than 1 percent are involved in active radical jihadist activities.
What Mr. Kelly really exposed is not a weakness in Mr. Obama's approach, or an issue with Islam, but the weakness of his writing. Why is someone who distorts facts given space in the Post-Gazette?
URA?
The report by Mark Belko about the URA's involvement in the Strip District is concerning ("URA Approves Deal for Strip Development," March 12).
While it is a laudable goal to improve the area with recreational riverfront opportunities, it makes no sense not to renew the agreements with current occupants of the produce terminal. The URA's mission includes, "creating jobs ... and working with businesses."
So why would businesses that are staples of the area be relocated for what the mayor's office feels are "the highest and best use" of their space?
The mayor, Sen. Jim Ferlo and the URA should keep their plans away from successful businesses and instead grant the terminal a historic designation. The Strip should look like Pittsburgh, not a "redeveloped" common area with no unique character.
While it is a laudable goal to improve the area with recreational riverfront opportunities, it makes no sense not to renew the agreements with current occupants of the produce terminal. The URA's mission includes, "creating jobs ... and working with businesses."
So why would businesses that are staples of the area be relocated for what the mayor's office feels are "the highest and best use" of their space?
The mayor, Sen. Jim Ferlo and the URA should keep their plans away from successful businesses and instead grant the terminal a historic designation. The Strip should look like Pittsburgh, not a "redeveloped" common area with no unique character.
Jack Kelly is Wrong
Jack Kelly is at it again, writing a column of distortions and half-truths. He claims the president is "in bed with big oil" ("Sloth in Charge," May 30). However, President Barack Obama's contributions from employees of oil companies represented only 1
10,000th of his campaign donations. Mr. Kelly also claims the federal government "dithered" in construction of berms in the gulf. The delay came while Mr. Obama demanded BP fund the berms, and they eventually provided money in escrow for the project — a project that many scientists believe will not be effective.
Finally, Mr. Kelly's implication that federal regulators' poor response is Mr. Obama's fault ignores history. The agency charged with oversight of oil exploration was gutted by the Bush administration. In 2005 shortly after an energy summit with Dick Cheney at the White House, a provision in a defense appropriations bill allowed off-shore drilling to be regulated, in effect, by the oil companies themselves. This lack of regulatory oversight represents another problem Mr. Obama inherited from a former administration truly "in bed" with big oil.
Mr. Kelly is just as delusional as those who allow deep-water drilling to continue without a reasonable plan to deal with these inevitable disasters.
10,000th of his campaign donations. Mr. Kelly also claims the federal government "dithered" in construction of berms in the gulf. The delay came while Mr. Obama demanded BP fund the berms, and they eventually provided money in escrow for the project — a project that many scientists believe will not be effective.
Finally, Mr. Kelly's implication that federal regulators' poor response is Mr. Obama's fault ignores history. The agency charged with oversight of oil exploration was gutted by the Bush administration. In 2005 shortly after an energy summit with Dick Cheney at the White House, a provision in a defense appropriations bill allowed off-shore drilling to be regulated, in effect, by the oil companies themselves. This lack of regulatory oversight represents another problem Mr. Obama inherited from a former administration truly "in bed" with big oil.
Mr. Kelly is just as delusional as those who allow deep-water drilling to continue without a reasonable plan to deal with these inevitable disasters.
DDT
DDT is not safe
Letter writer Don Adler misrepresents the environmental accomplishments of Rachel Carson and misinforms readers about the spread of malaria ("Blame Rachel," July 31). DDT, or dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is a neurotoxin that has been shown to kill animals and disrupt the food chain (thereby potentially increasing insect populations). It is still in use today but has failed to eradicate malaria in Africa.
One reason is that those who succumb to its effects are often poor and live in small shacks or huts near pools of stagnant water and lack access to sanitation and clean drinking water. The World Health Organization has also linked the malarial spread to "rapidly spreading resistance to antimalarial drugs, climatic changes and population movements."
The "DDT is safe" chorus has unfortunately found its way into some media outlets that choose to rehash the rantings of a few lone bloggers.
To control malaria, policies are needed to lift people out of poverty, provide immunizations and proper childhood nutrition, limit the effects of climate change and provide clean water sources to people regardless of their economic status. These are all causes of the modern environmental movement championed by Rachel Carson.
Thanks, Rachel!
Letter writer Don Adler misrepresents the environmental accomplishments of Rachel Carson and misinforms readers about the spread of malaria ("Blame Rachel," July 31). DDT, or dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is a neurotoxin that has been shown to kill animals and disrupt the food chain (thereby potentially increasing insect populations). It is still in use today but has failed to eradicate malaria in Africa.
One reason is that those who succumb to its effects are often poor and live in small shacks or huts near pools of stagnant water and lack access to sanitation and clean drinking water. The World Health Organization has also linked the malarial spread to "rapidly spreading resistance to antimalarial drugs, climatic changes and population movements."
The "DDT is safe" chorus has unfortunately found its way into some media outlets that choose to rehash the rantings of a few lone bloggers.
To control malaria, policies are needed to lift people out of poverty, provide immunizations and proper childhood nutrition, limit the effects of climate change and provide clean water sources to people regardless of their economic status. These are all causes of the modern environmental movement championed by Rachel Carson.
Thanks, Rachel!
League of Women Voters Rocks
Thank you, league
I want to show support for The League of Women voters and their continued efforts to allow voters to hear candidates in a public forum prior to casting their votes ("Pledge Incites Peters Debate," Oct. 28). The league is nonpartisan and hosts many debates. It has rules so that the people who come to the debate hear issues and not talking points.
Candidates should respect the rules (which they have agreed upon in advance) and each other even when their positions differ. The audience should do the same. Standing up and shouting that the debate is "un-American" or accusing the moderator of being "agenda-driven" serves no purpose and further shows a lack of knowledge of what the league does. I would suggest that holding a debate is not "unpatriotic," but using a debate in an attempt to create a phony controversy is.
STEVE KARASForest Hills
I want to show support for The League of Women voters and their continued efforts to allow voters to hear candidates in a public forum prior to casting their votes ("Pledge Incites Peters Debate," Oct. 28). The league is nonpartisan and hosts many debates. It has rules so that the people who come to the debate hear issues and not talking points.
Candidates should respect the rules (which they have agreed upon in advance) and each other even when their positions differ. The audience should do the same. Standing up and shouting that the debate is "un-American" or accusing the moderator of being "agenda-driven" serves no purpose and further shows a lack of knowledge of what the league does. I would suggest that holding a debate is not "unpatriotic," but using a debate in an attempt to create a phony controversy is.
STEVE KARASForest Hills
Jack Kelly is Wrong Again
Jack Kelly's Feb. 13 column ("Beware the Muslim Brotherhood") is another directly slanted commentary that completely misses the mark. He claims President Barack Obama has been "caught ... by surprise" by the events in Egypt and has given mixed signals. Mr. Kelly must not have heard the president's Cairo speech or his inaugural address, in which he said dictators who "cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent" are "on the wrong side of history."
What Mr. Kelly fails to understand is something that President Obama does understand: People in the Middle East can retake their country without the direct intervention of the United States, or the forceable imposition of what Mr. Kelly calls "Western-style democracy." Mr. Kelly was a cheerleader for the Iraq War, in the name of freedom, which left hundreds of thousands dead.
However, it is perplexing that now he seems deeply concerned when a peaceful, intrinsic protest removes a dictator without the cost and lives that were required in Iraq. Mr. Kelly should remember the argument from the prior administration whose military intervention, it was thought, would produce a cascade of democracy in the Middle East. What is happening now, in a mostly peaceful manner, may actually achieve that goal.
What Mr. Kelly fails to understand is something that President Obama does understand: People in the Middle East can retake their country without the direct intervention of the United States, or the forceable imposition of what Mr. Kelly calls "Western-style democracy." Mr. Kelly was a cheerleader for the Iraq War, in the name of freedom, which left hundreds of thousands dead.
However, it is perplexing that now he seems deeply concerned when a peaceful, intrinsic protest removes a dictator without the cost and lives that were required in Iraq. Mr. Kelly should remember the argument from the prior administration whose military intervention, it was thought, would produce a cascade of democracy in the Middle East. What is happening now, in a mostly peaceful manner, may actually achieve that goal.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Post Gazette LTE
Braddock progress
Your Monday piece about Braddock Mayor John Fetterman was timely considering the upcoming primary ("Braddock Mayor Has His Critics," May 4). As a council member of a neighboring municipality I would like to report on some changes I have noticed in Braddock since Mayor Fetterman's arrival.
Obvious aesthetic changes include: basketball courts, murals, re-paved roads, trees, an urban garden, UPMC additions, new housing and several revitalized buildings on historic Library Street. Practical additions have included a stronger youth program, a jobs center, a vegetable-based fuel business, a district art show, a farmer's market, creative artists space and the return of the annual street fair.
While it is true that many people have worked to keep Braddock viable since the loss of the steel industry and no one disputes that, Mayor Fetterman's unique character and dedication have created a buzz that has generated grants for the town, politicians' attention and movement on the much-delayed neighboring Carrie Furnace development and Rankin bridge repairs next to the popular Waterfront.
The residents of Braddock would be well-served to embrace the change that their mayor has helped them realize and work with him to continue to move their neighborhood forward.
Your Monday piece about Braddock Mayor John Fetterman was timely considering the upcoming primary ("Braddock Mayor Has His Critics," May 4). As a council member of a neighboring municipality I would like to report on some changes I have noticed in Braddock since Mayor Fetterman's arrival.
Obvious aesthetic changes include: basketball courts, murals, re-paved roads, trees, an urban garden, UPMC additions, new housing and several revitalized buildings on historic Library Street. Practical additions have included a stronger youth program, a jobs center, a vegetable-based fuel business, a district art show, a farmer's market, creative artists space and the return of the annual street fair.
While it is true that many people have worked to keep Braddock viable since the loss of the steel industry and no one disputes that, Mayor Fetterman's unique character and dedication have created a buzz that has generated grants for the town, politicians' attention and movement on the much-delayed neighboring Carrie Furnace development and Rankin bridge repairs next to the popular Waterfront.
The residents of Braddock would be well-served to embrace the change that their mayor has helped them realize and work with him to continue to move their neighborhood forward.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Too much in our stuff.
Driving today I noticed that even though a lot of cars look exactly the same, you can only tell what features they have if you take the time to examine the letters after their names. As the letters change you get more stuff. Stuff like better AC, a bigger engine, sun roof, and leather seats. For example, the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series. Each of them look the same to me, but there are even more combination of letters on those. The i, the ix, and the l. The letters seem to change every year. At some point it was the S, IS, and the M. As the letters change, the prices go up. The BMW's are dependable cars and get you where you are going, exactly what a car is supposed to do. But they also have features such as leather heated or cooled seats, heated steering wheel, navigation systems, DVD screens with headphones, satellite radio, hands free phones, heated and or cooled cup holders, and much more. Their maximum speeds are more than twice the legal limit and they poses enough horse power to merge into any possible traffic scenario. I wondered why people had to advertise what type of car they were driving, and how what was on the outside even mattered when you are inside driving it? Why do you need to drive a race car to work? Does anyone need that much horsepower to pick up some takeout? Are letters on the back of our cars the new status symbol or do we simply buy more car than we need? Do we buy more of everything we need? Only the blind should qualify for an 80 inch plasma TV. Who needs surround sound? Do we really need to be surrounded with anything? Why am I paying for 110 cable channels? I couldn't get it out of my mind...so I came home and pulled out my DELL 6000 computer with Windows XP, game, video, camera, and multiple other programs I have never opened...and used it for word processing. Then hopped on my titanium framed racing bike, which is held up by a stationary trainer and thought some more.
Post Gazette LTE
Controlling forces
The Dec. 17 editorial "Drilled" falsely claims in the subhead that "Consumers Will Pay for Lack of Oil Exploration." The editorial board is assuming that gas prices are based on supply and demand. They are not. Gas prices are manipulated by multinational oil companies and OPEC.
The economics of oil is not based on a supply-and-demand model. And the true economic, public health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are not included in the price. Unless we move to renewable sources, such as solar, the price of which typically goes down as demand for its use increases, we will continue to see energy and gas prices that are controlled by sources other than the free market.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Post Gazette LTE
This election must be about addressing the issues
David M. Shribman's Sept. 14 column, "A Wide Open Election," may be factually accurate, but it is not what the voters want or need to hear. Since the nominees of each party have been selected, we continue to hear about strategy and personality and not issues.
Our unemployment rate is now just over 6 percent. Worker productivity continues to rise, but wages are stagnant and the price of food, gasoline and daily essentials are rising. This means that although the average American is working harder, he or she is able to afford less. The economy is not working for many Americans.
The war in Iraq continues, and the war in Afghanistan grinds forward with its deadliest month since its start. The credit crisis continues to grow as Freddie and Fannie, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and now potentially AIG have crumbled. The majority of voters do not want our government to bail out large companies or provide the individual with a handout, but they do expect a functioning government to proactively address these issues.
It is not liberal bias to say that during the past eight years the administration has failed to do so. It is certainly more important to remind voters of these facts and speak to the issues than to concentrate on the political spectacle.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
It's Joe
Everyone will have a say on what the meaning of Obama picking Joe Biden is and what the impact will be on the election. How can the change candidate pick a Washington insider? Why didn't he pick Hillary? Is he admitting his foreign policy weakness? Did he cave to the Washington insiders? Is Biden like Cheney? Is he giving up on Virginia? Why didn't he really pick someone unique? And it will go on and on and on and on...
The reality is VP picks just don't matter. They never have swayed any presidential race, ever. What will matter is how Obama uses Biden. He can have Biden respond to the attacks from McCain. He can have Biden do the attacking. Either way the choice of Biden doesn't really matter, but of course, I have to have my say. I think it brings into focus the clear policy choices in this election: the economy, jobs, and Iraq.
Biden's age, Washington experience, and ties to his son's lobbying firms takes all of theose arguments off the table. They did not seem to be allowing Obama to surge ahead of McCain even though his message of change may have secured him the democratic nomination. The age of Biden and McCain may bring Obama some older voters, but it takes McCain's age off the table. Obama's lack of Washington experience can't be used against the ticket, because Biden brings that time. McCain's lobbyist ties can't be used against him because Biden, after so many DC years, no doubt has the same ties. It also will defuse the race card. Biden's off color comment, although not intentional, (clean and neat quote) may be replayed. Obama can show that he can rise above it and even, possibly, attract some white voters who have issue with his race.
Since all of these superficial items are off the table, since those in glass houses should not throw stones, what will we talk about? Issues? I think that is waht Obama is hoping. For in the category of issues important to the American voter, the average voter, the one that has not had the time to consider who they are going to voter for, Obama will win. He will win on the economy: more McCain / Bush trickle down, supply side talking points will be dead in the water. The argument that McCain / Bush have generated that freeing big business increases jobs does not hold water when a voter's job has been sent to Mexico. And finally, people are just tired of Iraq. The majority of Americans think it was a bad idea, think we should get out, and realize we were all fooled into going there in the first place.
Will the trivial be ignored and the issues actually argued? I believe that is Obama's hope and hope is a powerful thing.
The reality is VP picks just don't matter. They never have swayed any presidential race, ever. What will matter is how Obama uses Biden. He can have Biden respond to the attacks from McCain. He can have Biden do the attacking. Either way the choice of Biden doesn't really matter, but of course, I have to have my say. I think it brings into focus the clear policy choices in this election: the economy, jobs, and Iraq.
Biden's age, Washington experience, and ties to his son's lobbying firms takes all of theose arguments off the table. They did not seem to be allowing Obama to surge ahead of McCain even though his message of change may have secured him the democratic nomination. The age of Biden and McCain may bring Obama some older voters, but it takes McCain's age off the table. Obama's lack of Washington experience can't be used against the ticket, because Biden brings that time. McCain's lobbyist ties can't be used against him because Biden, after so many DC years, no doubt has the same ties. It also will defuse the race card. Biden's off color comment, although not intentional, (clean and neat quote) may be replayed. Obama can show that he can rise above it and even, possibly, attract some white voters who have issue with his race.
Since all of these superficial items are off the table, since those in glass houses should not throw stones, what will we talk about? Issues? I think that is waht Obama is hoping. For in the category of issues important to the American voter, the average voter, the one that has not had the time to consider who they are going to voter for, Obama will win. He will win on the economy: more McCain / Bush trickle down, supply side talking points will be dead in the water. The argument that McCain / Bush have generated that freeing big business increases jobs does not hold water when a voter's job has been sent to Mexico. And finally, people are just tired of Iraq. The majority of Americans think it was a bad idea, think we should get out, and realize we were all fooled into going there in the first place.
Will the trivial be ignored and the issues actually argued? I believe that is Obama's hope and hope is a powerful thing.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
How can Obama the "Change" candidate pick Hillary?
In one day the notion that Hillary Clinton will be Barack's running mate has gone from "a complete inacuracy" from Terry McCauliffe, to a rumor from CNN, to a quote from Hillary that she is "open to it."
But how can Obama bring change and still choose Hillary? How can he not choose Hillary, unite the party, receive the votes of Hillary supporters, and most importantly be elected President? If he chooses Clinton he may loose independents and those Obamicans excited about a new kind of politics. If he chooses someone else, it depends on how Hillary works for his campaign. Her choices are: 1. smile and endorse, but undermine him in private in preparation for 2012 2. endorse and work for his election, then receive her payback, or (the most likely) 3. Arrange her spot as the VP and let Obama steal the show.
No one knows what will happen, least of all the candidates, and it will probably be a combination of the three choices.
Here is how Obama can chooses Hillary Clinton fro the VP slot without loosing the appeal of being the change candidate:
1. BE HUMBLE
Tell the voters, humbly, that although he does not agree with all of Clinton's positions, the race was just too close for her not to be on the ticket. This shows that he respects all of the voters who supported Hillary as well as her campaign supporters. It also MAY make the ticket more exciting to the large number of female voters who routinely stay home.
2. BE REAL
Obama could give a speech, another great one, where he steps outside of the lengthy campaigning, puts aside the rhetoric, and tells voters that if he can unite with Hillary Clinton and bring his party together after 18 months of bickering, he can bring our country together after 8 years of George W Bush. Criticizing W is a huge applause line.
3. BE NOSTALGIC
Tell voters that going back to the Clinton peace, the Clinton economy, and the idea that universal health care can work, and will work, is Change that should have happened and now it will. (Don't forget to bring in Al Gore.)
4. BE POLITICAL
Remind reporters that JFK picked LBP and Reagan picked Bush I and they all were supposed to despise each other. Laugh off the RFK remark, Ferraro, race baiting, and debate criticisms as an unfortunate reality in the political world. Easier said than done, but the media may let it slide as the audience looks for the Obama / McCain bickering to begin.
His campaign will have to assess where she is an asset and where she is a liability. Obama can likely forget Missouri, Iowa, South Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado with Clinton on the ticket. He may compete in Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Not a bad trade off.
5. BE SPECIFIC
Tell the independent voters exactly what you will expect of Senator Clinton, then hope the voters that do not like her aren't too interested in it. Send her to campaign in Appalachia. Send Bill with her.
6. BE OBAMA
Above all people just like Obama. If he runs the campaign and ignores the advisers that will come with the Clintons, they will win...big!
But how can Obama bring change and still choose Hillary? How can he not choose Hillary, unite the party, receive the votes of Hillary supporters, and most importantly be elected President? If he chooses Clinton he may loose independents and those Obamicans excited about a new kind of politics. If he chooses someone else, it depends on how Hillary works for his campaign. Her choices are: 1. smile and endorse, but undermine him in private in preparation for 2012 2. endorse and work for his election, then receive her payback, or (the most likely) 3. Arrange her spot as the VP and let Obama steal the show.
No one knows what will happen, least of all the candidates, and it will probably be a combination of the three choices.
Here is how Obama can chooses Hillary Clinton fro the VP slot without loosing the appeal of being the change candidate:
1. BE HUMBLE
Tell the voters, humbly, that although he does not agree with all of Clinton's positions, the race was just too close for her not to be on the ticket. This shows that he respects all of the voters who supported Hillary as well as her campaign supporters. It also MAY make the ticket more exciting to the large number of female voters who routinely stay home.
2. BE REAL
Obama could give a speech, another great one, where he steps outside of the lengthy campaigning, puts aside the rhetoric, and tells voters that if he can unite with Hillary Clinton and bring his party together after 18 months of bickering, he can bring our country together after 8 years of George W Bush. Criticizing W is a huge applause line.
3. BE NOSTALGIC
Tell voters that going back to the Clinton peace, the Clinton economy, and the idea that universal health care can work, and will work, is Change that should have happened and now it will. (Don't forget to bring in Al Gore.)
4. BE POLITICAL
Remind reporters that JFK picked LBP and Reagan picked Bush I and they all were supposed to despise each other. Laugh off the RFK remark, Ferraro, race baiting, and debate criticisms as an unfortunate reality in the political world. Easier said than done, but the media may let it slide as the audience looks for the Obama / McCain bickering to begin.
His campaign will have to assess where she is an asset and where she is a liability. Obama can likely forget Missouri, Iowa, South Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado with Clinton on the ticket. He may compete in Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Not a bad trade off.
5. BE SPECIFIC
Tell the independent voters exactly what you will expect of Senator Clinton, then hope the voters that do not like her aren't too interested in it. Send her to campaign in Appalachia. Send Bill with her.
6. BE OBAMA
Above all people just like Obama. If he runs the campaign and ignores the advisers that will come with the Clintons, they will win...big!
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Obama in the primary
LTE on the Tribune Review's "endorsement" of Hillary Clinton:
In your endorsement of Hillary Clinton you state Barack Obama's experience is "no portfolio for president."
I and the majority of Democrat voters disagree.
Obama has written and co-sponsored a variety of successful legislation. This includes: health care for children, securing dangerous nuclear material, and powerful ethics reform. He consistently articulates real solutions for our problems. A brief view of his record proves his effectiveness as a bipartisan legislator.
By claiming "you know where she (Clinton) stands," you reveal the main problem many voters have with Sen. Clinton: We do not know where she stands.
Her political double-speak is unfortunate. I believe Clinton would be a capable president and that we need a change from the current administration, but I believe Obama is the best choice of the three remaining candidates.
I prefer a president who is well removed from the Washington machine and will appoint a Cabinet that contains the most qualified people, not the most connected.
In your endorsement of Hillary Clinton you state Barack Obama's experience is "no portfolio for president."
I and the majority of Democrat voters disagree.
Obama has written and co-sponsored a variety of successful legislation. This includes: health care for children, securing dangerous nuclear material, and powerful ethics reform. He consistently articulates real solutions for our problems. A brief view of his record proves his effectiveness as a bipartisan legislator.
By claiming "you know where she (Clinton) stands," you reveal the main problem many voters have with Sen. Clinton: We do not know where she stands.
Her political double-speak is unfortunate. I believe Clinton would be a capable president and that we need a change from the current administration, but I believe Obama is the best choice of the three remaining candidates.
I prefer a president who is well removed from the Washington machine and will appoint a Cabinet that contains the most qualified people, not the most connected.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
CNN DEBATES SHOW PRO CLINTON BIAS
In the CNN Democratic debates of November 15, 2007 the CNN should have stood for "Clinton News Network." Hillary was given a chance to "clarify" her positions on illegal immigrants receiving drivers licences, a supposed gaffe (I love that word.) that conservative media has pounced on.
Wolfe Blitzer began his line of questioning to Governor Richardson. Wolfe, of course, knew what the answer would be and received a rationaled approach as to why Richardson, as Governor of New Mexico, adopted the program. Why? Because immigration is a federal issue. Licences are a state issue. The federal government was not controlling immigration and while working immigrants were driving, and crashing. So in the interest of safety, they were taught how to drive and overall motor vehicle accidents decreased.
Then the question went to Obama. He answered that the premise of the question was wrong. Blitzer asked "in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform" would you allow licences for illegals. Obama said as President, he would push for that reform, so the question Blitzer asked required some thought and some overall policy background. It was not a yes / no question.
But Blitzer pushed, clearly looking for a "got you" (Hillary's words) moment for Obama. Because Obama gave a thorough answer the crowd, a strange majority of Hillary supporters, seemed to laugh confusingly. Blitzer retorted he thought it was a "yes or no" answer.
Then Hillary responded rather W-like, preparing for the general election we presume, "NO." She was able to answer after the minority candidates on an issue about minorities and restate a position in one word that she had changed several times in one week based on her audience. When it played poorly in the national media, she needed to change her stance yet again and Blitzer gave her the chance.
Planned? Its hard not believe it wasn't. Successful? The post debate wrap up which included former Clinton advisers Gergen and Carville told us it was. They were all on the same page. Planned? You decide.
StevenAK
Wolfe Blitzer began his line of questioning to Governor Richardson. Wolfe, of course, knew what the answer would be and received a rationaled approach as to why Richardson, as Governor of New Mexico, adopted the program. Why? Because immigration is a federal issue. Licences are a state issue. The federal government was not controlling immigration and while working immigrants were driving, and crashing. So in the interest of safety, they were taught how to drive and overall motor vehicle accidents decreased.
Then the question went to Obama. He answered that the premise of the question was wrong. Blitzer asked "in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform" would you allow licences for illegals. Obama said as President, he would push for that reform, so the question Blitzer asked required some thought and some overall policy background. It was not a yes / no question.
But Blitzer pushed, clearly looking for a "got you" (Hillary's words) moment for Obama. Because Obama gave a thorough answer the crowd, a strange majority of Hillary supporters, seemed to laugh confusingly. Blitzer retorted he thought it was a "yes or no" answer.
Then Hillary responded rather W-like, preparing for the general election we presume, "NO." She was able to answer after the minority candidates on an issue about minorities and restate a position in one word that she had changed several times in one week based on her audience. When it played poorly in the national media, she needed to change her stance yet again and Blitzer gave her the chance.
Planned? Its hard not believe it wasn't. Successful? The post debate wrap up which included former Clinton advisers Gergen and Carville told us it was. They were all on the same page. Planned? You decide.
StevenAK
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Media Coverage LTE
Note how the Tribune Review dropped the IC off my letter to print that the election, "went Democrat" instead of what I wrote: democratIC. At least they published the LTE.
In response to L. Brent Bozell's piece about the network morning news shows paying more attention to liberal candidates ("Networks bow to 'white-hot' Dems," Sept. 2 and PghTrib.com), I would suggest he link the extended coverage to the polls of the country's voters.
The 2006 midterms went Democrat and a majority of voters consistently say they want a change in the White House, specifically with regard to the Iraq policy, which would involve electing a Democrat.
Polls within the Republican Party show "other" or "someone else" winning the primary, and Barack Obama recently finished third in a Republican straw poll.
The media may be lazy -- implying that John Edwards was against the war in Iraq, when he wrote an op-ed before its launch supporting it -- or reporting Hillary Clinton has more experience than Obama, when he has been in elected office longer.
And the media might prefer to cover the wives of the Republican candidates. But this is what, apparently, leads to higher ratings.
To imply that there is a bias toward the candidates is easily disproved when you look at what is covered and the inability of most of the media to offer anything of substance on the issues. They cover the popular personalities. They cover what is "white-hot."
At this stage in the campaign, those distinctions go to the Democrats.
Steve Karas
Forest Hills
In response to L. Brent Bozell's piece about the network morning news shows paying more attention to liberal candidates ("Networks bow to 'white-hot' Dems," Sept. 2 and PghTrib.com), I would suggest he link the extended coverage to the polls of the country's voters.
The 2006 midterms went Democrat and a majority of voters consistently say they want a change in the White House, specifically with regard to the Iraq policy, which would involve electing a Democrat.
Polls within the Republican Party show "other" or "someone else" winning the primary, and Barack Obama recently finished third in a Republican straw poll.
The media may be lazy -- implying that John Edwards was against the war in Iraq, when he wrote an op-ed before its launch supporting it -- or reporting Hillary Clinton has more experience than Obama, when he has been in elected office longer.
And the media might prefer to cover the wives of the Republican candidates. But this is what, apparently, leads to higher ratings.
To imply that there is a bias toward the candidates is easily disproved when you look at what is covered and the inability of most of the media to offer anything of substance on the issues. They cover the popular personalities. They cover what is "white-hot."
At this stage in the campaign, those distinctions go to the Democrats.
Steve Karas
Forest Hills
Friday, May 18, 2007
PA Gerrymandering
In response to Brad Bumsted's news article about a Senate panel shooting down legislation aimed at limiting lawmakers' terms ("Pa. Senate kills term-limit measure," May 9 and PghTrib.com), I would ask that the panel, or any local lawmakers, address the problem of fair redistricting if they are unwilling to impose term limits.
Gerrymandering robs the voters of choices, takes away competition between parties and, in the absence of term limits, creates an unbalanced system.
Pennsylvania should adopt a format similar to the California model, which allows registered voters to assist in establishing fair districts. There is also the model from Iowa, which is consistently noted as having the fairest and most competitive districts in the country.
Each model allows for a bipartisan panel with outside input to create fair and sensible legislative districts. Each state House district in Iowa is usually within a state Senate district and each state Senate district is within a U.S. congressional district.
At a recent hearing in the Pittsburgh area, one freshman lawmaker referred to the gerrymandering practice in Western Pennsylvania as leading to districts "resembling the Florida keys" instead of Iowa's grid.
If the Senate is serious about reform and fairness, it needs to follow Iowa's and California's leads. Otherwise, a major issue will be ignored.
Gerrymandering robs the voters of choices, takes away competition between parties and, in the absence of term limits, creates an unbalanced system.
Pennsylvania should adopt a format similar to the California model, which allows registered voters to assist in establishing fair districts. There is also the model from Iowa, which is consistently noted as having the fairest and most competitive districts in the country.
Each model allows for a bipartisan panel with outside input to create fair and sensible legislative districts. Each state House district in Iowa is usually within a state Senate district and each state Senate district is within a U.S. congressional district.
At a recent hearing in the Pittsburgh area, one freshman lawmaker referred to the gerrymandering practice in Western Pennsylvania as leading to districts "resembling the Florida keys" instead of Iowa's grid.
If the Senate is serious about reform and fairness, it needs to follow Iowa's and California's leads. Otherwise, a major issue will be ignored.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Corporate Media Lazy on Obama
As easy as it was to find what exact magazine the story of the black man and his skin was in, Brit Hume reported the findings the next day on FOX. No background checking needed, just report the error that had already been reported. No one can say they are lying, they are just letting us know what The Chicago Tribune and The Politico reported about the “facts” in Obama’s Dreams book.
Human events picked up the story headlining, “Obama offers Wild Revision if his own History.” A “wild revision” seems a compelling description. Paul Hollorah compares Obama to a “little head bobbing doll” and refers to him as a “Schlikmeister.” He first tells of the later date of the Selma march versus the Obama’s parents marriage. Obama has said he spoke of the civil rights movement as a whole inspiring his parents, not just the march over the bridge. Never mind that the statement had already been released by the Obama coampaign. Speaking in generalities, Obama had stated that his parents heard the call of the Kennedys for Africans to learn in the US. Hollorah states that this too is a wild revision since, “the future senator was not conceived”
Hollrah claims his speech is like Gore claiming to have invented the internet, something Gore never said and has been repeatedly debunked by media watchdog groups, yet continues to be repeated. The author is completing a double play by comparing an exaggeration with a lie. He also links what he sees as Obama’s missteps with those of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Unbelievably, the author then quotes “one of my black friends.” This is classic racism. You tell people about your black friend so that they could not possibly believe you are a racist. This piece is truly unique on its fact bending, media twisting inaccuracies and racial caveats. The author lives in Oaklahoma.
Ricahrd Cohen in the Washington Post goes so far as to suggest, “The tendency to manipulate facts may bear watching in Obama.” He also compares Dreams to Profiles in courage as promising politicians who are packing themselves in a “larger cause.” Cohen retells the Ebony story as his evidence to watch Obama for his honesty. Cohen also warns Obama that “Sheer ambition is no longer tolerated in American public life.” He appears to suggest that since Dreams was published when Obama was only 34 years old, he has been planning this moment since then and thus, carefully packaged himself for presentation to the public. Somewhat of a conspiracy theory within himself. An interesting take. I contacted the author to see if he would print a correction.
Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261803,00.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19959
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html
Human events picked up the story headlining, “Obama offers Wild Revision if his own History.” A “wild revision” seems a compelling description. Paul Hollorah compares Obama to a “little head bobbing doll” and refers to him as a “Schlikmeister.” He first tells of the later date of the Selma march versus the Obama’s parents marriage. Obama has said he spoke of the civil rights movement as a whole inspiring his parents, not just the march over the bridge. Never mind that the statement had already been released by the Obama coampaign. Speaking in generalities, Obama had stated that his parents heard the call of the Kennedys for Africans to learn in the US. Hollorah states that this too is a wild revision since, “the future senator was not conceived”
Hollrah claims his speech is like Gore claiming to have invented the internet, something Gore never said and has been repeatedly debunked by media watchdog groups, yet continues to be repeated. The author is completing a double play by comparing an exaggeration with a lie. He also links what he sees as Obama’s missteps with those of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Unbelievably, the author then quotes “one of my black friends.” This is classic racism. You tell people about your black friend so that they could not possibly believe you are a racist. This piece is truly unique on its fact bending, media twisting inaccuracies and racial caveats. The author lives in Oaklahoma.
Ricahrd Cohen in the Washington Post goes so far as to suggest, “The tendency to manipulate facts may bear watching in Obama.” He also compares Dreams to Profiles in courage as promising politicians who are packing themselves in a “larger cause.” Cohen retells the Ebony story as his evidence to watch Obama for his honesty. Cohen also warns Obama that “Sheer ambition is no longer tolerated in American public life.” He appears to suggest that since Dreams was published when Obama was only 34 years old, he has been planning this moment since then and thus, carefully packaged himself for presentation to the public. Somewhat of a conspiracy theory within himself. An interesting take. I contacted the author to see if he would print a correction.
Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261803,00.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19959
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html
Monday, March 26, 2007
Peduto '09?
The exit of Bill Peduto in the mayor's race is unfortunate for the city of Pittsburgh. Mr. Peduto is a personable and well-informed individual who would have made a great mayor.
To his credit, he said he withdrew because "running a victorious political campaign would require dividing a city." Mr. Peduto's integrity, ideas and knowledge place him at the top of the Pittsburgh political class.
His continued presence on City Council and as a leader in innovative ideas for Pittsburgh remains an important ingredient in the city's future.
Additional comments:
Why is it that when a candidate challenges the Democratic status quo he is not covered in the local media? Peduto has given the current Mayor several ideas. Some of Peduto's ideas have been mirrored by the current mayor.
He lost the endorsement vote by 4 to 1. This means many of the long time committee people will support the Mayor. This is before any debate on the issues. Presumably, then, he will loose the election. If he stays in and looses big, he may not be a viable candidate in 2009. The people of Pittsburgh loose without a choice. However, by bowing out or "quitting" as the PG noted on the front page, he may have the opportunity to become the "go to man" to scrutinize the mayor.
To his credit, he said he withdrew because "running a victorious political campaign would require dividing a city." Mr. Peduto's integrity, ideas and knowledge place him at the top of the Pittsburgh political class.
His continued presence on City Council and as a leader in innovative ideas for Pittsburgh remains an important ingredient in the city's future.
Additional comments:
Why is it that when a candidate challenges the Democratic status quo he is not covered in the local media? Peduto has given the current Mayor several ideas. Some of Peduto's ideas have been mirrored by the current mayor.
He lost the endorsement vote by 4 to 1. This means many of the long time committee people will support the Mayor. This is before any debate on the issues. Presumably, then, he will loose the election. If he stays in and looses big, he may not be a viable candidate in 2009. The people of Pittsburgh loose without a choice. However, by bowing out or "quitting" as the PG noted on the front page, he may have the opportunity to become the "go to man" to scrutinize the mayor.
Friday, January 12, 2007
LTE to Tribune Review: Published but not posted.
I recently sent the following in response to this letter: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/letters/send/s_484919.html, which compared Vietnam to Iraq and asks that we support continuing in Iraq.
I was told my reply was published, but it is not on their website. I have contacted the paper several time to let them know of the error, but they have not made the correction. Maybe it is because I use the "I" word...Here is the reply I wrote:
In response to Linda Dupill's letter not to, "leave before the job is done" and to "be compassionate", I ask that she look at the facts. 80% of Americans oppose the Iraq war. The generals in Iraq have stated that more troops will make the situation worse. When the generals wanted more troops, via the Powell Doctrine, The President refused. We need a leader who knows their history and the Marshall plan. We need a President who listens to his generals, the American people, and The Iraq Study Group. We need to support the Iraqi people by offering Iraq's employment through reconstruction funds, not giving funds to Haliburton and Blackwater. We need to build and staff hospitals, schools, and infrastructure. This President and this administration have not had the intellectual capacity to succeed in these basic tasks. If we have compassion and want to "win" this war, we should face the facts. We can not win with this President. His negligence is criminal. For the sake of the Iraqi people and our brave military we should impeach George W. Bush and relieve him of his incompetent tenure as commander-in-chief. We should compassionately write our congressman and senators and ask them to give us the leadership our President has failed to offer.
I was told my reply was published, but it is not on their website. I have contacted the paper several time to let them know of the error, but they have not made the correction. Maybe it is because I use the "I" word...Here is the reply I wrote:
In response to Linda Dupill's letter not to, "leave before the job is done" and to "be compassionate", I ask that she look at the facts. 80% of Americans oppose the Iraq war. The generals in Iraq have stated that more troops will make the situation worse. When the generals wanted more troops, via the Powell Doctrine, The President refused. We need a leader who knows their history and the Marshall plan. We need a President who listens to his generals, the American people, and The Iraq Study Group. We need to support the Iraqi people by offering Iraq's employment through reconstruction funds, not giving funds to Haliburton and Blackwater. We need to build and staff hospitals, schools, and infrastructure. This President and this administration have not had the intellectual capacity to succeed in these basic tasks. If we have compassion and want to "win" this war, we should face the facts. We can not win with this President. His negligence is criminal. For the sake of the Iraqi people and our brave military we should impeach George W. Bush and relieve him of his incompetent tenure as commander-in-chief. We should compassionately write our congressman and senators and ask them to give us the leadership our President has failed to offer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
