Paulson is a liar

First, watch this video from crooksandliars.com . It was posted a while back and is an exchange between Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Henry Paulson, Secretary of Treasury.

Watch Paulson Lie

Schumer discusses the notion of passing a smaller bailout. Instead of 700 billion at once, why not 150 billion at once, citing the fact that Paulson had said previously that he would go through the money in about 50 billion per month. Since the meeting was in September and Congress then wouldn't meet until January (or at least wouldn't do much legislation in the lame duck session), 150 billion would hold them over.

Note in the video that Paulson doesn't dispute Schumer's claim of what he had said (regarding the 50 billion). He does, without giving any numbers, say that the money will be given out in "tranches" and that they simply need to have a huge amount of money to help investor confidence and so that it is there when they want it.

But they won't really use it that quickly.

It is now the middle of November. The bailout bill was passed in late September. Now it is late November. So lets see.....if I can remember my months. First comes September, then October, and then November....So it has been 2 months. We should thus have spent 100 billion of the money. No? Oh. I guess they had to infuse an initial amount at the beginning just to "kick start" everything. All right so maybe they are at 200 billion? No?

Bush is telling aides he won't ask Congress for the 2nd part of the funds. Hopefully, this is true and he indeed won't ask them for more money. Paulson, however, refuses to give a time table (boy they must hate that word!) regarding when he will ask for the other 350 billion dollars. Why is there even discussion of this "second half" if they were going to go through it at 50 billion a month! Apparently Paulson has already gone through almost half of the funds? And for what exactly? Nobody knows.

What a scam this is. At 50 billion a month, the 700 billion should have lasted over a year!

Ban All Government "Marriage" ?

An interesting idea. Rather than try to push for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples by legalizing same-sex marriage everywhere, how about redefining marriage to be an entirely non-governmental institution so that we have equal rights because none of us can marry. Government would in this setup be able to grant civil union to any 2 people who wanted a civil union. However, they would not call it marriage.

A couple who wanted to get "married" would then have to find a private organization (possibly a religious one, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be).

Logically, I would think that heterosexual couples would be more upset by this proposal as it actually takes away their rights as well. But there is no logic in this situation to begin with, so you never know.

Defending John Edwards

John Edwards may have made a mistake in his personal life. Had he won the Democratic nomination, it may very well have cost him the election and led to us talking about President-Elect McCain. However, this is no reason that John Edwards should be shunned by all. People (Democrats) are willing to say that despite Bill Clinton's adultery, he was still a good president because his policies are more important than his affairs. Why can't we say the same thing about John Edwards?

There seem to be two lines of thinking regarding John Edwards, one of which comes mostly from Republicans the other from Democrats. The Republicans routinely cite their party as the family values party. They list several examples of Democrats who were not good "family men" including Clinton and Edwards. However, when the discussion turns to their family, immediately "family is off limits." This is an obvious example of hypocrisy.

However, the attitude of Democrats towards Edwards is as bad as the Republicans. We are rightfully sick of Republicans being hypocrites about family values and bringing one's personal life into politics. However, rather than fight for keeping politics out of the bedroom, we give in to the Republicans and turn our backs on a politician with excellent ideas, who happens to be a "lousy" husband. What goes on between Edwards and his wife (or another woman) is no one's business.

It is one thing to be realistic and prefer another candidate than Edwards, knowing that Edwards will face challenges. But to throw him under the bus is entirely wrong. Here is a list of some of the ideas Edwards has considered important:

-Mandatory Universal Health Insurance
-Withdrawing from Iraq as soon as safely possible
-Eliminating poverty by trying to integrate poor people into middle-class communities (which ends up including better services such as education)
-College for everyone
-Fighting global warming
-Energy Independence
-Pro-choice
-Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens

Any of these ideas sound familiar? John Edwards to a large extent is the reason we are talking about universal health care today. And yet, we are all willing to throw this guy under the bus because of an extra-marital legal affair. Considering the results, it would be questionable to argue that Edwards would be a better candidate than Obama. But to act like this guy is the plague and shouldn't be talked about doesn't make any sense.

Proposition 8.5: Defending the sanctity of words

Same-sex couples in California (and every other state besides Massachusetts and Connecticut) are currently being told that they can have a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" but not a "marriage." Marriage has traditionally referred to a relationship between a man and a woman. As much as we would love to allow same-sex couples to marry, we are bound by Webster's Dictionary (and not that elitist Oxford-English Dictionary--that is made by those Europeans) to ban same-sex marriage. In a society as word-oriented as we are, who are we to challenge this fundamental word.

Americans have a history of using words correctly. There are many examples of this. We all know that America is a "free country." This means that President Bush is free to tap our phones. This means that President Bush is free to torture prisoners. This means that President Bush is free to suspend habeus corpus and detain prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, all in the name of the Patriot Act.

We also know that there is a "Bill of Rights." These are amendments to the original constitution that provide every citizen with several rights. Sarah Palin, for example, can say whatever she wants and the liberal media can't criticize her for any of it. That would be violating her freedom of speech.

These all are perfect uses of the words free,bill,rights, and of If we ever mis-used one of these words, the United States of America would fail to exist. Similarly, we can not allow same-sex couples to refer to themselves as "married." This would be a great travesty.

We have already lost the fight over the word "ironic" (watch a sports game and listen to how badly the announcers misuse the word). Let us not lose the battle over the word "marriage." Vote YES on proposition 8.5

Excellent NYT article by Al gore

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

He discusses how we should be investing in better energy forms. In doing so, we will fix our economy by creating jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil--which will deal with rising gas costs as well as make us more internationally secure. Oh, and in doing this, we will help protect the environment, which as David Attenbourough put it, allows us to use the cheapest (i.e. free) labor and resources possible.

Election Night Recap for me

Before this blog becomes too depressing with a discussion of the difficulties of the homosexual civil rights movement, I would like to write about my personal election night timetable. Some of my times might be a bit wrong, but they are the best I can remember.

6:15 I got home from school, nervously turned on the TV and saw some early returns from Indiana. Didn't look so bad for Obama. I figure if it takes until 7:30 to call Indiana for McCain then Obama wins the election.

7:00 Kentucky and Vermont are called for McCain and Vermont, respectively. No surprise there at all. I was hoping that they would call Virginia immediately for Obama and I could celebrate right then and there, but that didn't happen.

7:30 I'm very nervously looking at the preliminary returns from Virginia. Much of Northern Virginia hasn't been reported yet, but still, Obama is down quite a lot.

8:00 Polls close in Pennsylvania and MSNBC immediately calls it in favor of Obama. I had the pleasure of informing my parents, who were watching on a different channel, that he had won PA. This was the first really key moment of the night and I let out a huge sigh of relief. Additionally New Hampshire was called for Obama.

8:30 Rachel Maddow had pointed out that so far, no state had flipped. Obama was only doing the same thing that Kerry did. Flashing back to 2004, I remember being excited at how quickly Kerry won Pennsylvania. At this point, I'm getting very worried about Virginia as Obama is still down about 100,000 votes. Ohio and Florida look very good, but we've heard that story before. Indiana and North Carolina both look very good as well. The only bad news so far is out of Virginia. Cait comes home around now, and I'm a bit of a nervous wreck. I had hoped it would be over by now.

9:00 Polls close in, among other places, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The networks immediately call these states for Obama. These were the last Kerry states that McCain had ever talked about winning. Although he hadn't talked much lately, and had apparently "pulled out of Michigan," it was good to get confirmation of it. Obama is almost assured of winning Iowa and New Mexico, so if he wins any of the other states, he'll win. Nevada and Colorado are great chances. Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina all look good. Virginia and Indiana are tightening. However, so far, this is still the same as 2004. I'll feel better once a Bush state flips.

9:30 MSNBC has an important anouncement: Barack Obama has won Ohio! That's it. Barring a stunning development on the West Coast, Obama has it. He now doesn't even need Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado. Now just waiting on the West Coast and it will be "official."

10:15 New Mexico and Iowa are called for Obama. He is pulling very close in Virginia now.

10:45 Obama is now leading in Virginia. The precincts yet to be counted are in northern Virginia. aka "fake Virginia" Keith Olbermann mumbles something about what if Obama loses California? The networks keep referring to the top of the hour. Basically they are saying "you don't want to miss the top of the hour." I wonder why......

10:58 John Stewart announces that Obama has won Virginia. This wasn't even an "exciting" announcment as at this point, it is just a formality.

11:00 Barack Obama is projected as the winner of the election, winning (not surprisingly) California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii.

11:30-ish McCain makes a concession speech. Really big of him to repudiate the negativeness of his supporters after he has already lost.

12:00 Obama makes a wonderful acceptance speech, talking about how he will represent both those who voted for him and those who didn't. He talks about how we all have a responsibility to help our country. This guy is just a bit better than our current president at speaking. Some time in the interim, networks project that Obama has won Florida as well.

2:00 I head to bed. The bad news of the night is that Proposition 8 in California looks like it will pass. Also in the Senate, there are a few tight races in Alaska, Minnesota, and Oregon. Obama has now been declared as winning Indiana on MSNBC. Missouri is really close, looks like it is headed for a recount. North Carolina still looks promising.

9:00 Waking up in the morning, some of the news is a bit bad. Proposition 8 looks in better shape to pass and the Alaskans look like they may have elected a convicted felon. Is there an effect similar to the "Bradley effect" going on here? People are ashamed to tell the pollster that they will vote for a felon, but will then vote for him anyway?

Al Franken is in a neck-and-neck race and a recount will be necessary. Counting things like provisional ballots may end up favoring the Democrat. It seems like much of the Portland area hasn't been counted yet, so I remain optimistic that Merkely will unseat Smith in Oregon.

Proposition 8 looks like it will pass

Lost in much of the excitement over the Obama win is the fact that it looks as if homosexuals in California will lose the right to marry. Call it sour grapes if you want, but I don't understand how a ballot initiative can pass with a simple majority and overrule a bill passed by the legislature and upheld by the courts. Part of the purpose of democracy is to let the people have what they want, but there are two reasons that we don't put everything to a vote. One is the simple fact that it would be infeasible for people to vote on every single legislative piece. The second is that our leaders are able to make the tough calls, calls that go against the majority but are the right thing to do.

I'll give a few examples of this. When a murder is committed and someone is arrested, we could take a vote to see whether he is guilty or not. However, a long time ago, someone realized this would be unfair to the suspect. He deserves a trial. In this trial, the people voting on his decision are educated on the facts of the case. Additionally, a unanimous verdict is required to send a man to jail.

Alternatively, one could take a popular vote in the town of the crime, but it was decided that this wouldn't be fair to the suspect, most likely because the emotion of the situation would be too much. You need to select a group that can make the appropriate decision.

An example of letting popular rule have too much power is shown in the energy crisis. Politicians have always taken the easy way out and tried to "drill, baby drill" In doing so, we ignored the environment and now, we are paying the price for it. We can continue to drill, but it is the responsibility of those in charge to make an informed decision, and not to blindly follow the masses.

The idea of "checks and balances" is to give the people some power, but not to much; it should give the legislative branch some power, but not to much; the executive branch some power, but not too much; the judicial branch some power, but not too much. Here, were are having the people, by a small majority, overrule what the legislative and judicial branch of the government ruled.