RobertSpuhler.com

Hope, Change

The most important thing that the inauguration of Barack Obama can do - it's not guaranteed, but *can* do - is inspire people to take civic responsibility seriously. The kind of enthusiasm seen on the National Mall today is the kind of energy we need to make it through these next few years, with a failing economy taking its toll on more than just the stock market.

Politics, civil responsibility, using one's voice to change that which needs to be changed - it's not a once-in-four-years event.

Overheard...

"I'd never vote for Barack [Obama]. Did you know he doesn't even stand for the Pledge of Allegience? He faces away from the flag!"

- The guy taking my voter registration form on Sunday

$7.25

It's rare anymore that I see a really solid piece of journalism - one that provides multiple sides (not just "two") to a story. But today's piece in the Washington Post by David Finkle following a Kansan around to illustrate the benefits and perils of the minimum wage increase does just that.

It's very easy to be in favor of an increase in the minimum wage. It's very easy to say that people should make more money. But where will that money come from? In some cases, it won't come from anywhere.

Election '06

I’ve been consciously trying to avoid political posts lately for a couple of reasons. First, I know that I’m a bit outmatched when it comes to knowledge on the topic; many of those reading this from DC who work in the political world know much better than I as to what – and why – things go on.

But the bigger reason is that election season tends to depress me a little.

Does the fact that Jim Webb, Senate candidate in Virginia, once wrote a novel with naughty bits have anything at all to do with his ability to govern? How does one man’s sickness and predatory behavior towards pages relate to any other candidates, much less an entire party? Hell, John Kerry isn’t even up for reelection, and yet he’s being made into a focal point because of an incredibly stupid or offensive statement.

There are so many issues that are important, even beyond the obvious war in Iraq/”War on Terror.” Why aren’t we talking about ways to fix healthcare in America? Or education? Or Social Security?

I’m starting to think that not voting, no matter what Diddy might say, is the answer. The cliché of “if you don’t vote, you can’t complain” doesn’t see apropos when both sides will equally screw something up. It seems to me to be closer to “if you do vote, it’s your fault.”

Where’s Mr. Smith when you need him?

Could Mr. Smith even exist today?

On the Times, Terrorists and Failed Presidencies

It’s been more than a week since the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal each ran an article describing in detail a program launched by the Bush administration to monitor the international banking transactions of alleged terrorists within the United States. It’s been almost exactly one week since President Bush denounced the newspapers that ran the story, saying, “…and the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America.”

First, if you haven’t read the article or seen the aftermath … consider yourself lucky. Then, go read it anyway:

Bank Data is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror

(The Los Angeles Times version and the Wall Street Journal version are now archived and cost money. The link above will take you to the first 50 words of the New York Times version. Stupid pay-for-Web.)

The right side of the blogosphere went apoplectic, calling for everything from an apology to prosecution of the papers’ editors.

A typical screed: National Security Be Damned

Anyone who knows me knows that I always tend to side with the press (and, in my view, the First Amendment) in all matters of Press v. Government. In addition, I believe there have been very few administrations as absolutely and resolutely anti-press as this one. From the Armstrong Williams case to the wrist-slappings for illegal propagandizing, the Bush White House has done nothing but spit on the free press since taking office.

In addition, I’m completely fed up with Republicans on television, the radio and the Internet whining about “liberal bias.” Hey, fellas – you control the Congress, the executive branch and the Supreme Court (seven of the nine justices were appointed during Republican administrations). You control everything. So is it the press that has made health care reform, Social Secuirty reform and immigration reform stall, or are you all complete incompetents?

And yet, I’m just not sure I can back the Times et al this time out. I don’t see the news hook here. The president has said all along that we would be watching money transfers. There (supposedly) has been oversight in Congress. Members of Congress (including Rep. John Murtha, who has not exactly been BFF with Bush recently) even urged the Times to consider not running the story. I think Bill Keller, the Times Editor-in-Chief, made the wrong move.

That being said, it is not worthy of prosecution. I don’t believe it has materially helped “the terrorists” (substitute “the boogeymen,” if you will). I think that would also be almost impossible to prove. But outrage sells, so the usual idiots on the right (as opposed to the usual idiots on the left) will yell and cry, hoping that maybe – just maybe – you’ll ignore the fact that this administration has done nearly NOTHING domestically in five-plus years.

Queer Eye for Congress

There are millions upon millions of people in this country without health insurance. Public schools are failing and kids are being “left behind” everywhere. There’s a war going on, and two other countries that want to blow us off the planet with nuclear weapons.

There’s nothing better to do today than talk about which types of sex are okay? Really?

Today, the President will be speaking about same-sex marriage and the Senate will take up debate on an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

I know some people who are against of the idea of gay marriage. These people are not bigots. While I personally do not have a problem with it (as far as my faith goes, I’ll let God sort all of that out), I understand that some people might.

But a Constitutional amendment? Do we want to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that, for only the second time, limits the rights of the citizenry? Do we want to make the federal government responsible for family law, traditionally an area left to the states?

And what kind of rubes does Congress and the President think live in red states? Is this not the silliest pander move possible? Does anyone for a minute think that this could actually pass? I know it must hurt President Bush that he’s about as popular as lupus right now, but does he really think this will help?

Instead, go support HR 5388.