What's in a definition?

It was reported just this weekend that MSNBC/NBC news stations are now calling the conflict in Iraq a "civil war" (Reuters, 2006). Merriam-Webster's definition of civil war is "a war between opposing groups of the same country." Reasonable enough? The term seems to adequately cover the Shi'a and Sunni conflicts raging in the streets all over Iraq. However, President Bush and his cabinet reject this definition, as he believes that the conflict in Iraq is being caused by Al Quaeda. And now this disagreement on terminology has become a political debate.
Why would Bush so strongly disagree with both the CIA and current generals working in Iraq on what to call the war in Iraq? What would it mean to the current U.S. administration if, indeed, Iraq's "sectarian violence" is a civil war?

Sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq has increased dramatically in the past week. Multiple bombings in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad on Thursday killed more than 200 people and drew reprisal attacks in
Sunni neighborhoods. [Reuters, 2006]

Maybe, then, blame can be brought right back to the U.S.'s door. What is the difference between "sectarian violence" and "civil war" anyhow? Is this just another parsing of political-babble-speech that seems to allow for distraction of the serious casualties of the war: both American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? What does this mean that the U.S. administration is unwilling to tie words to the issue? It means that we're not really talking to one another, just speaking at one another, and that words like "mission accomplished" brandished on a naval carrier can signal "major battle operations," but that, just recently, Bush could also state that our war on terrorism (Iraq) must continue on until it's abated. Yet

A day after a Pentagon report described spreading sectarian violence and increasingly complex security problems in Iraq, President George W. Bush painted a rosier picture. ... "Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "They report that only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, while the overwhelming majority want peace and a normal life in a unified country." [Associated Press, 2006]

Terminology can be a frightening thing. One minute you can be a freedom fighter, the next, a terrorist. And it could mean that, if Iraq has spiraled from sectarian violence into civil war, that the United States bears quite a bit of responsibility. I think this is why what the definition of is is, and why we care so much to define anything at all. Definitions serve as justification for actions. Terrorism is a mighty label, and it just might define many actions, most of them not caused by the actions of Iraqi people.

References Cited
Associated Press. (2006). Bush: No civil war despite 'bloody campaign' of Iraq violence Accessed November 28, 2006, from http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/02/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq_Bush.php
Reuters. (2006). NBC label of civil war at odds with White House. Accessed November 28, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15921476/

The Time Remaining...Financial Realities

I'll start here with the "Time Remaining," Other issues that Pelosi and the newly elected Democrat-led U.S. Congress hope to enact during the beginning of their tenure in January:

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday. [Kos, 2006]

Minimum Wage
I think this one will be easy to discuss, as so much of this will affect my life and the lives of those around me. In the past, when I was in graduate school, I worked a minimum-wage job. Paying rent, tuition, car notes, insurance, and basic living expenses like gas and food, on a single person's minimum-wage salary, would have been impossible if it were not for the significant help I received from my mother. (Thanks, mom!) Can anybody in the DC area reasonably live on $824 a month (the federal minimum wage of $5.15), before taxes?

Student Loans (You know you have some)
Of course, now that I'm back in school, I have student loans. Getting a Ph.D. is not cost-free, even though my employer contributes $1,500 a year. My tuition is approximately $6,000 a year (out of state tuition is over $500 per credit hour) for four years. Tuition and books come out to about $26,000, not counting running two households (one in PA, where my school is, and one in VA, where I have a mortgage). So, minus help from the college (about $4,500-6,000, when all is said and done), I will still have to find at least $25,000 with which to fund my continued education. I have been able to pay some of the tuition out of pocket, and all the rooming, books, and other fees. I expect that I'll have about $17,000 in student loan debt when I get my Ph.D., which is quite low in the scheme of things. With the way it's looking, if I repay in 10 years at the current 6.8% rate, I'll owe $23,456. If I pay it at Pelosi's reduced rate, I'll owe only $20,077. That's a savings of $3,379.

Pharmaceutical Companies & Profit
The whole point of the federal government managing prescription drugs directly with the pharma companies is to save tax dollars. At the moment, pharmaceutical companies are some of the most profitable companies on the Fortune 500 (see Healing Daily). Seniors deserve affordable medications, just as we deserve affordable health care. This small step is leading the way toward universal healthcare, I hope. Let's just see what Clinton et al. propose in the coming year; however, more so than this, it'll take a new president to really affect change in pharmaceutical overcharging and health insurance mismanagement. Both of these groups are the reason most Americans cannot afford reasonable health care, and why those that can must sometimes stay in dead-end jobs because they're tied to the benefits. And that leads us to stem cell research ... a topic for my next blog entry.

References Cited
Kos. (2006). The Pelosi Agenda: Draining the Swamp. Accessed November 6, 2006, from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/6/11395/3029

What *Is* It about People and Their Politics?

I just got an email from a close friend of mine, my ex-husband, who stated, "I like it better when you are not all political ..." You see, we exchange emails on a daily basis; he tells me how my dogs are doing, what the weather's like in Montana, how triathalon training is coming along. I tell him how my house renovations are going, what classes are like, and tend to complain here and there about current events. Just the regular chit-chat among people of like minds...or are we?

He thinks he's much more conservative than he is, and I know I'm as liberal as I am. But there is no convincing him to see it my way, and I have to admit I'm much too emotional sometimes to handle political conversations with the appropriate saavy required when talking with him, or my mom, or my sister, especially, primaily because I'm attempting to convert them instead of having a rational conversation. This reminds me of the Tucker Carlson-Jon Stewart Crossfire debate (check it out on Youtube.com), in which general political "ribbing" became an all-out flame war.

There are probably those of you out there who never realize that things seem to be going fine...until something political comes up. The old saying "never bring up politics or religion at the dinnertable" seems to ring false here. What else are we supposed to be talking about that has anything remotely tanglible to do with our lives? The Cruise-Holmes wedding? Whether Blink 182 will ever get back together? Maybe for a few minutes, but then there has to be something bigger going on, about our lives, that takes up the space. If not, we're truly not acknowledging the real issues in our worlds.

In Talking Politics, author William Gameson studies people talking politics, those regular people who have issues and are willing to sit around and discuss it while being viewed. This is a brave experiment. Gameson's angle is to examine "the extent to which media and popular discourse define issues in collective terms" (p. 29). An issue can only become a collective conern if we talk about it. But getting to the point, being able to talk about issues like feminism, sexism, the environment, U.S. foreign policy, or even gas prices sometimes sets people (like me) on a defensive that then becomes a diatribe. So what do we have to do? We have to learn to listen, but we shouldn't shut down. Those conversations must happen, and I think they start at the dinnertable. Or through e-mail. Or on a billboard. I think I'll continue to talk politics, but maybe start small, like on lobbying reform, before I throw a left jab on the environment.

100 Hours, Day 2

Note: Because these issues are so intricate, I've decided to keep breaking up entries from Pelosi's 100-hours initiative. Here are the goods for Day 2.

During Day 2 of the 100-hour initiative, Pelosi and Co. vow to "enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" (Kos, 2006). This is a desperate attempt to provide answers for the victims' families and American public, but it all suggests that there is so much more that we need to do to protect ourselves, and confront acknowledged perpetrators like Osama bin Laden, than what we have to show for our collective efforts after 5+ years.

The first thing that all Americans should do is obtain a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report. The good news is that you don't have to buy it at Borders anymore; it's the size of Baltimore's Yellow Pages anyhow. The bad news? I have yet to meet anybody who has actually read it all; I certainly haven't. The worse news? It's 585 pages. The hope is that those of us who like to discuss current international policies, wartime strategies, and homeland security must read chapters 11-13:

11: Foresight--And Hindsight
12: What to Do--A Global Strategy
13: How to Do It--A different Way of Organizing the Government

(See 9/11 Commission, 2006)1

The Commission convened in 2002 to explore the events of 9/11 and to try to take a proactive stance on future issues of both terrorism in the United States and a forced preparedness of the U.S. government to create and manage action plans (consider it a non-Hurricane Katrina response that the Commission was looking for: something organized, civilized, and that had the best interests in all citizens at stake).

Here's a frightening sidenote: "at best we can determine, neither in 2000 or in the first 8 months of 2001 did any polling organization in the United States think the subject of terrorism sufficiently on the minds of the public to warrant asking a question about it in a major national survey" (9/11 Commission Report, 2004, p. 341). Yet now we are innundated with the latest terrorist newsclips, notes, "white powder in the mail" fears, and terrorism "threat levels." We have become so inundated with terror in our vocabulary since 9/11 (but it didn't start there, right? I remember home-bred terrorism with Timothy McVeigh and international terrorism with the strike on the U.S.S. Cole and the barracks in Beruit) that we haven't stopped to wonder what the governent has done to address the concrete issues presented in the commission report. Moneys spent for preparedness in major U.S. cities, like New York City, have been cut (see The New York Times' "Homeland Security Grants to New York Slashed" ); Pelosi herself notes that

Five years after 9/11, we still do not have 100 percent screening at our ports, we still do not have a mandate for chemical and nuclear plants to safeguard them, we still have not brought anywhere near what we need to of fissile material that poses the biggest danger to the safety of the American people. Our ports are not secure, our borders are not secure, and our country is at risk. We could be safer. [Pelosi, 2006]

It's sound advice to listen to, especially from an elected government official who's willing to take responsibility to fix these tangible problems. But it's only a beginning, and it takes time. How much time do we really have? What's the alternative?

References Cited
9/11 Commission. (2004). 9/11 Commission Report. Accessed November 10, 2006, from http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Kos. (2006). The Pelosi Agenda: Draining the Swamp. Accessed November 6, 2006, from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/6/11395/3029

Pelosi, N. (2006]. Pelosi: Five Years After 9/11, We Are Not As Safe As We Should Be. Accessed November 9, 2006, from http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept06/5_Years_Later.html

Note 1. 9/11 Commission Report image from www.alumnireview.queensu.ca/spotlight

The First 100 Hours, Introspective

Now that the election is over (and what an election that was!), the Democrats, led by minority leader and now Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (no relation) vow that the first 100 hours in office will see true change to the issues that affect most Americans. Let me shout it from the rooftops: it's about time. It's overdue. Regardless of political persuasion, we're desperate for a refocusing and a fixing of problems that make Americans suffer needlessly.

Of course, those who voted last Tuesday were making statements about issues that mattered, like the war in Iraq, the corruption rampant in Washington, and the like. However, other issues that are at a tangent to most of our everyday lives were propped up as issues affecting our "moral fiber." Those prop issues, like gay marriage (because, quite honestly, this is not an issue that affects most households but, instead, is an acknowledged issue for the religious right to fight against and get their masses to the polls), abortion, and the loaded phraseology of the "Death Tax" allows regular Joes like you and me to be sidelined to what is immediate, as evidenced in Pelosi's "100 Hours" plans:

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission
that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. [Daily Kos, 2006]

I would like to look at each of these points, in the context of being the average American. I want to see how this affects my life, and if any of these issues really will promote change. For today's blog entry, I'll focus on Day 1. For tomorrow's, I'll tackle the rest. There's a lot to talk about!

Day 1: Breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation means that lobbyists, with pockets full of dollars and incentives, cannot bribe or otherwise push unsound, unsafe, or unsavory legislation suggestions at our representatives. In this way, our representatives can, and hopefully will, be voting on and suggesting legislation based on American citizens' needs, not corporations like Halliburton or Shell. They have never needed tax breaks, especially when Jim Efstathiou Jr., of Bloomberg online, points out that the "U.S. Energy Bill Showers Tax Breaks on Oil Drillers, Utilities" (2006). The 14.5 billion in tax incentives, as shown in this article, go to

Oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and utility owners such as Southern spent $367 million over the past two years lobbying Congress on energy legislation, according to data from PoliticalMoneyLine and the Center for Responsive Politics. The legislation contains tax breaks of $1.6 billion for oil and gas producers and refiners and $3.1 billion for utilities. [Efstathiou, 2006]

So it seems that tax breaks are beneficial: if you're an oil or utility company or a millionaire. Breaking the lobbyists' holds on these practices will not only save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars in lost taxes from corporations, but they should also encourage (and legislate) the imposition of new rules for car companies and utilities providers, at least: work on and support alternative fuel sources. Of course, gas companies like Shell and Amoco might state that they have incentive to become environmentally sound, but the numbers, and the American tax breaks, tell a different story.

References Cited

Efstathiou, J. (2006, July). U.S. Engergy Bill Showers Tax Breaks on Oil Drillers, Utilities. Accessed November 10, 2006, from http://quote.bloomberg.com/
apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a1eDReAgtETw&refer=news_index

Kos. (2006). The Pelosi Agenda: Draining the Swamp. Accessed November 6, 2006, from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/6/11395/3029

The Election is Coming! The Election is Coming!

I sort of feel like Paul Revere here, warning unsuspecting citizens that the British (or the candidates, in this case) are coming. This time, though, most people know that because of the TV advertisements, mail flyers, news debates and editorials, door-to-door volunteers, and those thousands of environmentally unfriendly stake signs that appear in intervals of inches all along our roadways. To be honest, I get it: I don't need 370 Allen signs or 412 Hurst signs to remind me ... it's definitely election season.

When I first started this political commentary blog, I thought I'd be more broad in my discussions of election issues, especially in the Montana and Pennsylvania senatorial races. However, as it goes, I've become more focused on both the Virginia election and the issues with my volunteering during election day and what happens to voters' votes. I don't think these issues are cut and dry, but, nevertheless, they are important, even if you don't vote. Issues of "freedom" are at the core of our ability, as U.S. citizens, to act out, to speak out, to promote change. And there has been many opportunities for change, even in the last 100 years. Women have finally received the right to vote; segregation was declared unconstitutional; child labor laws protect children from gulag-like working conditions and serve as enforcement for children to go to school and obtain the same education as anybody else, rich or poor. Sexual harrassment laws and whistle-blower protection now allow for those in the minority in certain fields to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness, and be protected when they witness lawbreaking at work.

Yet why is the United States the "second-worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world?" (CNN, 2006). Why is it that we're ranked 9th in the world in the rate of high-school educated adults (CBS, 2005)? That

One in five American adults are working to pay off medical debts while an alarmingly high” number of Americans with chronic illnesses skipped their medications because they could not afford them, according to a new study. ... The study, by The Commonwealth Fund, also found that 41 percent of working-age Americans with annual incomes between 20,000 and 40,000 dollars were uninsured for at least part of the past year, up sharply from 28 percent in 2001. [Political Nonsense, 2006]

Aren't these the issues we really should be worried about during election day?

References Cited

CBS News. (2005). U.S. Education Slips In Rankings. Acessed November 6, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/13/national/main838207.shtml

CNN. (2006). U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says. Accessed November 6, from http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

Political Nonsense. (2006). Study finds Americans can’t afford healthcare. Accessed November 6, from http://blog.politicalnonsense.com/2006/04/26/main/study-finds-americans-cant-afford-healthcare/

Reaction to "Hacking Democracy"

Over the weekend I viewed HBO's new documentary Hacking Democracy, in which curious writer (and, they add, grandmother) Bev Harris wondered why her county moved to the use of electronic voting machines, especially after the 2000 presidental election voting debacle in Florida, in which Al Gore lost to George W. Bush after debatable electronic election results. The documentary is in result to her years-long survey/investigation into the problems inherent in voting machines.

At the core of the debate is the issue of public transparency in the voting process. Voting should be simple and explainable to the average U.S. citizen. Each of us has usable a social security number. Those without felony criminal records, and who are registered to vote, should have the ability to both vote and take with them a record of that vote, which can be tied to either their SSN or a created "pin number." In the state of Virginia, not only can day-of-election voters not vote with a paper ballot, they will not receive any record that shows who they voted for. When voters vote, they "sign in" at one table, receive a laminated voting card, and then move to the voting machine, in which they vote, but in which the machine has no idea who did the actual voting. This process seems rife for error.

This "anonymous" vote does not lead to tracing back of voters to votes. For some, this would be a reasonable process, but then there comes the issue with the machines themselves. We are not allowed the proprietary information on how the machines count votes. Not even the municipalities that purchase the machines know exactly how the machines tabulate votes. This, coupled with anonymous records, allows any company, or any programmer with access to the tabulating computer, the opportunity to manipulate an election. Consider the worldwide implications of this power, coupled with a minute amount of computer programming knowledge. Some think this is just conspiracy-theory thinking. But for those of us who care enough about democracy to partake in the process will find that cheating, in politics, is a common enough practice. At the heart of the matter is whether municipalities purchase these machines, knowing that the companies who sell them donate to particular political parties and have significant political agendas.

This is not a Democratic or Republicans-only issue. Both parties debate the use of these machines in certain counties (conveniently, where they've both lost elections before). For more information, I'd suggest reviewing BlackBoxVoting.org, a community created to investigate voting fraud on a major level, and the group focused on in the documentary.

References

BlackBoxVoting.org. (2006). The Official Black Box Voting Website. Accessed November 2 from BlackBoxVoting.org.

Simon Ardizzone and Russel Michaels, dirs (2006). Hacking Democracy. 90 min. Public Interest Pictures.