USA - General discussion (Part 2)

[Khartoun2004]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

I just think it's hilarious that the most unlikely state ever to actually legalize gay marriage, has actually done it. Midwestern progressiveness is where it's at baby.

Progressive and the Midwest are not words I would ever use in the same sentence. It's hardly "progressive" to legalize gay marriage now after MA has had it for nearly 5 years and two other states have legalized it (although CA did overturn it) and several more have Civil Unions.

Plus the Supreme Court of Iowa only ruled on it after the state legislature passed a law banning Same-Sex Marriage. Striking down what the court considers an unconstitutional law is very different from a court just deciding to take matters into there own hands before the legislature even makes a decision either way and rule in favor of gay marriage like the SJC of Mass did back on November 17th 2003.

The Northeast and more specifically New England remains the most progressive region in the nation when it comes to LGBT rights and it was only a matter of time before the rest of the country started to get with the program and legalize gay marriage once a New England state or two legalized it.

[Talyubittu]

I don't see why you have to get all technical about it. The point is it's a step forward. Does it really matter how many steps backwards we had to take in order to finally reach the destination?

[Khartoun2004]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

I don't see why you have to get all technical about it. The point is it's a step forward. Does it really matter how many steps backwards we had to take in order to finally reach the destination?

No, Iowa is probably the most liberal place in the Midwest.... but I wouldn't call it liberal or progressive when compared to the regions/States of this country that are actually Liberal and Progressive... and are smeared relentlessly by conservatives as such.

Iowa is a swing state. It can be incredibly liberal depending on which way it's swinging. Or it can be ridiculous conservative. So at the moment it has a very liberal court, with a conservative legislature... That is not the formula for true progressive legislature. The SC decided to strike down a law it found unconstitutional... big deal that's what their job is. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it, is because it legalized Gay Marriage.

Let me know when a mid-west state legalizes gay marriage without it being the result of a court tearing down a law passed by it's legislation and general population. That will be true Progressive Policy initiatives.

Offtop:
sorry if this is all over the place. I'm more than a tab bit intoxicated atm

[Talyubittu]

It really doesn't need to be dissected. If New England was really that liberal, gay marriage would be legalized throughout the entire region. Liberal policies are good, but gay marriage - seriously? Three states out of the entire US allow the union, and only two of them are in the northeast. The point isn't how it happens, but that it's legal. It's a great step forward, especially in the midwest (And actually, you'd want to check out Minnesota if you're looking for the most liberal Midwestern state). People bitch and bitch about how the government doesn't respect what its ethical or humane, and when it actually does (case and point, Iowa's supreme court overturning the decision to ban gay marriage) - people like you complain that it doesn't reflect the public's overall opinion on the issue just to have something to say. Seriously, don't turn it into an argument. Just be happy that these people can live a lifestyle previously unavailable to them now.

[Khartoun2004]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

It really doesn't need to be dissected. If New England was really that liberal, gay marriage would be legalized throughout the entire region. Liberal policies are good, but gay marriage - seriously? Three states out of the entire US allow the union, and only two of them are in the northeast. The point isn't how it happens, but that it's legal. It's a great step forward, especially in the midwest (And actually, you'd want to check out Minnesota if you're looking for the most liberal Midwestern state). People bitch and bitch about how the government doesn't respect what its ethical or humane, and when it actually does (case and point, Iowa's supreme court overturning the decision to ban gay marriage) - people like you complain that it doesn't reflect the public's overall opinion on the issue just to have something to say. Seriously, don't turn it into an argument. Just be happy that these people can live a lifestyle previously unavailable to them now.

I was only pointing out the fact that Progressive and Midwest do not belong in the same sentence. It has nothing to do with Iowa passing gay marriage.

But since we're on the subject of every other state in the Midwest versus New England. Every New England State has something (with the exception of RI, but they will honor same sex marriages performed in MA or elsewhere, so everyone just goes to MA anyway). MA and CT have Same-Sex Marriage, VT and NH have Civil Unions, Maine has Domestic Partnerships which are similar to that thing the UK has.

Now the Midwest... Iowa is the only state with Marriage... and every other state in that region has either a statue banning same-sex marriage or a constitutional amendment which not only bans marriage, but also any same sex unions no matter what it's called. And sorry but Constitutional Amends are a bitch and a half to change. So I doubt any other state in the Midwest will be legalizing it any time in the near future.

Here's a map to show you what I'm talking about Same-Sex Marriage in the USA.

[Talyubittu]

I know which states DO and do not recognize what, I don't need a map.

Now the Midwest... Iowa is the only state with Marriage... and every other state in that region has either a statue banning same-sex marriage or a constitutional amendment which not only bans marriage, but also any same sex unions no matter what it's called. And sorry but Constitutional Amends are a bitch and a half to change. So I doubt any other state in the Midwest will be legalizing it any time in the near future.

Big deal? If anything, Iowa represents the biggest bout of freedom for any of us who are GLBT in the Midwest.

[Khartoun2004]

The 111th Congress of the United States has passed HR 3590, aka Health Care Reform Bill... It will now be signed into law by President Obama sometime this week. WE DID IT! 219 - 212... This is HUGE. Obama ran on a platform of change and Health Care Reform is his first major victory. I applaud the American Public and our elected officials who voted for reform on their commitment to improve the quality of life for all Americans and future generations of Americans.

The Reconciliation Bill also passed in the house and is expected to be voted on by the Senate in the next week or two.

I'm happy to say that I can once again say I am proud to be an American and I love my Government.

Offtop:
If Speaker Pelosi wants to run for the White House in 2016, she totally has my vote.

[Argos]

From what media tell here, the whole thing was pretty much of a breech delivery. They hardly let Obama keep his briefs, if I can trust our news coverage. Didn't have time to get informed what exactly is left from the original plans, but I guess it's a huge success anyway - such a big project finished in the middle of his first election period, where the president often has a depression in popularity. I know another president who began a senseless war for that reason.

For an European it's not easy to understand why it took so long for the USA to understand the benefits of a firm health care system, considering our ongoing efforts to stabilize the lower end of the chicken ladder, and we developed well with this philosophy, well, at the expense of explosive debt overload.

[little_polar_bear]

I haven't had the chance either to see what exactly was kept from the original plans, but one has to congratulate Obama - he is a real fighter and a politician that works for what he believes in. I'm very happy for him and the American people who supported him on the way! Especially in these days that American politics are more corrupted than ever.

[Khartoun2004]

Originally Posted by little_polar_bear

I haven't had the chance either to see what exactly was kept from the original plans, but one has to congratulate Obama - he is a real fighter and a politician that works for what he believes in. I'm very happy for him and the American people who supported him on the way! Especially in these days that American politics are more corrupted than ever.

Umm our government is not corrupt. You want to see corruption look at some South American governments or Russia. Unconstitutional laws are not being passed, laws are not being circumvented... I'm curious as to what this "corruption" is that you're referring to in our government. Please elaborate...

[Talyubittu]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

Umm our government is not corrupt. You want to see corruption look at some South American governments or Russia. Unconstitutional laws are not being passed, laws are not being circumvented... I'm curious as to what this "corruption" is that you're referring to in our government. Please elaborate...

LOOOL!

Our government is corrupt as the day is long! I don't trust any of them, anywhere, anytime. I'm with little_polar_bear on this one.

[Argos]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

Umm our government is not corrupt.

"You can come out of the hole now!" says the cat to the mouse. "No need to fear me any more! I've become a vegetarian, honestly!"

[Khartoun2004]

There's a huge difference between not trusting your government because they are a bunch of moronic retards... and having a truly corrupt government that murders people for the fun of it or because someone disagrees with them.

Our government is in serious need of some new blood and a slap in face to bring them back to reality, but you are not going to be hauled off by secret police and shot in the back of the head in a field somewhere for voicing your opinions. That is true corruption my dear Timmy.

I'm not saying that our government doesn't have issues, but the laws are still followed and we still have our rights. That is not the case in a lot of places. China is a hugely corrupt place, Sudan... I don't think I need to explain why Sudan is a corrupt government. Russia is pretty corrupt look no further than Putin.

Lobbyists have always been a part of American Politics and they always will be, out entire system was set up around that, the very fact that we have Political Parties in the first place makes them a necessity. It's not corruption if the system is working the way it was designed to work. The problem here is the general apathy of the public and the fact that fewer and fewer constituents are becoming active in politics as their own lobbying groups. So naturally the corporations are winning the battle for influence. But that's not true corruption.

[Talyubittu]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

There's a huge difference between not trusting your government because they are a bunch of moronic retards... and having a truly corrupt government that murders people for the fun of it or because someone disagrees with them.

Our government is in serious need of some new blood and a slap in face to bring them back to reality, but you are not going to be hauled off by secret police and shot in the back of the head in a field somewhere for voicing your opinions. That is true corruption my dear Timmy.

I'm not saying that our government doesn't have issues, but the laws are still followed and we still have our rights. That is not the case in a lot of places. China is a hugely corrupt place, Sudan... I don't think I need to explain why Sudan is a corrupt government. Russia is pretty corrupt look no further than Putin.

Lobbyists have always been a part of American Politics and they always will be, out entire system was set up around that, the very fact that we have Political Parties in the first place makes them a necessity. It's not corruption if the system is working the way it was designed to work. The problem here is the general apathy of the public and the fact that fewer and fewer constituents are becoming active in politics as their own lobbying groups. So naturally the corporations are winning the battle for influence. But that's not true corruption.

I'm not talking about lobbyists. I'm talking about true corruption in American politics. Just because people aren't being hauled off and murdered does not mean the USA is not corrupt. True corruption are things like banks, companies like MERS and the breaking up of millions of mortgages in the united states, putting them into a pool and allowing various companies to purchase these pieces to proceed with foreclosures. Something the government is aware of and allows to happen despite being illegal. ENRON, John Yoo and his dirty work for Bush, The Patriot Act, torture in the middle east and GITMO, the E-mail issues in the white house during Bush's administration, dismissing the US Attorney's in 2006 and tons of other issues involving the testing of chemical agents in New York City subways by the Army and other medical experiments carried out with the consciousness of our government. That's true corruption my dear Alex.

[Khartoun2004]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

I'm not talking about lobbyists. I'm talking about true corruption in American politics. Just because people aren't being hauled off and murdered does not mean the USA is not corrupt. True corruption are things like banks, companies like MERS and the breaking up of millions of mortgages in the united states, putting them into a pool and allowing various companies to purchase these pieces to proceed with foreclosures. Something the government is aware of and allows to happen despite being illegal. ENRON, John Yoo and his dirty work for Bush, The Patriot Act, torture in the middle east and GITMO, the E-mail issues in the white house during Bush's administration, dismissing the US Attorney's in 2006 and tons of other issues involving the testing of chemical agents in New York City subways by the Army and other medical experiments carried out with the consciousness of our government. That's true corruption my dear Alex.

All good points and also under a different administration. Bush was corrupt, I know that better than most. And banks being corrupt, umm absolutely, I could give you far worse examples from when I worked for Bank of America... But all of this was allowed under a different administration than the current one. And banks are not the government, and interceding in the business practices of private corporations is not easy to do.

The corruption issue under the Bush administration came from people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the architect of it all Karl Rove. Those people are slowly being made to answer for their crimes under the current administrations in the White House and Congress... But the process is slow and inquiries need to be completely to build cases against them. The banks are being dealt with, but that also takes quite a bit of time... and the Republicans stalling the Senate does not help speed up the process. Bush should have been impeached in the beginning of his second term and probably would have been had the Democrats gained control over the Senate or the House in 2004, rather than 2006... At that point it really wasn't worth the hassle.

I was speaking mainly about the Obama Administration though. There is far less corruption in the current administration than the last one. But this is usually the case with a Democrat in office, at least over the last 40-50 years (Johnson being the exception, but he's also from Texas). Prisoners at GITMO are finally being put on trial or at least things have been put into motion to finally put them on trial. Obama respects the law, Bush always thought (and wrongly) he was above the law.

Obama can't undue all the damage done by Bush and his lackeys in a year... it takes far longer to fix things than it does to destroy them and Bush had 8 years to truly fuck this country up. I still have faith in this Administration to right many of the wrongs of the previous one. Patience is the key.

[Argos]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

You want to see corruption look at some South American governments or Russia. Unconstitutional laws are not being passed, laws are not being circumvented...
...
There's a huge difference between not trusting your government because they are a bunch of moronic retards... and having a truly corrupt government that murders people for the fun of it or because someone disagrees with them.
...
but you are not going to be hauled off by secret police and shot in the back of the head in a field somewhere for voicing your opinions. That is true corruption ...
...
I'm not saying that our government doesn't have issues, but the laws are still followed and we still have our rights. That is not the case in a lot of places. China is a hugely corrupt place, Sudan... I don't think I need to explain why Sudan is a corrupt government. Russia is pretty corrupt look no further than Putin.

Lot of quotes, I know, but I think you pack too many 'virtues' into the word corruption which don't have much to do with it. Corruption is operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain. (that's not my own definition, but the one of Transparency International, and it encompasses bribe, venality, acceptance and granting of undue advantage by a public official). Illegal killings, brutality etc., though regularly connected with corruption, are not corruption. In that sense mentioning Putin as corrupt is a little bit bold, unless you see (original) macchiavellianism as corruption. In fact Putin and Medvedev are some of the few Russian politicians who actively fight corruption.

On the other hand, the case with lobbyism is not so simple as you want to depict. From the moment you change a law or the bill of a law to the advantage of some interest group in order to get the agreement, you are already in the middle of the morass of corruption, no matter whether "...the system is working the way it was designed to work", if it's legalized or even anchored in the constitution - it is corruption. Strictly taken, it's not even necessary that anything in that direction is done. The fact alone that a lobbyist takes a public office, which makes it possible to cause inequality of competitors, is enough to abet corruption regardless of whether there has been some irregularity or not.

Needless to say that corruption is an integral part of every government, every political practice everywhere on Earth. It is impossible to govern without a certain amount of corruption. The fact, that in the USA this is done quite transparently and is openly accepted by law, makes their approach to the problem the most honest one of the western democracies. The real concern and the touchstone for a government is - what remains for the people? The end justifies the means.

[Khartoun2004]

Argos, I don't disagree with you. I know there is corruption in my government. My point was that it's no where near as bad as it is in other places. And this particular administration is far more transparent and less corrupt than previous administrations.

[Argos]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

And this particular administration is far more transparent and less corrupt than previous administrations.

That's what I never will deny. Even if the Democrats try as hard as they can, they'll fail miserably. How could they replace a Dick Halliburton (...or whatever his name is...)? And they don't have the heavenly imagination like the Reps to invent the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Detention Camp with exclusion of the Geneva Conventions and the "enhanced interrogation techniques" , the lies of Colin Powell before the UN Security Council etc etc...and not to forget such great philosophers like Rummy (you know - the tamer of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns) (oh God, how I miss him! )

Back to the catalyst of the corruption debate:

Originally Posted by little_polar_bear

Especially in these days that American politics are more corrupted than ever.

I'm quite sure that Aileen wasn't referring here to the Obama administration, more what happened with American politics in the last decade (that is - the last 'days' of Clinton and the whole Bush era) with all it's scandals and finally causing a financial crisis all over the world. There will be much work for Obama to regain trust in Americas economic policy.

[uykusuz]

Fareed ZakariaMay 29, 2010 Newsweek

Obama vs. Al Capone
Whose foreign policy makes more sense?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. But the recent snapshot of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva embracing Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has launched tens of thousands of words of commentary. Rarely has a single photograph irritated so many people.

The target of the most criticism, however, was a man who was not even in the picture. “Full credit for this debacle goes to the Obama administration,” declared The Wall Street Journal. The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer was less restrained. Writing in The Washington Post, he thundered, “that picture—a defiant, triumphant, take-that-Uncle-Sam—is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there’s no cost in lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.”

This is now the settled line of attack against Barack Obama’s foreign policy. He is too soft, and other countries are taking advantage of him. First it was the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians. Now even the Brazilians and Turks are joining in. “There’s nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries,” writes Krauthammer.

Some of this reflects a familiar pattern of criticism against an American president. Bad things happen in the world, and we say to the White House, “How could you let this happen?” The worse the oil spill gets, the surer we are that Obama should be doing something to stop it and get those images off the television screens.

The critics are angry, for example, that Obama did not make the Green Revolution triumph in Iran. But the Iranian regime is both repressive and resourceful, using guns and money to keep itself in power. It also has some significant support among the poor, the old, and those in rural areas. This is not a regime like North Korea’s that survives solely on its brutality. Nor is it isolated like Pyongyang. Brazil and Turkey are hardly alone in their overtures to Iran. The 118 countries that make up the nonaligned bloc routinely pass resolutions supporting Tehran in the battle over its nuclear program. A more belligerent speech by Obama would not have made the Tehran regime collapse.

His conservative opponents believe that Obama needs to get tougher, to push around these other countries and show them that America means business. There’s just one problem: that policy has been tried extensively and failed miserably. The administration of George W. Bush consciously defined its foreign policy as tough and aggressive. “It is better to be feared than loved,” Dick Cheney used to say, quoting Machiavelli. Donald Rumsfeld chose a less upmarket source, often citing Al Capone’s line: “You will get further with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word.”

Have we forgotten the results of this experiment in foreign policy as machismo? America’s oldest allies in Europe turned against the United States. Governments publicly criticized Washington on policy after policy and refused to support its efforts. By 2007, large majorities of people in country after country, even historically pro-American places like Britain, had turned against America.

Turkey, as it happens, proved a case study of how not to handle an ally. The Bush administration treated the country with the usual mixture of high-handedness and arrogance, threatening it with dire consequences if it would not allow U.S. troops to attack Iraq from Turkey. Seemingly unaware that Turkey had become a flourishing democracy, and that 95 percent of the Turkish public opposed a war with Iraq, the Bush administration was totally blindsided when the Turkish Parliament voted no, upending U.S. war plans.

There is a broader trend that Obama’s critics have completely missed. Countries like Turkey and Brazil (and China and India) have been growing in economic power over the last two decades. In 1995 the emerging-market countries made up about a third of the global economy. This year they will make up half—and rising. They weathered the economic crisis far better than the Western world. They are politically stable, rich, and increasingly confident, determined to play a larger role on the world stage. Under these circumstances, the idea that Obama just needs to throw America’s weight around more is foolish and dangerous. Brazil and Turkey will not become more cooperative if Washington threatens them more. America’s task is to find ways to partner with and convince the emerging powers of the world that they have an interest in a more stable and decent world. And Al Capone is not much of a model for how to make that happen.