Welcome Back/The Housing Crisis

Well it was a heck of a Thanksgiving break and if you're like me, all you managed to accomplish was nothing.  Amidst more homework than ever before and an extremely uncomfortable bed at my girlfriend's mom's house, its hard to feel like we got any gains out of the too-late break.  However, there's only a couple weeks until finals so I guess we just have to get tough... To think we have two more years of this!

Anyway, down to brass tacks.  While the economy continues to make gains throughout the country with stocks rising and companies posting profits, the one area where gains are not being seen is the one that's most important to you and I: employment and the housing industry.

A recent NY Times article highlighted the unfortunate shortcomings of the current administration's program, Making Home Affordable.  The government incentives offered under the program clearly aren't pushing lenders any closer to permanent restructuring of loans and the rising unemployment continues to drag foreclosure numbers upward.

President Obama is feeling more pressure than ever to use the bully pulpit for good and Senators are looking at measures to restructure the Fed's current housing program to put more pressure on lenders for the good of delinquent borrowers.  Anti-government tea baggers heads' are spinning.

The following brief explanation sums up the article well:

From its inception early this year, the Obama administration’s program, called Making Home Affordable, has been dogged by persistent questions about whether it could diminish a swelling wave of foreclosures. Some economists argued that the plan was built for last year’s problem — exotic mortgages whose payments increased — and not for the current menace of soaring joblessness. Lawyers who defend homeowners against foreclosure maintained that mortgage companies collect lucrative fees from long-term delinquency, undercutting their incentive to lower payments to affordable levels.

Now at the end of the day, I think it's time to stop the bleeding.  The article suggests that one measure under consideration is mediated renegotiation of home loans by bankruptcy judges, putting pressure on lenders to cut their losses in lieu of financial stability.  While this will ultimately hurt the financial industry a bit, I am staunchly of the opinion that they've received quite enough of our money and this would help us by making them shoulder the burden for their deeds.

In the same breath, tighter controls need to be put in place to prevent the wild borrowing that lead people to default on their mortgages.  If we do not curtail both wild financial speculation by banks and unsafe borrowing practices by consumers, then we have learned absolutely nothing from this catastrophe.

The bottom line is this, flex muscle on lenders, relieve pressure on consumers, get money back into the economy, spur job growth.  Seems like a simple chain but as I'm sure Alex K will demonstrate, it probably isn't.

You know what to do cats and chicks.  Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.

Thanksgiving Break (Read: Get me the Hell Out of Iowa State)

Hey everybody!  Well it's that time of year again and I'll be in Marengo, IL for the coming week.  Posts will probably be sparse because the Mrs. and I will be rather busy carving turkeys and um... climbing... horses or something.

Anyway I just wanted to say that it's been an awesome couple of weeks and I think our little community is off to an awesome start.  Thank you to everyone who contributed and like I said in my email, if you have opinions you'd like published or even jokes you want posted, feel free to drop me a line any time.

With that, I leave you with this: Sarah Palin recently floated Glenn Beck as a potential running mate in 2012, to which John B proposed the following bumper sticker:

Palin Beck '12 - How fucking stupid are you?

 Happy holiday all and as always, feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

Constructive Profiling, A Rogue Strategy

Well done Ms. Palin, my head is spinning.



Now I hate picking on people and with my recent coverage of Sarah Palin, it feels like I am.  But when someone consistently provides comments like this with blatant disregard for human decency (or perhaps her own political career), she deserves several posts.

In the video, Ms. Palin speaks of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, claiming that it was "a fear of being politically incorrect that we did not...profile this guy."  She also claims that there were "massive warning flags" including evidence of his contact with Al-Qaeda.  This despite evidence that Hasan was self-radicalized, not an operative of Al-Qaeda, which would, through a conservative lens, make Fort Hood a terrorist attack.

"Profiling in the context of doing whatever we can to save American lives, I'm all for it then," she states with proud defiance, seemingly enticed by the idea of making "liberal heads...spin".

Now where do you start?  How about here: 93% of Fox News viewers believe that Hasan was a trained terrorist and that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack, which he and it were not.  Palin's remarks perfectly walk the line provided by the evidently defunct political machine posing as a journalism bureau Fox News.

The warrant-less tap on his email would have been a gross invasion of civil liberties and while it might have saved the victims of Fort Hood, we cannot lose our humanity in order to save human lives.  It has been clear since the attack on September 11th that Fox-Republicans are willing to sacrifice civil liberties and rights provided under the clearest articles of the constitution for the sake of catching this unknown and unseen enemy, "the terrorist."  The finger pointing and disregard for the law coupled with rampant paranoia is borderline McCarthyist.

Radical is apparently a word for "not my" when juxtaposed with beliefs in the Fox-right camp.  Though Hasan was a muslim, his rampage was fueled more by psychological unrest than with belief in someone other than Jesus.  Of course, the ultimate irony is that while Ms. Palin condemns the mentally ill for having "radical" (read: non-Christian) beliefs, she herself just released "Going Rogue" which proclaims how much different she is from the typical Republican.  Different?  Rogue?  Radical perhaps?

And finally, yes my head is spinning since you used the term profiling Sarah, but only because the treatment of Muslims in this country has been blatantly racist under the guise of constructive profiling the whole time.  The idea that we should allow and accept undue profiling of Muslims in defense of Americans is, again, losing our humanity to save human lives.

I apologize for the rant since I know that all of us understand just how absurd her remarks are.  Heck, all of us understand how absurd her presidential bid is.  But when millions of Americans listen to her errant statements and accept them as fact, her comments need to be responded to.

Anyone else as mad as I am?  Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

I No Longer Know Who To Blame

Growing up we all learn to believe in certain things.  Things that become unshakable, the bringers of justice and peace in a world full of chaos and wobbly foundations.  For me, one of those things, was the Federal Reserve.

In hindsight, it was a silly assumption but as a kid growing up, is it hard to believe that the one thing I believed in was the economy?  The ubiquity of capitalism, the penetration of the dollar into our hearts and our conversations, and furthermore the body that regulates all that all seemed like pretty immovable objects to my uneducated brain.

And even in hindsight, maybe I was right to believe in their unstoppability.  The capabilities of the Fed and the apathy that most Americans graced it with did lead it to become that unflappable, unstoppable entity of capitalism.  They were powerful and, most importantly, they had full faith from the American people (or at least the standing administration).

So here we are today: I'm all growed up and after a decade of blind faith, the Fed may have put us in the mess that we're in.  My childhood hero is shattered.  But is it there fault?  Or was it Obama's?  Was it Gramm-Leach-Bliley or Goldman Sachs alone that tipped the house of cards off the table?  Was it Bush's deregulatory policy or the current administration's coddling of "too big to fail" banks?

I no longer know what to believe in but worst of all, I no longer know who to blame.  But I do know this: you guys probably do.

Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

We All Need This One (At Least I Do)

Say it, say that I post Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert too much.  Well guess what.  I had a really crappy day yesterday, and last night, and this morning.  So here's something to lighten the mood and get everybody talking about today's upcoming post.

I personally support same-sex burials.  Boy, that sounds terrible without context.

Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

So Much for Compromise

When Obama was elected, he did so on a platform of Hope.  Hope for peace, hope for an end to societies ills, and, most optimistically, hope for bipartisanship in a country whose divide between the left and right is deepening every day.

Let's be honest with ourselves, if we all step off of our respective political soapboxes, we can probably find the best action for policy through compromise.  Somehow through that daily gnashing of teeth, the Democrats and the Republicans (at some time I'm sure) have eeked out bipartisan agreements for the better of the country.

Not to pick on them, but Republicans obviously do not agree.

According to a recent NY Times article, Republicans are experiencing extensive party infighting that threatens to divide them into moderate and far-right camps.  Even the candidates that the RNC recently elected (in what they purport is the most poignant referendum on the Obama agenda yet) are in danger of falling victim to the party's mechanics:

Conservatives counter that Republicans have become Democrats’ enablers in bigger deficits and bigger government, and that the way to win is to sharpen the distinctions between the parties.

And there you have it folks.  Conservatives and Republicans.  Now I know its politically reductionist to lump them into the same camp but for at least the past eight years they've both run under the same banner.  Furthermore, if compromise is the best road to productive legislation, it appears that the right will have nothing of productivity.

The next big question is, what effect will this have on the midterm elections next year?  Democrats are, as a historical trend, poised to lose seats in the next election, but will this new found infighting between conservatives, Republicans, Fox News, and the RNC have an effect?

You know what to do.  Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

Happy Weekend Everybody!

Hey guys, I'm shutting down for the weekend but feel free to jot down any pertinent thoughts on here in between sessions of napping and open mouthed TV drooling.  I won't be back until Monday so have a good weekend!

I leave you with one final thought for the week:



Although I've personally never liked Highlander.

Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.  But don't expect me to answer them.

GOP Infighting Caused by...FOX?

A recent MediaMatters post was quoted a-thusly:

In other words, in just the last 12 months, the balance of power within the conservative movement has completely swung in the direction of the right-wing press, which is stoking the flames of the GOP civil war. It's a partisan press corps that no longer documents internal Republican squabbling; it initiates the infighting.

That's right boys and girls.  Fox News, the bastion of Republican all-that-is-good has become the harbinger of their demise.  All hyperbole aside, Fox was largely responsible for ousting Scozzafava and allowing a Democrat to be elected in NY District 23 where Republicans had held office since the Civil War.

The article is a short read, depicting Fox's inability to get their men/women elected while at the same time destroying the chances of the men/women who have actually have a fighting chance!  My thoughts: Glenn Beck's haircut is the one to blame.

Good news for all you egg fans, because they yoke's on the red states!  Feel free to leave your comments at the desk.  Unless they have to do with bashing that hilarious joke I just made.

Credit to John B for the lead.

Stewart Responds to Hannity's Apology

I barely have to preview Jon Stewart's clips before posting them.  I mean come on, it's Jon Stewart, talking about Sean Hannity, with his mouth.



The best part about Fox News is they always give you something to write about.  Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

The Stupak Injustice

In lieu of responding to Alex K's extensive response to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (We discussed most of it in my kitchen anyway) I've decided to address an issue that's got me really going.  Hang on to your hats kids.

Recently I submitted a letter to the editor of the ISU Daily descrying the Stupak amendment's invasion in a woman's right to choose.  For those of you who haven't read the amendment, it can be found here.  I'll be posting my editorial here in the coming day but here I'll summarize the argument for space sake.

A little history: The Hyde amendment, passed in 1976, banned the practice of abortions funded by federal dollars.  Basically, as long as the government wasn't paying for them, women could use their own money to purchase an elective abortion under a private health care insurance provider.

In the past few days however, namely over the weekend as the health bill was passing through the House, Bart Stupak (D-MI) added the Stupak amendment to the already lengthy bill.  The Stupak amendment extends the restrictions under the Hyde bill to a level they've never been before.  The Daily recently posted an editorial here, claiming that the "most essential clause" of the bill is that on page 2, which reads:

“No funds authorized or approved by this Act [or an amendment made by this Act] may be used to pay for any abortion to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

They go on to voice their support of the amendment, claiming that it "...does a good job of balancing a hot-button issue with the role of government."

In the mean time, my editorial on the issue has been shot down for print for the second straight day and the fact is, I wouldn't be so upset about it if they weren't leaving out the section on page 3.

If they had bothered to turn the page, they would have read this:

(b) Option to Purchase Separate Supplemental Coverage or Plan - Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as -
(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this act; and
(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased using -
(A) individual premium payments required for a Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(B) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

I've italicized the important section.  The bill does provide the same restrictions passed under the Hyde amendment but it then goes further to extend those restrictions to health insurance plans purchased on the national insurance exchange.  This means that women, for financial reasons, would be forced into choosing more expensive plans outside the Exchange.

Okay, begin rant: it's on the next page Daily Editorial Board!

End rant.  My editorial argues about the implications of such an act, calling it a gross invasion of civil liberties, perpetrated by the same people who brought you "the Public Option is a government takeover of health care."

The fact is that if a woman is going to have a right to choose, the Stupak amendment is not going to get her there.  The amendment has gone in one ear and out the other of right-wingers and with great joy.  Further and further they tighten the vice on civil liberties so that a religious institution and some nut jobs can have there way.

Starting to feel like your rights are less important than their beliefs?  Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.

Movie Stars and Politicians

Since most of us remember the 2008 election pretty well, I think it's safe to say that none of us have forgotten that darling in red, Sarah Palin.

Her new book is due to hit shelves soon and currently its highly anticipated debut has placed it at the top of the New York Times Bestseller list and the Amazon book pre-order list shortly before release.  But even with all this mass hoopla, most of us have at least the brain to wonder why.  Why would a woman who's manufactured appearance and mental incompetence wrecked a perfectly good political campaign be of such interest to the American public?

Furthermore, she's a quitter!  We praise the heroes of the Iraq war who stayed and fought, not the New York Knicks (do they still play basketball or is it like a guest appearance at each game?).  None of us have praised Iowa State's football team for their ability to give up the ghost before gaining any real progress have we?  So why on Earth should anybody purchase a book by the defunct governor of Alaska whose reign there is currently pending an ethics investigation?

Simply put: she's relatable.  She's dressed in shiny clothes, keeps a smile on her face, talks about her kids, and possesses an ignorance that's borderline intoxicating to the American public.  When you turn on Troy you want Brad Pitt, not a moral lesson, at least if you belong to the American non-intellectual masses.

In a recent NPR story, Palin was noted as having a particularly sour view on Katie Couric's journalism.

Palin also writes harshly of CBS anchor Katie Couric, whom she describes as "badgering" and biased. Palin's series of interviews with Couric were widely regarded as disastrous, leaving the impression of an ill-informed candidate who was unsuited for the job.

Funny since it seems like the only real scrutiny she received in the mass media was from Katie Couric.

Update: And who better to ask about the media's treatment of Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean than Meghan McCain and Bill O'Reilly.  Thanks again Fox. Folks, enjoy the hilarity.

Did Meghan McCain, in defense of women, just call them too scared and frightened to enter politics?

Celebrity or legit politician?  We all know the answer to that.  Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Turns 10

Happy birthday Gramm-Leach-Bliley!  You're 10 years old today!  And now, a celebration the way only MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan can throw it, with poignant commentary.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The premise is this: back in the day, the Glass-Steagall act prevented banks from doing risky things with people's money by establishing a barrier between investment banks, "main st" or personal banks, and insurance companies.  Any money that you put into one of those institutions could not be gambled in other money markets so consumers could be sure that there money was safe.

This was so from 1933 to 1999.  It was a measure passed after the crash of the Great Depression caused by banks speculating with consumer money in investment markets.

Sounds pretty air-tight right?  This measure would keep people from dabbling in fragile derivative markets using people's pensions or mortgages, which meant that people could not lose their home because a bank's investment accounts tanked.

So what happened?  On Nov. 2nd, 1999 Congress passed Gramm-Leach-Bliley.  An act that undid that regulatory protection remove the barrier that prevented banks from participating in all three markets at the same time.  This gave banks, especially those with more capital in their vaults like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, the opportunity to make boatloads of money by speculating with people's money and pensions!

Now how did this come to pass?  How did Congress let such an egregious measure pass the gavel and out into the financial world?  Because lobbyists from Citigroup (yes, the one's that owe us hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money) coerced congress into passing this deregulatory measure.  The deal was made in the backrooms of the White House and Congress and now, we're paying for it.

So grab a hat everybody!  Let's celebrate the only way we can!  By wading through job applications into a crippled job market where credit is harder to come by than ever before.

Deregulation and "too big to fail" got you down?  Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.

Republican Problems Back Home

While most of the talk in the news has been at the possibility of Democrats losing seats in the House and Senate in the midterm elections of 2010, Republicans have not been encased in this glass bubble of political immunity (though that's not what most analysts would have us believe)

Along with a further discussion of his politics, a recent New York Times article depicts the impending fall of Senator Lindsey Graham (R - SC).  Apparently his more progressive stances have won him a censure by his own party.  According to the article:

The executive committee of the Charleston County Republican Party voted unanimously on Monday to rebuke Mr. Graham “for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina, such as: passing a ‘cap and trade’ energy bill, bailing out banks and granting amnesty for illegal aliens.”

 Perhaps Republicans should be just as scared as Democrats by the winds of change.

Do you think this has more to do with Republican - Democrat battles or with the pile of failed political careers that change inevitably leaves behind?  Please feel free to leave comments at the front desk.

Obama's Failing? Afghanistan Edition

Thought of the day from John B:

There has been much breath-holding and nervous excitement as the Obama Administration considers General McChrystal’s request for 40,000 additional troops for Afghanistan.  Today word is leaking tout that instead of simply rubber stamping one of four options provided by the military the President wants a thorough analysis of what works and doesn’t about our current Afghan policy, possible scenarios for using our resources differently for better results, and a withdrawal strategy.  Considering the facts of steadily declining popularity for this war among Americans (under 50% now), high cost in money and lives, an extreme desire on the part of Afghans for us to leave, and results that have been almost nonexistent since removing the Taliban from Kabul almost 8 years ago and the wisdom of this approach is obvious.  The Washington press corps has naturally decided that this represents an extreme political risk for Obama.  That’s right, once again they’ve decided that one plus one equals the square root of two, or perhaps something else from this family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number

.  Hey, David Frum said it, Fred Kagen said it, Rush said it, when have those guys ever been wrong?

Hit the nail on the head, as usual.  Once again Barack Obama's messed up but this time in Afghanistan despite the wisdom of such a thoughtful approach toward a high stakes war.

Thanks John!

Well if I Can't Trust Fox Who Can I Trust?

Let's face it, if we're completely honest with ourselves, it's ridiculous to consider Fox News, CNN, or even MSNBC as credible news sources since each have sponsorship details that require embellishing some facts if not with lies then with sensationalist rhetoric to attract viewers.

So with this in mind, who can you trust?  Cable news networks dominate the airwaves and trying to find non-biased news sources yields results that are both slim and esoteric.  Let's face it, MoveOn.org ain't exactly filled with open-minded individuals...

Through my experience, however, I feel that I've found a handful of resources for finding the (mostly) unvarnished truth behind what goes on in our world today.

NPR: Radio and Podcasts

Ask anyone who's been looking for a reliable and unbiased news source for a while and they'll inevitably recommend National Public Radio to you.  Their ability to report the facts without embellishment is as impressive as it is rare in a world dominated by blatantly biased journalism.

The first place to start would be the NPR website which I've posted in the Links section on the homepage.  From there you can find the same daily stories that you get from other news outlets but without all the fluff.

The next place to go would be NPR's podcasts.  Just search NPR in the iTunes library and you'll find a bevy of shows on both general news and more specific topics.  One of my personal favorites is "It's all Politics" which features a poignant appraisal of the supposedly earth-shattering gubernatorial elections that took place recently.

Finally, if you have an iPhone, NPR makes it very easy for you with their app.  Download it from the App Store and say hello to integrated radio stations, up to the minute updates on daily news, and audio from the stories as they are reported on the radio.

Mediamatters.org: Fact Checkers and Heartbreakers

Remember when John Kerry saved several of his military colleagues from certain death and was awarded the purple heart for his courage?  Neither does anyone else because in today's politics, "Swiftboating" or lying/distorting the facts frequently enough that the distortion becomes truth has replaced real debate in our political discourse.  That's where MediaMatters comes in: they are a staff of qualified and often award winning journalists who analyze the news and point out distortions and falsifications.

Many of my favorite items have come from this site because let's face it, when you're sitting in front of the TV watching CNN, you want to accept everything they say as truth.  Lately, however, the introduction of right-wing (or left-wing for that matter) political analysts billed as unbiased experts has so far distorted honest journalism that we need an entity like MediaMatters to keep things straight.

You: The Final Word

At the end of the day, here's the bottom line: you are the one accepting what's given to you on news networks and so it's up to you to examine what you're hearing to find out if there's any truth in it.

The process is simple: if the anchor makes a comment about a bill or an event, look for editorial comments.  Often times it's subtle: using words such as "deadly" or "decisive", over-the-top adjectives that overemphasize the importance of an event or, in some cases, underemphasize it.  Sometimes its even bigger: Fox News recently displayed doctored video footage of a Republican Tea Party to exaggerate its turnout.  Look at news with an incredulous eye and I think you'll be surprised at what you find.

No human being is capable of viewing something without their perspective coming in to play, but journalists should be able to report facts without fiction.  Have you seen poor journalistic practices lately?  Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.   

Babies as Props

At the risk of getting a little Jon Stewart heavy...

Jon Stewart says the House health care reform vote reduced the GOP to town hall hecklers

He just knows what to say doesn't he?

And if I may comment (which of course I can, it's MY blog) has anyone else noticed just how detached Conservatives have become from the healthcare debate?  Please feel free to leave your comments with the front desk.

Fox News Video Doctoring with a little Jon Stewart

My dearest father sent me this little gem:

Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg

Watch to the end of the Jon Stewart video, CLEAR to the end.  Also feel free to watch the boring, more serious analysis of Fox's video doctoring techniques.

Update: Hannity 'fesses up! Sort of...

Hannity admits in the video that they aired the footage from a 9/12 rally but claims it was an "inadvertent mistake".  How do you swap tapes from yesterday with tapes from over a year ago?

Introduction

It’s a Thursday morning and, just as many other mornings before it, I repeated various and sundry morning tasks the exact same way I do every day. It’s pleasant, it’s familiar, and it works like that favorite blanket you keep over the back of a chair for a particularly cold or a tough day: it keeps me feeling safe. However, lately, it’s become a bit of a rut.

We’ve all been there (especially us college students). Suddenly one day you feel the urge to do something different just because it’s different. So, in that spirit, I checked the Iowa State Daily website.

Bad idea.

As I scrolled through the editorials hoping to see my recent piece on the Stupak amendment’s fundamental violation of civil liberties, I was horrified at what I saw in its place: an editorial by the Iowa State Daily Editorial Board praising the amendment’s proactive stance. As if that weren’t bad enough, it was followed by an editorial by Derek Shipull praising Fox News’s defiant stand against the tyranny of Barack Obama’s attack on the right leaning media circus, declaring that “Instead of avoiding Fox, Obama should take them head on and explain his plans factually and honestly.” The editorial is posted here.

The obvious absurdity of the Fox editorial aside, I’ll address the Stupak piece. The language within the Stupak amendment extends that of the Hyde amendment passed in 1976, which prevents federal dollars from being spent to fund elective abortions. But while the language of the Stupak amendment reads:

“No funds authorized or approved by this Act [or an amendment made by this Act] may be used to pay for any abortion to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

what the Daily Editorial Board fails to connect with is that this extension of regulation of abortion funding reaches all the way to the federal insurance exchange being proposed by the current health bill. The idea is that a woman, using her own private dollars, would not be able to purchase a plan covering elective abortions if it is provided under the federally funded insurance exchange.

Not only does this grossly overstep the boundaries of the Hyde amendment, since private dollars are funding the abortions, it severely compromises freedom of choice in health care. Furthermore, the voices that pushed the Stupak amendment to pass were not those of the health care experts or even doctors, they were those of the Catholic church! The insurance exchange promises to lower premiums and costs and because of the open competition between providers on said market, the plans provided therein would likely be some of the cheapest in the country. This forces women who want to exercise that right to choose to purchase much more expensive plans, unfairly compromising their right to choose what they do with their own private money.

How is this not a government takeover of healthcare?

But does any of this enter into the conversation at the Daily? No. Does it enter into the conversation on Fox News? No. This is because, in this day and age, educated conversation is less important than proving that your side is right, always, forever and ever, amen. When backwoods farmers with no education and fervent religious backgrounds meet crazy, blue state hating mormons (I’m looking at you Glenn Beck), the result is a shouting match in which fact and reason play no part.

Get to the point Barker.

So here It is. If you and I can’t get our voices heard in the ever-important political compass that is the ISU Daily or on the airwaves of such 21st century Churchills as Rush Limbaugh, we can do it here. The title of my blog, The Polis refers to the Greek word for city. But what it suggested was far more than a collection of buildings: it meant a place where the important public conversation could take place. For centuries the concept has been repeated with the idea being that under a set of rules to maintain order, and in a public place where all can participate, the political discussion of the people could yield the best results through educated conversation. This blog is a chance for all of you whom I’ve invited to bring our ideas to the table in a place where they can be discussed, analyzed, and heard without the smarmy filth of factless, one-sided dogma.

So take this opportunity to make this place your polis. If you have a story you want published, an editorial you’d like to share, or any other piece of material that you think is pertinent, impactful, poignant, or hilarious, please email me and I’ll post it (giving proper credit of course). I’ll be posting opinions of my own daily (perks of being the administrator) and I encourage conversation in the comments section. I rarely get the chance to talk politics with all of you but when we do, it is always loud, proud, and on top of a soapbox. Let’s capture those late-night, alcohol fueled, preaching sessions and put them here where, perhaps, someone else can benefit from our discourse.

Feel free to invite others as you see fit. Thank you for your time and I hope to see all of your comments and submissions in the coming weeks.