Why did I go into $110K in debt for an education?

There is an issue in this country with education. I'm not talking about education with a capitol 'E' as in the Dept. of Education, or even the problems facing our schools or us fixing the system and become a leader in the world in terms of education. I'm talking about a basic belief that has come through clearly in this election that education is evil. While we say education is key to the future, we tell our children that if you want to be successful and happy you need an education, if you want to climb out of poverty or have options for a career you have to get an education. Everything about our individual and societal future depends on education.

So what's the problem? The problem is that because of disparate groups in this country galvanizing in the 1990's around the Republican Party, because they felt validated by the election of a president who did everything he could to endear himself to the American people by pretending he wasn't one of the wealthiest presidents from one of the most privileged backgrounds in our history, and lately by the Tea Party and their attacks on Barack Obama. Thanks to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angles, we now have a social and political narrative that tells us that if you are educated, if you are intellectually above average and successful because you are talented and innovative and intelligent, and if you have any inkling about the makeup of Congress, current events or READ, than you are elitist. Not only are you elitist, but you are out of touch with the rest of the country and unfit to lead in any legislative or executive office anywhere in the country. Because Sarah Palin couldn't name a single newspaper or magazine off the top of her head in the Katie Couric interview in 2008, because she couldn't handle questions from any news outlet except FOX News and the conservative media, everyone but those friendly stations became the 'Lame Stream Media'. Thanks to those and others, disseminated through the media exposure and organizing of the Tea Party movement over the past several years, being a person with an education in this country makes you of less value.

Now, it has been true for a long time that intellectuals are often targets for totalitarian regimes, for fascist societies and political movements. Intellectuals think about things, and argue things and talk to other people about things. When intellectuals then disagree with a movement or regime they have to be silenced lest they foster unrest that erodes that regime or movement's power base. If that regime or movement is overtly and ideologically oppressing their people or if they are enforcing policies that have a broad reaching negative impact, more and more intellectuals speak out against that movement or regime. That is what we have here and it gets more and more insidious.

One topic that floats out among social conservatives in this country, and it floats around on all levels of government, is about the administration of our public schools. A central aspect, philosophically, to this topic is the issue of teaching 'Intelligent Design', which in reality is another word for creationism, the teaching of biology through the Biblical narrative of God creating the Earth and universe and all things and all creatures. This has been a point of contention over and over again in local and state school boards with parents advocating its teaching in place of evolution, or at the very least as a 'viable' alternative to evolution. At the national level, one of the areas of the budget most Republicans are willing to cut, or at least they say this as they're campaigning, is the Education budget. Sharon Angles and a number of other fringe candidates even want to dismantle the Department of Education. Christine O'Donnell mentioned, in reference to teaching ID (creationism) in public schools, that all those curriculum decisions should be made on the local level, that everything should be on the local level.

There aren't general education standards in this country, despite all the testing to grade schools and districts on their proficiency rates. There are, however, standardized tests required by colleges and universities. Why? Because they want to see that a student is able to handle the academic requirements, that they are a desirable candidate for their school, and that they have long-term potential to become successful in the world, thereby reflecting well on their alma mater and donating money as an alum. Whether or not this is a major hurdle for students in this country based on race and socioeconomic status, it would only become that much harder when there is no nationally funded government agency to help support the administrative infrastructure for testing. It would only become that much harder by removing even the appearance of some national standard of education and putting curriculum on the local level.

Of course conservatives want the curriculum decisions to be placed on the local level. They want religious to conservatives to have more control over their kids' education, they want to have more control over the 'moral' or 'social' issues brought up in the schools. Evolution then wouldn't be the only thing for the chopping block. Another perennial issue is 'sex education', or what the rest of us know as health class. Effectively they probably would be most comfortable to return education in this country, and some have said this explicitly, to that of the 1950's. All of that is representative of the incredibly romanticized version of that period in history that many in this country believes in. They may want this for many reasons, too many for me to speculate, but the effect would be to indoctrinate all of our children in a worldview that isn't even recognizable to our modern world. It would ignore the empirical evidence of climate change and the effects of industrialization on the environment, convince children that industries have our best interests at heart as they cut costs to produce food more cheaply, all while promoting the idea that America is the greatest country in the world to the exclusion of everyone else, not just that we can but that we have the right to take unilateral action in the pursuit of our own perceived national interests.

Not incomprehensible is the connection between these conservative ideas of 'local' control and the religious fundamentalism that has become pervasive throughout the Republican Party. It has allowed people of generally less political knowledge, awareness on current events, and general education to congregate around some very well funded party leaders masquerading as outsiders. The rhetorical device of 'educated elite', especially representing them as all from New England, sits really well with working and lower class voters in other parts of the country, and especially in rural areas. These voters then were duped into trusting candidates whose own funding can be traced directly to insider political action groups and often directly to enormously wealthy individuals and corporations. Their own lack of political knowledge and savvy let them vote against their own interests in candidates who we are now seeing turn against some of their own campaign messages and a party interested in nothing but obstruction and further economic problems. At odds with this are the many labor unions who activated their traditionally Democratic base and supported Democratic candidates with money and people-power. These unions recognize the connections between corporate interests and financial groups and the deeply held principles of the Republican Party's conservative agenda antagonistic to the working class.

Where does that leave us as a country? Well, on climate change for instance, 151 nations signed the Kyoto Protocols back in the late 1990's. President Clinton abstained, as did India and China, because it called for a large reduction in fossil fuel emissions. That means that 151 nations, including all of the industrialized nations we call allies and who have historically stable economies and governments, recognize the threat of global climate change resulting from global warming and its involvement in destroying ecosystems and the environment. With every new Republican member of Congress stating during their campaigns they do not believe in global warming, and with several of them looking to hold public high profile hearings to prosecute the 'hoax' of global warming, how can we even think about being competitive in any meaningful way. When evolution, a central principle to all of science, the cornerstone of the field of Biology and it's resulting disciplines, and to the field of genetics so crucial to the fight of diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's, how can we expect to progress in any of the sciences when it is not just questioned by our politicians, but policies put in place that discourage it from being included in classrooms and promoting religiously inspired doctrine instead?

Something that gives me hope, and something that has always made the socially conservative politicians in this country call academia 'liberal', is that in universities and colleges, you are required to prove your points by citing sources, defending sources, defending theories and hypothesis and the process you used to develop those from the evidence you collected. In science, for instance, you are required to present all of your evidence and facts in a structured way and cite any sources. If there is anything faulty in your research methodology, in the quality of the sources or in the logic in whatever argument you're making, your professor gives you a lower grade, talks with you about how you went about your work, or helps to correct errors to strengthen your work. Other fields of study follow similar methods, they call it critical thinking, and it requires you to think beyond just the words on a page, to develop connections and ideas with other material or sources you've read or encountered, and to argue your point in a clear and convincing way. We all have to go through this when we go through a college or university education. We all may not be at a school with the same level of academic intensity, not all of us are able to compete at the same academic level or are interested in pursuing a very academic career path or studies, but we are all challenged to learn and think beyond the superficial.

That is what really is at the heart of the whole idea of 'educated elite', which then translates to 'liberal elite', or if it's about a schism between Sarah Palin and the real Republican Party, the 'establishment elite' or 'Washington elite'. Somehow it's always about 'elite', and how the 'elite' is bad. Well, when you are dealing with multinational corporations, with international trade or political policy, when you are dealing with micro- and macroeconomic issues, with stabilizing and incredibly diverse economy and understanding the intricacies of a multicultural and multilateral approach to prosecuting a war, instead of just sending planes to bomb the hell of out whomever, don't you want the elite? Doesn't 'elite' mean the best, the highest order of whatever it's being applied to?

Of course some random housewife with a mediocre education and no policy background will never be considered to be qualified to become president. Running the nation isn't anything like running a household, despite whatever she might say. Stabilizing the world's largest economy during major global economic uncertainty is nothing like balancing a family checkbook or paying household bills. No, 'common sense' solutions have absolutely no place in Washington, D.C. because that's where we want the smartest, brightest, most talented people in the fields of economics, political science, law and international trade to be and to be working. Sarah Palin is a million miles from any of that. And if an ignorant housewife with no business experience and who has no political skills at all other than being an agitator within her own party can become president, then what the hell did I take on $110K in student loan debt for?

When I would vote for a Republican president

There is a problem with the modern Republican party, I've talked about it a lot and firmly believe it. The current politics of the Republican Party do not represent the conservative values espoused by their own rhetoric. We see it most clearly in the campaigns for national office among the varied districts around the country: Conservative Christian social values issues trump economic and domestic policy issues. When the races get close or competitive, Republicans fall back on those old wedge issues of abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and separation of church and state.

Now, just to get this out of the way, the separation of church and state is fact, it is irrefutable by any thinking rational person and has repeated precedent over centuries of law. There is no turning away from that even with a neo-con dominated high court. The values of freedom of religion is so fundamental to this nation, it was one of the primary reason for immigration to this country in the first place. All those people who deny outright the separation of church and state or insist that it isn't what the founders intended are either deluded to the point of lunacy or they are playing so far to the right that they may as well be playing to a fascist party. Yet, in a crazy election year like this, we see it among far too many candidates.

As for those others, they are part of the rhetorical 'Guns, God and Gays' routine that Karl Rove designed as the presidential and national Republican strategy for the 2004 election. Notice, however, that the election in 2006, possibly a part reaction to that election, saw a sweeping wave of Democratic candidates elected into office. It is also a device that played strongly to the Christian elements of the Republican platform by bringing evoking their fears of a secular nation that turns away from faith and even persecutes those of faith, the supposedly warring sides of what Bill O'Reilly terms the 'culture wars'. Those advocating this kind of conflict then become the 'culture warriors'.

The hypocrisy then becomes the parallel messages of 'freedom and liberty' used by conservative candidates matched with socially conservative message of restricting rights for all minority people. It is the blending of the message of an overreaching government infringing upon the private lives of citizens while espousing the exact same infringement the conservative movement is against, only against the groups they purposefully exclude from full citizen-hood. As long as groups agree with their ideological stance, they are represented by the conservative message, those who disagree are deemed un-American and enemies of freedom.

What that message effectively does is pit those people who have strong Christian faiths, notice they are never reaching out to other people of even similar faiths such as the Jewish community, while at the same time purposely courting the 'white vote' by excluding minority people of conservative Christian faiths, i.e. African Americans and Latino people. Those groups, from a conservative faith perspective, should be sympathetic to the Christian Republican cause on many social issues, yet they largely and historically voted Democrat. What about that rationale makes sense ultimately boils down to the 'white vote' and institutionalized racism. They hate being called racist and fight against that name, but when they campaign on the principles of exclusion in part by using what Rachel Maddow identifies as the 'Southern Strategy' employed during the 1960's and inciting fears of white people, there really can't be any other name for it.

Ultimately the effect of this strategy and this type of rhetoric is the denial of full citizen-hood to many minority groups. They play on the fears of less educated and less affluent white people, particularly in South and the Western United States, fears of becoming the minority in this country, of preferential treatment to racial and ethnic minorities to the detriment of the rights of white people, and to the enforcement of 'socialist' values such as 'wealth redistribution'. It is the same rhetoric that would have denied African Americans the right to vote and enforced segregation in schools and public places. It is the same rhetoric that on a non-superficial level enforced the idea that somehow people of darker skin were less-human and less deserving of the rights enjoyed by a white majority.

But the messages of the conservative white Christian political movement are not ultimately compatible with the message of 'freedom and liberty'. What it is conducive to is the politics of exclusion, of the continued institutionalization of 'freedoms and liberties' for white people, a principle which can't be construed as anything but outright racism and homophobia. It is also a message that numerous 'liberal' or 'moderate' Republicans are against. While many of these Republicans are conservative on fiscal issues, they are at least moderate on social issues. They are also often Republicans from historically Union states. By Union, I am referring to the label of the northern states during the Civil War. Yes, it is ludicrous, but the rift between these two cultural ideals goes further back even than that. Many people from the South are proud of their Confederate roots, roots they see as upholding the principles of freedom and states' rights. They see themselves as representing an oppressed group rebelling against a tyrannical federal government, romanticizing the culture of that time, and ignoring the rampant hostility toward and racist treatment of African American people. It is a sentiment that still supports outright and institutionalized racism in parts of this country and it is a belief system many conservative political candidates court while running for office.

Given the current political climate, and particularly the recent issues that the LGBT community is having with President Obama, although it is extremely unlikely, if there was a Republican candidate who was even moderate on social issues, I would have to strongly consider whether or not to vote for them. I, of course, voted for Obama in 2008. Unlike many of the progressive young people who voted based on the idea that he would radically change the way that Washington operates, my family has been involved with politics for a long time, I knew that the fundamental machinations are almost impossible to change. I said to people at that time and continue to believe that the most important thing that has happened with President Obama was that we finally had a president who moved the rhetoric and policies of this country out of the realm of the conservative Christian movement and back to the mainstream. We finally had a president who was openly supportive of the rights of LGBT people and still is a very vocal advocate for the recognition of our civil rights. Unfortunately parts of his record, especially of late, do not match his words. And given the almost certain climate of Washington in the near future, which is going to gain more conservatives in Congress, it will be almost impossible for him and the progressive base to have any movement forward through legislation, it is going to have to be through the courts. Unless the Senate is able to sway some of the moderate Republicans after the elections are over, and especially after the military study is finished, to end the filibuster on the Defense Authorization Bill with the provision on Don't Ask, Don't Tell included, Obama's appeal of the current case overturning the decision will end any possible repeal of that policy in the near future. If a Republican wins the White House in 2012, it will almost certainly be another decade before that policy is repealed. How, then, can we support a president, however vocal he is about his support for the LGBT community, when in the hour of critical success for our rights, he decides to turn his back on the best chance for that policy to end.

I don't want to vote Republican ever. I disagree with so many principles of their agenda. It is also likely that it will be dangerous for the progress of this country to vote for the candidate who receives the nomination in 2012. It will, however, be a hard decision if a socially moderate candidate is put forward and the economic plan of the progressives in Washington are not successful. Lowering taxes is clearly not the answer, which was evident during the first six years of the Bush presidency when the Republicans controlled Congress and he instituted huge tax breaks that ultimately only stimulated an even further (upward) redistribution of wealth toward the super rich. If the future president is able to institute some of the public works projects, projects that were enormously successful in the past and are proven ways of getting much of the labor industries back to work, than it might be worth it to see a change from a president who overall has, in an attempt to make genuine bipartisan policy decisions, shown a disheartening lack of leadership. As Rachel Maddow has said, it became obvious early on that the Republicans were going to prove a huge roadblock toward every major piece of legislation introduced on behalf of the president, so why didn't he go all out and just go for the full on progressive agenda like a public option in the health care act? It may be time to find a new candidate.

The Paradox of Conservative Populism and Class Warfare

Since the great debates and struggles in Congress to pass health care reform there has been a very vocal and visible conservative opposition to not just health care reform but the entire progressive agenda. The group that galvanized this so effectively was the Tea Party, with their Colonial garb and tea bags and angry slogans. They voiced their opinions by gathering in Washington and using signs that denounced President Obama as a totalitarian dictator, a fascist, a Nazi, a tyrant and a foreigner. They invited the leadership of people like Sarah Palin, who was more than happy to turn her notoriety as a political nobody prior to the 2008 election and her quirky average American-ness into a potent force. Because of the anger and general ignorance of the members of the Tea Party, the message they formed around, protesting taxation and overreach of government, has been subtly and sometimes overtly overtaken and changed to suit the Republican leadership who seized control.

Amidst all the rhetoric about government involvement in the private lives of citizens and their general anger at the lack of representation for their political views by Congress and the White House, there have been many instances of outright contradiction and hypocrisy that is either conveniently ignored or aggressively denied. First is the assertion that the majority of Americans are sympathetic to the message of the Tea Party, namely political revolution against a perceived class of political elites. Second, and this is something that Sarah Palin has always used in her rhetoric, that somehow 'common sense' solutions will stimulate the necessary recovery of our economy, and that if we got the 'elites' out of Washington and put some people with 'common sense' and 'traditional values' into the role of government, then everything would be okay. And third, and this is central to the identification of the 'elites' versus the average/normal American, is the demoniaation of educated people, hence the other part of that title of those dastardly 'educated-elites'.

The rhetorical device of 'educated elites' and class warfare isn't unique to Palin's speeches, and isn't even really unique to this election cycle. Class warfare has been around for as long as there have been struggles to form government and the distinction between economic and political classes. Sometimes this type of political manipulation is done with race, by fusing race, ethnic background and economic status together to form generic profiles of a people on whom to place the blame for the political and economic woes of a given time period. This happened in Germany with the Jews, often a target of adding race to class warfare in Europe. It's happened to the Irish, to the Polish, to the Russians, and often, as we saw in the states of the former Yugoslavia, this has often come to violence and civil war.

One of the key objects of concern that is listed off by those talking about their concerns about the economy and their own financial future is how to send their kids to college, how to educate their children, how to leave their children with a more optimistic future. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetoric when one of the goals, it seems, is to vilify education and those who are educated as being 'out of touch' or somehow diminishing the legitimacy of their policies and legislative efforts while at the same time recognizing the importance of education. Education does more than just give people earning potential, it improves the intellectual capacity and knowledge level of individuals. Education expands an individuals ability to understand the world around them, to be able to think deeper than the vague, provocative slogans some use to try to shape the minds of this country. Even among people who have advanced educations there are political issues so complex that they take years to understand. Our economy is one of those issues.

Unbenounced, perhaps, to people in the Tea Party, this is not the economy of the eighteenth century. The protests at that time were more than just about taxation, but illegal search and seizure, and the lack of due process. When people like Joe Miller argue for legislating strictly by what's written in the original framework and the Constitution, he purposefully ignores the fact that at that time there were no voting rights for women or recognition of citizenship for African Americans. Beyond that, there were, at that time, nothing like the multi-national corporations of today. Even the holding and trading companies of the British Empire at that time pale in comparison to the predatory and consciousless policies of the modern corporation.

Candidates like Christine O'Donnell use explicit class warfare to explain the discrepancies in her education background. She claims she did not get her degree right away because she 'didn't have a trust fund' to pay for school and because she had to pay her student loans back before they'd give her her diploma. Anyone who has gone to college knows how ridiculous that claim is. But by setting up the distinction between her and her opponent, who was Harvard educated and holds advanced degrees, she plays to the element of people who are willing to outright deny the serious allegations of campaign fraud and contradictory statements about political positions and experience level. Even the famous commercial where she denies being a witch, she says 'I'm you.' That effort at populism plays successfully among those who have little understanding of our political system or even care about issues other than acting out on their rage against the political process.

When Sarah Palin plays to the 'average American' element within the Tea Party, she's trying to legitimize her own candidacy for president. She's trying to paint a picture of a government filled with sneering elitists from Boston who went to Harvard, advancing the party message of anger against the government for a variety of reasons that all revolve around their party losing. They're dissatisfied because they didn't want Obama to win, they don't want this country to move forward with a progressive agenda that they feel infringes on their lives by stealing their money and giving it to poor minority people. Surveys of the Tea Party found that the vast majority of them were middle class and middle aged or older. They also were largely educated people, at least with college degrees.

So what about having an advanced education disqualifies you from governing? What about it indicates that you would govern badly? We live in a representative government for a reason, our system was set up for a reason. Even back at the founding of our nation there were geographic and cultural differences that required a diverse representative body. While there is no required level of education in our country, in any other career path there is a meritocracy that favors those with advanced educations. Politicians surround themselves with staffers with advanced education. Even though there is a stereotype of educated people being elitist, is that any more true than stereotypes of black people being uneducated or Jewish people being cheap?

The fact is that when someone like Sarah Palin seeks to legitimize her own possible campaign for the presidency, she does everyone in this country a disservice. Not only does she create an atmosphere that discourages the youth in a segment of society from seeking educations but she also brings that rhetoric to the mainstream through her media exposure. The honest truth is that there are no 'common sense' solutions to our economic troubles. There is no easy answer to how to deal with financial regulations and manage energy policy in a way that promotes private sector job growth. This is not the kitchen table or the household budget for a family in Alaska, this is a matter of dealing with innumerable variables with effects both nationally and locally.

We should want people who are educated and capable in office and running this country. It's not just a matter of having someone who you agree with ideologically. It is also a matter of having someone who doesn't need basic civics lessons to understand the responsibilities of the offices in the Executive Branch, who has a proven ability to manage sensitive and difficult situations like natural disasters and economic crises. Whoever is president should be able to communicate economic policy or discuss issues facing the nation either legislatively or judicially with a sense of command and expertise, providing Americans with the appearance of being a confident leader, if not actually truly being a confident leader. Someone who wasn't just sure of their religious or conservative social positions, but someone who seeks to truly represent all people and not just a small slice of the far-right political fringe.

This isn't Alaska, this isn't the household budget of a Midwestern family, this is a varied and diverse nation with just as diverse of an economy and position in the international community. Anyone who can't proceed with confidence and authority, armed with knowledge and understanding, should not be taken seriously as a candidate. Someone who can't name even important heads of state, who doesn't have even a cursory understanding of other cultures and who can't inspire the confidence of foreign leaders and the potential investors from other nations, should not be seen as anything more than a media side-show.

Obama as Commander in Chief and DADT

According to a Newsweek article that sources a bunch of different military and constitutional scholars, Obama in fact does have options in at least putting a freeze on enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Not only is there precedent in the courts but Congress has explicitly given him greater freedom in how to enforce laws regarding the military and shaping regulations that pertain to those laws. There are a number of justifications for not enforcing the law and aside form an executive order, as the head of the military he could simply instruct the military to stop enforcing the law.

Reasons discussed went as follows:

1) He could declare that he believed it to be unconstitutional. When the law was first put in place in 1993 there was no legal precedent for recognizing the rights of gay people. That changed, though, when the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy of people in gay relationships in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy law in that state, effectively ending sodomy laws across the country. This decision then also set a standard that unless the state can prove that it had a legitimate interest in limiting the rights of LGBT people, laws infringing on those rights were unconstitutional.

2) Congress and the courts often defer to presidential authority under Article 1 of the Constitution. While the matter of his seemingly ignoring laws passed by Congress could go to the courts, the case would have to be argued on behalf of military officers and or members of Congress. But Article 1 gives the president a lot of leeway.

3) There are already laws in place that the President either does not enforce or enforces lightly, in particular when it comes to deciding on what laws to prosecute and in seeking sentences.

4) In 1984 Congress gave the president 'Stop-Loss' authority that allows him to put a halt to discharges in the face of troupe shortages. In the current climate, it is a widely regarded fact that there has been difficulty in recruiting service members. Recruitment has been so difficult, in fact, that they have been allowing convicted felons and high school dropouts to join, been lowering standards of physical fitness and been giving wavers to soldiers caught and convicted of crimes during active duty.

5) He could have decided from the beginning not to defend the law. This would have set up a situation where the decision didn't override legislative or executive power. Like Governor Schwarzenegger did in California on the case against Prop 8, he could have allowed other groups, including Republicans in Congress, to step in and try to defend the law in court, if the court allowed it. Doing this would not only have provided him political cover among his base, but also would have allowed him to not act in direct conflict with stated policy.

The President, while making firm statements in his belief that the policy is wrong and is even detrimental to our national security, has yet to say whether he believes it is unconstitutional. From the beginning he could have instructed the Justice Dept. to argue the case from a point of already believing the law is unconstitutional. To the contrary, however, my understanding is that they've been aggressive in defense of the law.

While some people may think rail against 'judicial activism', the same kind of activism that held up voter's rights in FL during the 2000 election and thereby giving the hypocritical George W. Bush the win, as I've stated before that is the job of the federal court system, or one of them at least. It is always funny to me how people, almost always people on the political right, argue about judicial activism only when their side loses. People on the political left have done so rarely and most recently in what I believe to be a truly horrific decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision that recognized corporations as legal entities with a right to free speech. By doing this they've allowed unprecedented amounts of money to flood the campaigns during this election cycle.

In terms of the President enforcing DADT or not enforcing it, it is a terrible contradiction for him to hold a position that he clearly is not willing to act upon when he does have options, at least while the courts are deciding on the issue. His Justice Dept is seeking a stay on the injunction, arguing it before the judge who created the injunction and now issuing a request for an emergency stay on the injunction to the Court of Appeals. Whether it is likely or not that Court of Appeals would go through with putting a stay on the decision seems to be a mystery to most. What is believed, however, is that if the issue goes to the Supreme Court, because of the political atmosphere on the court it is likely that they would issue a stay, at least while the case itself is going through.

What the Judge reasoned, however, when denying the request for a stay is that the government failed to prove that the injunction would in fact harm readiness and troupe cohesion as they've argued all along. They failed to prove their case, and if the Appellate Court agrees, there really may be too weak of a case. Also, I would think that by now, considering the study ordered by the President and Secretary of Defense was supposed to have begun in July and been done by Dec 1st, which is only about six weeks away, they must have at least some data already that would give a preliminary indication about the effect of DADT. If they don't or if they are reticent not to give away the surprise before the study is complete, I suppose they seem happy to have a weak case. If, however, the preliminary findings of the ongoing study lean toward it being less of a problem than argued by the political right, than they should suffer the consequences of going against even the evidence they already have.

The bottom line is that when the President says he doesn't have the authority to end the law by executive order, he is correct. When he says that, though, and lets it imply that he has no options or recourse other than to wait until Congress repeals the law, he is deliberately dodging the issue and dodging his responsibilities as a leader. He has stated his position on the policy. He has authority to take action that would at least temporarily halt enforcement of the policy he's against. He has a responsibility to the citizens of the United States and especially to those serving in the military to exercise the leadership we had hoped he would exhibit when we elected him into office.

More on Obama and the ruling and injunction on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

There are some necessary thoughts about the effects of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Rachel Maddow on her show on MSNBC, which it shouldn't be a surprise that I love, interviewed two service members, both decorated Air Force fighter pilots who have served tours in central combat zones. Both men were kept in shadow and their identities were protected. The first of the two interviewees has a partner and laid out one of the most essential problems with the policy. Because he is gay and is forced to remain in the closet, his relationship with his partner must remain absolutely secret. That means the partner has no official relationship status with the service member.

One of the consequences of this lack of status is that the partner of a service member on active duty would not be notified if their partner was killed in action. The reverse is also true, should anything happen to the non-military partner, unless a family member or close friend was able to inform them, which is not always the case if they are in a heavy combat area, that military person wouldn't know if they're partner died. If they were recognized by the military, the administrative arm of the military would make sure that this notification happened either surviving partner.

Also, according to the interviewee, a service member can be sent home to be at the bedside of their spouse. Because of DADT, when his partner was in the hospital because of medical complications and his heart stopped and had to be resuscitated, he not only couldn't be there by the partner's side but wasn't even able to be informed of the situation. As a result he didn't find out until later how critical the health scare was. Because he's not out to his family or any but a few very close friends he couldn't obtain that information indirectly either. In the interview he said that he'd written a letter for a friend of his to give to his partner in the case of something happening to him during active service, and that that would be the only way his partner would be notified.

Estimates as to the number of gay men and lesbians in active military service probably vary widely, but a statistic I thought looked good from the methodology of those studying the issue came up with about 11,000 lesbians, 14,500 gay men. I've heard estimates that are three times that number.

Whatever the actual number of service members are gay or lesbian, it is inconceivable that anyone who truly respected the service of troupes and the needs of military service members would not recognize the incredible burden they are placing on these people by not repealing DADT. It is a clear example of the hypocrisy of the right-wing of politics that they have taken control of discourse around the meaning of freedom and liberty and what it means to be a patriotic American, yet they largely oppose open-service. You cannot be both. Either you are a patriot who loves our country and the freedoms that are at the foundation of our society, that you respect and are devoted to the welfare and well-being of all our service members, or you oppose the fundamental right of people in the service to healthfully and respectful acknowledge and embrace their essential identity and be unafraid of reprisals because of that openness.

It is a fact that Obama could issue an executive order that would put a moratorium on the execution of DADT. It is nearly a fact that there is no chance of the repeal of DADT actually passing as a part of legislation in the Senate, especially with the inevitable results of the 2010 mid-terms. Let me repeat that to be perfectly clear, there is almost NO chance for the repeal of DADT to pass in the Senate. If that doesn't happen, there is absolutely no way for Obama to oversee it's outright repeal. Even with a moratorium via executive order, that would only stay in effect until the next president decides to lift it, thereby reinstating the policy.

Right now, barring an act of honesty and integrity on the part of the Republican minority in the Senate, the only way for DADT to be repealed is through the courts and the only way for it to happen under Obama's current term is for him to instruct his Justice Department to not appeal the ruling from "Log Cabin Republicans vs. the United States" and the subsequent injunction. If he is honestly serious about seeing the policy end, which he states over and over again, this is his last real option. If he is honest in claiming that he is an ally of the LGBT community, this is his chance to prove it.

President Obama and the Gay Left

Something pretty incredible happened recently. After two important rulings regarding the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the US military first declared that the policy violates constitutional rights of service members and people considering entering military service but that in at least the instance of a specific flight nurse the policy actually hindered readiness and morale. The primary reason given by those opposed to repeal is that allowing gay and lesbians hurts readiness, morale and group cohesion. Recently, the judge who declared the constitutional issue via a ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans issued a worldwide injunction basically saying that anyone and everyone involved with the military administration and chain of command must immediately halt any and all procedures involving implementing DADT.

Now, those on the progressive side of politics, progressive Republicans as well as Democrats, have seen the faces of service members who were discharged, some of whom have honorable and highly lauded careers as well as specialized skills such as being Arab linguists. As most US citizens support the repeal, and as the military struggles in many areas of recruiting and retaining qualified and talented service members, it becomes apolitical to support the cause of repeal.

And then there's the position of the President. From the beginning of his campaigning for the support of the LGBT political left Obama has made repeal of DADT his clinch issue. Many other issues important to progress of gay rights do not really have national platforms or attention right now, nothing like the attention on DADT. Because of that, it was an extremely important to securing the kind of financial support and political action from groups like the HRC.

From what I understand, as Commander in Chief, the president had the power to immediately halt the investigative process in the discharging of gay service members. While it wouldn't outright repeal the policy, it would have kept hundreds of qualified and awarded members of the military from being removed from service. As of now, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has given instructions to the military to halt enforcement of a key part of DADT, which is the involuntary outing, so basically the witch hunts and the investigations prompted by rumors from other service members of a service member's sexuality. One of the reasons he did this was to prompt a more 'humane' approach to enforcing the policy and was done around the time that they commissioned the study on the most effective way to implement repealing the policy. The president could have done that more than a year earlier.

It is important to note, and this is something that conservative Republicans, and those who repeatedly used anti-gay rhetorical reasoning in their committees, so not necessarily outright derogatory remarks but rather lines of reasoning based on base stereotypes and horrible prejudices, is that it is only a matter of time before it is repealed. Nearly all the military leadership recognizes and wants this to be repealed. The President and the Secretary of Defense are committed to repealing it, one way or another. The majority of citizens think it makes no sense and support repealing it and allowing open service. Thus, it's only a matter of time, so while they argue against repealing it, that's not the issue cause it's going to be repealed. The issue, in terms of their filibusters and nay votes, has been when they would implement the procedural activities involving repeal, not whether it would happen at all.

So the problem now for the President is that he's got not only two court cases, landmark cases, that justify repeal and rule against the policy's constitutionality, but that there is now a legal injunction in place preventing any implementation. Does he have the Department of Justice, which was the group acting as the plaintifs in both cases and basically arguing for the constitutionality of the policy, appeal the ruling on the Log Cabin Republican's case and the subsequent injunction? They have already started the appeal process for a recent ruling in Massachusetts that overturned DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act put into place after gay marriage was allowed in Hawaii, a situation that has since been changed through voter memorandum. The argument about DOMA was made around the distribution of federal benefits by the state to married same-sex partners and the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees that any legal contracts recognized in one state, be they private or business contracts or whatever, must be recognized by all other states. DOMA specifically defines marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman, and rejects any same-sex marital status from a given state in terms of federal pension and social security benefits and everything else on the federal level. It also said that any state can decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is and choose to not recognize marriages from other states. They will appeal that ruling.

In light of the Justice Departments decision to appeal the DOMA ruling, and in light of the fact that the White House has taken a soft position on the repeal of DADT as wanting it to be done by Congress, it is not certain whether they will then appeal this ruling as well. These are important cases and would be hugely influential on all civil rights laws, just as those regarding African Americans were in past decades, if they reach the Supreme Court. As there is, right now, a balance that slightly favors the liberal end of the Court, it would be a good time for these cases to go before them. The problem for Obama and for the gay community is, if Obama has them appeal the DADT ruling as they are doing with DOMA, they will be not only acting against their position on repeal but in fact will be standing against the progress of LGBT civil rights.

There are arguably three cardinal issues in struggle for LGBT civil rights. The first is same-sex marriage, which is probably the most divisive issue nationwide. Eventually, no matter how much the religious conservatives in this country speak out against it, gay marriage will be a reality. All conclusive evidence in terms of polling and studies done about election turnouts indicate that the country is growing more and more supportive with younger generations, and sorry to say this but eventually those who think they are on the correct side of the issue by opposing it are going to die off. Most likely they'll die off soon as most of those who oppose it are older. The second cardinal issue is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is the one that has been most pressing in the past two or three years and the one that Obama took the most decisive progressive position on. The third and possibly fourth issues are same-sex adoption and then policies in schools dealing with the harassment of LGBT youth.

Obama has now made a serious misstep in terms of a progressive, pro-civil rights position, on one of these cardinal issues in having the Justice Department appeal the DOMA ruling. That particular ruling is pretty solid and has legal precedence behind it in the overturning of laws prohibiting interracial marriages. If that goes to the Supreme Court, however, no matter what the outcome the repercussions across the country will be significant. Ruling in favor of striking down DOMA would be a move towards considering the issue of the legislation and amendments to state constitutions, which cannot violate the federal constitution. The DADT ruling, however, and particularly the injunction are on much shakier ground as they are unique, they do not have the backing of precedent and while the constitutional issue may be upheld by the Court, the injunction could be challenged on multiple fronts, including the separation of powers clause.

President Obama has not taken decisive action in repealing DADT. Instead he has issued strong positions while implementing soft actions, failed to put the necessary pressure on Congress to proceed in a way that was conducive to passing repeal, and now may or may not appeal the most conclusive and decisive action taken on the policy, this time by the federal courts, thereby either directly compromising his position on repeal or, if choosing not to appeal, taking no action at all as another branch of the government altogether takes the hard action. Either way there has been a profound failure of decisive leadership. If promises and policy positions are to mean anything, a leader needs to take strong, clear action on them. If he pledges his support to a policy position and promises to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goals of that position, it means nothing if he doesn't take action to achieve those goals. By stating publicly, both in meetings with LGBT lobby groups like the HRC and in the State of the Union Address that he was going to make sure it was repealed, he must make good on his promise. He hasn't done so, though. Instead he has abdicated that function to the courts while providing just enough political action to give himself cover if the issue is brought up by progressives in his own reelection campaign.

Mr. Obama promised to be a fierce ally and advocate for the civil rights of LGBT people. He has said multiple times that he is committed to the repeal of DADT and not done nearly as much as he can in order to ensure repeal. Can the LGBT community then really claim that Obama is our ally? John McCain, during his election campaign, also took a pro-repeal position. He might have been the principle senator in filibustering the repeal legislation but if he had won the presidency, who's to say he wouldn't have worked toward repeal. When it comes time to start drawing battle-lines for the 2012 presidential campaign, when Obama begins soliciting campaign contributions and looking to excite the progressive base who were instrumental in his initial election, will the LGBT community show up in similar numbers? Will we give in similar amounts or act with similar force as we did in 2008? If the major policy issues the President can affect are decided through the courts and there isn't much left for him to do, then the question will be should we support him as we did. In a year when there may possibly be a Sarah Palin nomination for the Republican candidate, we may have no choice. However, when we have such immediate issues as the recent gay teen suicides to deal with and organizations that can benefit those youth directly with our contributions, wouldn't our money be better spent there rather than on a candidate who proved himself to be at best a useless ally?

Should GLBT people abandon Dems?

It seems like Obama, despite the continual promises of support for GLBT rights, especially the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it seems like the administration and the Democrats in general aren't able to live up to campaign promises and take decisive leadership roles on GLBT issues. In fact, between the Dems who supported McCain's filibuster and the lack of leadership by Obama administration, perhaps it's time that the HRC and major GLBT supporters of the Democratic party should be changing the focus of our fund-raising efforts to put more effort into supporting GLSEN, Lambda Legal, and organizations that support members of the military. I think it might be time for us to give up on the idea of these politicians to support us and for us to make more of an effort for us to take care of our own.

This isn't to say we should totally abandon Democratic and Independent candidates, and any others who pledge to support GLBT rights, that would be a mistake, but we should make our disappointment and displeasure heard by withdrawing financial support. If our political are more interested in keeping their jobs than in actually leading, maybe it's right for them to be voted out now while we have a Democratic president to veto Republican legislation and find candidates for the 2012 elections that are going to take strong stands.

One reason I am bringing this up is because of two recent cases of young teens, both 13 year old boys who were known to be gay, who because of extreme bullying in school, attempted suicide. One of the two shot himself and is dead, the other is on life support after hanging himself at home. This second victim had left school to be home schooled because of the peer torment and was still being bullied. It is unacceptable that just as these students are coming to an awareness of their sexual orientation at earlier ages that we aren't drastically increasing our efforts to protect them.

It has always been difficult for adult GLBT people to mentor young people. It is all too easy for supportive adults to become targets of accusations of sexual misconduct. This doesn't, however, make it any less important for us to put our efforts into supporting organizations that provide support groups, social opportunities, and safe spaces for our youths. If support from the government is being opposed by people on the conservative Right, or even the anti-gay center, than we should put our money power into supporting our young people.

Whatever steps we take in the future, we cannot allow our community to abdicate responsibility for our most vulnerable, thereby giving conservatives the ability to successfully limit our outreach programs and community support. If Obama and the Democrats can't take firm action on DADT, something the president could end with a single Executive Order, than we need to find leaders who will.

Republicans Created the Rhetoric of Healthcare

Democrats have a major problem in running campaigns this fall. First, there is an incredible amount of energy against them. Second, many of the good things they've done in Congress haven't had physical, concrete results in the minds of most people. Third, and probably most important, the rhetoric around the legislation that they've had successes with has been set against them. It's easy for people in the economic recession we have right now to be swayed against whatever party is in power. Although we had a slowing economy and the threat of a recession during 2007 and early 2008, the Obama campaign was about change and hope from the bleak political situation most people felt we were in. The economic crash then happened in the months after the election of Obama and from then until now we've suffered the most debilitating effects of the mortgage and credit crisis and the loss of jobs.

The first major piece of legislative action that came from the new administration was the Economic Stimulus. Bailouts were a necessity. After the Bush Bailout made $700 billion disappear into the banks, it was difficult for opponents of the Obama administration to reject the stimulus bill out of hand because so many manufacturing industries, principally the auto industry, were in jeopardy. A tremendous amount of negative energy came out of the base of those political opponents. They then spent the political capitol gained from their base on the health care bill.

Now, here's the crux of things: No matter how much the Democrats were in front of television to explain to the American public what the legislation was, the Republicans and the Tea Party were infinitely more successful. From the moment of the Tea Party protests onward the Republican Party has controlled the rhetoric surrounding healthcare. Even the fact that some people call the health care legislation Obamacare, is indicative of the control that Obama's opponents have over the rhetoric.

With a little more than a month to go before the elections, many Democratic candidates are avoiding directly discussing the particulars of the health care bill because Republicans have been so successful at playing on people's fears and misconception about the legislation to turn it into irradiated political nuclear waste.

Despite the rhetoric that Republicans have created over 'Obamacare', in their new policy statement, Republicans are advocating repealing the entire bill and instead implementing many things that have already been put into place by the health care bill. Many things that President Obama is now trying to barrage the press with, such as removing lifetime caps, getting rid of the restrictions against people with pre-existing conditions, and children with pre-existing conditions being allowed to get insurance, all of those things are nearly universally popular.

The public in general, I think, has this perception that there is massive amounts of pieces to the legislation that will kill health care in this country, or that it is some totalitarian-ish take over of their right to control their own care. That's an interesting line of thinking, but it doesn't in any way mitigate the fact that the Republicans won't do any better.

With their outright commitment to privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and the VA hospitals and veteran's health care, it is curious to think that some people believe their interest is in terms of healthcare in general would be on the side of consumer protection and offering affordable options to the uninsured.

Democrats are afraid of the negative associations with their health care bill and that if they run on the merits of that bill that they'd suffer for it. Because they didn't respond to the Tea Party protests by getting their own activists out into the public forum and didn't make a more concerted effort to publicize those merits, it is probably true, they probably can't run on health care.