New Digs!

Loyal readers:  I have moved my blog content (and much much more) to a nifty new spot across town at word press.  Please check it out:  www.realboysdontblog.wordpress.com

Streaming Thoughts on Republican Foreign Policy Debate

First things first:  My fashion review of the Republican presidential candidates' debate was picked up by GQ, in the form of a friendlier, albeit, more in-depth breakdown of the Republican presidential candidates' respective styles.  In reality, I'm sure GQ thought up the piece without my help.  But we'll see what the Court of Appeals has to say about it.  Haha.  But seriously.

I turned the debate on around the beginning of the second hour; these were my thoughts as they came:

Paul Wolfowitz (!?!?!?) asks if candidates will continue PEPFAR, W. Bush's AIDS-prevention program in Africa.  PEPFAR was, hands down, Bush Jr.'s biggest success as President, IMO.  Santorum says yes, and, with the biggest blunder of the night, justifies his position by reminding the room that before PEPFAR, Africa was a, "country on the brink".  I am floored until this idiocy is immediately topped by Ron Paul, who goes OFF about how PEPFAR hasn't done anything (it's done a lot, see above), and how if we're going to ship anything over to Africa, we should ship free market principles.  Oy. 

Next question:  Will you cut defense spending?

All boots begin to shake.  Romney attempts to hide behind his podium.  Suspect pools of liquid pool at the feet of candidates Cain, Bachmann, and Perry.

Gingrich is ready to bomb Iran as a last resort to replace the current regime, and cannot wait to turn the U.S. into a sea of oil fields.  Huntsman impresses by acknowledging the importance of economics in forming military policy.  Audience reaction:  Crickets.

Perry is asked if he would compromise with Democrats over a budget.  First he tries for laughs with incredibly clever "super committee was a super failure" line, then rambles about how he was commander-in-chief of the Texas national guard (misleading) and makes several awkward pauses for applause that never comes.  Blitzer repeats question, Perry answers in affirmative.

Oh shit, Santorum's been talking for three minutes while I finished that last paragraph.  Oh, nevermind, I didn't miss anything.  (He also answered yes.)

What should be done about Social Security entitlements in light of looming budget concerns?  Gingrich mentions his new Social Security platform but I am distracted by a series of interpretive dance moves involving half circles with his arms that accompany his answer.

Bachmann just answered a budget question by saying we really need to balance the budget.  Bullseye.  

I come back and we're talking borders.  Perry says lock it down.  Paul agrees but goes further:  Reform immigration services without making citizenship so easy it becomes a perverse incentive for illegal immigration; cancel the war on drugs; blah blah bl- wait, what?  Something I agree with?  Mercifully, Wolfowitz follows up:  Do you mean legalize drugs?  Paul actually admits he wants to give sick people access to medical marijuana.  He goes on to say we should treat drugs like we treat alcohol, which, he asserts, is an extremely deadly drug.  Damn you, Ron, just when I am about to put my respect for you to bed you go and say something I agree with.

Cain says there are four parts to his answer to the border question.  John Stewart and I begin to drool.  1. Easy, 2.  Can he do it?  3.  No way he gets all four, no way he gets all four, no way he gets all four.  4.  Nails it.  Damn!

Gingrich is more open-minded about granting amnesty to tax paying, productive, illegal immigrants.  I spot a black guy in the crowd wearing a bow tie and think about Curb Your Enthusiasm.  Bachmann and Romney take shots at Newt's absurdly liberal, "I will not destroy a family over something a grandparent did 25 years ago" amnesty policy.  Perry essentially agrees with Gingrich.  Romney feels ashamed of his (five seconds) earlier comments and changes his mind.  Interesting note:  Throughout this portion of the debate, candidates refer to long-term illegal immigrants as "citizens" - technically inaccurate but a huge improvement over "illegals" - the term preferred in the previous debate.  

What are the interests of the United States in the region surrounding Syria?  If you read the blog that I kept while I was in the Middle East, you know this is a topic of particular interest to me; this, however, is more than I can say about any of the answers to the question.  Perry says we need a no fly zone and an oil embargo; Romney makes a good point that a no fly zone in Syria would be like a "no penises zone" in theaters playing the new Twilight movie - kind of a non-issue.  

Final question of the night:  What national security concerns do you foresee that no one has asked about?  

Santorum is worried about a domino effect with socialist regimes in South America.  Oh for fuck sake.

Paul says the biggest threat is an over-reaction on our part.  THANK YOU.

Perry says that China is, "not a country of morals".  I just can't take it, please let it end.  

Romney agrees with Santorum and Perry.

Cain says cyber threats - not a bad answer, IMO.

Gingrich believes the three great threats are:  HERE WE GO:  1.  Terrorist WMD in a major city.  Ok.  2.  Electro magnetic pulse (?).  Maybe he's improving.  Can he do it?  Here it is:  3.  Cyber attack.  Ok, maybe he forgot and just went with Cain's answer.  Oh well.

Bachmann thinks there are terrorists in her home town.  Literally. 

Huntsman refuses the question - China is in as much trouble as us (probably true) - and poses his own - how can we have effective foreign policy without domestic stability?

All in all a solid night.  I most regret the fact that the statement I most agree with (Gingrich's heartfelt statement that law-abiding, productive individuals should not be punished for an illegal immigration that occurred decades in the past ), and which was actually one of the policies with which most candidates seemed to agree (only Bachmann expressed strong disagreement), will be harped on repeatedly in coming weeks as a sign of Newt's weakness on immigration policy.  But then again, I guess that's why it's not my party.  

EHB OUT. 

Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal: My Thoughts

First, please note my title.  Referring to recent events at Penn State as a "sex scandal" is miss-leading; as it is commonly used, "sex" refers to consensual sex acts between adults - the qualifiers "illicit", "extra-marital", "abuse", etc. are used in conjunction with the word precisely because "sex" on its own refers merely to consensual intercourse.  What Jerry Sandusky did to cause a scandal at Penn State was not just "sex", it was sexual child abuse and, in some cases, it was rape.  I am particular about this wording, because I think that people should be able to call this exactly what it is and not shy away from uncomfortable phraseology.


Second, I should note that rape and sex abuse issues are particularly important to me.  Sophomore year at Dickinson College, I, along with my then-roommate and good friend Dwight, took a 60-hour course at the YWCA to become rape crisis counselors.  After completing the course, Dwight Richardson and I took bi-monthly overnight on-call shifts on the rape crisis hotline; we had beepers and everything.  Both of us received calls from victims at various points during the spring semester, and I think I am speaking for both of us, when I say that sexual assault has been an emotional subject ever since.


So, even though I initially envisioned a thoughtful and balanced piece about the discomfort we all face when discussing the sexual abuse of children, and the societal factors that kept this particular incident hushed, the more I read and watched, the angrier I became.  At this moment, I am doing everything I can to refrain from pounding out a profanity-laden tirade (also, I knew such a rant would be pointless, because I could never say it as well as Jim Rome).  The tipping point for me was a video of Paterno, all smiles, greeting protestors outside his own home Wednesday night.  A choice quote from JoePa from the impromptu press conference:


"The kids who were victims or whatever they want to say, I think we all ought to say a prayer for them.  It's a tough life when people do certain things to you.  But anyway, you've been great.  Everything's great, alright."


Deadspin suggested that these insensitive remarks were the result of legal advice from Paterno's attorneys, which may be the case, but Paterno is not on trial by the court of public opinion for poorly spoken words; he is on trial for taking minimal effort to report or investigate claims by a trusted aide that Jerry Sandusky had sexually abused a young boy in the PSU locker room (whether McQueary reported "horsing around" or actual anal intercourse is a controversial matter, as a number of the linked articles explain).  Paterno's smiling and the cavalier comments he made to supporters outside his home were just icing on this ancient, disgusting cake.


I am glad to see that Penn State is now responding to the plight of the victims in this infuriating, tragic chain of events, by firing Paterno and University President Graham Spanier, charging AD Curley and Senior VP Schultz with perjury, and removing Sandusky's name and likeness from various locations around campus.  But this is not enough.  


This thing is only going to get worse.  More victims are going to come forward and it will soon get harder and harder to believe that most, if not all, of the Penn State football staff were not aware, or at least suspicious, that Sandusky was sexually abusing minors, even while he was a frequent guest within the PSU sports facility walls.  And, although, I think it should go without saying, what is so disgusting about all of this, is that Paterno, Atheltic Director Curley, and Senior VP Schultz elected to put the stability of the program before the needs of the victims.  As all of this becomes increasingly clear in the next week or so, as I am certain it will, harsher penalties must be levied.


Penn State must forfeit all remaining games and every member of the coaching staff must be let go.  Players should transfer penalty-free.  After some of the legal dust has settled, Penn State should be allowed to re-build its program, maybe including former staff members, if they can be vindicated of having kept quiet on the alleged sex abuse.


I am disgusted that students are rioting to support a man who, despite his prior reputation, has so clearly failed to protect the victims of his own coaching staff and failed to protect the reputation and long-term well-being of the university.  I think this is just one more reason that Penn State does not deserve the remainder of this football season.


I keep thinking back to the Ohio State scandal and thinking how much angrier and more unified the media and general public seemed about a couple of kids getting discounted tattoos than they are now about JoePa and Spanier choosing to conceal rather than report the rape of a child.  Discounted tattoos; not even free tattoos.  For fuck sake. 


What we should take away from this awful miserable I-am-pulling-at-my-incredible-hair-from-anger series of events, is that child sex abuse is not relegated to kidnappings and crappy David-Schwimmer-directed Clive Owen films; most of it occurs right beneath our noses.  Furthermore, as PSU's long-held breath attests, this is an issue that, maybe due to homophobia or maybe due just to general squeamishness, people find very hard to talk about.  But that does not mean it is okay not to talk about it.  Former NFL FB Heath Evans was a guest on Jime Rome today, talking about his Heath Evans Foundation, which has a lot of resources and does a lot of positive work with victims of sex abuse.  I would encourage everyone to read a little bit about it, like I did, because I think it will help us all understand the key issues and make us better citizens in a world in which sex abuse does, unfortunately, exist.


I'm going to give Jim Rome the final word here, because I think his coverage of this story has been unparalleled, and because I think he deserves it:


"And to all the students supporting [Paterno], pointing out all he has done for the school and community:  Why don't you consider what he didn't do - anything at all to protect those who were incapable of protecting themselves."

Why We Should Be Proud

This is a broad topic, and one that I will surely re-visit many times, so I will be as brief as possible.  

As an intern for Organizing for America - Obama's 2012 re-election campaign - I sit down with a lot of people who actively supported the President in 2008.  Attitudes towards the President's first term accomplishments vary from very pleased to extremely disappointed.  Generally, I have a vague idea of where on this spectrum these people sit before I meet them, and regardless of that information, I always make sure to say one thing during my meetings:  I will not make a "lesser of two evils" argument.  

Bachmann, Romney, Perry, or Palin - the Republicans could nominate the sasquatch and I wouldn't care - I do not need to fall back on a comparative argument because I have something better:  The legislative and executive resume of the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama.  Allow me to run through a brief list: 

1 million young adults have retained insurance through the Affordable Care Act; by 2014 (if the law withstands attacks from Republicans in Congress) the law will extend coverage to 32 million of America's least fortunate individuals.  

Greatly increased regulation and oversight of commercial and investment banks in order to promote long-term financial stability and investor safety.   Put an end to predatory lending practices, like ballooning mortgage rates.  Took steps to empower borrowers and investors and increase corporate transparency by mandating firm-client information sharing.  (NOTE:  This is an extremely brief and simplified description of the Dodd-Frank Finance Reform and Consumer Protection Act, with which I am intimately familiar; for more detailed information please feel free to e-mail me at eric.harris.bernstein@gmail.com).  

Has pledged to bring troops home from Iraq by the holidays.  

Oversaw the execution of Osama Bin Laden.  (If you think Presidents do not play a role in covert operations like the one in Pakistan that resulted in the elimination of OBL, then I refer you to Groupthink, by Irving L. Janis, which documents the decision-making processes behind the Bay of Pigs, Carter's failed hostage rescue mission in Iran, and a number of other U.S. foreign policy debacles.  Another covert operation as seamless and effective as Osama Bin Laden's assassination may not exist in United States history.)

Waged a cost-effective and minimally invasive campaign in Libya that toppled Muammar Gaddafi, a long-ruling and brutal dictator, hopefully paving the way for a more equitable and free society.  (Important thought on this topic:  Yes, I am glad Gadaffi is gone, but I am still greatly concerned for the future of the Libyan people and I sincerely hope that President Obama takes diplomatic steps to ensure that a progressive and peaceful regime is formed.  I have full faith that he will and I would not work for him if I did not.)

Took a logistic and symbolic step towards achieving equal protections for gay Americans by repealing the homophobic don't ask, don't tell policy in the military.  

Ok.  Now that I have spelled out a few things that make me glad we elected Barack Obama president in 2008, allow me to make a few concessions:

The Affordable Care Act did not go far enough; the reality that we have yet to get down to brass tax on reducing costs, and that the law's best case scenario leaves 23 million Americans uninsured, concerns me greatly.  I'm not thrilled with the President's altered stance on the Clean Air Act.  I agree with many liberals who feel that Obama has wasted some energy reaching across the aisle when he should have been Johnsoning his agenda through Congress while he had the votes.  Also, some little things I have heard, like that the press has found Obama to be one of the less forthcoming Presidents when it comes to information sharing, do not please me.  But let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

Any liberal-minded person who does not believe there is cause to celebrate this presidency and actively support Barack Obama's re-election in 2012 should take a moment to think about the American legislative system and the example of Civil Rights.  

The American government is designed to move slowly.  We should all remember the phrase "checks and balances" from middle school.  Well, there are consequences to these safety measures.  The British system, for example, is inherently different; in Britain, the party that controls the legislature, controls the executive office, and the opposition is left to grumble a great deal and ask questions on Fridays.  Sure, I am occasionally envious at the speed with which agendas can be passed in the UK, but that is not what the founding fathers intended, so we will all be remiss if we do not appreciate the stability and continuity that our slower legislating pace provides.  Those who are disappointed with the progress the Obama administration has made must come to terms with the fact that legislative change in America has always, and probably will always, occur over long periods of time.

Every step is essential and I will leave you with an example of just how piecemeal progress can be.  

Civil Rights legislation began, most would say, with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments during reconstruction, continued with the 19th Amendment in 1920, Johnson's Civil Rights Act in 1964, and has been augmented more recently with affirmative action legislation, and other legal measures that extended equal protections to marginalized groups (repealing don't ask don't tell, for example).  It has been almost one hundred and fifty years since that first step towards equal rights.  But do we condemn Lincoln for failing on the first try?  I won't bother to answer my own question.


It is always right to want and to push for more and better reforms, but every liberal should understand the importance of protecting and building on the progress we have made.  It is my belief that the best way to do this is to ensure the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012.  It's not about avoiding a disaster; it's about recognizing a success.

Sartorializing the Republican Debate

Everyone who knows me knows I'm a liberal, so it should come of no surprise that the content - what little content there was - of Tuesday night's debate amongst potential Republican Presidential nominees disgusted me.  In particular, I liked the moment where Texas Governor Rick Perry and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had a screaming match to decide who hates "illegals" more.  Classy, guys.  The fact that these two candidates were forced to distance themselves from their most positive and progressive policies (healthcare reform in Romney's case and secondary education funding for undocumented Texas youths in Perry's case) shows just how intellectually bankrupt the Republican side has become.  

But let me tell you what really boils my blood.

Not a single man seeking the Republican nomination for President of the United States knows how to wear a suit.  I wasn't sure if the men on stage had been dressed by their moms and pushed out the door for their first Bar Mitzvah or had all (except Newt) gone on starvation diets to prepare for their big TV spot.  Furthermore, no one heeded the advice of wild card candidate Michelle Bachman, who, in her one moment of charisma, almost inexplicably shouted the phrase, "NO PASTELS, BOLD COLORS!"

I will address the issues I have with each candidate's wardrobe in turn, and try to mention my thoughts on their policies, if time permits.

Ron Paul - the "champion of liberty" (and the man I have the most respect for out of the entire lot), looks to have either dressed himself from his father's closet or stumbled into Willy Wanka's Chocolate Factory and eaten the wrong drop of multi-flavored gum.  Does anyone remember when Spanky stood on Uh-Huh's shoulders and tried to get a loan from Mel Brooks in The Little Rascals?  Huge suit, tiny man.  The shoulders of Paul's jacket miraculously hovered several inches above the shoulders of his body, somewhere near his ears.  I do, however, applaud Ron for a nice tie pattern and an appropriately sized knot.  

Newt Gingrich - the candidate with the most political experience, and the closest-to-fitting suit jacket.  Overall, I approved of Newt's outfit; I felt as though it matched his general attitude and personality.  To me, it said, "Hey, I'm here, I'm not pretty, but I'm a professional; I'll get the job done but I'm gonna incur a lot of mustard stains while I do it".  Newt went with the purple tie, which, if you're paying close attention, is the color that occurs when BLUE is mixed with RED.  Very clever, Newt, you wily old dog, you.

Rick Perry - the biggest asshole of the evening, by a long shot.  Rick is the proud owner of a suit jacket that is approximately two feet too wide in the shoulders and a tie so red, it has actually been commissioned for color analysis by Ferrari.  Extra points for Rick for being so conservative that his tie actually veered to the right side of his chest and exposed his shirt buttons.  Also, someone please tell Rick that the phrase "illegal" reads like a racial slur and that his hair looks like a large dust bunny that naturally floated down from the rafters and settled on his head.

Herman Cain - the latest frontrunner (?) and engineer of the tax plan that sounds most like a Domino's - er, Godfather - promotion.  Herman's jacket was too big in the chest, but what I really want to discuss is his tie.  A NOTE ON TIES:  It is helpful for me to think of the tie as the politician's lightsaber; the varieties are more than one, but less than several, and bad guys usually go for red.  For the most part you see blue, red, and purple, but Herman threw us all a curve ball and went with gold - this is like (forgive me) Mace Windu (sorry) going with the purple lightsaber (I'm really sorry but the analogy is just about perfect, otherwise).  Another thing about Cain's tie; how the fuck did he get that knot so small???

Rick Santorum offended little, but still managed to look eighth grader-esque in a denim-hued shirt and polka dot tie.  Google Santorum and tell me which outfit you like best. 

Last but not least, we have Mitt Romney - the man we all know is going to eventually win the nomination.  Mitt is not only a card carrying member of the My Jacket Is Too Big For My Body Club, he is the club's Secretary of Monochromatics.  How a blue suit can seem to blend right in to a man's skin-tone is beyond my comprehension.  On the bright side, Mitt has - literally and figuratively - the slickest hair of the bunch and I like the Cruella Devil white streak he's got going on (or is it more Rogue from X-Men?).  Could this man be the next President of the United States of America?  Considering that, on this night, he commanded so little respect amongst his peers that he was forced to shout the phrase "I'M SPEAKING!" several dozen times, I'm guessing no.

On a more serious note, this debate was an embarrassment - to Republicans, to Americans, and to the human race.  I don't know whether to be glad that the Republicans lack a viable candidate for President, or depressed that the discussion had me pulling for a guy who wants to abolish all forms of public health care.  

Whatever, I'm just thankful the podiums hid their shoes.