Temporary Suspension of Smart Blue Hens Blog
Hello. I'm Bill Humphrey, and I'm currently the Acting President of the College Democrats at the University of Delaware. We have temporarily suspended updating this blog, but we expect to re-launch it in September 2010. I apologize for the hiatus, on behalf of the College Democrats. Please be sure to check back in September. Thank you.
The Times They Are A Changin'
Just over a week ago, the State of Maine had an opportunity to become a pioneer on what is quickly becoming this generation's civil rights movement. While other states have legalized same-sex marriage via legislatures and governors, no state had seen a gay marriage law upheld once put to popular vote. Unfortunately, even after the Maine vote, the people of this great nation have still not proven majority support for same-sex marriage.
While Maine is but one small state in our country, this vote served in effect to bring the gay rights movement back to the public eye. In most public opinion polls, support for same-sex marriage hovers slightly below 50%. Based on this, one would expect that the more liberal states in the country such as Maine and California would have a higher level support and would be able to sustain such a law. So then why is this not true? What is holding back a right that is seemingly so fundamental, a right taken for granted by the majority of this nation?
To put it as simply as possible, this movement is being suppressed by hate and a fear of change. Unfortunately in this country, hate and fear too often reign supreme over hope and change in the making of laws. The election of President Obama last year was a sure sign of hope, and certainly the character of this nation is to rise up and answer the call when we are put to the greatest tests. However, there is a large population in the United States that is afraid of change, that stands in the way when their status quo is threatened by the next generation. This generational gap is rarely more stark than in the current debate over gay marriage.
While the generations of the past stand behind a wall of hate and fear, a seemingly incredulous belief that if gays can marry, then the institution of marriage will be forever lost, our generation continues to stand at that wall and slowly break it down. Some argue that it is the Bible that should keep marriage as between a man and a woman, and nothing else. Aside from the fact that our country was founded on a Constitution, not the Bible, there is absolutely no question that the laws of our nation are not wholly the laws spelled out in the Bible. I do not ask these people to give up their religion or their belief system, only to have the common decency to recognize the struggle of their fellow man, and to answer the calling of this generation. Some of my closest friends are very religious, and I respect their beliefs. Some prefer to bring up the slippery slope argument, stating that if we allow a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then eventually men will be marrying dogs. Come on. At least those who cling to the Bible have a reason for their belief, as flawed as it may be, but to argue that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage between man and animal is simply preposterous and absurd.
As a heterosexual male, I hold no real personal stake in this debate. I have two gay uncles, and while they do not seek to marry, I strongly believe that they should at least have this right should they choose to exert it. Why does it affect Bob in Oklahoma if my uncles get married? He can still go to church every Sunday, can still practice his religion, and can still raise his family as he sees fit. To tell someone else that they cannot raise a family in the same way that the rest of us can, that they cannot enjoy the benefits that come along with marriage, is simply wrong. Based on current trends, it seems as if our generation will eventually make the days of Prop 8 in California and Prop 1 in Maine votes of the past, that we will look back on this time in shame of our jaded beliefs. I only hope that this is the case. As an alternative, we may rely on the Courts to create the change we seek in the same way they became involved in the Civil Rights Movement through decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and Loving v. Virginia. But for a right so fundamental, the American people should be able to rise to the occasion and break through the walls of hate.
As our Declaration of Independence states, all men are created equal. Well, ever since that document was penned by our founders, we've been battling to live up to that phrase. From the Civil Rights Movement for African Americans and the Women's Suffrage Movement in the 20th Century and continuing through today, we have made great strides. As an American, I hope the time that we are able to take that next stride towards making the words of Thomas Jefferson ring true will be sooner rather than later.
Rest in Peace, Senator Kennedy
It's funny, I literally had a conversation with my father yesterday about how the ineptitude of the Democratic leadership coming out of the House and Senate was causing so much of the problems and misinformation regarding the health care reform bill. The one consensus we came to was that what they were missing was Senator Ted Kennedy. While discussing the prospects of the eventual vote on a health care bill, I told my father that Senator Kennedy would cast his vote on a stretcher if need be. After all, health care reform had truly been his lifelong quest. However, with the breaking news of the Senator's death, this clearly will not be possible. President Obama has lost a staunch ally in the Senate, arguably the voice that legitimized his presidential campaign. The Senate has lost one of its great voices and leaders, a figure that has for decades stood up for the rights of all Americans. A critical voice on the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and student loan programs to name just a few, Senator Ted Kennedy truly stood for America. On this night, America has lost not only a man, not only a Senator, but a hero.
With the passing of Senator Kennedy comes the passing of the Kennedy generation. While the death of Ted Kennedy doesn't signify the end of the Kennedy family, it does mean the end of the original generation of the Kennedy brothers. President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were taken from us far too soon, and while Ted Kennedy lived on to fulfill their views for a greater America, he too is now gone too soon. As the health care debate continues, let the memory of this iconic Senator drive the Democrats towards fulfilling his dream of insuring all Americans. More important on this night is to simply step back for a moment and to think about the unprecedented accomplishments of the Kennedy brothers. President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and now Senator Edward Kennedy, may you all rest in peace. Thank you for your public service and your never ending ambition to form a better America.
Reconciliation or Reconciliate?
True or False?
All criminals have a constitutional right to a lawyer? True.
All honest working Americans have a right to a doctor? False.
Incomprehensible statements such as those espoused above have placed health care reform at the very top of President Obama's agenda. Aside from having to combat the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression, attempting to repair a fledgling public school system that was only harmed by No Child Left Behind, and reasserting America's soft power by moving the focus off of Iraq and opening diplomatic relations where possible, President Obama, and Congress, have the task of reforming a broken health care system. With the current state of American health care, there are major issues relating to cost, access, and quality. America spends nearly 17% of its GDP on health care, an astronomical number when compared to nations around the world, yet we hardly reap the benefits. 45 million Americans are left uninsured, while those who are insured are faced with ever rising costs and in many cases, below average care. With unemployment on the rise due to the recession, thousands of Americans are losing their jobs, and with it, their health insurance provided through their employers. COBRA, the program for those who are unemployed to retain their health insurance, has enormous premiums that make it all but impossible for Americans to afford it. People are left sitting at the kitchen table at the age of 62, praying that nothing happens to them until they can begin to reap the benefits of Medicare at the age of 65. Millions of Americans are one sickness or one injury away from being bankrupt. To put it in the most simple terms, there is nothing more integral than combatting the issues that are ravaging the American health care system.
With a substantial majority in the House of Representatives, and the so-called "super majority" of 60 Democratic Senators, it may appear as if any health care reform bill would be easy to get through to President Obama's desk. To top it off, the Senate passed a measure known as reconciliation this spring, meaning that when the health care bill does come to the Senate floor, the Republicans cannot filibuster as only a simple majority is needed for passage, rather than the normal 60 votes needed to pass a bill. However, this has caused great debate. While some, such as Majority Leader Reid propose a more partisan approach in order to ensure that what is needed in the bill is there, others, such as Senator Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, have attempted to look for a more bipartisan solution to the health care crisis. This of course begs the question, is America better off if the Democrats recognize that they don't need any Republican votes to pass real health care reform and they instead insure a strong bill is passed this year? Is it better for the Democrats to utilize reconciliation, or should they make more of an attempt to reconciliate with Republicans and create more of a working consensus towards the future? These are the questions that will ultimately be answered in the coming days and weeks, as President Obama has urged Congress to have a bill on his desk by the August recess.
In my opinion, for the immediate term and specifically regarding the health care bill, the Democrats need to proceed, even if it means little to no Republican support for the bill. Put simply, the Democrats have a mandate. They won huge victories in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and Americans have put faith in them to get real change done in Washington. There has been plenty of opportunity for Republicans to be a real part of creating this bill, along with the other major legislation passed thus far in the Obama Administration, yet they continually oppose anything with the names Pelosi, Reid, or Obama on it. America cannot afford to wait any longer. Try telling an uninsured forty year old woman with a medical condition who can't afford health insurance, and even if she could, would probably be left in the dust by private insurance companies who refuse to insure "high-risk" patients that she needs to just wait it out a little longer while we wait for the Republicans to get what they want. How ridiculous is that? The people who need health insurance most can't get it because they're not healthy. If Republicans get their way, there won't be a public option to keep the private insurance companies honest. With the ever-flowing streams of cash coming into the private insurance companies, and practices such as the one described above, it's time for them to either compete or fold. These insurance companies are killing Americans, and it's about time it stops. Senator Reid has stated that it is more important for the integral parts of the bill to be included than to have a few Republican votes while stripping down the bill to something that will not do much to save American lives. I stand with Senator Reid on this, and strongly urge the Democrats to do whatever it takes to pass strong health care legislation that includes a public option to insure Americans. Word has come out in the past couple of days that President Obama and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel are now taking this position as well. On November 4th, 2008, Barack Obama stood at Grant Park and boldy claimed victory, stating that "Change has come to America." Well, it's time for that change. Republicans: get on board, or get out of the way.
All criminals have a constitutional right to a lawyer? True.
All honest working Americans have a right to a doctor? False.
Incomprehensible statements such as those espoused above have placed health care reform at the very top of President Obama's agenda. Aside from having to combat the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression, attempting to repair a fledgling public school system that was only harmed by No Child Left Behind, and reasserting America's soft power by moving the focus off of Iraq and opening diplomatic relations where possible, President Obama, and Congress, have the task of reforming a broken health care system. With the current state of American health care, there are major issues relating to cost, access, and quality. America spends nearly 17% of its GDP on health care, an astronomical number when compared to nations around the world, yet we hardly reap the benefits. 45 million Americans are left uninsured, while those who are insured are faced with ever rising costs and in many cases, below average care. With unemployment on the rise due to the recession, thousands of Americans are losing their jobs, and with it, their health insurance provided through their employers. COBRA, the program for those who are unemployed to retain their health insurance, has enormous premiums that make it all but impossible for Americans to afford it. People are left sitting at the kitchen table at the age of 62, praying that nothing happens to them until they can begin to reap the benefits of Medicare at the age of 65. Millions of Americans are one sickness or one injury away from being bankrupt. To put it in the most simple terms, there is nothing more integral than combatting the issues that are ravaging the American health care system.
With a substantial majority in the House of Representatives, and the so-called "super majority" of 60 Democratic Senators, it may appear as if any health care reform bill would be easy to get through to President Obama's desk. To top it off, the Senate passed a measure known as reconciliation this spring, meaning that when the health care bill does come to the Senate floor, the Republicans cannot filibuster as only a simple majority is needed for passage, rather than the normal 60 votes needed to pass a bill. However, this has caused great debate. While some, such as Majority Leader Reid propose a more partisan approach in order to ensure that what is needed in the bill is there, others, such as Senator Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, have attempted to look for a more bipartisan solution to the health care crisis. This of course begs the question, is America better off if the Democrats recognize that they don't need any Republican votes to pass real health care reform and they instead insure a strong bill is passed this year? Is it better for the Democrats to utilize reconciliation, or should they make more of an attempt to reconciliate with Republicans and create more of a working consensus towards the future? These are the questions that will ultimately be answered in the coming days and weeks, as President Obama has urged Congress to have a bill on his desk by the August recess.
In my opinion, for the immediate term and specifically regarding the health care bill, the Democrats need to proceed, even if it means little to no Republican support for the bill. Put simply, the Democrats have a mandate. They won huge victories in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and Americans have put faith in them to get real change done in Washington. There has been plenty of opportunity for Republicans to be a real part of creating this bill, along with the other major legislation passed thus far in the Obama Administration, yet they continually oppose anything with the names Pelosi, Reid, or Obama on it. America cannot afford to wait any longer. Try telling an uninsured forty year old woman with a medical condition who can't afford health insurance, and even if she could, would probably be left in the dust by private insurance companies who refuse to insure "high-risk" patients that she needs to just wait it out a little longer while we wait for the Republicans to get what they want. How ridiculous is that? The people who need health insurance most can't get it because they're not healthy. If Republicans get their way, there won't be a public option to keep the private insurance companies honest. With the ever-flowing streams of cash coming into the private insurance companies, and practices such as the one described above, it's time for them to either compete or fold. These insurance companies are killing Americans, and it's about time it stops. Senator Reid has stated that it is more important for the integral parts of the bill to be included than to have a few Republican votes while stripping down the bill to something that will not do much to save American lives. I stand with Senator Reid on this, and strongly urge the Democrats to do whatever it takes to pass strong health care legislation that includes a public option to insure Americans. Word has come out in the past couple of days that President Obama and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel are now taking this position as well. On November 4th, 2008, Barack Obama stood at Grant Park and boldy claimed victory, stating that "Change has come to America." Well, it's time for that change. Republicans: get on board, or get out of the way.
Time to Quit? You Betcha!
So let's say for a moment that you are found from the political obscurity of Alaska, Russia's neighbor, and are suddenly placed on a national ticket to become the Vice President of the United States. Throughout the next three months, you are largely shielded by a campaign while clearly asserting your future national ambitions. After some slip ups and winks, your ticket is crushed on election day. But your national ambitions are not over. You now have four years to prove that your inexperience and lack of knowledge of the issues are not truly reflective of you while deciding on a run at the top of the Republican national ticket. So what is the best way to go about proving yourself to the American public? To a country that is known for standing up when times get tough, for rising to every occasion, for asserting its ultimate strength even in its times of incomprehensible tragedy and weakness? Well if your name is Sarah Palin, then apparently the way to prove yourself is to quit.
What Sarah Palin did is incredibly difficult to analyze. On July 3rd, the eve of America's national independence, Palin apparently decided the time was right to step down as Governor of Alaska. Why? Well, she didn't give many reasons, other than to say that she didn't want to be a lame duck governor and she wasn't going to run for re-election. Without mincing my words, what an absolutely pathetic example to set for future politicians. So is her argument that any lame duck politician should simply resign and forgo the rest of their term? She was elected to a four-year term, and how can she expect the voters to entrust her with the responsibilities of running a state when she is always looking for the next best thing. Should President Bush have resigned on November 5th, 2008, since he had become a lame duck President? Or should he simply have resigned on January 21st, 2005 since he couldn't run for another term. According to Palin's logic, a politician should only stay in office for as long as they are looking towards another election. How about spending the next 18 months doing the people's business that you were elected to do? The work that you did so well while you were off campaigning in every state but Alaska from August 29th until Election Day last year.
So what were your real motives, Sarah Palin? Do you think the best way to vault yourself to the Presidency is to prove yourself a quitter? When John McCain, an honorable man, suspended his campaign last fall to focus solely on the economic crisis, now-President Barack Obama chided McCain for being unable to focus on more than one issue, something which any president must undoubtedly face on a daily basis. McCain's loss on Election Day may not have been a direct reflection of his decision to suspend his campaign, but it certainly didn't help him. So what Sarah Palin has done is taken McCain's prerogative to a whole new level, assuming that her true ambitions are to run for the presidency in 2012. Americans do not quit, and Americans do not elect quitters to become the leader of the free world. There are other possibilities as well. Was Palin facing more federal charges and felt it was wiser to resign and avoid the public eye rather than having to continually face these charges? The FBI has confirmed that they were not currently investigating Palin, and so this reasoning seems implausible. Rather, I believe that Palin truly is looking for something to vault her into the public eye, to attempt a Richard Nixon, as he lost the California Governorship and then went into helping Republican candidates get elected and ultimately running for, and winning, the presidency in 1968. However, even in Nixon's case, he didn't quit, he lost an election. Sarah Palin, you quit. Your intelligence, your knowledge of the issues, and your grasp of American ideals were questionable to begin with. As a quitter, you have simply confirmed that you do not reflect the ideals of America. All you have done is abandon the only people who have ever elected you to public office, the Alaskans. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Or in Sarah Palin's case, when the going gets tough, then it's time to quit. Right. Good luck with that presidential campaign. I wouldn't quite start painting the Sarah Palin presidential portrait quite yet. President Barack Obama, President George W. Bush, and the 42 men who have held the ultimate office in America before them have not been quitters. Sarah Palin isn't about to be the first.
The debate over Guantanamo
One of President Obama's first moves upon assuming his role as the 44th President of these United States of America was signing an executive order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by the beginning of February 2010. However, since then, there has been a great deal of debate about what to do with the approximately 245 detainees being held in Guantanamo. Governors have constantly coming out basically saying, "Not in my state," when posed with the question of whether or not they would be willing to take the suspected terrorists from Guantanamo into prisons in their state. This week, the Senate voted to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States for the foreseeable future. But this begs the question: For a country that has a higher prison rate than any other nation on the planet, do we truly have this little faith in our prisons and justice system?
As of the beginning of 2008, there were 2.31 million people in prisons throughout the United States. That is 1 out of every 99.1 adults in this country. Many of these people are in prison for extremely heinous murders, or, as may be more prevalent to this debate, for terrorist activities. What this country also has is something known as supermax prisons. These are prisons with extremely tight restrictions, and NOBODY has ever successfully broken out of a supermax prison in the United States. Timothy McVeigh was housed in an American prison before his execution. He was a convicted terrorist. The detainees in Guantanamo are suspected terrorists. I, along with the Obama Administration, do not propose giving the terrorists a thousand dollars and allowing them to run free through America. What I do propose, however, is moving them to the toughest supermax facilities in America, where they are likely to be more secure than they even currently are in Guantanamo Bay. This country has held countless terrorists and mass murderers in its prisons. If we cannot trust our prisons to hold suspected terrorists, then what is the true value of our prisons? If we cannot hold the suspected worst of the worst, who can? Put simply, Guantanamo Bay has become a symbol of American injustices that took place over the past 8 years, and in reaffirming American soft power to truly regain our ultimate respect around the world, Guantanamo needs to be closed.
