Unfounded Disdain for Obama

Once again I come back to author Julia Schwartz of the blog How’s Obama Doing? who wrote an article on August 3^rd entitled “Obama? Really?” in which she criticizes Obama and how America is falling apart because of his administration. Schwartz’s disdain for Obama is palpable. In this article she claims several things: that Obama was only elected because he is black, that his health care bill is unsuccessful (which I have already commented on), and that Obama only cares “about winning the next election”. Schwartz has a lot of opinions with very little evidence.

Only Congress can pass legislation, as stated in our Constitution. To give all the credit for a failed piece of legislation to the President displays a lack of understanding of our government. As Schwartz writes about the withdrawal of troops and health care reform, she claims broken promises and failed legislation without providing how there was failure. She then compares Obama to Bush, losing credibility when she states, “he extended the amount of time they will be over there, showing Bush and his team knew exactly what they were doing and no one could do it better.” First, citing opinion as fact is inappropriate for political discourse. Second, there have been several articles on Obama’s promise of withdrawing troops and how he is following through. For example an article by Scott Wilson, “U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will be on time,” provides clear evidence that refutes Schwartz’s claim. Schwartz, once again, claims that when it comes to health care reform Obama has dropped the ball. Similar to her last article, this is completely unfounded.

Schwartz moves from talking about failed legislation to talking about Obama himself. She makes claims that he was elected solely because he is black and that “all he cares about is winning the next election” with no supporting facts. There are numerous polls that refute her claim showing many other reasons Obama supporters voted for him. To claim that “All he cares about is winning the next election” just shows the writer’s ignorance of what is happening in Washington. Obama just stated a week ago on “the View” that it is a shame that Congressmen are clouding their minds with the upcoming election and that he is just trying to do what is best for the country rather than what is best for his political career. Schwartz needs to answer this question: if all Obama cares about is winning the next election, then why is he trying to talk and act on controversial issues?

The last statement of the article begins with “Where did the days go of keeping your word, being truthful and honest?” which, if I recall correctly, was taken directly from a speech by Obama. Obama has argued that government needs to be more transparent and truthful. Those days are coming back because of Obama. All in all this article proves to be an unsupported rant about Obama. Some supporting articles and details would make Schwartz’s claims more credible.

Proposition L8er!

Civil rights in the 1960’s came as a movement that caused many minority groups to come to the table and present their situations with the intent on making conditions better for everyone. Some came with successes and some have seen some setbacks. This leads to how the rights of homosexuals have not seen too much light from the government. Homosexuality was never fully understood by Americans and today is still not fully understood. It used to be that homosexuality was a “mental disorder” but has now been understand as not. The problem is that it isn’t fully understood by most people especially whether or not it is genetic. This is relevant when it comes to the recent overturning or Prop 8 in California.

Last week Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California was overturned in a Federal Court as unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the 14^th Amendment’s equal protection clause. If being a homosexual is something that cannot be changed then I agree that not allowing someone to marry the same sex is unconstitutional, and if homosexuality is a choice I agree that not allowing someone to marry the same sex is unconstitutional. Does it really matter to me whether or not someone one I know marries someone they love even if it is someone of their same sex? No, it is none of my business. I hope that the overturning of Prop 8 ends up being appealed and taken by the Supreme Court so that they can put an end to this prejudice against homosexuals and state that it is in fact unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry. The worst part about the whole thing is the over 1000 different rights granted to married couples that cannot be granted to homosexuals based on something they may not be able to control. If appealed, which it seems that it will be, the Supreme Court has a big dish in front of them. They could take it and say how they feel the Constitution protects gay marriage or they could not take the case proving that they do not want to speak about such a controversial just yet.

This recent case about the overturn of Prop 8 is a push forward for gay rights and could be the start of a civil rights movement like that of the 1960’s. Some would dispute the rights of homosexuals being similar to the rights of blacks, women, Mexican-Americans, etc. but it is the same situation. A ban on gay rights would only be an imposition of church on state and would be against the collective pursuit of American interest.

Healthcare Reform a Big Flop? Really?

In a recent commentary titled Health Care – A Big Flop, Julia Schwartz discusses healthcare reform and how overall the recent legislation is a big flop. While she has a lot of good points, I think her arguments could all benefit from adding information and evidence from outside sources. Yes this is supposed to be an original commentary, but, without any research, credibility seems lost. It might be beneficial to quote Congressmen that agree with her. This clearly shows throughout the commentary specifically in reasoning behind governors filing suit against requiring everyone obtain insurance or pay a penalty and expansion of Medicaid programs. By just stating these facts, there is no compelling reason to believe that there are problems with these parts of the law or that the Governors have valid reason to file suit.

As the commentary continues, she states that, “even though this health care reform has had some early successes, it does not mean that it will continue to be successful and that people will change their minds and decide all of a sudden that it holds good inside of it,” and then goes further to try and discuss why people won’t see good inside the law. The problem in this though is that each piece of evidence hasn’t happened and is just a projection of what might happen. Schwartz specifically notes the good in tax cut eligibility for small businesses provided by the law, but then refutes it by saying that this, “does not mean that any will actually receive it and if they do it will be a small amount,” without stating reason to believe nothing will happen. Also, as she states many times that there are early successes she refutes that by saying, “the early skeptics of this bill is holding true as the months pass on.”

Throughout the entirety of her commentary, Schwartz seems to flip flop between agreeing with "some successes" of the health care law and saying that it is a flop overall. How can a law that has only had successes so far be, in its entirety, a big flop? While I agree with her on some of her points, like the law’s continuous success in the first couple of months, I think it's important to note that health care reform is better than no reform at all because that way we can progress toward something better than existed before. If we make mistakes, we can learn from them and improve on the old. Showing how Obama might make mistakes dealing with a lot of issues, but the important thing is that we are progressing toward something different than the inefficient and sloppy system that existed.