Democrats for...democracy

So, this happened tonight at the second night of the Democratic National Committee's convention in Charlotte, NC.



To put it all into context, there was a lot of hullaballoo about the fact that the DNC's platform, voted on and passed on the first night of the convention, differed greatly from the 2008 platform in leaving out "God" in a section where God was previously acknowledged and on the matter of Israel's security -- one of the U.S.'s strongest allies.

The language that was voted on included a declaration that Jerusalem "is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths." Such language was in the 2008 platform, but the 2012 platform only made reference to a "commitment to Israel's security."

Also, it included a call for a government that "gives everyone willing to work hard the change to make the most of their God-given potential." 

As you can see, they did not have their ducks in line when they took that vote. The change required 2/3 approval by all delegates. Anthony Villaraigosa (mayor of Los Angeles and convention chair) looked almost as if he was trying to convey a *hint, hint, wink, wink* to the crowd as he repeated his call for the votes not once, but twice before making a wholly indefensible decision that the "ayes" had it.

Reports coming in from Twitter suggested either that the "nos" were in the majority or that the vote was too close to call. Some delegates are even questioning whether a quorum was present to make the vote official.

Had the party any integrity, Villaraigosa would have admitted that it was too close to call and requested a roll call vote. Because the party's platform is meant to be represent the guiding principles under which all party members will campaign. What goes into that platform matters most to grassroots political organizations. The delegates who represent party politics on the local level are bound to defend that platform to the people they engage, for better or worse.

The message the Democrats sent tonight was not just about their views or contentions on foreign policy or religion, though they are...interesting, I suspect, to many. In fact, I would say those revelations are subservient to a greater issue. 

No, the greater Voila! moment was the one where convention watchers across the country witnessed a political party's attitude toward the value of a vote.

Context...doesn't matter

Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that.

Here's why the context of the "you didn't build that" comment doesn't help Pres. Obama.
If the "that" he was referring to was the business you've got -- a grammatically sound interpretation of the remark -- it shows, at best, economic ignorance and, at worst, hostility towards free market capitalism.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and concede that it was just a grammatical error; let's accept that he was referring to roads, infrastructure, the American system, etc. Under that interpretation, it shows that Pres. Obama believes that we the people don't own an investment in our own government. We didn't lay the asphalt, fire the steel, or teach the leaders of tomorrow (even though some of us actually DID do that), so we didn't build it. Government put it all in motion (except for those handful that actually DID those things); we just paid for it. 

When was the last time Pres. Obama, or any member of Congress, pulled out a wallet and said, "This school construction project? Yeah, that's on me," and then picked up a hardhat and went to work? The government doesn't do these things unless they can stick us with the bill. So, while maybe we didn't physically build it (except, again, for those people who had a direct hand in it), our financial contribution to it is reduced to nothing, and government gets all the credit.

Let's finally put all this equivocating aside. People have a right to be incensed with the president for saying, "you didn't build that," because no matter how you slice it, it's damned insulting.

Europe gets smart

The EU has announced that it is banning from its airports the

x-ray scanners that are currently deployed throughout

the U.S. “in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens’ health and safety.”

When will our government wise up?

pen·al·ty • noun /ˈpenltē/

President Obama's Solicitor General finally spoke truth this week about the administration's healthcare reform law when he suggested that people who wanted to avoid the mandate could do so by choosing to earn less money.

Let that sink in for a moment.

"It’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring."

Solicitor General Neal Kumar Katyal defending the healthcare mandate

Just so we're clear, the government's STATED aim here is to discourage people from helping themselves as they would by seeking higher education and well-paying jobs, and choosing insurance plans that fit their needs and the needs of their families.

Are you pissed off yet?