Forging Bipartisanship - Like Oil and Water

There are a lot of news reports dealing with the Republicans and Democrats "creating bipartisan solutions" to current problems. Specifically, Republicans claiming that during their time controlling congress, the Democrats wouldn't work with them to forge bipartisan solutions. I'd like to address this as follows:

It is impossible to form a bipartisan consensus on partisan issues. There is no bipartisan way to vote on banning gay marriage, or tax cuts for the wealthy, or flag burning, etc. These are the definition of partisan issues.

Similarly, the Democratic controlled congress is going to finally start passing pro-America legislation, like global health care and immigration reform that protects the rights of America's citizens. These are not partisan issues, and can actually come to bipartisan solutions.

We should all pay attention to the progress of the congress. Before, legislation wasn't passed because it wasn't for the good of America. If it is not passed now, it is not for lack of agreement. It is purely political.

Dispelling Myths Part 2

This is old news, but I haven't had anything to post on before, so it gets posted today:

Clear Skies Act:

While we all agree that clearer skies are better (for the unimportant things, like breathing and living – not just for aesthetics), many republicans wonder why congressional Democrats are so against the “clear skies act”.

The question goes: Why are democrats against clearer skies?

The answer is as follows: In 1990, a law was passed called the “Clean Air Act.” This law says that over time, pollution will continually have to be decreased. They use more technical language as well as address specific types of pollution, but the idea is that with each passing year, acceptable pollution levels go down. Not only will going over the maximum pollution level be illegal, but there are also tax cuts to companies that have cleaner waste.

But like any law, this bill can have amendments – an addition to the law that changes or alters the way the existing law is carried out. This is what the “Clear Skies” initiative is. It is a helpful addition in name only – what it in fact does is give the companies LONGER to decrease their pollution. Although their pollution must still decrease over time, it will take longer than it would under the existing plan. So while the name of the initiative is “clear skies” the skies are in fact less clear than if the initiative did not pass. It doesn’t even address CO2 emissions, which he claimed it would in his 2000 campaign promises. It also does not address global warming and in fact contributes more to it.

Why would the president try to pass such a bill? Well, simply, he can use it to claim that he helped the environment. Which he has, repeatedly. He mentioned it numerous times during the debates and during every single state of the union address. And let’s faces, it sounds good to say you passed the “clear skies act.”

There are numerous other reasons for such an act being passed by the president. Some of which are listed on the following websites:

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/qbushplan.asp

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp

Whether you believe other websites or not, it is still a bill that not only could have been better but should have been better. One of the claims about the Bush administration was that preventing pollution as the clean air act did would hurt the economy. It won’t.

Dispelling Myths Part 1

Originally I planned to start a blog I could use as a reference to dispell anti-liberal myths. But since Democrats took control of both the house and senate, I have slightly less anger. Still, I will post them here as the first posts in this brand new website:

What is the Partial Birth Abortion?

Partial Birth Abortions

There is actually no such thing as a partial birth abortion. There is no medical term, and it is not the name of a type of abortion procedure. It is, however, Republican propaganda that refers to abortions that occur in a later (unspecified) trimester. This often comes as a shock to some people who believe that there is such thing as a Partial Birth Abortion because it is used so commonly in politics, but there is, in fact, not. In general, it refers to abortions that take place during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy.

What may be more surprising to people easily influenced by this propaganda is that almost all supporters of abortion rights (democrats and liberals included) actually ARE against 3rd trimester abortions because in general it is possible for the fetus to survive outside the mother during the 7th and 8th months.

But why do Democrats still vote against partial birth abortions (aka 3rd trimester abortions) even if they don’t believe they should be performed? This is actually a valid question and it has multiple answers.

First, any legislation that refers to a “partial birth abortion” is, as we have established, referring to an arbitrary term that doesn’t actually mean anything. Therefore, hypothetically if a measure passed in congress banning “partial birth abortions” there is no specified medical or scientific time period that corresponds to that bill, and Republican and anti-abortion politicians can challenge what constitutes a “partial birth abortion” and begin limiting abortions to a 5 month period, then a 4 month, than a 3 ½ month until eventually they ban them altogether. If you don’t believe this is possible, during the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, one of the Republican Senators referred to the embryo (not even a fetus yet) as fully alive – “scientifically” according to him – after only 18 days.

Second, similar to the logic above, Democrats and liberals believe (rightfully so) that banning any part of abortion rights will also allow religious conservatives open forum to shorten the time period until they abolish abortion rights altogether. Until religion no longer governs the country, democrats and liberals can’t support religious based propositions.

And 3rd, it is still scientifically a fetus. People who are pro-choice still and will always support a women’s right to choose. Only religion supports the conceived child being a baby upon conception, and not even all religions. Judaism only calls the fetus alive once half of its body has exited the mother’s womb. http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm

Until that point it is called a “potential human life.”