http://www.kyle-brady.com coherent thoughts on diverse topics Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:07:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/18/the-death-of-television-journalism-has-arrived/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/18/the-death-of-television-journalism-has-arrived/#comments Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:18:08 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5503 CNN, a once respectable television news station, has been chasing the revenue-rich/value-poor niche of infotainment for at least the last two years, and they’ve finally placed the nail in their own journalistic coffin by hiring their version of right-wing commentator that spews conspiracy theories, racism, misogyny, and general hatred on a regular basis.  His name is Erick Erickson, and he is the harbinger of death for television journalism.

In the era of FOX “News”, celebrity obsessions, false controversies, partisan politics, and many more problematic issues, the death of CNN is a truly sad moment.  It is, however, not a great surprise, as the actual delivery of journalistic content via television has been in great decline for the last decade, attacked by both budgetary and editorial concerns – there’s greater revenue in pursuing popular topics, such as celebrity nonsense or endless coverage of meaningless events, than there is in investigation, so there remains a disturbing kernel of logic to these actions.

Regardless of whether CNN’s decisions are simply good business, they have placed the majority of the American people in a position that leaves them absolutely without any dependable and legitimate news source.  ABC, CBS, and NBC have long written themselves out of the picture, for both morning and nightly news, and FOX “News” is a scary farce – this leaves only MSNBC and PBS standing.  PBS, although a producer of great journalistic content, has never achieved mainstream popularity, possibly due to their dedication to actual news, and it remains unlikely to become suddenly popular with a younger generation that has short attention spans and a disinterest for most of life.

Besides the sometimes-valuable news programs like 60 Minutes, which is also not watched by the most important demographics, MSNBC is the only major news network that can be counted on to deliver actual reporting – and even it has a bias.  Unlike FOX “News”, MSNBC’s liberal slant does not go so far as to intentionally misinterpret news, events, and raw data, much less produce offensive tirades, but it does exert itself in the issues covered and in the commentators, such as the wonderful Keith Olbermann.  There is a substantial difference between having a bias and letting that bias overrun reason.

Unless a greater number of Americans begin listening to the venerable NPR, a source of unbiased, intelligent news and commentary, the nation is on the brink of an awareness decline:  when news programs no longer deliver news, and newspapers are not read, the populace becomes more partisan, less informed, and, above all, less willing to act as a nation.

Welcome to the era of individualism and ignorance.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/18/the-death-of-television-journalism-has-arrived/feed/ 4 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/14/political-change-may-be-coming/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/14/political-change-may-be-coming/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:34:46 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5500
After almost a year and a half of political wrangling, fake debates, fingerpointing, namecalling, and almost no obvious or momentous progress, President Obama’s campaign slogan appears to have taken Washington D.C. by storm in just a few short days.  With a final vote looming on healthcare reform, despite its status as actual reform now being questionable, some members of Congress have taken advantage of the Democratic momentum to propose, or put the finishing touches, on other legislation necessary for not only progress, but also stability, within America.

Depending on the individual, agency, or group counting, the Great Recession began somewhere around two years ago, and, until recently, regulation to address the very problems that caused the financial and economic crash has been sorely lacking.  Senator Dodd had expressed interest in passing legislation through the Senate Banking Committee, but his dedication came into question when he announced not running for reelection – it is, therefore, surprising that Dodd announced an upcoming regulatory bill.  Some of the details are still murky, but it has intentions to revitalize banking regulation, provide greater watchdog capabilities to both bank shareholders and government, create a “Consumer Financial Protection Agency”, and more.  This bill has not yet been introduced, much less voted on, but if even half of it is passed into law, the battle will be well fought.

In addition to the political surprise by Senator Dodd, the FCC has revealed that they are highly interested in regulating the telecommunication industry, with a great focus on the Internet, as well as opening it up to true competition – Net Neutrality would inevitably be a part of such regulation.  This action isn’t a surprise to those that have been paying attention to the political climate surrounding ISPs since President Obama entered Office, but it will no doubt surprise, frustrate, and anger Republicans that devoutly oppose what they perceive as unnecessary intervention in the private sector, such as John McCain, despite the multitude of failures by the market to regulate itself.

From Congress itself comes an interest in reforming tax regulation to simplify the tax code to close loopholes, remove deductions, and make understanding it easier – potentially reducing taxes for certain income brackets while increasing tax income from those that weasel out of paying what is simply due to the Federal Government.  This move, while potentially politically painful, would satisfy both Republican interests in cutting taxes and the Democratic wish to have corporations play fairly with others, bringing about a rare moment for bipartisan legislation in an era of extreme partisanship.  Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has just produced stern words for the selfsame Republicans that have been stalling any and all attempts at forward progress, a well-timed jab likely intended to scare up legislative support.

What does this signify as a whole?  The underlying message of this may be that the Democratic majority have grown tired of the obstructionist tactics of the minority party full of bravado, not brains, and is preparing to move forward with or without them.  An important part of this decision may include not only the abject legislative failure of 2009, but also the upcoming midterm elections in November:  if Democrats can show that they passed significant and meaningful legislation almost entirely on their own, they have a greater political advantage than if they were to lay claim to thin bipartisanship.  The central strategy of Republicans has been to “break” both President Obama and his Congress by preventing progress, in order to retake the majority come election time – a prospect that seems bleaker for them by the day.

Whether or not these specific instances of Democratic showmanship turn into actual legislation is an entirely different matter, but the words themselves have signified a change from even just a few weeks ago – a change that is more than welcome.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/14/political-change-may-be-coming/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/10/the-rules-of-argumentation/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/10/the-rules-of-argumentation/#comments Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:29:22 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5491
Rule 1 – Facts

Individuals are entitled to their own opinions, but not facts.  The basis of any discussion is reliant upon core information, and if a party is lacking in the comprehension of such data, they must be open to the realization that their data may not necessarily be correct.

Rule 2 – Equality

Not all opinions are created equal.  There are experts in fields, self-proclaimed experts, and various levels of amateurs/average citizens, where the pyramid of knowledge and expertise begins with the legitimate experts and widens on the way down.  This, quite obviously, means that some individuals are simply better suited to understand, interpret, and hold opinions on topics, especially within the realms of science and mathematics.

Rule 3 – Sacred

Opinions should not be considered sacred or immutable.  Given new data, reliable argumentation, or simply a change of heart, an individual’s beliefs on any given topic should be open to change – the more valued the belief, the less immutable it must become.

Rule 4 – Respect

Just as not all opinions are created equal, not all opinions need be respected.  In the event that some belief is so demonstrably ludicrous as to be laughable, and the individual refuses to be open to change, this opinion is not worthy of respect.  Only when beliefs are defensible, reasoned, and researched can they demand respect.

Rule 5 – Emotion

A reasoned argument is not an epic battle between good and evil, but an exchange of ideas between reasonable people.  There is no need to become overly emotional or feel personally affronted, since such a discussion is not a judgment of personal character.

Rule 6 – Winning

There isn’t necessarily a “winner” in an argument.  Even if there is a so-called winner, where one party convinces the other of their position, this is not a true loss to the “losing” party – losing an argument is not rescinding personal ideals, but instead reforming false, faulty, or otherwise incorrect beliefs.

Rule 7 – Death

The last, and most important rule, is that no-one dies in an argument.  If the argument goes so far as to become weaponized, it’s no longer a rational exchange of ideas, and should be discontinued.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/10/the-rules-of-argumentation/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/02/the-lie-of-bipartisan-politics/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/02/the-lie-of-bipartisan-politics/#comments Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:05:07 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5479 Bipartisanship, in modern politics, is a lie - a falsehood, a hopeless dream, a fantasy based on nothing.  And yet this doesn’t prevent either side of the political divide from using the idea of it as a tool for derision, division, and justification, even when those employing it know it to be nothing but empty words.

In the purest sense of the word, bipartisanship is a meeting of groups or individuals with opposing views, while sharing some common points of interest, that results in a healthy compromise between the disparate positions for the overall better.  American politics has not seen this kind of bipartisanship in the last few decades, if not longer, and the roots of partisan voting, including its vitriol, can be traced all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, with 2010 Washington doing their very best to continue this unhealthy state ad infinitem.

Recently, bipartisanship, or a lack thereof, has been used by Republicans in attempts to kill legislation of any kind, but their cries of partisanship avoid a certain fundamental truth:  President Obama’s Administration, and its Congress, have not been bipartisan for the simple fact that the Republicans have refused to participate.  The lack of a desire to govern is not at all comparable to a lack of bipartisan efforts, the latter of which has not been in short supply over the last fourteen months.  This is not so much a battle of diametrically opposing ideologies as it is a distinct dislike for President Obama and his efforts and goals, not to mention the striking characteristics of the GOP’s childlike political tantrum.

It’s time to give up, at least for the remainder of the Obama Administration, the idea of bipartisanship – on everything.  If the opposing party, in this case the Republicans, wish to participate with the President and his Congressional majority in the process of running the nation, they may do so, but concessions should not be made to a group of corrupt individuals that have absolutely no intention of being part of the legislative process except for their own personal gain.  While this applies to Washington at present, the same criticisms can be made for Administrations past, on both sides of the party line, and will no doubt continue into the future.

Until politics reaches a state of enlightenment that includes the ability to have reasoned, unemotional debates, bipartisanship is a lie.  Once the American people realize that the idea of bipartisanship is merely a tool used to garner votes for the party out of favor at election time, the country will have a chance at finally moving forward, as those within Congress will recognize the farce as being over.  Applied immediately, great benefits could be had within a very short period of time.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/02/the-lie-of-bipartisan-politics/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/25/real-healthcare-reform-now-not-later/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/25/real-healthcare-reform-now-not-later/#comments Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:05:50 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5471 what he expects from a healthcare overhaul bill and while his direct intervention, however late, is welcome, it is not without problems.  The two glaring omissions of this entire process, President Obama’s efforts included, are that this reform process is not healthcare reform, but rather insurance reform, and that there is sill no public option or extension of Medicare.

President Obama’s outlines for a bill include a requirement for all citizens to purchase insurance plans, or receive a penalty – this is, to bastardize a phrase, feeding the hand that bites you.  One of the very reasons that the United States is in its current position of poor healthcare is the insurance companies that are more interested in profit than they are fulfilling the sole reason for their existence.  Besides argument of reactive vs. preventative care, insurance companies have continued to raise the financial bar for individuals to simply be able to see a doctor, have a broken bone addressed, or even visit a hospital in an emergency.  More importantly, in the event that an individual or family can afford to pay the absurd amounts demanded of them, their coverage is denied for a variety of obscure and self-serving reasons.

The entire process has focused almost solely on insurance, but from the substantially wrong perspective:  to provide insurance for the whole country, not to remove or, at minimum, fix the insurance system itself.  Rather than provide a Medicare-for-all package, public option, or the easy answer that would be socialized medicine, it has been deemed better to force some small, token amount of regulation on the insurance companies and require that their services be purchased.  Quite honestly, rewarding such abhorrent behavior with millions of new, coerced customers is not the rebuke of business and ethics practices that the insurance industry deserves, but is instead a twisted validation.

There is surprising growth of Congressional support for the public option, when it has been thought dead for months, that could be accomplished during the process of reconciliation between the House and Senate bills.  No matter that a public option, defined as the ability to purchase into a government-run healthcare plan, is not even close to socialized medicine does not seem to phase the screaming masses that can be found both inside and outside of the halls of Congress.  One of the typical arguments is that while Americans may go to Canada or Mexico for medicine, the citizens of those countries come to America for surgical procedures, but, like most of these talking points, it is a false and invalid comparison:  America has the best doctors not because of a better healthcare system or medical law, neither of which are true, but rather the simple truth that American doctors have substantially higher incomes and public visibility than any other nation in the world.

While a public option would not solve all the needs of true healthcare reform, where the system would be tightly regulated and converted into that of preventative medicine, it would be a substantial start.  A public option, essentially no different than paid-for Medicare, would provide the competition to the insurance industry that is sorely needed in order to stop their disturbing behaviors and insane price hikes.  Furthermore, the public option, if proven successful, could eventually be a gateway to a true nationalized healthcare system – one of the few talking points that the reform bill’s detractors have gotten correct.

If healthcare reform is to happen, it must happen now, in the immediate present – but healthcare reform without a public option, tighter industry regulation, or any substantial action against the predatory practices of those who latch on to the pockets of all Americans is not reform and should not, in any fashion, be passed into law.  For Congress, and ultimately President Obama, to approve such toothless and ineffective legislation is nothing less than political theater that will inevitably produce results only worse than those that currently exist – especially if the process takes another six months under the guise of false bipartisanship, consideration of a public option, or various other carrots to the American people that are truly just billyclubs.

Real healthcare reform must be passed now, not later, in order for both the American people’s faith to be restored in the political process and their health retained before another medicine, procedure, or facet of care is denied to them under false pretenses.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/25/real-healthcare-reform-now-not-later/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/17/a-prelude-to-western-one-world-government/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/17/a-prelude-to-western-one-world-government/#comments Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:05:12 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5459 Greece is in serious financial trouble, thanks in no small part to Goldman Sachs, and is hoping for a bailout not from within, but rather from its European Union partner nations – causing an uproar throughout Europe and the Western World in general.  This has many implications, most of them obvious, but for one specific reason that has been conveniently ignored thus far:  the possible evolution of the EU into a stronger body than just a set of economic and policy agreements between neighboring nations.

One of the central tenets of the EU was the euro, a central currency to make trading between nations much simpler, and even though it hasn’t yet become the singular currency for all nations, it’s become the dominant currency for a large swath of Western Europe.  For the first attempt at a multinational currency among nations that haven’t historically always been friendly to each other, to say that the euro has been a success would be an understatement – especially since there is no central bank to regulate it.  However, Greece appearing to stand on the brink of collapse has underlined some serious problems with the system, such as their views toward internal economic policy, that need to be addressed in order to further prosper.

All of this comes at a time when talk was beginning of expanding the EU’s power of control and legislation within its member nations, in the name of greater prosperity for the whole, which would essentially be the prelude to a substantially more interconnected government.  If the European Union becomes not a group of nations that adhere to certain economic and trade policies, but instead a federation of nation-states that bow to the rule of a greater governing body, that, truly, would be the formation of a government the likes of which has not been seen previously – at least without bloodshed.  Given recent events, it is only logical to assume that the EU will now be forced into greater action, so as to protect its currency and very existence, and become considerably more interested in the financial status of their members, especially in terms of other policies or action that would have any bearing whatsoever on general stability.

In the event that the European Union does extend its tendrils of control further into those who created it, not necessarily of evil import, the next decade could be extremely interesting geopolitically.  One-world governments have been predicted by people of all sorts for decades, and the current Grecofinancial crisis may indeed turn the first experiment at large-scale fiduciary cooperation into the world’s first peaceful pan-nation government, setting the tone for an even more daring attempt at a truly Western one-world government.

All of this, of course, depends on the outcome of the Grecodisaster and the behavior of the EU in the ensuing years.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/17/a-prelude-to-western-one-world-government/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/11/guest-a-response-to-big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/11/guest-a-response-to-big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/#comments Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:46:38 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5446 The following comes from Gibbs Burke, a friend and former coworker, who lives in Maryland and is an Engineer.  He took the time to email me a well thought-out response to "Big Government Is Absolutely Necessary" (2/8/2010), and while I don't agree completely with his points, I consider them all to be valid and thought it only appropriate to give it some public attention.

--- --- ---


Kyle,

In knowing you for many years, I am glad to see that you have matured into a well rounded intellectual young man, and although I do not agree completely with you in regards to your political points I find them well researched and educated. I greatly enjoy reading your insights.

I am responding to your piece, Big Government is Absolutely Necessary. I believe that government should play a key role in providing for its citizens the requirements that are needed to carry on basic functions of living. We take for granted the infrastructure that any form of government has provided for us within our daily lives. The roads that we drive on to go to work, the water we drink from our faucet, or management of our waste, are perfect examples of what government should be burdened with doing. However, it continues to be more and more apparent that government itself is not responsible for such things, but rather just provides the funding for such operations and contracts said jobs out to sub-entities. Instead of my property taxes going to pay for the cost of providing me water or disposing of my waste, or even providing me electricity, it in turns goes to pay some cheating politicians pension fund, or paying their 2.5% increase in salary that they themselves vote on.

I am on your side when it comes to smart spending I think that is the key to the turn around. Obama talks about giving students rebates for student loans, or possibly lowering interest rates. But yet there is no evidence of factoring this in with the recent Health Care Reform. People believe that doctors get paid too much, but with the average doctor coming out of medical school with over 500,000 dollars in debt, and over millions of dollars in malpractice cost it becomes more apparent that to reform the healthcare system you need to start from the bottom up. You need to provide reimbursement for individuals who provide medical care to people, and you need to make it harder for individuals to sue doctors over minor implications. I am always boggled to find out that an 80 year old man is suing a doctor over such minor things, and asking for exuberate amounts of money. Its funny you don’t sue your mechanic when he fixes something in your car and then 1000 miles later something breaks down again. Above all we need the tough American attitude that was present in our past. We need the die hard live to be free, and not expect everything to be given to us attitude. We need to understand that life is a gift not a right. If a doctor messed up, one must understand that he is human too. I myself am all too familiar with this, being run over by a lawn mower when I was 5 and having multiple surgeries throughout my life to fix such complications. Do you think I sued the doctors when I didn’t get full feeling back in my right foot? No I took in the satisfaction that I was alive and kicking as the only reassuring factor that they had done their job.

We don’t need more government spending we have enough money to spend we just need to do it smartly. We need smart people in key positions to make the bull-headed decision, and say, “That’s stupid were not spending money on that, now sit down and STFU.” If you want perfect examples just look at projects that are funded by the Federal Government to the States, under the Obama relief at home efforts. Such states as Illinois, putting a bypass in a local town for the train crossing, 1.5 million in spending to do jack crap, or Milwaukee were they repaved tennis courts that get iced over for 9 months out of the year. There are no gray areas for such matters. If they can spend, they will, and they will do it without provocation. So the simple answer is to not allow them to spend. Cut all ability for the government to allocate money.

You in no way can compare the government spending process of today and relate it to World War I and World War II. The government spending during these times was to create new industries and job opportunities that developed into long-term positions. Were as in today’s government spending is in place to save dying industries or provide simple economic blips to give the illusion of growth. The famous Cash for Clunkers for which spent how many millions or billions of dollars to help individuals buy cars to save gasoline, while in doing so saved someone where near a mere 500,000 dollars in gasoline over the next 5 years. This program nether provided no jobs, nor opened any new industry, but rather allowed the American car companies to gather a little more cash to pay off creditors before declaring bankruptcy.

If we must spend we must spend on things that benefit the greatest number of people. I hope to see healthcare reform, because I believe that it is a moral issue not an economic one. I hope to see gay unions be given the same tax rights and legal laws as married couples (just don’t call it marriage). And I hate to see the same people who protested for the freedoms, protest against other people hindering their freedoms.

I vote republican, but as I have communicated with you before it is becoming more and more apparent that the republican point of view is growing tiresomely old along with its main members. I don’t want to have a retired person speaking on behave of my political views. I hope that there is a turnover into a new wave of leadership that sees bipartisanship as the best way to do legislature, instead of this bull-headed “cock block.”

For New Republicans,

Gibbs Burke]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/11/guest-a-response-to-big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/08/big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/08/big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/#comments Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:05:36 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5440 was no exception to such cries of foul against the spending of money by the federal government; however, those who proclaim government spending to have such attributes have missed the central point that such spending is not only not evil, but necessary.

While it may be understandable that significant protests will rise out of announcing a federal budget for a year that numbers in the trillions of dollars in the midst of the Great Recession and record deficit spending, those with complaints should not only remember that President Obama inherited many of the reasons to spend such exorbitant amounts, but that federal spending is the tool that has kept America moving forward.  More importantly, federal financial support is the sword that many Republicans/conservatives have fallen upon by proclaiming its evil and then accepting, or even demanding, kickbacks as motivation to pass legislation – Senator Ben Nelson’s recent healthcare reform behavior is a prime example.

Federal spending is what launched American astronauts to the Moon, saw the success of World Wars I and II, built the national highway/interstate system, partially funds the ever-popular Medicare and Social Security programs, subsidizes public education, defends the nation, finances longterm scientific research programs, and considerably more – the federal government is arguably responsible for America being one of the leaders of the world in technology and innovation, as well as allowing the nation to remain a singular entity.  For those that believe the intervention, or simple existence, of the federal government is intrusive and unnecessary, a question looms large:  would America still be an independent entity encompassing the majority of a continent as a federation of states into a large nation?  Or would states have long ago imposed their own border restrictions, broken from the union, or been conquered by other nations?  The latter is the likely answer, especially during the earlier years of republic.

NASA has received a budget expansion, so long as the Constellation and its associated endeavors program is terminated, and this has caused an outcry from Congress on both sides of the ideological dividing line – especially from those representing states with substantial interest in the funding of space, irrespective of the definition of “expansion”.  Many of these selfsame Congressmen are those that eschew government spending and federal involvement in a state’s business, in which there is substantial irony, or, perhaps, a revelation of corruption and two-faced behavior.

It is absolutely necessary for the federal government to spend money on a large scale, lest they lose control and let the United States degenerate into a chaotic mishmash of nation-states that have no interest in each other.  In an era where states are essentially broke and choose to cut funding to education and other important programs, rather than pet projects or their own salaries, federal intervention is more important than ever, and the Obama Administration realizes this.

The most important point, however, is that federal spending is managed intelligently and delivered on an as-needed basis – there is no room, both now or in the future, for wasteful spending and pet projects that should be funded by other means, including the military industrial complex.  For the nation to climb out of the massive hole of debt, taxes must be raised on those that can afford it, such as investment bankers, and spending must be trimmed to the minimum amount necessary to continue to exist as a nation and advance its interests.  The cycle of tax cuts, corporate loopholes, and increasing debt must be stopped before it’s too late, but not at the expense of the people, their health, their livelihood, or their safety – Big Government is absolutely necessary, but it must be guided by individuals with the requisite knowledge to steer it in the proper direction.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/08/big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/feed/ 2 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/01/an-open-letter-to-president-obama/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/01/an-open-letter-to-president-obama/#comments Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:05:47 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5420
I’m writing to you as a 22-yr. old Democrat that not only helped vote you into the Presidency, but as an individual politically changed by your campaign and ascendancy.  I’m writing to you as a so-called young adult that’s heavily interested in politics, thanks in no small part to you, and is concerned about the current political climate.  I’m writing to you because your State of the Union, in combination with your Address to the GOP, gave me hope – one of your overriding political principles.

I was impressed with your campaign because you seemed interested in returning intelligence, self-respect, and poise to American politics, all of which were sorely diminished after your predecessor’s disastrous Terms of Office.  And, to be fair, you have done all you can to return these values to our way of life, most especially with respect to the foreign view of our nation.  The actions you have taken to give science, math, and education their rightful places in American society are extremely respectable, as are many of the other changes you have wrought either via Executive Order or a forceful wrangling of Congress.

While I don’t support your decisions unilaterally, such as the various bailouts of corrupt and broken institutions, I do support your overall message of change.  Healthcare reform, in its truest sense, is widely recognized by the American people, in an overwhelming majority, as necessary to both our continued healthy and profitable existence, just as are the reforms of financial institutions and legitimately addressing climate change.  However, your supporters are beginning to lose faith because of your insistence on fair politics.

Your interest in bipartisan politics is highly respectable, especially given that you’ve chosen to tackle a historically disastrous issue in a political climate that is far less than favorable, and no-one will ever deny you this fact.  But the attempts over the last year to have bipartisan involvement in federal-level politics have proven to be mostly fruitless, exempting the few special cases such as Defense spending – why should this offer of cooperation continue to be extended?  The GOP’s response to the State of the Union, and the not-so-subtle hostility that you received when addressing them at their own invitation, should be evidence enough that not only do they not wish to cooperate, on any level, but that they will also take great steps to slight you in any manner possible.

What you likely already realize, but bears repeating regardless, is that the Congressional Republicans unequivocally do not represent the American people, just as the Teabagger movement does not represent the majority of the Republicans within the United States of America.  Healthcare reform, even if a public option must be temporarily forgotten, is too important to relinquish due to a subset of the population that is either completely corrupt or do not fully understand what they are protesting.  Even if the result is a Republican rancor like never before seen, this legislation must be pushed through.

The myriad other issues at hand must also be quickly addressed, possibly at the expense of your own political career, because I have no great faith that your successor will have the same strength of will or interest in carrying out necessary reforms that are not politically favorable.  You have the chance to be the modern generation’s FDR, and I hope you take that chance – even if you only have a single Term of Office, instead of three.  The nation’s infrastructure began crumbling long before the banks or the people did, and ensuring their survival is every bit as important as healthcare reform, alongside other longview policy decisions that will ultimately not produce a visible result for years into the future.

I believe that you realize the hostile political climate may very well mean you won’t be re-elected in 2012, but this does not seem to matter greatly to you, as some of your more recent comments have indicated.  It is for this reason that I, on behalf of Democrats, Republicans, and thinking persons throughout the country, beg you to make good on your intentions to be a great one-term President instead of simply a mediocre two-term one:  finish healthcare reform, and move on to the other issues – there is a long list, and it is only getting longer.

We are a year into your Presidency, and you have accomplished much – but you have three years and far to go.  Don’t let a wish for bipartisanship, or a fear of misperception, tarnish your good intentions and strong ideals, as the nation will ultimately suffer for those actions.  It’s important that you continue to make the well informed, careful decisions that you have been, but with a more apolitical eye towards popularity and likability in the future; history smiles on those who affect great change and produce significant contributions, not those who wish to be liked and popular.

The American people are behind you, even if the media often states otherwise, and we will likely continue to support you through the bitter end, barring some inconceivable political change of course.  As a young, intelligent, and possibly idealistic citizen of the United States, I’m proud to say that you’re my President and that you have given me hope for the future of our political system, even as Congress appears to be more and more broken by the day.

Here’s hoping you choose the path of FDR over that of Coolidge.

Sincerely,

Kyle Brady]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/01/an-open-letter-to-president-obama/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/25/destroying-america-with-corporate-funds/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/25/destroying-america-with-corporate-funds/#comments Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:05:20 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5363 United States Supreme Court made a decision, on a 5-4 vote, that corporations are entities with corporate personhood, and, as such, are allowed the rights of Free Speech.  This essentially reverses decades, if not a century, of precedence that understood fictional creations do not have even a close resemblance to people, and do not deserve the same freedoms, rights, and considerations.  However, the ideological, and tangentially financial, interests of a bitterly divided Court are apparently more important than the structure and sanity of the nation or its people.  Corporations are now permitted to essentially spend their funds, in a political context, as they see fit – inevitably leading to even greater corruption than already exists within the American government.

It should come as no surprise that the current Court, a body of nine individuals, holds six members that were appointed by a Republican President, and all but one of them voted in favor of this decision.  Republicans have, in the last three decades, lauded the ideals of Big Business, the free market, and deregulation, and this ruling is nothing less than a major victory for their party’s ideology and financial backers.  As evidenced by the last year of political nonsense, the process of passing legislation within America is nothing less than selling out to the highest bidder, and, since Republicans consider Big Business to be their greatest supporter, they have sold out at an even greater cost than ever before:  the ultimate vitality and stability of the nation.

Much has been said about how this is going to destroy American politics, especially by President Obama and the ever-bold Representative Alan Grayson, as nearly every thinking citizen realizes that allowing oil companies, Wall Street, the insurance cartel, and other corporate interests with large bank accounts the ability to influence politicians, or those voting politicians into office, will lead to nothing but utter disaster – there was a reason why corporate interests were divested from the political process in the first place.  Even those Republicans/conservatives without a political career understand what a terrible moment for Democracy this decision is.  Healthcare legislation has been difficult enough to pass without the direct intervention of the very industry that wants so desperately for it fail, but what will happen when they are allowed an even greater influence?

It is sad, disappointing, and, above all, embarrassing that the Republicans of the Supreme Court would place party interests over intelligent decisions on cases, essentially eschewing the very job they are paid to do.  Even more worrisome, however, is that these Justices are of the very same party that shouted in self-righteous anger, during the Justice Sotomayor confirmation process, about using the Court to make policy and allowing personal politics to become embroiled in the judicial process – a deeply ironic moment for the Republican party.  One of the prevailing rules of the American judicial system is that precedent counts heavily in case decisions, with the weight increasing relative to its age and strength, but this no longer seems to matter.  The case that resulted in the outrageous decision to allow corporate personhood was not one that was brought to the Supreme Court for this purpose, but rather was reformed for this purpose to allow a bully pulpit for the conservative Justices to shape American politics through their substantial influence that is entirely independent of an election process or term limits.  If ever there was an example of using the Court to make policy, placing personal politics before the judicial process, and abusing power, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is it.

If Congress has become so corrupt and politically divided as to become almost impotent, and the Supreme Court is willing to overturn laws, regulation, and precedent at ideological whims, who is left to defend the people of the United States of America?  In a three-tiered government meant to produce the best possible outcome, not the worst, only the President is left to stand up for what is right, ethical, and noble.  But while the Office of the President has gained power since the foundation of the nation, President Obama can only produce so much either by himself or through sheer political strength of will.  He has many grand ideas based on what has historically produced the best results, such as industry regulation, and the successful policy decisions of other nations, such as a progressive overhaul of healthcare; however, none of this can be accomplished on his own, or by any lone President, because of the very structure of America’s government.

This dire political state will only further collapse if corporate interests and personal greed are continued to allow free reign within the political system of the United States.  For a great nation that has accomplished so much and influenced the world in such a large and beneficial fashion, the devolution into a non-functioning Democratic Republic that does not represent its people has apparently arrived to the great sadness of thinking persons worldwide.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/25/destroying-america-with-corporate-funds/feed/ 2