Thoughts on individuals who fake their military service and the Military Valor Roll of Honor Act…

Today, prospective Senator, and current Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal became the latest example of shameful military misrepresentation. As the New York Times first reported, on more than one occasion, Blumenthal has claimed to have served in Vietnam while enlisted in the Marine Corps. While speaking to the families of veterans, he falsely referred to occasions and interactions while at war that he claimed helped to shape his identity. The problem is that he was actually in the Marine Corps Reserves, and never actually set foot in Vietnam. He used his false story for political gain, and in turn disrespected the veterans and families of the brave Marines who fought during the Vietnam War, and other wars throughout our nation’s history. The incredible sacrifice undertaken by the Marine Corps makes the story of another fake soldier one that brings great embarrassment on the guilty party and those associated with the lie. Despite his truthful enlistment in the Marine Corps Reserves, in taking his story to a level where he gained monetarily and politically from his misrepresentation, Blumenthal has added yet another vital piece of evidence to the case in favor of a federal law against public military misrepresentation. In fact, Blumenthal took five different deferments to avoid serving in the very war he states in his false stories of service. Therefore, especially in cases where congressionally administered awards are falsified, there needs to be a federal law on the books that makes illegal such a disregard for the honorable service and sacrifice of others.

H.R. 666, or the Military Valor Roll of Honor Act, which was introduced to the House Committee on Armed Services Representative by John Salazar back in January of 2009, seeks to set up a federal database of military award winners to act as a way of red flagging rogue individuals who seek to use fake military service for personal gain. By expanding the current system from a branch by branch approach to a national database approach, the argument can be made that it will be much easier to nail down individuals who are faking their service, regardless of the claim, and without regard for their location. Suspicious reporters and individuals could then look up the public database of real award winners on the internet, thus creating a deterrent for those who might consider lying about their military service. Families can then rest assured that their brave sons and daughters who have sacrificed it all for their country will not be taken advantage of by individuals such as Blumenthal and others. This long overdue bill can thank it’s origins to Doug Sterner, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and the man who has led the fight against the falsification of military service records and decorations. He has advocated for the families of veterans by helping them locate lost records and helping to bring down those who have stolen the valor of others. In 2005 he became notorious for his work on the Stolen Valor Act, which made a federal misdemeanor the unauthorized wearing, manufacture, sale or claim (either written or oral) of any military decorations and medals.

Now may be the perfect time for Congress to push this important legislation through, and in addition make the provisions of the Stolen Valor Act more specific in order to counter recent court challenges to its constitutionality on the grounds that the law is too broad. With elections coming up, and our soldiers returning home in the next few years, it is up to lawmakers to take the steps necessary to eliminating the practice of stolen valor and the prospering from false tales of glory. Politicians such as Blumenthal should be held to even a higher standard than ordinary citizens who use false stories for social gain. Given their public status, and their request for public and corporate funding for their campaigns, this kind of lying by politicians could easily qualify as a con artist. It is important to realize that these kinds of people, who are willing to pretend to be heroes despite the memories and families of the heroes themselves, must be held accountable by being banned from running for public office if found guilty of such an offense.

The Stolen Valor act, in addition to its current provisions, should address the sad yet preventable prospect of prospective and tenured politicians using false military service and heroism for their own selfish gain. As a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, the Attorney General of Connecticut, and a registered Democrat seeking a Senate seat this fall, Blumenthal should have known better than to think his lies about Vietnam would go unnoticed. His misrepresentations act as disturbing evidence that action must be taken to prevent this kind of trend from increasing in the coming years. Only by taking action preemptively to curb the faking of military service can we handle what should become an imminent problem upon return of hundreds of thousands of active duty and discharged troops to the US mainland. Though it seems unlikely, today’s story is sure to inspire those who feel passionately about protecting the memories, and honor of those who have served to take action and encourage Congress to proceed with the passing of the Military Valor Roll of Honor Act.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h666/text
http://www.reportstolenvalor.org/

Thoughts on the misguided use of phrases like “Take our country back” by politicians…

It’s been hailed as the official rallying cry for the Republican Party in 2010, most recently used by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, at this week’s Annual NRA convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, when he stated "We can't wait 'til 2012 to start taking our country back," as he addressed the crowd of gun owners and advocates for Second Amendment rights who have gathered for their yearly homage to gun rights. At the same event, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a common user of this kind of incendiary verbiage, pushed a similarly misguided message that would make it seem as if government agents were holding random gun search and seizure operations aimed at disarming common citizens. Claiming "all they do is take them away from law-abiding citizens and we use them responsibly," a statement which is simply overstated and false. These blatant, irresponsible attempts to rouse an audience that is both armed and angry at the government, are shameful actions taken by desperate politicians who only stand to gain from divisive, deceiving, and obvious fear tactics.

Both Palin and Barbour know that they can easily anger the mainly conservative NRA crowd by implying that the current administration is out to take away their Constitutional freedoms. They can play to the biggest fear of Second Amendment advocates, feeding their ears with falsehoods about the intentions of the parties in charge that most advocates will not verify for soundness. In addition, as they speak to mainly single race audiences, many conservative politicians are searching for ways to bring down the increasing minority population around them, including the President of The United States. Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment in states such as Arizona has been brewed by politicians who seek to gain from further dividing Americans who live amongst immigrants. In ignoring their own immigrant backgrounds, and putting the troubles of our time on the backs of the most vulnerable populations, these kinds of politicians are part of the problem, not the solution to a better, more united America.

Unfortunately, even those conservatives who sense the wrong in the anti-minority rhetoric are unwilling to speak up because of fears of being alienated by their party or social group. The phrase “take our country back,” in particular, is one of the most divisive statements a politician can make. It implies that those who are in power are un-American, inferior, or unworthy of the respect of the office they have been democratically elected to. This phrase, and others like it, can also be used to imply that someone who doesn’t belong is infringing on our rights or space. In reaction, those who are inclined to promote such thought are most inclined to do so at the expense of the masses that they alienate by doing so. The indisputable facts are that no one has taken this country, constitutional freedoms, or opportunity away from anybody living in America. It’s an illusion funded by the RNC and others to win big in November.

President Obama, Congressional Democrats and Republican, and Supreme Court Justices are not going to take guns away from law abiding citizens any time soon. Immigrants are not trying to take over the state of Arizona, or any other part of the United States. Still, even in 2010, listening to the speeches at the NRA Convention would make it seem like an invasion of our rights is under way. Politicians nationwide should take note of these mistaken tactics. We are a nation that needs momentum in the direction of unification, and our better days can be ahead of us if we put this divisive behavior on hold. This idealistic view can only become a reality when we as citizens stop supporting such intolerant nonsense. We are a nation of immigrants and laws, and NRA members, Tea Party Members, and others must understand that the two can surely coexist without having to take back something that was never taken away; our granted freedoms and our great country.

Thoughts on the GOP’s unfortunate response to Chris Dodd’s Wall Street Reform bill…

Today, Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, put their cards on the table with regards to Wall Street/financial reform. While all parties on both sides can agree that new consumer protections are necessary going forward, it already seems as if Republicans are destined to rerun the partisan dynamic of the health care debate by saying no upfront to the proposed bill. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut is the sponsor of the new bill, which aims to protect consumers of mortgages and credit cards by setting up a regulatory committee within the Federal Reserve that will make sure Americans are getting a fair deal, and also sets up a system to wind down failing companies to prevent bailouts from being necessary. To do the later, the wealthiest banks will pay a tax which will create a $50 billion dollar fund to be used to bring large failing banks and financial institutions down easy.

Instead of going forward on the sources of common ground that exist in the bill, McConnell did the exact opposite. He pointed out that he believes that the bill does not go far enough to prevent future bailouts, a description which does not seem to hold water given the second provisions implicit purpose. This move immediately puts the process in a familiar place. Rank and file Republicans will replicate the sentiments of the Minority Leader, while Democrats are likely to be forced to fend off myth after myth about a common sense bill that should be passed in a bi-partisan form as written. It seems way too convenient for the Republican leadership to all of a sudden become the anti-bailout party after ignoring the need for real regulation for decade after decade. Once again though, it seems that reasonable ideas of the few bi-partisan actors left in Congress are being framed into partisan talking points, which will only lead Republicans down the road to yet another defeat on a bill they should be for in principle.

If the passed and proposed reforms in both health care and finance prove to be effective, it will be a hard sell for Republicans to explain to voters why they were against reforming these two broken systems, amongst the many other reforms they have rejected. The minority party cannot accept its current status in second place, thus there is no honest desire shown by Republicans to compromise with the majority party on anything non-unanimous. This is unhealthy for a proud democracy like ours; where it is expected that we disagree on many things, but where it is also expected that we do what is right for our citizenry despite our politics. We should act to reform our weaknesses in the name of making America a better place for generations to come.

In an election year such as this, it is fairly predictable that the Republican establishment will do whatever possible to prevent President Obama from advancing his ambitious agenda. They will likely once again threaten the use of the filibuster, and even threaten to shut down the government over the funding of healthcare reform. It is then up to the voters to determine whether this is how they want their nation governed. Will we allow petty politics to impede progress? Or is it time to encourage the leadership of both parties to acknowledge the damage their partisan behavior has had on the already fragile reputation of the legislative process? As we watch the debate over financial reform and Wall Street regulation play out, it will be interesting to see who acts predictably, and who sides with common sense bi-partisan solutions to the costly banking and financial sector problems we face.

Thoughts on America's love for comeback's and underdog's

In a time where the conversation of the day often leaves us divided and bitter, there is no denying our collective love for a good comeback or underdog story. Whether it’s in politics or sports, there is a certain level of respect that we all feel for an individual or team that overcomes bleak odds in an unlikely return or rise to legitimacy. From Lance Armstrong and the 2010 Butler Bulldogs, to Tiger Woods and Bill Clinton, stories of amazing perseverance through adversity have the ability to transcend politics, and bring us together as Americans.

We are also an extremely forgiving country, built on the principle of second chances for those who are at an inherent disadvantage or have devastated their lives through mindless mistakes. When we see the media give a team or player slim odds in a game or political election, there is a unified sense of commodore that develops amongst us as we root for the underdog or comeback kid. The cinderella story is a favorite in America’s great history, and so is the tale of the celebrated individual returning from the depths of American media purgatory.

As we see Tiger Woods return at The Masters this week, it is already apparent that the comeback/underdog phenomenon will continue. Though The Masters is an extremely controlled sports environment, the reception and the forecasted tournament ratings do not lie. If Woods stays in contention throughout the weekend, there is no doubt that ESPN and CBS will see a huge leap in viewership, as the return to golf by Woods may be the biggest sports comeback story since Lance Armstrong at the Tour De France.

Following three months of relentless paparazzi and endless media coverage, Tiger is returning to the toughest mental sport of all, Golf, with the immense weight of his terrible private transgressions and their negative effects on his family, friends, and fans buried deep in his every thought. The immensity of his popularity transcends race and borders, and his comeback to golf is giving traditional foes a chance to unite during a difficult time in our politics, and enjoy the comeback of a troubled golf legend.

For those who are entrenched in the divisive world of day to day news and politics, the chance to take a brief break from the recent ugliness of the past few months is a welcomed one. The comeback story of Tiger Woods is a great example of the resilience of the American spirit, and thus attracts us to the common respect we all share for great achievement. We love the underdog because more than likely we’ve been in their shoes. Our imperfections are put on trial every day. Therefore, let’s enjoy another chapter in the great American comeback story, and unite in the name of sport and second chances.

Thoughts on President Obama's proposed offshore drilling plan...

Today, the President announced a controversial plan to raise offshore drilling bans on previously untouchable areas off the eastern US coast, from Virginia south to just north of Florida, northern Alaska, and the southeastern Gulf of Mexico; thus opening the door to bidders from the American oil and natural gas industry. This action should come as no surprise to those who followed Obama on the campaign trail in 2008. He stated, as a candidate, that he would take a hard look at reasonable ways to increase our domestic oil and natural gas supply while also taking into account the need to protect environmentally vulnerable areas, such as Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the numerous protected areas lining America’s west coast.

This decision is by no means apolitical, and the usual suspects have already begun to take their shots at the President’s drilling proposal. Critics from both sides of the aisle, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner, who stated “keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking 'Where are the jobs?,” and environmentalists, opposed to any new drilling whatsoever, were quick to jump on the President’s decision. These left and right reactions act as further proof that Obama is governing primarily down the center of the political spectrum. The White House has called this kind of decision making “principled post partisanship”, largely basing their decisions on pragmatism, as opposed to party politics and short term gain.

Though the decision to increase drilling at home may be pragmatic, given that we unquestionably need to transition from foreign energy sources to domestic and alternative ones, this move was ultimately a strategic political concession made to appease conservatives in Congress in the name of the bigger picture. In order for Obama to gain broader bi-partisan support for the administrations larger agenda on energy reform, the Administration decided to go ahead with portions of the offshore drilling ban initially proposed by the George W. Bush Administration in 2008.

The difference in approach by the two Presidents’ is something that many environmentalists need to take note of. Obama, as opposed to Bush’s plan to use Bristol Bay as a drilling area, put the bay and other sensitive areas onto the list of forbidden places to drill. In addition, the plan also requires drilling to be at least 125 miles offshore from Florida, out of the view of those enjoying the coastline. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the plan is to drill near areas where platforms already exist, and to expand towards the southeast, not towards the western Florida coast. Governors in eastern states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, obviously aren’t excited by the prospect of oil rigs off their shores, but they do, for the most part, recognize the need to bring energy reform and independence to the forefront.

The Presidents broader point is this; as we now produce only 2% of the world’s oil supply, while we use approximately 25% of the global supply for our energy needs, it is in our best interest to harness domestic oil and natural gas as we develop new ways to power our grid and our cars. The imminent transition to clean energy will require a period of change where we wane off foreign suppliers in favor of domestic sources. Though in the short term there is the unfortunate chance of spills and harm to wildlife, there is no other way forward in the long term. The alternative is continued importation from nations in tense, war torn regions abroad. Given the entrenched views on the subject of environmental responsibility, inevitably, this is set to spur another fierce debate with a plethora of faces and arguments for and against it.

Liberal coastal populations will most likely be against this plan, but this opposition is to be expected. Republicans will have to decide whether they are going to behave in a bi-partisan manner, and join in on a policy change they have traditionally supported, or to continue the strategy of opposing every policy proposed by the Obama Administration. Democrats and Independents will need to look to the long term plan for comfort, as the prospect of offshore drilling and environmental impact is a hard pill for any environmentally conscious individual to swallow. None of these strategic decisions will be clean or without drama, and we should expect nothing less.

But, if we are to ultimately become an energy independent nation, this decision may be the crucial second step, along with increased focus on nuclear energy announced earlier this year, in a series of policy changes leading towards the larger goal of self-reliance. More steps will obviously be necessary, and the debate will probably get personal and heated, but as the national conversation pivots towards the future of the climate and energy, we will likely look back to these first two Obama decisions as crucial turning points in the long term pursuit of an energy independent America.

Thoughts on former NY Congressman Massa and his troubles

Perhaps the most intriguing Democratic political scandal since the late 90’s has to be that of now former Congressman Eric Massa of New York. From his initial claim that he was stepping down due to cancer, to allegations of an uncomfortable confrontation in a health club shower over his health care vote with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and finally, his admission to inappropriate comments to a staffer at a wedding, there is utter confusion as to what happened in the weeks leading up to his resignation.

This story has also taken on yet another puzzling dimension with the odd embrace of Massa by conservative talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Despite Massa’s adamant support for the Public Health Care Option, a position most conservatives oppose, they are calling him a conservative hero in the fight against a government takeover of health care.

Add to this, Massa is now claiming that his resignation was the result of pressure from the White House and his fellow congressmen, proclaiming himself as the decisive vote on healthcare. The House Ethics Committee then stated that Rep. Massa was being forced out due to the wedding incident, and were contacted by a friend of the staffer, contradicting Massa’s claim that he was never contacted by Ethics Chairman Steny Hoyer or his staff. Nonetheless, he is insistent upon blaming his resignation on his own party’s pressure over a yes vote on the senate bill.

It is my opinion, that while he may have been under enormous pressure from all sides with regards to his vote on health care reform, his acknowledgement to the inappropriate actions he took should end the conversation. In a political environment where restoring public trust is of the utmost importance, there is no room for people like Massa who take their elected responsibilities for granted. Even if it was a joke, you have to know that as an elected official, your every action will be scrutinized, and the opposing party will always use your mistakes against you. In the end Mr. Massa, you have no one to blame but yourself.