Progressives Can't Sit Out 2012

HyperSmash.com
Remember the unpleasant days of 2006 and 2007. Remember the daily lies, the head scratching
miscalculations, and the bottomless well of corruption given to us by the team I once dubbed the
“United States Wrecking Crew”. Surely you haven't forgotten the starting lineup, George W. Bush, the
figure head, Dick Cheney the real tactician, key role players like Don Rumsfeld, Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, with minor support from clowns like John Ashcroft, and Alberto Gonzales. Ah... good times.

As a proud and unabashed big government socialist the one thing that got me through the dark period was the possibility of brighter days that would come with the presidential election of 2008. The possibility of electing the first African-American President in the history of the country was certainly appealing, but for me the identity of the eventual nominee didn't matter as much because surely a Democrat was going to pull this country back towards the left and away from the religious zealots and war hawks in the Republican Party.

Three and a half years later I have that what the hell happened look on my face. Yes in some instances The Obama Administration has been disappointing, yes in the perceived “War On Terror” they have been a mirror image of The Bush Team, and yes you can make a case that they haven't fought hard enough for the middle class and the working poor but all of those reasons are not good enough to sit out the election come November 6th.

Just like the Republicans and their clown show of a primary season, it's time for progressives everywhere to set aside their grievances with this White House and coalesce around President Obama. Trust me I know how hard it is going to be to swallow all of that pride and forget all of that anger, but considering what the other side is offering it has to be done. A Mitt Romney election means Republicans are going to move the football from there own 40 yardline to behind their own goalposts.

How many average Americans actually know that if Romney is elected and Republicans hold on to the House of Representatives The Paul Ryan Plan would become law through budget reconciliation no matter what the U.S. Senate says, particularly if it is still Democratically controlled. Yep that Ryan Plan, the one that offers very little if any tax revenue, but takes food out of the mouths of  poor children and the working poor and pretty much does away with Medicare and Social Security from seniors.

This is on the hills of Romney himself who has promised to defund Planned Parenthood and veto The Dream Act while tag teaming the poor and the elderly with Ryan using his own “power to the fat cats” economic plan. How would Romney deal with the ongoing crisis in Syria, this is the guy who thinks Russia is our number one geopolitical foe, you know because 2012 is just like 1961.

Even if your disenchantment with Obama is a great source of discontent, just remember 2010. The mid-term elections of that year gave rise to the tea party and clowns like Allen West, Joe Walsh, and Rand Paul. It all came from progressive apathy as if there wasn't going to be an attempted backlash for electing the first black president. In that sense the criticism of Obama from the left is kind of unfair. While the President wields tremendous power he can't do it alone and when he is facing an obstructionist congress hellbent on getting him voted out as we now know, that makes the task even tougher, and tramples over the political golden rule. “all politics are local”.

I would love nothing more than to see a James Baldwin W.E.B.DuBois styled socialist who advocated single payer health care, the end of U.S military occupation in other countries, and an honest living wage for the working poor, given what we've seen throughout his first term Barack Obama ain't that guy. I still hold out hope for a 180 degree turn and I soothe that angst with my fear of Romney and the possibility that those feelings of 2006 and 2007 could be tremendously worse under him.

Drone Strikes in Pakistan are apart of Obama's Legacy

meta name="msvalidate.01" content="5CA2304A4C4CE9AB03BD20F71DF02D5C" /> Syrian President Bashar-al Assad is a murdering coward who is no different than a lot of the

former self-appointed dictators in the Arab world, Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Hussein. I make that

statement after hearing the news on Friday that the Syrian Government was allegedly behind that murders of 116 civilians in the village of Houla. Of the 116 victims 32 were children. As much as it pains me to see innocent people, particularly kids be the victims of a mass genocide, The United States cannot and should not get involved in the Syrian conflict.

The United States still has not repaired it's international reputation for it's war thirsty ways of the 2000's, in fact an objective pundit could make the case that The Obama Administration looks an awful lot a like The Bush Administration, especially in terms of going into Libya without the approval of Congress. Smarter people than me are inside the walls of the United Nations, surely they could come up with a coalition plan with some minimal support from us that could take care of Assad once and for all, but an all out military occupation, which seems to be on the tip of the tongue for hawks like John McCain and Joe Lieberman, should be out of the question. One thing that is certain is Syria isn't Libya and Assad's ouster, whenever it happens, will have implications that will look like Iraq circa 2004.

This brings me to the point of this column, The U.S. Government's infatuation with war. For the past two months I've been very quiet while the White House has been touting their success in the killing of Osama bin Laden. I make no apologies for saying that the man responsible for over 3,000 deaths on September 11, 2001 didn't have to be brought back to New York City for a trial that would have made Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's court appearances look tame.

What I have been very vocal about, and what every liberal worth his salt should be vocal about is what else The Obama Administration has been doing in the name of fighting terror. I literally fell out of my chair about a month back when Obama aide John Brennen gave a detailed description of U.S drone strikes taking place in Pakistan, Brennen then followed up his stomach turning explanation by basically saying this is what we as a nation must do to counteract Al-Qaeda.

According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism between 391-780 civilians have been killed in Northwest Pakistan, 160 of those have been children. Foreign Affairs columnist Barbara Elias-Sanborn is quoted as saying “much of the information about drones suggests, such killings usually harden militants' determination to fight, stalling any potential negotiations and settlements.” Drone Strikes were put on hold for two months after 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in the “Salala incident” they resumed however in January of 2012. Keep in mind these attacks have also been carried out in Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.

There is no doubt in my mind that if George W. Bush had accelerated the drone program the way that Barack Obama has the left would have stormed the gates of the White House, but instead of chants like “hey hey LBJ how many kids have you killed today” they've been more like “huh, what are you gonna do”. The amount of idealogues inside and outside of the Democratic Party is maddening.

Daniel Klaidman reveals in his new book “Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and The Soul of The Obama Presidency” says that the President was uneasy with the kill 'em first and sort it out later strategy in the infant stages of his presidency, clearly he got over it. Just like a lot of things in life it starts at the top. If the Commander and Chief puts his foot down and says no to these strikes then that would be the end of it, since that isn't the case I pine away for the days when a voice like Dennis Kucinich  would make the argument that the left should be making.

Hyper Smash

Obama Can Run On His Record

Throughout this election season there has been a lot of stomach turning, and head scratching talking points thrown out by those on the conservative side of the aisle. “Barack Obama goes around the world apologizing for America” is one, (nice to see Colin Powell slap Sean Hannity down for that one.) another is “Barack Obama wasn't properly vetted”. In addition to getting the Fox News treatment in 2008, then Senator Obama's past was prodded and probed so much by the main stream media Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell would have been pleased. The most interesting talking point of all however seems to be the one that presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney likes saying the most, “President Obama can't run on his record”.

It's almost as if all of the big dogs within the GOP got together and passed down the memo “President Obama can't run on his record”. Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are all doing their part, acting as Kelly Rowland and the other one to Romney's Beyonce. “President Obama can't run on his record”, If you really delve deep into the facts you'll find out that statement isn't accurate.

Let's start with the fact that under President Obama the nation has experienced 26 straight months of private sector job growth. During this time 4.25 million jobs have been created. In the last days of The Bush Administration the economy was shedding over 700,000 jobs a month, The President was able to turn things around in large part because of the passing of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which cut taxes on small businesses and 95% of working families, debunking another conservative myth that the Obama policies are killing small businesses.

Back in 2004 when George W. Bush was sweating re-election the number of jobs he created in his first three years in office after two massive tax cuts was negative 700,000. That's not exactly something to write home about, but back then an Ohio Representative by the name of John Boehner was shouting it from the mountain tops. “Eight consecutive months of positive job growth shows the Republican plan for economic prosperity is working”. If that's the standard then Obama should be re-elected automatically for having three times that amount in his first three years.

You also have to couple that with the fact that The President put his neck on the line by choosing to save the auto industry which was not as easy a decision as most people think. That decision however and the position that the respective nominees from both parties took draws a huge distinction between these two men and what kind of President they each would be. Saving the auto industry meant saving one million jobs and $96 billion in personal income, something Romney didn't even give a thought to when he wrote his now infamous op-ed “Let Detroit go Bankrupt”. This is the same guy who is now trying to stave off criticism for his activities at Bain Capital, while former employees of the companies that Bain crippled tell their heartbreaking stories. There was very little to gain for the President Obama initially when he made this decision, if it had failed Republicans would have been bringing up the fact that the unemployment rate would have been at or over 10%, and now that it has succeded they still can't fully invest themselves into giving the President credit.

The biggest bombshell of all in my opinion was dropped this week. The website Marketwatch an arm of  The Wall Street Journal (not exactly a left leaning newspaper) produced evidence that under President Obama federal spending is at it's slowest pace since the 1950s. Outside of the $5 trillion added to the deficit which was desperately needed in the wake of the economic collapse of '08 this administration has been fairly silent when it comes to government spending, yet if you listen to most of the media and the GOP spin machine the federal deficit is at $30 trillion thanks to Obama.

The President and the Administration would be the first to say we are not there yet, 23 million people being out of work is way to many, but even the most ardent conservative if injected with some sort of truth serum would tell you we are headed in the right direction. A Romney victory in November means Bush style policies and a return to 2008. So to the thirsty out there drinking the Fox News kool-aid The President does have a record to run on and it's a damn good one.

What Is The Role Of The Black Church

It has been one week since President Barack Obama offered his now famous opinion that he endorses marriage equality. The groundbreaking news that an American President supports the right for same-sex couples to join together in a legal union was met with tremendous euphoria from pretty much half of the nation and flat out anger and disdain from the other half. The type of fallout that the President may have to concern himself with the most however may be from a huge part of the base that got him elected in 2008, The African-American community and in particular the black church.

Let me just state first of all that black people aren't anymore religious than any other group in the country. Catholics, Jews, and Muslims are deeply devout in their religions, I'm willing to bet you however that within those groups you will find more people who would describe themselves as non-practicing than you would in the African-American community, as a friend of mine once joked finding a black agnostic is like finding a black Van Halen fan, if he exists you wouldn't know it.

The black experience in America since the first slave ships arrived called for the belief in religion. The notion that one day God himself would make life better was how slaves got through long and arduous days of backbreaking work in 100 degree weather. The modern day Civil Rights Movement led by the Reverends Martin Luther King and Joseph Lowry was tied completely to the black church, so it saddens me on a personal level to see the same black church and black pastors with a thirst for the spotlight engaging in bigotry.

Some idiot named Rev. Emmett Burns, a pastor in Baltimore is on record as saying he and most of his congregation, will not be voting for the President in November. Burns who was quick to say he won't be casting a vote for the GOP nominee Mitt Romney says that the President's stance on Marriage Equality is a turnoff. “We would have preferred that he would not have weighed in on this issue, People have come up to me and are saying they don't support this, they don't like this and they are staying home”.

If Burns thinks he speaks for every member of his congregation then he himself should be running for president. The other thing is that if you are a black person publicly advocating for people to stay home you might as well spit on the grave of Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Mickey Schwerner, Andy Goodman and countless other people who died so everyone could take part in the democratic process of voting.

Speaking for myself only, these things among others are the reason why I am completely turned off by organized religion. The black church in some segments are now vested in asking us to vote against our interests. This ridiculous stance against same-sex marriage being the latest example. There is also the position that the church is only interested in abstinence only teachings at a time when the nuclear black family is all but non-existent and 70% of black babies are born to single black mothers. To the church kids growing up in poverty is acceptable just as long as they don't mention the word condom.

Personally I have a problem identifying with a book that has talking snakes, torrential rains that last for forty days and nights, and people living to be 900 hundred years old, and even with that I could debate the most qualified expert on The Bible about God himself mentioning homosexuality and whether or not it's wrong. The fact is that it is irrelevant. We are supposed to be living in a nation that recognizes a seperation between church and state, yet that's not happening because some guy wrote a book 2,000 years ago.

As it relates to the black church, that royal asshole himself Jerry Falwell once referred to the Civil Rights Movement as the Civil Wrongs Movement. Imagine for a second if the kind of mindset was still in play. It just so happens that it is. It's the 1,000 laws that discriminate against the LGBT community. By the way my favorite Van Halen song is “Why Can't This Be Love”.

Obama Doing A Waltz Around Same-sex Marriage

I've got to hand it to my man Vice President Joe Biden, the guy really knows how to create a headline.

Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday Biden caused a stir with his comments on same-sex marriage by saying. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all of the civil liberties. And quite frankly I don't see much of a distinction—beyond that”

Listening to MTP's host David Gregory and a lot of the other pundit genuises out there you would think that the Vice President's comments fly directly in the face of his bosses feelings on the matter, fact is they don't. Biden like the President didn't flat out say he supports gay marriage, in fact when he asked that direct question by Gregory he stopped just short. Biden in effect was towing the party line laid down by President Obama who says he is still evolving on the issue.

The White House and The President in particular are doing a very delicate dance, Support a key voting block that supports you overwhemingly and let the political chips fall where they may or hope that same voting block stays with you while you pander to a core group of bigots who are stuck in a time warp in crucial battleground states. The President not only wants to punt on this issue he wants to place the ball inside the other teams 5 yard line.

As a straight guy I feel that it is completely inappropriate for someone like me to tell the LGBT community to practice patience on this issue. In the early 1960's African-Americans were fed up with the patience lecture they were getting from both the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, especially when civil rights luminaries like Medgar Evers and Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were being murdered in Mississippi. Gays and Lesbians have every right to be frustrated with The President's unwillingness at this point to take a stand.

At what point however do we begin to look at not only the President's track record with the gay community, but also Mitt Romney's deplorable views on the same subject. There are no two ways about it Barack Obama has been the most pro-active President on gay rights this country has ever seen.

When compared to the last Democrat to occupy the Oval Office Bill Clinton, Obama should be elected president of GLAAD when he's no longer in the White House. It was Clinton who gave us “Don't Ask Don't Tell” and “DOMA” and it was Obama who repealed one and told his Justice Department to stop defending the other.

With the Republicans and Mitt Romney in particular it might as well be 2004 all over. You remember 2004 when George W. Bush, and Karl Rove were crisscrossing the country expounding the virtues of marriage between a man and a woman, even going so far as to call for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, The possibility of Amendment 1 passing in North Carolina brings all of this back into the public consciousness. Not only does Romney not have a leg to stand on on this issue he doesn't want one. As Governor of the state of Massachusettes Romney vowed to block a court ruling that said same-sex couples had the legal right to marry. If you want recent history however, all you have to do is go back to the Richard Grennell incident last week.

I don't think there is any doubt that Barack Obama is in favor of same-sex marriage, the question is will the LGBT community forgive him the grievance of treating them like a political football, and more importantly will it even matter if Mitt Romney is taking The Oath of Office in January.

Don't Pull The Plug On The Knicks

The star crossed history of The New York Knicks added another chapter to it's overstuffed memoirs on

Monday Night. Amare Stoudemire picking a fight with a glass encased fire extinguisher takes it's place alongside Bernard King blowing out his knee, John Starks shooting 2-18 in game 7 of the 1994 NBA Finals, and Patrick Ewing blowing a lay-up to win game 7 of the 1995 Eastern Conference Semifinals against the Indiana Pacers.

By doing his Mike Tyson impersonation (with the fire extinguisher playing the part of Mitch “Blood” Green) Stoudemire not only ensured the Knicks being on the receiving end of a sweep at the hands of The Miami Heat, his act also continues to call into question the holy union between he and Carmelo Anthony.

Insiders will tell you that Amare's frustration is not just linked to losing to the Heat, it's rooted in his disillusionment over not being the man in New York anymore. Look I'm not here to defend the indefensible, Knick fans should be irate and Stoudemire has to do a better job controlling his emotions, but before blowhards like Mike Lupica and Mike Francesca tell you that Stoudemire or Anthony or anyone else should be sent out of town please continue reading.

I said coming into this lockout-shortened season that the team that was going to be hurt the most by it was the Knicks. Think back to last year, they get Carmelo and Chauncey Billups mid-year, but they had to give up pretty much their entire roster, minus Amare to do it. So for pretty much the rest of 2010-2011 season it was the big three and nine guys you never heard of. Subsequently they get swept in the first round by the Boston Celtics.

If there was any team that needed a summer league for it's rookies and a training camp for it's veterans to learn how to play together it was this crew, but as we all know the labor strife between the league and the player's union wiped that out. Once a deal was in place the front office had to scramble to sign Tyson Chandler as a free agent, and amnesty Chauncey Billups'contract (something at the time I thought was a mistake). New Year, no training camp, no practice time in between games what could have went wrong? Mike D'Antoni resigning that's what.

Yet and still with those things as a disadvantage the Knicks had plenty of highlights this year particularly the discovery of Jeremy Lin. Lin is the point guard the Knicks have been searching for for awhile, and maybe the main reason you keep this team together. Lin is the classic pick and roll point guard with his ability to get in the lane and create for himself and others. He is also tailor-made for Stoudemire, no one will ever confuse Lin with Steve Nash, a two-time league MVP, but it is no coincidence that Amare had his best years as Nash's wing-man.

When those two don't have the pick and role game going, that is the time to let Anthony do his thing as the best pure scorer in the league. Anthony has shown that he is more than capable to carry the scoring load when asked especially this year when injuries to Stoudemire and Lin have left the team shorthanded.

The Knicks when healthy and when cohesive are as talented as any team in the league. Anthony, Stoudemire, Lin, Chandler as a defensive stalwart, and great on the ball defenders like Landry Fields and Iman Shumpert, assuming he makes it back from knee surgery. Throw in Mike Woodson who should get that job full time, and an entire offseason and training camp to work together and there is no doubt New York can rival the other big boys in the east Miami and Chicago. The only question is will the front office bow to some public pressure to break it up or stick to their guns and bring everybody back.