Looking at what I’d like to post about next, I’m torn between two concepts I’d like to explain – the filibuster and socialism. Both are getting a lot of play by word-of-mouth lately in the news, and both are things I think warrant explanation, but we’ve got to start somewhere so I can collect research and start writing. Which confuses you more? Let me know so we can get back in the swing of things. And if there’s something you’re feeling baffled on besides these two subjects, let me know, as always, in the comments.

One day, I’ll get my act together, I swear.

Never mind that they had massive majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as the presidency, they were losing. (And if anyone could figure out how to turn that situation into “losing”, let’s face it, it’d be the Democrats.)  Legislatively, this year’s been pretty dead – none of the massive change Obama had promised. All of the bills Obama supported would pass through the House to die in the Senate.  While it was true that for most of the year Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in technicality, the reality was that the Democrats had so many diverse interests (this is called being a “big tent party”) that getting all sixty of them to agree was nearly impossible, and when they did, it was usually so watered-down in the hopes of getting the Republicans to sign on that the House and the court of public opinion would give it the big thumbs down. That is, if the Senate ever voted on it. Which they almost never did. All in all, this served to hold Democrats hostage to their own conservatives and the Republicans and make them look weak and ineffectual, and this reflected extremely poorly on the president. And then when Scott Brown got elected in Massachusetts, thus breaking the 2/3 Senate majority, everyone threw up their hands and went, “well, the Democrats are fucked”.

But what they forgot is that Barack Obama is a jedi master. Or, I suppose if you don’t like him, a sith lord. I don’t judge, I only judge if you’re not awesome enough to know what I’m referring to.

From time to time (read, once a year), the President gathers both house of Congress, the Supreme Court, and anyone who’s everyone, stands at his podium, and takes over your television for at least an hour talking about what he’s done in the last year and what he wants to do next year. This is called a State of the Union address, and Obama’s was on Wednesday.  If you weren’t one of the over 48 million people watching, you could always re-watch it on Youtube or read the transcript.

In general, it was a pretty good speech, which is no surprise – Obama’s a great orator. (If you want to see him be bad at something, don’t expect it to come during a speech. Take him bowling.)  What is surprising is that despite dipping approval ratings, a stunning 83% of viewers had a positive reaction to the speech. That’s right, eighty-three percent. You guys, that’s amazing. American public opinion is like herding cats. I don’t think 83% of Americans agree on what color the sky is.

The most newsworthy part about this State of the Union was the tone – Obama was not happy. He wasn’t happy with the Senate, which has passed pretty much nothing this year despite the House passing tons of bills Obama was in favor of. He was mad at the Supreme Court over their most recent ruling, which I swear to God I’m going to blog about when I’m able to discuss it without being completely editorial and foaming at the mouth. He’s pissed at the Congressional gridlock  and the Republicans just saying no to everything he and his Congress propose just  because it’s him and his congress. Basically – anyone remember that Saturday Night Live sketch, “The Rock Obama”? It was sort of like he got up there and that happened. And it was pretty damn awesome to behold. (At least, according to 83% of Americans.)

He certainly seems to be dedicated to taking a more hands-on approach to getting his legislation through this year. It’s been two days and already he made a speech to the Republican caucus and then had an hour long question-and-answer session. And when I say he had a “speech and question and answer session”, I mean “he ideologically had a nationally-broadcast smackdown so embarrassing that Fox News cut out twenty minutes early“.

What he’s doing, essentially, is making Republicans look super bad. They were playing a game where by blocking everything, they could fuel the rage of swing voters against the Democrats for promising to get something done and looking like liars. Behind closed doors they’re obstructionists and in public they’re oh-so-bewildered as to why those darn Democrats won’t do anything! It’s excellent politics, I really have to hand it to them. I mean, infuriating when you realize some of the stuff they were blocking were things like jobs bills that would help reduce unemployment, because clearly getting re-elected for midterms was more important, but really genius politics. (This is, by the way, why people don’t like politics.)  We don’t know if Congress is going to follow his example yet, but at the very least, the President has paved the way for the national dialogue to change from “Oh, those Democrats, too incompetent to do anything even with a massive majority” to “can you believe after all of this what those douchebag Republicans are doing?”

And that, my friends, is what we in the political nerd community, regardless of ideological differences, call “pretty fucking badass”.

To be quite honest, neither are dreamy candidates. Scott Brown posed naked for Cosmo in the 1980′s (google if you don’t believe me, and don’t say I didn’t warn you), said on television that Obama was a bastard born out of wedlock, has done some things as a state senator that weren’t very popular, and is kind of  a douchebag. Martha Coakley has the charisma of a wet paper towel used to clean the grimy build-up in your sink, said Kurt Schilling was a Yankees fan (gasp! If you don’t get how this is  a big deal to Bostoners, trust me – it’s a big deal), and has done some things as a state Attorney General that were not popular, and is kind of  a douchebag. Scott Brown astro-turfed and brought in all of his supporters from out of state to make his campaign seem like a giant groundswell. Martha Coakley went to special interests groups and lobbyists. They’re a real winning pair, the two of them.

But this is a big vote for both parties, because if Scott Brown wins, that ends the Democratic super majority in the Senate, which means the Republicans can (and probably will) delay the crap out of the nearly-finished health care bill (which, ironically, was Ted Kennedy’s life’s work)  and whatever else President Obama chooses to do in the future.

Honestly, what it comes down to is a simple, partisan vote, since it’s hard to vote for the better person. If you’re a liberal or a Democrat, vote for Coakley. She’ll get what you want done. If you’re a conservative or Republican, vote for Scott Brown. He’ll get what you want done. Either way, I know a lot of my American readership is Massachusetts-based, so brave that crappy weather outside, get to your polling stations, and cast yourself a vote. IF you don’tdo it for me, do it for that little otter voting for herring. Just look how cute he is. If you vote, you’ll be that cute too! I think that’s incentive enough for anyone.

Extra Reading for Voters: 7 Things At Stake In Massachusetts Senate Race (via NPR)

In theory, my job should not be terribly difficult. There are facts that cannot be contested because they happened. Opinions may differ, but the facts are what they are. When I started this blog, I had a starry-eyed ideal that if only people knew the facts of the matter and then were presented with the arguments for each side, they would form their own opinions and become better-informed voters and citizens. All I had to do was spell it out and point people in the directions their little political hearts took them! And, in a world where both sides adhered to the facts, this would totally work.

Sadly, we do not.

This problem became increasingly clear to me during the healthcare debate with the Republicans spouting lies (this is not to say that only Republicans are liars, simply that they are doing it more often and more loudly lately) such as “healthcare is a plot to kill old people” and “we’ll all have death panels!”, and simply escalated in the months since then with “Obama is not a citizen of America”, “no terrorist attacks happened under George W. Bush”, and so many others I’ve, quite frankly lost count.

Since this is primarily meant to be an educational site, I cannot in good faith publish these lies as either fact or a valid political standpoint. And if they become prevalent talking points, I will debunk them. You, and anyone else, is of course allowed to have these opinions. If you wish to build your political beliefs around the fact that Congress is Soylent Green and only Obama holds the One Ring That Can Save Us All, God bless you. This is America and it is absolutely your right to have whatever political beliefs you want. But accepting someone’s political beliefs is very different from saying that they have a basis in fact.

This does not mean I am in any way am deriding people who vote or have beliefs that align with Republicans or more Conservative ideals, and I hope to continue to support and clarify your point of view, but to do so, I probably will have to wander farther from the current Republicans in charge and instead quote from Conservative voices from more unorthodox places such as bloggers, pundits, and conservative Democrats. I cannot promise to make my blog both truthful and bi-partisan, but I can promise to make it truthful and inclusive of views all along the political spectrum.

If this is too long for you to read through, I’ll summarize it as this – debate is welcome here. Different points of view are welcome here. Honest discussion is welcome here. Political hackery, lies, and partisan sniping? Is not.

Of course, Jon’s only got a certain amount of time, which means he doesn’t get to give us the full details of the story, so here are some extra take-home notes:

1. This guy got on a plane in the Netherlands. Let me repeat this one more time. He got on a plane in the Netherlands. I know, as Americans, we are prepared to believe that the world revolves around us, but in this case it was actually Dutch, not American security, that let Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab get on a plane.
2. If there’s something you would like to blame on the Americans, let’s look at the fact that Abdulmutallab was on our “No Fly List”, and yet he got through anyway. The reason he got through anyway? Because that No Fly List is completely insane and out of control. For example: also on the No Fly List was late Senator Ted Kennedy, who could not have been a less likely candidate for having a reason not to hop on a plane. So yeah, it’s  maybe America’s fault that the Dutch didn’t look too closely at this No Fly List thing because it’s generally a load of crap. Then again, the British had him on their No Fly List too, so… maybe not.
3. The person in charge of improving the No Fly List would be the head of the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration). Currently we don’t have one because Senate Republicans are holding up Obama’s nominee. This is because, according to people like leading Republican Senator Jim DeMint (and I cannot make this up if I tried), Obama’s current nominee would support letting baggage handlers unionize, and that is a bigger threat to America than terrorism. Oh, how I wish I were making this up.
4. The reason you’re hearing so much about Yemen is because there’s a large amount of terrorist activity going on there, and Abdulmutallab trained and thought up this plot with the division of al-Qaeda in Yemen. And yes, American intelligence and security forces have known about this for a long time, and yes, we’re bombing al-Qaeda headquarters there. But of course, it’s all insanely complicated to the point where even I don’t feel I understand it very well.  NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel was on the Rachel Maddow Show last week and gave what I thought was a great interview that really explained the situation. The transcript of the show can be found here, and you can find the relevant bit without crazy scrolling by using the find function (control+f if you’re on a PC, apple+f if you’re on a Mac) for the name “Richard Engel”. It’s worth it.

Three out of the four of you asked for an explanation of Obama’s Afghanistan policy, which I will be happy to review for you next post. But first, I thought it would be helpful to perhaps answer some basic questions on Afghanistan, primer-style, before examining the pros and cons of what we’re doing right now. That’s how we roll – basic-style.

The Afghan War: Vital Information

Age: Going on 9 years and counting (invasion happened shortly after September 11, 2001)

Why We Went: Once upon a time, some planes crashed into some towers and a lot of Americans die and it was basically kind of sucky. Then we learned the people who planned were an organization called Al-Qaeda that were being given safe harbor in Afghanistan by the government run by the Taliban, so off we trooped to, you know, do something about it.

Why We’re Still There: The hope was that, by now, we’d have established a government that would not be a hotbed of anti-American terrorist activity, or be overthrown for a government that will become a hotbed of terrorist activity. The current president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is generally corrupt, stole an election, and no one likes him. He’d be overthrown the second we left, and America isn’t exactly fond of the idea of keeping him in power either,  since he stole an election.

Currently,  Afghanistan is stable-ish. There are ridiculously small numbers of Taliban or Al-Qaeda people there. The problem isn’t there so much as the neighbor next door, Pakistan.

Why Pakistan is Important:

1. Osama bin Laden is there, probably. I think we all know why he’s important.
2. They have nukes, an over-stretched army that is an arm of an unpopular government, and a large terrorist population that’s kept in check pretty much only by knowing that US troops are right next door.
3. The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is extremely large, mountainous, difficult to guard, and easy for anyone to get through.

Problems in Afghanistan Currently:

1. The Afghani people don’t want to be occupied anymore. Before the Americans came in, they were ruled by the Taliban. Before the Taliban, they were ruled by the Russians.  They want their own government. Not ours. Unfortunately, they have no government.
2. Pakistan. See above.
3. Al-Qaeda is out of Afghanistan and weak there, but not in other countries. If America leaves Afghanistan with a power vacuum, they can just as easily move back in.

There is, of course, a wealth of information on anything and everything mentioned in this post, but these are the basics that you need to understand to understand policy decisions made regarding our war there.

There were a few problems here at CfS HQ. First it was Thanksgiving,  so news was slow anyways, and then that weekend  my laptop charger died, which took a week to replace, and then the week after that I had to catch up on, you know, my real job. (Unforgivable, I know!)

As is my usual policy with planned or unplanned hiatuses, I tend not to go back in time and try to make up for what I miss, otherwise my brain tends to be in danger of exploding, but if there’s anything anyone’s desperately curious about, voice your opinion via this poll, which WordPress will not let me embed.

…Nah.

On one hand, this is a good thing, because often time when people say that there’s “news”, they mean “something bad has happened and people are going to get angry”, not “we just found a hidden stockpile of adorable puppies!” (It also gives me time to answer any burning political questions you readers may have. So readers – write in if you’ve got them! I need something to explain, already.)

On the other hand, it’s a bad thing for news networks, who will scramble to make anything into a story, and when news networks scramble, it is bad for our nation’s sanity.

Let’s take, for instance, President Obama’s trip to Asia. So far it’s been pretty low-key. He’s visited a fair number of nations, given some speeches, and generally behaved as most well-behaved politicians would, and everyone is being very cordial and getting along. And then this picture came out of President Obama when he was visiting Emperor Akihito of Japan this weekend.

Photo Credit: AFP

OH. HALE. NO.

From that picture, that completely innocent picture where all parties are smiling and clearly not offended came the biggest news story of the weekend.

Predictably, there was one side, which went “oh my god, how could President Obama bow to someone? It’s like America is bending over and taking it from Japan! We have impugned our national dignity! DOES NO ONE REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR?  PRESIDENTS NEVER BOW!” (Except for when they do.) And then there was the academic side that said “but he didn’t bow correctly!”

Here are several points to consider:

1. Obama is almost 6’2″. Emperor Akihito is 5’5″. If Obama only gave a slight bow as is “academically correct” he’d barely be bowing to the tiny dude at all.
2. No one in the Bush administration ever bowed to any Japanese dignitaries, and Bush Sr. threw up on the Japanese Prime Minister. Compared to that who cares how far President Obama bowed?
3. I went scouting around the web for the way the Japanese have reacted and they pretty much seem nonplussed. So it wasn’t perfect, but they appreciate the effort. Also, they, much like everyone else abroad, like Obama. (Perhaps because they have a town inadvertently named after him?) If they don’t care, why do we, again?

So why do we even care, again? Because right now, there’s nothing else going on in the news.

When I say, often, that there’s no news, I don’t mean that there’s literally no news. There’s always news. It’s just that most of the news that’s out there is of the Obama-bowing variety. So when there’s news like this, it’s time for me to ask you – what are you curious about? What can I clarify for you? Because believe me, I’d rather do that than explain the Obama bowing situation.