Dear Readers,

As of March 29, 2012, I've moved to WordPress.com.
I hope you'll like it there.

You will be automatically redirected to the new site in several seconds. Please update your bookmarks and follow me at my new home. Individual posts can be located in the "Archives" tab.

As always, thank you for visiting. All the best,

Leo

In case you are not automatically redirected, please click the following link:

www.leobrownweeklyresponse.com

Sunday, December 25, 2011

2011.12.24 Weekly Address: The President and First Lady Thank our Troops for their Service this Holiday Season

Our Heritage
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

Christmas for Christians, as I understand it, is a time for love, reflection, and gratitude. But in America, there is so much tension surrounding the holiday because we don't know who we are.

I remember the first time a friend announced, as a simple premise, that we live in a Christian nation. I was startled and confused, and not as a matter of principle.

This was the first time I caught wind of such a notion. Sure, the malls are decked out for Christmas, and I've sung plenty of Christmas carols over the years.  I usually think Christmas lights and decorations are pretty, though I take issue with inflatable snowmen. This is a lovely season, and more generally, I'm perfectly happy to live in a country where most people are Christian.

But how are we a Christian nation, and why would we be? And if we are, is there any way we can change that? How did we even end up talking about this? The first amendment to the Constitution is absolutely clear. Concise, even.

I've always been proud to live in a secular nation in the sense that the state doesn't interfere with religion. Of course, the United States government has interfered with religion regularly throughout our history, perhaps most notably in its treatment of American Indian religious traditions, which weren't legalized until 1972. But I remain proud to live in a country established upon laws guaranteeing religious freedom, a country wherein no cultural tradition reigns supreme. This is an ideal towards which we can strive.

Perhaps those who wish for a Christian nation will find a better life in England.

Mercifully, President Obama acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of non-Christian faith traditions in this week's address.  There might have even been a twinkle in the President's eye as he wished the nation "Happy Holidays" amidst accusations of his supposed War on Religion.

Merry Christmas, and let us each celebrate every day however we see fit.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

call for guest bloggers

I'd like to feature a guest blogger every so often.

You might be thinking, well, that's a neat idea, but it doesn't really concern me, because I'm not a blogger.  I urge you to reconsider! You may not be a blogger today, but that will change at the drop of a word.

If you like what you read and want to contribute, please email me at Leo.E.Brown@gmail.com. You might respond directly to the President's weekly address, but feel free to write a post on a different subject entirely. Just so long as it matches the general "atmosphere" of the blog. I'm also completely interested in more creative posts: policy proposals, poetry, and cartoons inclusive.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you will choose to contribute!

Leo

Monday, December 19, 2011

2011.12.17 Weekly Address: Honoring Those Who Served in Iraq

Our White Grandfathers
By Leo Brown
The Iraq War is over, and many troops will become veterans after years of fighting. President Obama points out that his grandfather's generation returned from World War II "to form the backbone of the largest middle class in history." But why would we expect this to happen today?

65 years ago, America stood tall upon the shoulders of the disenfranchised and silenced. Schools across the nation were segregated. The women who sustained our industry during the war were hustled back to the kitchen.  Jackie Robinson had yet to break Major League Baseball's color barrier.  Japanese internment camps were just shutting their doors.

While inequality, inequity and institutional cronyism still plague our society, we have made some progress. However, this progress has left us facing a pickle that many have yet to acknowledge, let alone swallow. Because while greater opportunity has expanded America's overall potential, when you divide up our output somewhat equally, there is less for the formerly privileged. Even releasing the income of the super-rich would not change this, though it would surely help, if you factor in the bill that's about to slam our Social Security coffers.

Our higher education system is a telling case of the changes America has seen. The GI bill was crucial to the success of our grandfathers' generation, and current GI initiatives provide veterans with needed educational opportunities. But armed with bachelor's degrees, will these young men and women contribute more than the millions of unemployed college graduates? Only as a result of tax incentives for hiring veterans. And today, because college degrees are available to so many students instead of only the lucky few, a ticket to the middle class costs thousands. No longer do complimentary high school degrees pave the way to a reliable job and enough income to support a family. Many Americans can borrow to afford a BA, but we know where this strategy tends to leaves them.

We cannot realistically hold ourselves to our white grandfathers' standards, and nor should we aspire to them. If we hope to achieve a culture of equal opportunity, we'll have to give up some of the prizes enjoyed by the bullies of generations past. This means that an average white kid college graduate, the sort that might have grown up to pull the strings of society, will be lucky to get a job as a secretary.

This is equality.

Monday, December 12, 2011

2011.12.10 Weekly Address: Ensuring a Fair Shot for the Middle Class

We Need Less Freedom
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]

A few minutes ago, I tweeted that the government can have some of my rights back, because I don't want them anymore.

I was tweeting about my unencumbered right to run, or even patronize, a fast food chain. As of now, any deft entrepreneur is free to purvey addictive poison to our confused, vulnerable citizenry.  We don't need this right.

The "slippery slope" argument comes to mind. Sure, the world would be better off without McDonald's, but do we really want to go that route? Heavy-handed government control of the free market? A command economy? Sounds awfully red. And look at what happened during Prohibition, our infamous attempt to eliminate alcohol consumption. Everyone knows that Prohibition was a failure.

But if the same thing happens to Prohibition 2.0 and we become a nation of fast food moonshiners? That would be great! In fact, that would be the point. Unlike the Noble Experiment, I'm not suggesting that we mandate what people consume. Rather, we need to manipulate access in order to curb fast food's current plague status. If people want to concoct something like a Big Mac at home, more power to them.

Furthermore, by passing a thorough, unambiguous law, there would be no need to dissemble McDonald's and the other giants. They could be preserved as economic engines and symbols of American prosperity. They would simply be required to restructure and meet serious quality standards. Meal prices would rise, and the poor who wrongly believe that fast food is their cheapest option would discover frozen vegetables and rotisserie chicken in the grocery store.

In his weekly address, President Obama beseeches Republicans in Congress to authorize the creation of a consumer watchdog agency. The goal is to prevent slick, powerful interests from taking advantage of uninformed consumers who are too busy managing their personal lives to do the necessary digging. Senator Lindsey Graham has led the Republican opposition, denouncing the proposal as "something out of the Stalinist Era."

Is it just me, or are some of our liberties causing more trouble for the country than they're worth? What are we even trying to protect anymore? Hopefully, America isn't too drunk on its own ideology to notice some of the cruel, unnecessary consequences.

Monday, December 5, 2011

2011.12.03 Weekly Address: Extending and Expanding the Payroll Tax Cut

Why is the Senator at the Fair?
By Leo Brown

President Obama has announced that Congress should not adjourn for the holidays until they extend payroll tax cuts for working class families. Clearly, this is the right thing to do, both for the economy and as a matter of simple compassion. Whereas eliminating this tax cut would be a punch in the gut to millions of families living on the brink of homelessness and malnutrition, its impact on the national budget would barely register against the enormous costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and defense spending.

I don't expect Congressional Republicans to follow this line of thinking. As usual, they will reflexively disagree with the President as part of their transparent, ethically vacant effort to make him seem ineffectual.

However, since President Obama brought it up, I did a bit of research about the House and Senate vacation schedules. The statistics might make you wonder about this whole operation.

To date this year, the Senate has been in session for 155 calendar days, and the House for 160. What about you? How many days have you worked this year?

Make no mistake: many senators and congressmen work hard. Most of their days "off" are spent traveling to events in their districts, attending fundraisers, and meeting with or calling wealthy donors. Not fun. And I don't mean to suggest that their individual priorities are necessarily warped. The fact is, if they don't adhere to this system, they will lose their jobs in a flash. And they know that their replacements will be faced with the same dilemma, and that the system will remain rotten.

So what needs to happen? How can we get these men and women to spend more time doing what they were hired to do? If I were an employer, and my employees needed to spend half of their time traveling the country campaigning to keep their job, my first instinct would not be to fire them. Rather, I would try to figure out why they find themselves in such a silly predicament. Firing and replacing them would not solve my problem.

To solve our problem, we need to choose between seeing our elected officials at the county fair or at their office in the Capitol. Certainly, there is much to be gained by a Congresswoman or Senator shaking the hand of a child who might then be inspired to become an engaged citizen. But for everything, there is an opportunity cost. And maybe that same child would be equally inspired by a government that works together, as a team, to provide dignified, compassionate domestic policy, including quality education and health care.

Such cooperation will not be possible until elected officials are hauled back to Washington. Only then will they be able to hear each other's voices over the din of media and campaign bluster. Ultimately, this change will only be brought about through popular demand and action by Congress itself: legislation dictating the amount of time one may spend at events and fundraisers. But President Obama would certainly have nothing to lose by bringing up the idea. Congressional approval ratings have sat at around 12% since September, so this might be his best opportunity to capitalize on the public's frustration and bring about significant change to the dysfunctional system.

After all, isn't that why we elected him?