There is a disturbing new trend in the U.S. military, and it’s killing our troops with increasing frequency.
No, we’re not talking about roadside bombs or militant terrorists. We’re talking about something that is much more frightening: suicide.
The U.S. military’s highest court is wrestling this week with whether it makes sense to punish service members who attempt suicide.
According to an article in USA Today, the military’s Court of Appeals appears perplexed about whether it makes sense to prosecute soldiers who make an attempt to end their own lives. The uncomfortable subject matter reared its ugly head during an appeal filed by attorneys for a Marine private who was court-martialed after slitting his own wrists.
From the article: Underpinning the case is the question of why the military criminalizes attempted suicide when it does not treat successful suicide as a crime.
“If (the marine) had succeeded, like 3,000 service members have in the past decade, he would have been treated like his service was honorable, his family would have received a letter of condolence from the president and his death would have been considered in the line of duty. Because he failed, he was prosecuted,” noted Navy Lt. Michael Hanzel, the military lawyer representing [the appellant].
Suicides among active-duty troops have soared in recent years, from less than 200 in 2005 to 309 in 2009, and a spike this year has put 2012 on track to set a new record high.
As someone who struggles daily with a mental illness, this story caught my attention for a number of reasons, including my own dismal military performance.
I received an honorable discharge from the United States Air Force, but it’s hard for me to think of anything “honorable” about it. Like me, this young Marine was never in a combat situation, making it all the more difficult for most people to understand — nevermind legitimize — his claim of post-traumatic stress disorder.
According to the article: “Mental health experts say criminalizing attempted suicide will undermine the Pentagon’s efforts to prevent troops from taking their own lives. Those laws might make troops reluctant to come forward, seek help and be candid with mental health counselors if they fear potential prosecution.”
So, we are left with a situation that clearly mirrors the foundations of Joseph Heller’s classic novel, Catch-22.
Essentially, the Catch 22 argument is one that predicates an outcome upon a contradictory set of rules. For example, if you are sane enough to seek discharge from the military because of a mental impairment, then you are not mentally impaired. You can only be mentally impaired if you are in complete denial that you are mentally impaired. Thus, you cannot say that you are mentally impaired and must remain in the military.
It’s actually understandable why the military is wrestling with this case. It’s damn hard to know the difference if someone is simply using the guise of a mental impairment to escape the otherwise uncomfortable bounds of their own consequences. I say this as someone who has made a serious suicide attempt.
I mean the kind of suicide attempt when you don’t write a note. You don’t make a call. There is no drama. There is just cold, dark, insufferable pain that you desperately want to end.
It happens. It’s not convenient or a light subject but it cannot be ignored without consequence.
Today, I am doing everything possible to avoid ever being in that situation again. But how much harder would that be if I knew I could be criminally prosecuted for my admission?
A couple of days ago, an exhausted and emotional President Obama visited privately with some of his campaign workers and reportedly got pretty choked up. At one point, the president’s tears began to flow.
For some reason, the White House decided to release this rare footage, despite the fact that it was recorded at an event the media was not allowed to attend.
Now let’s compare this to the public reaction from just two years ago, when Republican House Speaker John Boehner cried while being interviewed on 60 Minutes about his new role as Speaker of the House…..well, you remember, right?
Here’s what Bill Maher had to say:
“Did you see the new speaker of the House John Boeher cry? He cries a lot. Mr. Boehner you’ve got to stop crying. For one, your tan is going to run. And what’s he going to do if he loses next time? Put on a Bjork record and cut himself?”
Over the last few days, media pundits and amateur pundits on Facebook have been telling us that it is time for cooperation. It is time for the GOP to brush off its brutal losses and begin working with the Democrats. To steal a phrase, It’s time to put people before politics.
But it’s damn hard to accept the media’s blatant hypocrisy. Furthermore, why is it so bad for a man… a strong man, or any man for that matter– to cry? Is it a sign of weakness?
Both Obama and Boehner were captured in honest moments of raw emotional expression. The ability to appropriately express your emotion…whether it’s grief, joy or some hidden pain is generally a sign of good mental health. Do we really want our nation’s leaders bottling up their emotions?
Now, here’s a test. Watch this video and see if it makes you cry….even just a little. I dare ya.
My friends and family know that I cannot watch this scene without crying like a baby. If I were a Democrat, I suppose that would be an endearing quality. But if I am a Republican, I best prepare for some intense criticism.
It will be a lot easier for our nation to heal, if we can just move beyond some of the hypocrisy.
The letter I wrote to President Barack Obama on November 7, 2012:
Dear Mr. President:
First and foremost, please allow me to extend my most sincere congratulations on your hard-fought victory for a second term as our nation’s president.
Before I proceed further, I think it is appropriate that I disclose I did not vote for you, either in 2008 or yesterday. That said, I respect your office and believe you are a decent man who is committed to moving our nation forward to a better future.
I am writing you tonight to share a few thoughts and some unsolicited advice, knowing full well that it is highly unlikely you will read this note.
In essence, Mr. President, I believe you now have a rare opportunity with a second term. You have been unshackled from the constraints of re-election concerns, and I am hoping you will at least consider some of my points.
Although I applaud your efforts to tackle the complexities of our nation’s health care system, I have deep reservations about the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I encourage you to consider pushing for the so-called “public option” as an enhancement to your signature piece of legislation.
Why would a Republican urge you to consider a public option? Because I believe that we must continue looking at innovative ways to contain skyrocketing costs and improve quality of care. As it stands, I see this legislation as a giant gift to the same industry that created the “health insurance” nightmare. A public option would, at least, provide us with the comfort that our government mandates health coverage but not payment to a myopic, for-profit industry.
Yes, I understand the limitations of public policy development, and I can appreciate the value of sincere compromise. But I believe a public option would require private insurance companies to remain competitive instead of giving them a giant gift of additional revenue sources.
Secondly, I would like to see you tackle the immigration issue with the same clarity and conviction you displayed two years ago in your fight to repair our nation’s health care system. I would favor a system that rewards hard-working people who wish to become citizens of our great nation without tolerating those who intentionally attempt to elude the system.
Certainly, we have the technology and means to streamline the naturalization process, and we should be encouraging and welcoming more people to participate in our system of government rather than focusing so much of our time and financial resources in pursuit of a punitive process that yields so few benefits.
Finally, I hope that you and your administration will focus more of your efforts on our sluggish economy and our crushing national debt. We all know that too many Americans are in deep despair and facing serious and significant financial hardships. I urge you to be mindful of these implications as you consider each and every policy initiative that comes across
your desk.
A few months before I was born, President Kennedy urged his fellow citizens to ask themselves what they could do for their country, not what their country could do for them.
I want you to know, Mr. President, that I stand ready to accept that challenge; to further commit myself to working with my neighbors and all fellow citizens for the betterment of our nation. I reject the idea of living in fear and constant anxiety about an uncertain future. I stand ready and able to help you and every other American who is willing to work on behalf of our country.
Although I will continue to criticize some of your ideas and policies, please rest assured that I will also stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you at all other times.
I sincerely hope that you are able to receive my words as they are intended, and I hope that this correspondence finds you, the First Lady and your two beautiful daughters safe and content.
Here’s a post-2012 Election tip for my friends in Biddeford:
Don’t bet against Mayor Alan Casavant.
Casavant
Sure, I know…Casavant narrowly lost his bid for a fourth and final term in the Maine House of Representatives for the District 137 seat on Tuesday night.
While Republican Bill Guay certainly deserves a lot of credit for his win, it’s far too early for Casavant’s detractors to begin celebrating and waiting for his eventual ouster from the mayor’s office next year.
Why?
Because Casavant’s numbers actually showed improvement.
First, let’s remember that Casavant won his first bid for the mayor’s office in a landslide last year, capturing more than 62 percent of the vote against a well-known incumbent.
Let’s also remember that Casavant was the anti-casino candidate in a city that overwhelmingly wanted a casino, which was being championed by Casavant’s opponent.
Let’s also not forget that Casavant won three consecutive terms to the Maine House., nor forget that he trounced his House seat challenger in the June 12 Democratic Primary.
Before we get to the numbers here, it should also be noted that the city’s voters overwhelmingly rejected three proposed municipal bond projects and that the city’s taxpayers just got hit a few months ago with a heavy tax increase.
Guay
Logic would suggest that Casavant should be political toast. Under his watch, Biddeford taxpayers took a big hit.
Furthermore, House District 137 is actually composed of Biddeford’s coastal neighborhoods and the town of Kennebunkport, a Republican community if there ever was one.
Last year, when he made his first run for mayor, Casavant decimated his opponent in Ward One by earning 727 votes.
One year later, in his next bid for office, Casavant received 871 votes in Ward One, a better than 20% improvement.
In fact, when just considering the city of Biddeford, Casavant beat his opponent, 1667-1,030….nothing to sneeze at, folks.
Casavant’s detractors were overjoyed when they learned of his narrow defeat on Tuesday night. City Councilor Melissa Bednarowski clapped her hands like a little girl who just got a pony for Christmas, and fellow Democrat State Senator Nancy Sullivan — who is soon to be termed out of office and was defeated by Casavant in the June 2012 Democratic primary — chortled at her table in the Wonderbar restaurant on Election night.
Is Casavant’s loss to Bill Guay on Tuesday a sign of things to come? I asked Sullivan. “I think so,” she replied.
“Would you run against him as mayor next year?” I asked.
“I don’t know,” Sullivan replied, leaning forward from her table. “As they say, I don’t have any plans, but I’m not ruling anything out.”
It should be noted that Sullivan is certainly not happy with me, especially since I called her out earlier this year for a rather nasty attack ad she ran against Casavant during the primary.
“I remember,” she told me, her eyes narrowing on my jugular…”and I will get even.”
Wow, I thought. Here’s a woman I once described as petty and vindictive, saying she will “get even” with someone who had the temerity to criticize her.
People before politics? Hardly. Personalities above all else? You betcha.
Sullivan
Sullivan, a lifelong Democrat, would rather see a Republican win than a fellow Democrat who beat her in the primary. understandable, I suppose…sort of like former Mayor Joanne Twomey, another vindictive and particularly nasty politician from Biddeford.
In February, just months after being humiliated by Casavant in her bid for a third mayoral term, Twomey was at the city’s Democratic Caucus meeting, telling members of her party how she was the real Democrat. And here I thought she was just trying to make a political comeback by challenging fellow Democrat Paulette Beaudoin for the District 135 House seat. Democrats ultimately stuck with Beaudoin.
And Twomey? She put up a lawn sign for Beaudoin’s Republican opponent. Hmmm…real Democrats vote for Republicans. I get it.
I wish Mr. Guay the best of luck. By all accounts, he is a decent, well-respected, hard-working man. He seems like a natural fit for a citizen Legislature.
My only advice for Mr. Guay? Watch out for some of those Biddeford Democrats! They can be vicious.
Then again, they may be some of your strongest allies.
The city of Biddeford is a lot of things; among them it is a college town that is home to the University of New England, a liberal arts college nestled along the banks of the Saco River.
In numerous conversations this evening with city election clerks and poll workers, I heard repeated stories about record voter turnout and incredible same-day voter registration statistics among UNE students.
It’s nice to see our nation’s young people get involved in politics, I only wish they actually cared a bit more about the community that serves as their temporary home.
Why do I say this? Why am I so callous?
Well, maybe it’s because I think college students, especially, ought to be a bit more “educated” on issues of national, state and local importance. Our nation’s college students represent our future. They are the up and coming leaders of tomorrow, but apparently can’t be bothered to invest a small measure of time in their host community.
Even with a perfunctory review of the numbers, it becomes quickly apparent that the students cared about only two issues: the presidential election and a statewide referendum question regarding marriage equality.
UNE is located in Biddeford’s Ward One, the predominantly coastal and more affluent section of the city.
In Ward One, 1,445 voters cast ballots regarding Marriage Equality, not including 59 blank ballots.
In Ward One, 1,496 voters cast ballots to choose the next president, not including 8 blanks.
But what happened when these voters were asked about who should be their state representative in the Maine Legislature?
Hmmm…. there were 97 blank ballots
How about the Maine Senate? 173 blanks
How about Local Bond Questions regarding road pavements? 228 blanks
How about the local school budget? 138 blanks.
Ok, so maybe most voters don’t drill down that far…but let’s compare the number of blanks on those election issues against some other neighborhoods in the same city, like my neighborhood…
State Senate: 72 blanks (a difference of 99 fewer blank votes compared to Ward One)
Paving Bond: 143 blanks (a difference of 85 fewer blank votes)
Local School Budget: 69 blanks (a difference of 99 fewer blank votes)
Across the board, Ward One had a higher number of blank ballots than any of the city’s other six voting wards (both in actual numbers and as a percent of totals)
For better or worse, Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant is also serving as a representative in the Maine House of Representatives. He is a Democrat. He lost by a margin of just 8 votes to his Republican challenger. Wow…what if just a few more students had cast a vote in that race???
Many of the students, including a young woman from the neighboring town of Kennebunk, used only their UNE student ID as a means of proving residency in Biddeford. But they did have to swear an oath to certify that they had not voted anywhere else.
Out of curiosity, how is it that college students who can wait in line 36 hours for the latest I-Phone or score coveted Dave Matthews concert tickets months before a scheduled concert not be able to register for voting until the actual day of the election?
Nah, it couldn’t be they want to wait until the last possible minute in order to avoid scrutiny. They really do care what’s happening in the world. They just forgot that Election Day was creeping up on them.
Maybe we should require you to register to vote when you buy an I-Phone or some concert tickets. Wouldn’t that be convenient? Then they would not have to rent so many passenger vans to vote. Then they would not have to put such a strain on our strapped city resources. Then, maybe these educated kids might be able to fill out the entire ballot.
You may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
Just moments ago, Mitt Romney did what he does best. He chose the safe bet and once again fumbled the ball in his quest to be the next president of the United States. Mitt ended all speculation by announcing his choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate.
Of course, the right is thumping its chest, joyously proclaiming that President Obama will no longer be able to ignore our country’s miserable economy during an especially malicious campaign.
GOP Nominee Mitt Romney
Meanwhile, the left is busy buying bottles of champagne, prematurely celebrating their victory while putting together a slew of campaign ads that pronounce Ryan as the guy who wanted to kill Medicare. For the record, check what Politifact has to say about the left’s Medicare innuendo.
My prediction? Obama wins by 3 points when he should lose.
Yes, I just said President Obama should lose the election.
Yes, I just said that President Obama will win a second term.
With just one sentence, I have managed to piss off loyalists on both sides of the aisle. So now that I have your attention, allow me to explain my rationale.
Why Obama will win
Romney’s selection of Ryan as a running mate only serves two purposes: 1. it forces Obama back into the debate about the economy, and 2.) it spikes the temperature on the right. But just like four years ago, the GOP has done absolutely nothing with this pick to take from the political center…That is why Obama will squeak out a narrow victory. Palin gave McCain an early bump, but it came up far short on drawing critical votes from the political center.
Why Obama should lose
President Obama screwed up royally even before he was sworn into office for his first term. He set the bar for his presidency far too high. In short, he over promised and under delivered.
That alone is reason enough to justify my decision not to renew his employment contract.
Ask yourself this: Why would such an allegedly smart guy promise so much so soon?
It’s simple. Obama’s “Hope and Change” was a tactic born of grandiose arrogance and fueled by a troubling naiveté of how the world works.
Remember four years ago? This president was going to be so much different. He was going to change Washington. No more business as usual. No more cozying with lobbyists. Superior transparency and political accountability would be the new norm. He was going to fix the economy, end our wars, give us universal health care and stick it to the rich.
“Yes, we can!” he proclaimed without deference to the stark reality that surrounded him.
I was there on that cold, January day when the nation was about to be forever transformed into something so much better. I did not vote for him, but I was genuinely excited to be part of that historic moment when our 44th president was sworn into office.
The crowd on the Capitol Mall was like nothing I had ever experienced. There was an electric excitement in the air. I am a big guy, but I could not secure my footing. When that massive crowd lurched, I lurched…I was literally moved by those throngs of joyous and expectant celebrants.
It was hard not to believe that we were witnessing something much bigger than a new president taking office. Like Chris Matthews,I also experienced a tingling sensation running down my leg… (in retrospect, that may have been the result of really cold temperatures and a lack of restrooms).
But did Obama really overpromise and under-deliver, or am I just a frustrated cynic?
To answer those questions, I offer some analysis and opinion from a broad spectrum of news and media outlets, including: The Huffington Post, Politico, ABC News and Fox.
Let’s now examine the reality of our president’s 2008 campaign promises:
Healthcare: To his credit, Obama tackled one of our nation’s most complex and dysfunctional systems. The result? The government got in bed with huge corporations by using its force of law to require everyone to purchase health care insurance. In exchange, the corporations agreed to change practices including rescission of policy coverage and extending the term of dependent care. If you’re excited about this, you have very low expectations.
Ending the wars and closing Guantanamo Bay: Instead of troops in Iraq, we now have private contractors quietly cleaning things up in the name of democracy and capitalism. Foreign civilians are still being killed by drone strikes and US foreign policy has changed little, especially when considering that we were happy to celebrate and credit this president for crossing into a sovereign nation without permission and executing a criminal without trial. Yay, us! Guantanamo Bay? Still open for business.
Increase Transparency in government: Not so much, at least according to Politico:
“Open-government advocates say some administration practices are actually undercutting Obama’s goal. Among their complaints:
• Administration lawyers are aggressively fighting FOIA requests at the agency level and in court — sometimes on Obama’s direct orders. They’ve also wielded anti-transparency arguments even bolder than those asserted by the Bush administration.
• The administration has embarked on an unprecedented wave of prosecutions of whistleblowers and alleged leakers — an effort many journalists believe is aimed at blocking national security-related stories. “There just seems to be a disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States,” ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper told White House press secretary Jay Carney at a recent briefing for reporters”
Swamped by outside Republican groups in fundraising so far, Obama belatedly decided to give his blessing to so-called super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. Both Obama’s campaign and the White House maintain that the president does not support today’s rules but realized belatedly he must play by them to give himself a competitive chance at a second term.
“He’s not saying that the system is healthy or good,” said Obama spokesman Jay Carney, who was pressed repeatedly about whether Obama’s move was hypocrisy. “He is making the decision, his campaign is making the decision, that the rules are what they are. And they cannot play by a different set of rules than Republicans are playing.”
That’s not consistent with what Obama has said about the groups, though. And now, by putting strategy above all else, Obama opened himself to criticism that he had compromised on principle and succumbed to the rules of the same Washington game he pledged to change.”
Jobs and the Economy: Epic fail and the starkest example of overpromise and under-delivering.
Business Insider: ” . . . the Obama administration drastically underestimated how bad the economy was and drastically overestimated its ability to do something about it.
As a result of this, President Obama over-promised and under-delivered on the single most important challenge of his Presidency: Jobs.”
Huffington Post: “. . . A slew of weak data has led economists in recent weeks to ratchet back their expectations for U.S. economic growth. A Reuters poll published on Wednesday found economists expect the nation’s Gross Domestic Product to expand at only a 2 percent annual rate in the second quarter.
Projections for hiring also have been cut. According to the poll, the economy is likely to add an average of 147,000 jobs a month between now and October, too few to make much of a dent in the nation’s 8.2 percent jobless rate.
As the economic recovery threatens to stall for the third summer in a row, voters are registering deep doubts about Obama’s leadership, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday. More now believe Romney would be stronger than Obama in dealing with the economy and creating jobs. . .”
How is the world better today than it was four years ago? How much has Washington changed? Are you better off than you were in 2008?
Can Mitt Romney do any better? Probably not.
Thus, I am a cynic. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Predictably, in the days following a massacre in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater, there has once again been a rallying cry for tighter gun control laws.
Sadly, this knee-jerk reaction fails to address the much larger issue: No sane person would willingly open fire on an unarmed group of civilians. It’s not about guns. It’s about our appetite for violence and our reluctance to address mental health issues.
But that is a more complex issue, and it is much harder to contemplate a solution for a problem that extends well beyond our nation’s borders, including a July 2011 massacre in Oslo, Norway or last month’s shooting spree in Toronto, Canada, where gun control laws are about as tight as they can be.
Not far from Aurora, lies the smaller town of Littleton, Colo., where two students opened fire on their classmates and teachers at the Columbine High School in 1999.
In response, the U.S. Secret Service, in conjunction with the National Education Association, undertook a study of school violence and published their report three years later, in 2002
The Secret Service Report concluded that schools were taking false hope in physical security, when they should be paying more attention to the pre-attack behaviors of students.
But behavior is a tricky subject matter, and not nearly as sexy or convenient for sound bites as AK-47s or Glocks.
No matter, we still happily and blindly toss around words such as “sicko,” “whack-job” and “nut case” to describe the people who commit these horrific, unimaginable criminal acts.
As someone who struggles daily with a mental illness, I am reminded again why I penned an op-ed that was published in the Portland Press Herald only a few days after the Jan. 2011 shootings in Tucson.
If you haven’t read it, take a gander…and let’s finally have that conversation.
Within 24 hours the family feud will be over but political tensions in Biddeford will likely remain high long after the ballots from the June 12 Primary Elections are counted.
For the first time in more than 25 years, incumbents in each of the city’s three legislative districts are facing primary challenges.
Joanne Twomey
Now for a few predictions about tomorrow’s outcomes. (these are not necessarily my choices, just my predictions)
District 135 House Seat (Paulette Beaudoin v. Joanne Twomey)
Beaudoin, the incumbent, has never faced a primary challenge, and she has her work cut out for her with a challenge by former Biddeford Mayor Joanne Twomey. Twomey held the House seat and previously recruited Beaudoin to fill her shoes. Joanne took her loss for a third term as mayor hard, but this campaign has been relatively quiet, despite a last-minute dump of cash from a pro-casino PAC. If signs are any indicator, Beaudoin will do well….but political signs are little more than psychological warfare and Twomey is a savvy campaigner. In this race, I predict a razor-thin victory for Beaudoin. (less than 5%)
District 136 House Seat (Megan Rochelo v. Bobby Mills)
Bobby Mills
This is a rematch between incumbent Rochelo and perennial political candidate Bobby Mills, a city councilor who often runs for elected office). Rochelo is hoping for a second term in the district that is bubbling over with Democrats. Mills is hoping to settle a score, but screwed up significantly a couple of weeks ago by posting callous and stupid remarks about his opponent and her husband’s funeral on his campaign’s Facebook page. Mills attempted to edit his stupidity, but it was too late for his revisionist tactics. Several of his supporters backed away; and despite his open and forceful support for a casino in Biddeford, even the boys from Vegas took a few steps back and Mills did not receive any of the support that other local legislative candidates received from a pro-casino PAC. Rochelo by 10 points or better in this race.
District 137 House Seat (Alan Casavant v. Nancy Sullivan)
Nancy Sullivan
Casavant, serving his first term as the city’s mayor, is being challenged for his House seat by outgoing State Senator Nancy Sullivan. Sullivan really does not want to leave Augusta, and she is running a tight and competitive campaign with plenty of help from the boys in Vegas. Although she approached Casavant late last year, suggesting he should run for her termed-out senate seat, she is now campaigning on the premise that Casavant cannot effectively serve two masters. The problem here, is that she may be right, especially when considering some of the things Casavant repeatedly writes on his Facebook page. This will be a close race. Despite a contentious municipal budget, Casavant is still very popular and downright likable. Sullivan, however is a fierce competitor and better financed. Despite the intent of term limits, I predict Nancy will recapture her old House seat in what will be one of the state’s tightest Primary elections. Sullivan by less than 2 percent.
In other races, expect Linda Valentino to roll past Don Pilon in Senate District 5; Jon Courtney will blow Patrick Calder out of the water for the GOP’s chance to take on Democrat Chellie Pingree in November for Maine’s First District Congressional seat. In a crowded race, Republicans will almost evenly split between Rick Bennett and Bruce Poliquin for the chance to hold Olympia Snowe’s US senate seat for the GOP. (Charlie Summers looks tired, and not enough people know any of the other candidates.) Meanwhile Cynthia Dill will do well with Democrats in southern and coastal Maine, and expect her to dominate college campus towns and maybe Blue Hill; Jon Hinck will do well in Portland’s West End neighborhood, but Matt Dunlap, a more moderate candidate from Old Town, will ultimately win the ticket to a suicide bid against former governor and independent candidate Angus King in November.
President Barack Obama is on a roll. After nearly four years of “evolving” on the issue of gay marriage, he finally caught up to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
As expected, there has been much media hoopla about Mr. Obama’s sudden profile of “courage” regarding this very controversial social issue.
But is all the praise deserved?
Not quite, . . . at least according to some observers who say that Obama is still dancing around the issue.
For starters, The Atlantic reminds us of what Cheney said in 2009 on the issue of gay marriage:
“Well, I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said. “. . . I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute that governs this, I don’t support . . . It has always been a state issue, and I think that’s the way it ought to be handled today, that is on a state-by-state basis.”
So why exactly did Mr. Obama wait three years to say the very same things that Dick Cheney said in a July 2009 interview?
Is he worried about his upcoming election? Did he have an epiphany? Was it the result of a recent referendum in North Carolina?
Not exactly.
Obama got put into a box by his No. 2.
A few days ago, Vice President Joe Biden had a stunning moment of clarity that apparently caused lots of hand wringing in the Oval Office.
Biden made it abundantly clear that he supports gay marriage. For nearly 48 hours, the media was talking more about Biden than Obama.
That will just not do.
So, the prez called his buddies at ABC and cautiously waded into the pool, offering some rather tepid remarks about an issue that should be at the forefront of his party’s platform.
” . . .[Obama] now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn’t believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?”
Gawker correctly reminds us why the president’s words were so lame and pathetic:
” . . . before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama’s position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.”
If our president had real courage or anything remotely resembling integrity, here is what he should have said:
“Gay people have the right to get married just the same as atheists, heterosexuals or any other consenting adult. Marriage is a deeply personal issue, and our government should acknowledge and respect the decisions of all marriages without deference to religion, gender, sexual orientation or race.
“I will make it a central point of my second term to ensure that every gay person has the same rights as every other American. I will take this message to each and every one of our 50 states and sell it door-to-door if I have to. It is just the right thing to do, and anyone who values liberty and personal freedom ought to be standing proudly with me on this issue. Period.”
Well, we can hope for change, right?
Yeah, don’t hold your breath looking for real leadership from either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney on this issue.
Oh yeah, one more thing: Which president signed the Defense of Marriage Act and deployed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
Hell hath no fury like a politician scorned, or so they say….
Enter State Senator Nancy Sullivan, the self-righteous, semi-retired English teacher who desperately wants to keep her state health insurance and can’t accept the terms of Maine’s term limits law.
Sullivan is being forced from the senate because of term limits, so now she wants to go back to Augusta as a state rep in District 137.
There’s just one little thing standing in her way: Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant, a fellow Democrat who also happens to be the incumbent state representative in District 137.
Despite winning a landslide mayoral election in November, Casavant also wants to serve a fourth and final term in the Maine House of Representatives.
In a rare Primary election attack ad that was published in local newspapers, Sullivan questions Casavant’s commitment to both the mayor’s office and his state rep seat.
I don’t blame Sullivan for going after Casavant’s competing public service roles. Frankly, his dual roles represent one of his biggest political liabilities.
But Sullivan conveniently forgets to mention a few other things in her attack ad, which is labeled: “Being mayor is a full-time job.”
For starters, Sullivan wouldn’t know what a full-time job looks like if one jumped up and bit her in the face. Before heading off to Augusta to begin her political career, Sullivan was a middle-school English teacher in Saco.
Teachers work hard, long hours, but they also get a week of vacation during Christmas, a week of vacation in February, a week of vacation in April, and then 6-7 weeks of summer vacation from mid-June through mid-August.
Going from being a full-time teacher to being a part-time legislator doesn’t require much of a transition, if you get my drift.
Sullivan was more than happy to ignore her obligations as a “full-time” teacher to launch her political career in 1998. To her credit, she used part of her teacher pay to reimburse Saco schools for the “full-time substitute” teacher who had to take over and run her classes.
But she also enjoyed nice perks by racking up retirement funds from both positions.
Her rival is not much different. Casavant also went to Augusta during his lifelong career as a teacher at Biddeford High School. Neither Casavant nor Sullivan has held a private sector job for more than three decades.
So don’t expect Sullivan to make much noise about Casavant being both a teacher and a legislator.
Sullivan has a long history of talking out of both sides of her mouth. It’s a big mouth, so it’s not an especially remarkable feat.
In her ad, Sullivan chastises Casavant for missing three recent “School Board” meetings. Maybe someone should tell Sullivan that Biddeford does not have a school board. We have a school committee. Yup, there is a big difference between a board and subservient committee.
She also criticizes Casavant for not taking the time to more closely examine the city’s budget “in order to lessen the tax burden on citizens.”
I’m not exactly sure why an English teacher would capitalize the word “budget” in the middle of a sentence, but hey….cut her some slack. It’s been a while since Nancy was in a classroom.
There’s also this fact: there is no burden on Biddeford’s taxpayers as a result of the recently proposed budget. Umm, Nancy…this is why they call it a “proposed” budget. It will likely be re-tooled before being voted upon by the city council.
Apparently, Sullivan is very worried about this budget. It’s hard to know. I didn’t see her at Monday night’s budget workshop meeting. Casavant was there, and as I write this, he is at another budget meeting.
Sullivan also conveniently ignores the fact that Casavant has repeatedly said this proposed budget represents too much of a burden. and he will not support it as it is now proposed.
And then there is the fact that one of the biggest increases in the city’s proposed budget represents a shift of funding from the state level to the municipal level for general assistance funding.
Does Sullivan support slashing general assistance funding? Didn’t she criticize Republican Governor Paul LePage for basically the same thing?
Perhaps Sullivan would like to see the proposed increases in Biddeford’s school budget slashed. Which teachers would she like to fire? We coud certainly use her experience and savvy in this arena.
In closing out her ad, Sullivan states: “I have time for YOU!”
This confuses me. Allow me to explain why.
During each of her campaigns for the senate, I have supported Sullivan. Laura and I have donated to her campaign. I have attended her fundraising events, and I have always put her campaign signs on my lawn.
A little more than two years ago, Laura called Nancy to ask a questions and offer some perspective as a state employee about one of Governor John Baldacci’s proposed budget shifts.
Sullivan never returned the call. Laura sent an e-mail. Again, no reply from Sullivan. We also didn’t hear back from our state rep, Paulette Beaudoin.
Frustrated, Laura called Alan Casavant, a state rep in a different district. Casavant called her back the same day.
The funny thing about Sullivan’s ad is that she never mentions anything she has accomplished for the people of Biddeford. Not one thing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
Instead, Sullivan did what she does best: full-on attack, tearing down her opponent.
After 14 years of serving Biddeford in Augusta, Sullivan can’t recall one thing she has accomplished for the people of Biddeford? Combine that with the fact that she still hasn’t been able to land a job for her husband; and you are left with a pretty dismal track record.
If you prefer petty, vindictive self-serving politicians, please vote on June 12 to send Nancy Sullivan back to Augusta for another two years…maybe then, she can actually do something for Biddeford.
LESSONS IN MEDIOCRITY | OUTLAW JOURNALIST 