Andre's Executive Order

I can't think of any political issue in my life that has drawn more controversy than this one. Unfortunately it's also the issue that is least understood by the people most passionate about it. The abortion conflict exists in emotional core of our being and preys on the natural protective tendencies that we have for children. It exploits our empathy and clouds our reason, and for points I intend to discuss below, creates a perverse supporting relationship between those who want to protect children and policies that do the exact opposite. In the last year, Republican state legislatures and the Republican controlled house have launched the largest assault on abortion practice that we've seen since the 1980's. Over 500 anti-abortion bills were proposed in state legislatures along with an aggressive federal attempt to strip funding from planned parenthood. In South Dakota, for instance, abortion seekers are now subject to an additional 3 day waiting period during which t

The Wisconsin legislature is fast tracking Bill AB-7 that will place substantive identification requirements on voting for the state. The gist of the bill is that you would need to present a Wisconsin driver's license, official state identification, military ID, passport, or naturalization papers in order to vote. Student identification would be permitted if the address on the card is current. The bill has some other provisions that are not really at issue for this article nor really controversial. So what's the problem? What's wrong with asking people to identify themselves before they vote? There are three. The Effect v. The Idea Voting is a right of legal residents of this State. I shouldn't need to tell readers that the ability to vote it the foundation of our state and our nation. This means we should be doing everything possible to make sure everyone who can legally vote has that opportunity; Democracy doesn't work otherwise. Now consider that students change

Why do Democrats and Republicans have such a hard time talking? Here's what I see. Democrats strive to find and follow ideas. Republicans strive to find and follow leaders. Democrats like big ideas. They like looking at the way things are and developing an image of what the future could be. They then fixate on that idea, working to vote in people and policies designed to make that idea a reality. This means that Democrats are not very loyal to their leaders unless progress is made towards the unifying idea. The moment it's not or the idea loses political momentum, Democrats have a hard time keeping their caucus together. Republicans like leaders. They prefer to elect someone based on their character or potential and then let that leader make core decisions almost unilaterally. Republicans generally fall in behind their leaders without much question or challenge to the way that leader is moving unless the pressure in other directions is very strong. The stronger the Republican l

I don't really have a single issue to bring up in regards to the death of Osama Bin Laden. I do, however, have three specific observations about some of the issues that have risen in the wake of this man's death that I think are worth posting. First on the issue of credit for the kill. Credit goes where credit is due. George W. Bush deserves some credit for this. He does not deserve credit for capturing and killing Bin Laden, but instead deserves credit for setting up the infrastructure that would act as the launching platform from which Obama would get the job done. It is wrong to say Bush had no hand in Bin Laden's capture. It is equally wrong to say that Bush was directly involved and deserves direct credit for the act. Bin Laden's trail had gone cold, and any information gained from specific acts of pursuit had become dead ends enough for the Bush administration to ramp back rhetoric on the importance of Bin Laden towards the end of his presidency. I do not see this