Goodbye 2008. Hello 2009.

Here’s hoping the next year brings you many wonderful surprises and new opportunities. Be safe out there tonight, and if you plan on drinking, please have a designated driver.

Embattled Governor Rod Blagojevich and members of the Democratic Party are on a collision course as the “pay for play” scandal continues to drag on. Blagojevich has vowed to fight the accusations against him, even as the state legislative body contemplates and works towards impeaching the Governor. Also, the race continues between the Governor and the legislature to name a replacement for Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat and set a date for a special election to fill Rahm Emanuel’s vacated seat.

In an act of defiance, Blagojevich took to the podium with Roland Burris to announce him as the successor to Obama in the Senate. Burris, a black man, is a former Attorney General for Illinois from 1991 to 1995. He also ran and won the race for the office of Comptroller in the state, becoming the first black man to win a major statewide election. Additionally, he has ran unsuccessfully for Governor three times, Mayor of Chicago once, and U.S. Senate once.

The announcement of Burris led to numerous complaints and positioning. The Democrats in the Senate are planning not to seat Burris, even though they technically do not have the authority to do so. This was attempted once back in 1967 when the House tried to bar Representative Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. from taking his seat. This led to the Supreme Court case Powell vs McCormack, where the Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Powell, indicating that he met the requirements to be a Senator according to the Constitution, and that Congress had the power to expel (not exclude) a member with a two-thirds vote. If the Senate wanted to expel Burris once he was seated, they would need to hold a vote. The Democratic Party could, on the other hand, deny Burris from caucusing with the party, much in the way that they were thinking of doing to Senator Joseph Lieberman if the party obtained 60 total seats.

Another issue is that the Senate currently does not have a black member. Again, going back to the qualifications to be a Senator (be at least 30 years old, be a US Citizen for at least 9 years, and a resident of the nominating state), there is no quota for the Congress to have representatives from the difference racial backgrounds that make up our population. However, this didn’t seem to bother Congressman Bobby Rush. He challenged the Senate “to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate.”

The bizarre political theater, if you want to call this, is getting stranger each day. Rush is an idiot for trying to bring the race card into this issue. Blagojevich continues to make problems for himself by jumping the gun and beat the state legislature to the punch by nominating Burris, even though he is under investigation for trying to sell the vacant seat. The Senate Democrats are showing their lack of Constitutional law by considering blocking Burris from taking the seat. None of this helps Obama from making a smooth transition into office in just three weeks.

Related articles:
Telegraph – “The race card is played: Don’t ‘hang or lynch’ the black man chosen by Rod Blagojevich”
Breitbart – “Blagojevich defies Senate, names Obama replacement”
Chicago Sun-Times – “Blagojevich names Roland Burris to Obama’s Senate seat”
Chicago Breaking News – “Blagojevich snubs Senate, taps Burris for seat”
Financial Times – “Blagojevich names Burris for Obama seat”
CBS2 Chicago – “Blagojevich Names Obama Replacement Amid Protest”
Star Tribune – “Emanuel announces plan to resign congressional seat; Blagojevich must set special election”

After a celebrated Christmas day in Bethlehem, where Palestinian security forces were credited for providing a safe environment for a record number of tourists visiting the historical city, and days after a six month cease-fire came to an end with Hamas, Israeli Air Force swooped into the Gaza Strip like the Santa Ana winds. The air strike took out over 50 Hamas strongholds, killing around 200 Palestinians and injuring hundreds more. This came after days of warnings and threats following a series of rocket attacks by Hamas against Israeli civilian targets.

The Gaza Strip, an area of strife for Egyptians, Palestinians, and Israeli’s alike, has been the focus of conflict for decades. Though a Palestinian population center located on the Mediterranean Sea, the Israeli government controls the coastal front, air space, and the Northern/Eastern borders, while Egypt maintains the Southern Border. It has never identified as a sovereign nation, though the Israeli government gave up administrative control of the land in 2005 to Hamas following open elections.

The Roadmap to Peace, a four-party project between the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations, has struggled over the past six years to bring about a two-state solution in the region. They made a significant milestone in 2005 with the first democratic elections in the Palestinian controlled territories, but with Hamas (a terrorist organization in the eyes of the United States and Israel) winning the popular election, all progress in the Roadmap has come to a halt. Like with most global problems, it isn’t the civilians that are causing the tension between the nations but rather the government leadership. Hamas will not recognize the right for Israel to exist, and Israel is hesitant to deal with a terrorist organization.

I don’t see where anything will change in the next few years until one of the two sides has a fundamental change in philosophy. The Hamas founding chapter calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, so any meaningful change needs to start there. Until then, there will continue to be attacks by both sides. To date, Israel has shown real restraint, since they could easily roll through the territory with superior numbers and weapons, but that would be certain to trigger another regional war, and that is the last thing anyone needs at the moment.

Related articles:
Catholic News Service – “Bethlehem tourism is good, but some feel Christmas spirit is missing”
Energy Publisher – “Sabres rattle as Christians celebrate in Bethlehem”
Reuters – “Israel attacks Gaza, more than 155 reported killed”
CNN – “At least 170 killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza”
FOX News – “Israel Vows to Expand Gaza Airstrikes as Death Toll Passes 200″

Phuck Politics

Independent

Read the review

Are you looking for a change of pace? Need a good laugh when the government does something that doesn’t make any sense? Ron has the website for you. (Note, this site uses adult language.)

I want to thank the author of Phuck Politics for being the second person to volunteer his site for review, and for giving me my first real challenge.

As you can tell by the title of the blog, the author has a very low opinion of US politics and politicians. Living up to the profile of website, the author points “out how stupid our elected officials are and how f—-d we are.” Being disassociated with a political leaning in one direction or another, all politicians and their decisions are fair game for criticism, spoofing, and name calling. The satire is thick in most of the posts, making the website fun to read. However, don’t let the humor mislead you.

Mixing humor with criticism, you might think the author works for the Daily Show.   Reading passed the jokes, you will discover logical arguments on the issues.  Take the example of the bailout of the auto industries and Wall Street.  The author discusses how we tend to punish people more for smaller issues (such as illegal drugs), but are willing to give a pass on those companies that did not practice sound business policies.  We are willing to give these companies billions in dollars with little oversight.  When they spend it in ways that do not directly benefit the company’s financial position (such as going on expensive retreats), the Congress has little power to punish the companies other than saying “stop.”  In the ten different articles I read regarding the bailouts, the underlying message remains true.

This is just but one example of the topics covered on Phuck Politics.  The author covers a wide array of topics that are popular at the time, but I do need to warn you before recommending visiting the site.  The author relies heavily on foul language, and while I would wish that people abstain from such practices, it would take away from the humor and identity of the site.  So let me just state that I would call this a “mature” site, and recommend parents to preview the site before allowing their children to visit it.  Beyond the language, I do not have any issues with the site.  It is running a streamlined theme with very little advertisements and badges in the sidebar.  The only items that would delay the page from loading properly would be if there is more than one video object embedded on the page.  This usually isn’t the case.

With most of his posts, the author uses good blogging practices by linking a source article or image to create the basis for his entry.  This is as much a humor site as it is a serious site, and I do encourage you to visit it (if foul language does not offend you), especially if you need a laugh.  Our politicians create legislation or act in ways that cause the general public to scratch their heads and question, “What were they thinking.”  Phuck Politics simply states our thoughts out loud.

In a way, it seems ironic to be discussing the possibility of suing a Good Samaritan during the Christmas season. However, due to a 4-3 ruling in the California Supreme Court last week, the liability shield laws in place in some states (to protect those who rush to the aid of those who need help) can now be circumvented if the victim wishes to sue. Before we look at the case, I think we need to look back to where the Good Samaritan term comes from.

If you have a Bible, you can open the book to Luke 10:25-37:

25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?”

27 And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”

28 And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”

29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead.

31 “And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 “Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

33 “But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion,

34 and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him.

35 “On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’

36 “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?”

37 And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”

So, what we have here is a Jew who has been beaten and robbed and left for dead. A priest, someone who we would identify with as being a person that would have instantly provided aid, kept his distance and continued walking. Part of this reason was due to cleanliness. A priest was to be kept clean and “holy,” but there is also an implication of his station in society as being a reason why he would not stoop to help someone in the victims’ condition. The Levite also held special religious positions in society as well as political. Again, in our mind you would think he would serve the common good by helping the wounded individual, but moved on.

Then Jesus mentions the Samaritan. For historical reference, the Samaritans and the Jews hated each other. Both groups practiced Judaism, though the Samaritans claimed they practiced the true, ancient form of the religion while the Jews practiced a more modern version. You could view them as the modern day Sunni’s and Shiites. So the fact that a Samaritan stopped to help his enemy who was in need when his fellow “neighbors” did not made a perfect example for how the person asking the question of Jesus should live his life – helping those in need.

Fast-forward 2,000 years, we come across the case of Alexandra Van Horn. In 2004, she was riding in a vehicle that collided with a light pole at 45 mph outside of Las Vegas. Behind her in a separate car was her friend Lisa Torti. Fearing that the car Alexandra was in was going to explode, she rushed from her vehicle to aid Alexandra by pulling her out of the vehicle. Alexandra was pulled to safety, but was eventually left paralyzed; a condition she blames on Lisa’s action.

So what should we as neighbors to do if we ever find ourselves in a situation to lend aid? Do we help out and fear the possibility of being sued later if there are some prolonged medical conditions? Do we sit by and wait for professional care providers to arrive on the scene and risk the possibility that the victim might die? I can’t answer those questions for you. In my mind, I would like to know that I would risk future legal actions if it means that someone’s life is saved. The thought that my inaction might lead to someone’s death would haunt me for the rest of my life.

As a lesson learned, legislators are looking at this ruling and are considering changes to their shield laws and Good Samaritan laws to protect those that try to do the right thing. For you as an individual, I would recommend that you learn basic first aid and CPR. I’m not asking you to go out and try to be a superhero and help everyone involved in an accident, but the training might help you make smarter decisions during an emergency.

Related articles:
ABC News – “Woman Sued for Rescue Effort in Car Crash”
KTNV News – “Good samaritan sued after saving co-worker”
Associated Press – “Calif. Court: Would-be Good Samaritan can be sued”
Digital Journal – “Good Samaritan Can Be Sued.  Bad Judgement?”