From American Corespondent Kyle Brady…

There’s a large number of citizens, interested parties, and pundits who have spoken on the success/failure of President Obama’s first term of office , usually with a clearly partisan divide. Republicans, and conservatives in general, tend to find great fault with anything, and everything, the President has done, on both factual and imaginary grounds, while liberals are divided amongst themselves on whether or not the President has been effective thus far.

What if, instead, an analysis was provided on President Obama’s clearly demonstrated liberal politics? What if this analysis was done with an eye toward political pragmatism, rather than the ultimate goals of the progressive wing of liberalism? What if the dislike-by-default ideology of Republicans and conservatives, often tainted with various forms of bigotry, was ignored altogether?

President Obama has two main problems, currently. First, there’s the stalwart opposition that the GOP has provided since he was inaugurated, which has quite effectively made even the most mundane procedures laborious and rancorous. Second, and perhaps more importantly, stand the idealistic notions that many American liberals have of not who President Obama is or what he ran on, but rather what he should be and what they believe his 2008 campaign was about.

Progressives and leftists of all types have been at the President’s heels from the beginning, pressing him to enact everything he’s ever promised and immediately reverse all that has been wrong with the country for the decade previous. This, in all honesty, is a naive and immature view of the American political system, especially since the system was specifically designed to be full of delay, debate, and disparity. With a few, rare, exceptions of a President with nationalistic passions behind them, typically at the beginning of military conflicts and their conclusions, if successful, Presidents simply don’t have as much influence on the legislative and judicial process that most citizens believe they do.

As a result, his agenda, an overwhelmingly liberal agenda, has taken time to implement, because of the longterm implementation strategy necessary in the current, extremely hostile, Congressional climate. The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”  was not fast, by any means, but the process has resulted in an essentially ironclad repeal of the military’s discriminatory policy for its LGBT members. Correspondingly, President Obama’s approach to so-called gay marriage has been publicly described as “evolving,” which many believe is code for “be patient, it’s coming.”

Going through, item by item, President Obama has had great success as a liberal President. While he has shown himself not to be the bombastic, forceful President of liberal causes that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was, the current President has enacted more liberal policies and pursued liberal ideals more than any President of, at a minimum, the last three decades. Has President Obama solved the problems of the United States, and the world, as he turns a country away from its ever-more-conservative path? No. Is he the latest incarnation of George H.W. Bush or his son? Ronald Reagan? Richard Nixon? A policy doppelgänger of John McCain? Obviously not.

Even with the issue of the federal debt, deficit, and debt ceiling, there are two central facts often forgotten about Barack Obama: he’s a highly intelligent individual known for his ability to play, and win, political games, and he’s a Democratic President who actually cares about the citizens of the United States. For all that liberals complain about the speed or agenda of this Administration, it must be remembered that the alternative was the ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, which would have been far worse. There could have been no better Democratic President for this moment.

President Obama’s aims are not truly in question. Although his methods are open for inquiry, he has a history of pulling last-minute victories out of apparent defeat, all while advancing the nation in a more pragmatically liberal direction.

 ”Addendum: This piece was written prior to the President’s July 25th speech on the debt, debt ceiling, and Congress. However, the outcry of progressives afterward only serves to prove the point that they are never sated with a Democratic President, no matter how capable or self-consistent they are.”

Kyle Brady is a young political scientist and writer interested in everything from domestic politics to foreign policy to political theory, currently living in San Jose, CA.  He blogs at kyle-brady.com, is writing a book on the modern political scene in America, is on Twitter as @brady_kyle, and can be reached at kyle@kyle-brady.com. 

From American Corespondent Kyle Brady…

America has an education problem.

It’s not that the United States doesn’t have an educational system or is somehow perennially cast as having an exorbitantly low IQ, but rather that the system itself is dysfunctional and not producing the results intended . For three decades, since the arrival of Ronald Reagan to the Presidency in 1981, public education has been under attack through the backdoor-privatization known as charter schools , the over-specialization of magnet schools , and, more destructively, underfunding.

For most of modern history, when a state government finds itself in a problematic budget situation, the funding to public education gets cut – not just at the college level, but typically across the board. Rather than substantially cutting the salaries of public workers/civil servants with higher salaries (such as six-figure salaries for members of the state senate), closing tax loopholes, raising taxes on those who should be expected to pay their proportionate share (the rich), or ending expensive pet projects, the default choice is to defund the school system, along with other detrimental, self-inhibiting actions. This same tendency is observed at the national level, where members of Congress choose to cut funding to state education programs, rather than making more logical cuts.

The result of three decades of the slow destruction of the public education system is that it’s immensely dysfunctional and nationally embarrassing: graduation rates for the United States have dropped over time, and they now stand below nearly half of the world, including most of Europe. There are other indicators that show American children are no longer as proficient at math, science, and analytical processes than in decades past, a reality noted by President Obama in his 2011 “State of the Union” address. Economists, educators, political scientists, a majority of pundits, various think tanks, and a large swath of the American public all acknowledge that the educational system needs reform, which includes greater funding at more stable levels. Why the disconnect?

A disconnect between the American people and those governing the country exists on the issue of education for a simple reason: the funding of education has no short-term results. Whether an educational program is given greater or lesser funding has no immediate effect on any politician’s constituents, and, therefore, their election cycle. The politicians in control of United States policy, at both a federal and state level, have great difficulty in seeing and planning for the future – their interests are of the moment and in what is better for their next re-election (as discussed in Chapter 7 of the upcoming book, Modern America: The End of Political Discourse.

Education, especially effective public education made available for all, is crucial to the growth and development of a state, and the United States is no different: the various booms and advances of the country’s history are, largely, due to the initial efforts of a group of well-educated individuals. Science and math are essential in a world that is increasingly reliant upon electronics for daily use, much less a future of alternative energy and cyborg dreams. Yet, science and math are eschewed as nerdy and unnecessary – until they’re suddenly vital and under strenuous demand. Other subjects, such as English, composition, and foreign languages, are also crucial to the continued cultural and economic growth of the nation.

Politicians must quickly acknowledge that the educational system is not available for pilfering, should the budget require more available funds than actually exist. In fact, the cuts made to education over the last three decades must be quickly reversed (after adjusting for inflation), reforms must be implemented that reward effective teachers, and marketing programs must be begun to draw the attention of teenagers back into the classroom, away from the culture of celebrity and sports that seems to have taken over the public discourse. A failure to do so will result in nothing less than the increased dependence of the United States on foreign states and an immigrant work force in order to continue living as a First World state, placing America and all its citizens in an extremely vulnerable and volatile position.

Without proper education, there can be no booming modern economy; without a booming modern economy, all the benefits of power and funding that politicians have enjoyed will fade away, in parallel with the decline of American civilization.

Kyle Brady is a young political scientist and writer interested in everything from domestic politics to foreign policy to political theory, currently living in San Jose, CA.  He blogs at kyle-brady.com, is writing a book on the modern political scene in America, is on Twitter as @brady_kyle, and can be reached at kyle@kyle-brady.com.

From American Corespondent Kyle Brady…

Hello, all.

My name is Kyle Brady, and I’ll be the shadow behind the “Brady’s Badge” pieces. I’m a young writer, author, and political scientist; currently, I’m writing a book , prepping for graduate school, and blogging on politics. I also write for The San Jose Political Buzz Examiner.

As far as interests go, mine are wide-ranging, but I’ve come to appreciate more the longview of politics, both domestic and international, than the day-to-day minutiae that tends to be the focus. Foreign policy, international relations, domestic security are just three of my interest arenas – I’ll be writing on these topics, and more. If you’d like to learn more about me, visit my blog , find me on Twitter, or send me an email.

Stay tuned for intelligent, insightful, and largely unbiased reports on politics of all kinds.

*****

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was birthed out of World War II, in 1949 through the North Atlantic Treaty , as a way to ally the United States with its interests, economic and otherwise, in Europe. What began as a political alliance shifted to a military operation, and it now stands as somewhat akin to an intergovernmental organization (IGO) with military interests, but no standing military force. It’s an organization with a number of problems and a hazy future.

The first, and most important, problem with the current incarnation of NATO is its core structure: while it may be a multilateral organization, it relies, heavily, on the United States for financial and military support . As a consequence of this reliance, the opinion of the United States tends to weigh strongly in the organization’s decision-making process. Historically, any military action taken by NATO has almost wholly depended upon the involvement of the United States – even the current efforts in Libya see American efforts as key, while its leadership simultaneously claims to be a mission led by states other than the U.S. The United States is increasingly interested in itself and taking military action only where it sees fit, and so the existence of America as a core factor of NATO’s success would seem to be in jeopardy, if the other member states do not reconfigure their positioning.

The dependence upon the United States points to the second largest problem facing NATO: its military operations are comprised of military contingents from its various member states, all with varying levels of technological capability, language skills, and specialty. While not all of its members are militarily backward, the division between the military strength and capability of the United States and some of the other leading members, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, is striking. If NATO is to survive, it must create a more stable fighting force, in all four arenas of warfare: land, sea, air, and space. Furthermore, this fighting force must be a standing one, with allegiance to NATO first, and their individual states second. The repeated failure of the U.N.’s peace making/imposition and peace keeping/enforcement efforts make this extremely clear.

NATO has been successful in a majority of its efforts for three main reasons: the involvement of the United States, stated limited objectives, and the membership of appropriate states. During the Cold War, NATO became a tool to battle the Soviet influence in Europe, which saw the expansion of NATO from simply a European interest to including states in Central and Eastern Europe – the process continues today, as new states are being considered for membership. NATO is an extremely attractive body, for both its political and military influence, to states under the shadow of an increasingly-aggressive Russia, but their potential membership presents a third problem of great significance: their level of contribution. The question of whether states incapable of defending themselves, much less contributing to the defense of others, should be given membership to the Alliance is a difficult one, as a denial of membership leaves open a window for Russian dominance, but the acceptance of such states creates a structural deficiency.

The importance of NATO has not waned over the decades – in fact, its influence and reputation has grown substantially. This organization that began as a bit of political theater now carries out military operations for the U.N., while also keeping an eye on its own interests, which is a clear sign of strength. However, the issues of American dependence, a transient military, and its membership structure must be addressed, in the near-term, in order for NATO to continue to be successful in carrying out its mission in the interests of its members.

Kyle Brady is a young political scientist and writer interested in everything from domestic politics to foreign policy to political theory, currently living in San Jose, CA.  He blogs at kyle-brady.com, is writing a book on the modern political scene in America, is on Twitter as @brady_kyle, and can be reached at kyle@kyle-brady.com.

The 2010 American midterm elections are over, and there’s important metaphorical tea leaves to read regarding the politics of the immediate, near, and semi-near future, especially in terms of electorate, legislative behavior, and the state of the nation. Republicans have taken the House of Representatives, by a strong majority, in addition to a few seats in the Senate that detract from the Democratic majority, while not removing it. There are, however, a number of reasons this occurred, not necessarily in agreement with what many citizens believe to be true.

Most important, in any definition of the term, was the Tea Party: they both built and destroyed the Republican chances within this election. The Tea Party itself is a group comprised mostly of white, elderly, conservative, irrational individuals that have been deftly manipulated to stand-up for corporate interests and the self-serving agendas of many conservatives with political interests – this was an astroturf, not grassroots, movement. They managed, however, to develop a force of their own that was known to be problematic prior to the election, and their influence wreaked havoc on November 2^nd, 2010.

Tea Party favorites, like Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell or Nevada’s Sharron Angle, managed to receive the GOP nomination, only to be soundly defeated in general voting – this occurred numerous times across the country, simply because moderate Republicans, Independents, and Democrats will not vote for such staunchly conservative candidates who were largely unelectable, unprepared, and demographically non-representative. The other result, however, was that the Tea Party created such a conservative fervor that far more right-wing voters turned out than left-wing, giving credence to candidates who would have stood no chance in a more evenly balanced electorate – Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Russ Feingold (WI), among others, lost for this very reason.

Young voters, who elected President Obama in 2008, chose to not vote, as did far too many Democrats. It’s no small coincidence, however, that this was the first election after the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates for even greater corporate influence in elections, at the same time that Karl Rove and others used FEC and IRS loopholes to spend huge amounts of money, much of it anonymous, to run negative ads for conservative, corporatist interests, dwarfing all Democratic efforts in fundraising or campaigning. In an election with a populace easily influenced by advertising and soundbites, no matter their outright lack of basis in truth, it’s no surprise that Republicans did far better than their opponents, especially with the aid of FOX “News” as a political mouthpiece.

Republicans now have a problem: governing. Those who are now within the halls of Congress are there only thanks to the Tea Party and corporate funding, who turn out to be very different masters. The Tea Party claims to care (an important distinction from actually standing for) about lowering the deficit, controlling government spending, rolling back various legislation from the last two years, and various other items that sit in direct conflict with the corporate interests that focus only on their bottom line. Furthermore, the GOP has come to power on a platform of anti-Obama, anti-government rhetoric that now faces the stark reality that not only is government necessary and that they’re a part of it, but also that they can simply no longer refuse any legislation proposed and consider themselves to have behaved sufficiently. As a party with control of half of Congress, and a great influence on the already-problematic other half, Republicans must propose, negotiate, and vote on legislation – “no” will no longer stand as their party response. How are they going to merge the interests of their two funding sources, both of which will be sure to hold them accountable in 2012, with the actual, non-rhetorical needs of the nation?

In all likelihood, the next two years will see little to no legislation passing – the GOP strategy in the Senate seems to be unending attempts at repealing legislation from within the reign of the Obama Administration, and the House’s strategy still remains unclear, although it seems to be slightly more reasonable. It’s fully possible that the Republicans will now spend the coming months in holding hearings and investigations into individuals, legislation, and situations that will waste everyone’s time, as they have done in the past, but will, in parallel, provide them with political theater and a sense of accomplishment. There will be no impeachment of Obama, if only for the obvious reason he has no reason to be impeached; there will be no repeal of healthcare or financial reform, because they don’t have the votes or the true political willpower; there will be no passing of ludicrous legislation, even if it can get through the Senate, because President Obama will not sign it. What will, happen, however is far too much brow-beating, political theater, and finger-pointing, while the act of governing is essentially ignored. Individuals such as Rand Paul, a government-hating Senator who has incredibly damaging ideas of what it means to govern, will attempt to push a radical far-right agenda, but it will go nowhere.

Assuming that the government continues to function at some level, such as Congress passing budgets and essential pieces of legislation, the next two years are not likely to see any major damage done to the nation – if Democrats and President Obama stand strong. On the majority of issues, there should be no compromise, not as a tit-for-tat measure, but simply because Democrats are all that currently stand in the way of the United States waging more wars, fully handing the political system over to corporate interests, and destroying the civil rights of the American people. It will be frustrating that those Democrats of rational mind can do nothing but vote down legislation and create gridlock, but it must be done. It will be frightening to see what will undoubtedly be attempted by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, but they have no true power without aid from the liberal, or even moderate, sides of the political aisle. It will be embarrassing for all of this to occur, putting general legislative and political insanity on display for all the world to see, but outside powers should know that what is coming will not represent the true attitudes of the country – it will merely be a reflection of a small subset of the nation that managed to, through a series of just-as-embarrassing mistakes by the populace, rise to power.

All of this, however, points to an overwhelming conclusion that will be worth the pain: 2012 will be another Year of the Democrat. As a Presidential election, there will be a higher voter turnout, and it’s reasonable to expect a strong youth turnout as well, swinging the electorate strongly to the left. In addition to the effects of turnout, the coming two years are going to demonstrate to the American people, who have apparently so soon forgotten, what it means to have Republicans in power and how it does neither the people nor the nation any good. Barring a major political misstep by President Obama, he will be re-elected, especially if any of the current potential GOP candidates end up with the nomination – they are just as popularly unelectable as Christine O’Donnell was. Furthermore, without another nation-unifying event, such as a major terrorist attack or some other catastrophic disaster, Democrats will be put back into control of Congress, regaining the majority of the seats they have just lost. The economy will not have improved greatly by the next election and, as in 2010, it will be used to the detriment of those in power, namely the Republicans.

Gridlock, attempted legislative undermining of the nation, and a forestalling of progress on all fronts is nothing to look forward to, but it should be enough of a warning to Democrats for them to get their act together and come back into power in 2012, ready to behave in a more liberal fashion. Democrats, young and old, didn’t vote in 2010 because they saw their members of Congress as too moderate, too conservative – Blue Dogs are a quickly-disappearing political aberration. So, if for no other reason, rationally-minded citizens and liberals alike can look at the coming Congress as a necessary gauntlet that must be passed through in order to reach the progressive light at the end of the tunnel. There can be no question that if the Republicans prove themselves as inept at governing as they truly are, and have been for decades, their political future will seriously begin to be questioned – moreso as they continue to alienate non-whites, younger generations, LGBTs, the educated, and the rational from their party of corporatist, far-right elitism, all while waging internal ideological wars that will split the party.

This, however, says nothing of the extremely damaging and over-reaching conservative activism of the Supreme Court.

Given the high-stakes ideological wars being fought in modern American politics, and with such intense levels of rhetoric, it’s interesting to consider what the Presidential election of 2012 might look like. Three scenarios present themselves: an extension of the current situation, a Republican Congress for the coming two years (or at least half of Congress), or a Democratic Congress

Assuming for the moment, no matter how improbable it is, that Congress stays in essentially the same form of seat-based gridlock, a curious situation arises: if Congressional Republicans, and the GOP at large, continue the path they’ve begun of obstruction, rollbacks, repeals, and “how far can we move to the right”, they will have essentially handed the Presidency to President Obama for his second Term of Office. Contrary to the belief of some, a policy of obstruction and extreme conservatism is not what the majority of America wishes to see, and it places the members of such a party in an unelectable position. More importantly, however, is the gift they give to their opponent: talking points.

Even if nothing else is passed in Congress over the next few years, President Obama will have healthcare reform, financial reform, the beginning of Iraqi withdrawal, an Afghanistan military timetable, and considerably more to speak about. Additionally, the GOP’s “Pledge to America” and well-documented behavior will give him the ability to point toward the actions of Republicans over the preceding four years, and ask America if this is truly what they want more of. It’s easy to see how, no matter who the Republican candidate is, this would be another landslide election for President Obama – no matter personal opinion of his time as President, he truly shines in a competitive campaign environment, and hard data will only strengthen his position.

Similarly, a Democratic Congress for another two years is merely an extension of the aforementioned situation, as it would both give Republicans the ability to continue to obstruct and generally fail to govern, without actually handing the government over to them. Therefore, the presentation of a Republican Congress is the only truly different scenario, as there would be a period of two years for President Obama to reference, using their failed control of Congress against them. It’s not difficult to imagine a Republican Congress refusing to cooperate with President Obama’s policy goals, just as it’s not difficult to imagine President Obama handily vetoing many of the pieces of legislation passed under such a Congress.

If, however, a Republican Congress manages to achieve some of their stated goals, such as a repeal of healthcare reforms, continued protection of Big Business, or a version of “fiscal conservatism” that results in an even greater national deficit, they will have once more walked into a corner. Two years of Republican policies, perhaps even ones that negatively effect the country, will be far easier set of talking points for a Democratic Presidential candidate to use on the campaign than the obstruction of a Congressional minority. When President Obama can point to the number of ludicrous bills he vetoed, or bills turned into law that were catastrophic in their results, the election will have again been won.

Perhaps Republicans will take some Congressional seats in November, although any form of majority seems unlikely, but this is not necessarily for the net negative – two years of Republican rule in Congress will see President Obama handily re-elected for a second Term of Office, and control of Congress passing once more to Democrats, in a far larger majority than in 2008. The only choice the GOP has to avoid this future is to stop, effective immediately, their continued push to the extreme right of both ideology and religion, but this is, realistically, all but impossible. Having built their existence and negligible growth on the fundamentalist ideology of the Tea Party and other similarly non-mainstream ideas, it would, at this point, be difficult to reverse course, or even slow the process.

Republicans, welcome to your future.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Pakistan is, and always has been, stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place – it’s a nation trapped by a longtime enemy (India), an unstable regime (Iran), an unhinged region of ethnic and religious warfare (Afghanistan), and a disputed borderland (Kashmir). For two decades, Pakistan’s leaders, who are typically just public puppets of their own military, have attempted to perform a difficult balancing act that neither enraged nor pacified any of the powers involved, both directly or indirectly. This behavior led to their financing of the Afghanistan Taliban, possibly Al Qaeda as well, while pretending to give their full support to US-led interests. It hasn’t fooled anyone paying close attention, and they’ve just made a possibly fatal mistake.

As the situation in Afghanistan devolved and expanded to include insurgents and wanted persons fleeing freely into Pakistan, it became openly clear that Pakistan was not truly interested aiding the United States – all it cared about was its sovereignty and continued so-called safety. NATO and US troops, however, took it upon themselves to act where Pakistan refused, and actually carry out some semblance of border security, in terms of those fleeing Afghanistan. This, while allowed without challenge by the Pakistani government, didn’t sit well with the Pakistani populace, and this discord has actually escalated as attacks, by both drones and helicopters, have increased in recent weeks.

Twenty years of a balancing act that took into account the interests of the Pakistani government, the Pakistani military (who are often at odds with the interests of their own government), the Pakistani people, and foreign entities like the United States did not prepare them properly for the recent event that may very well mark their downfall: a NATO-led airstrike inside Pakistan airspace that was followed by the closing of the Pakistani border, which still continues. This crass and unintelligent move by Pakistan has resulted in the halting of supply lines for forces inside Afghanistan.

Is this the sort of behavior of a nation with vested interests in playing both sides of a dangerous game? No, this is Pakistan, for once, publicly showing the true hand it’s playing: it is in the best interest of Pakistan for Afghanistan to remain as it has for most of modern history, so they do their best to support the continued quagmire. In truth, the closing of Pakistan’s borders means nothing, as it would take very little effort for coalition forces to disregard the sovereignty of the nation and proceed however they wished – the fact that this hasn’t yet happened indicates an attempt by these foreign forces to cooperate to the best of their ability. However, Pakistan’s military will be entirely unable to counter any offensive made against them by these forces, a military highly dependent on American aid, leaving the closing of the border all the more ludicrous.

NATO supply lines have been attacked within Pakistan, away from this border crossing, by forces believed to be based within Pakistan itself. If there ever were an indication that Pakistan is not to be trusted, and that its government truly has no control over the country, this is the moment. There is no rational reason to continue to play political games with a foreign country that’s proven, time and again, to not only be untrustworthy, but outright liars – whether this cooperation comes in the form of aid, military support, or political maneuvering, it should be stopped immediately. Since Pakistan’s very existence is owed to the backing of the United States, courtesy of the always-present Indian threat, the withdrawal of such support would have devastating consequences for the nation that fears such a situation. It would, however, further destabilize the region, and could only truly be used as a threat, and not as an actual course of action.

It seems highly improbable that the sudden aggression by Pakistan against coalition forces, largely perceived to be American, would coincide so perfectly with warnings of impending domestic attacks within America and Europe. If Pakistan supports the Taliban, who in turn supports Al Qaeda, there exists a direct connection between these actors, even if Pakistan’s ISI were not so deeply opposed to the prevailing of coalition forces within Afghanistan. Following this same line of logic, it’s not too great of a stretch to assume that the border closing would be timed to distract Western attention while attacks within their own countries are prepared to be carried out. Such is the twist of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s shenanigans, for lack of a better word, must no longer be tolerated – the border should be forced open by whatever means necessary, and the regimes, political and military, within the nation should be made to understand that their two-sided game will no longer be allowed. In the modern world of warfare against non-state actors, it’s difficult to have the clear-cut demarcations of loyalty seen in previous eras, but Pakistan should be forced to comprehend a single, definitive point: if they choose to support the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or hinder, in any way, the progress of what’s already begun inside Afghanistan, they will be treated as aggressors. For in this situation, there can be no middleground, no area of gray.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Much is said, and written, about the problems with modern conservatives: far-right, extremist, fundamentalist, Bible-beating, overtly religious, bigoted, etc. But what about the problems with liberals? There is, in terms of newspapers and television, honestly no “liberal media” – it’s simply a media that isn’t conservatively biased; however, a very large portion of the Internet and political conversation inside the borders of America actually is liberal, of one kind or another. Being liberal, or holding liberal values, is not inherently bad, just as the rational alternative in conservatism is not, but there are various types of liberalism, and many of them are not conducive to a coherent political atmosphere.

Quite unlike conservatives, there are many factions within the concept of liberalism within America, and this leads to the inability to govern as a cohesive whole, as is currently demonstrated in Congress. The two sources of problems within the liberal voting bloc are easily identified, as they are the liberal answer to the extreme right: Progressives and, since there is no actual term for them, Ultra-Progressives.

The ideology of Progressives is actually quite noble, since they seek ultimate equality, freedoms, and guaranteed well-being of people, no matter race, creed, or ideals. Ultra-Progressives are actually no different, but they, instead, take such ideology to a more extreme level. Once again, there is nothing inherently wrong with these values – the problem arises in their disregard for political realities and stalwart insistence on the impossible. By way of example, the concept of universal healthcare is laudable and most definitively a requirement for a future America, but it is all but impossible to jump straight to such a system at present, given political realities. This, however, did not stop a number of members of Congress from opposing healthcare reform because it, according to their unshakeable beliefs, didn’t go far enough.

There is a time and a place for everything, but the halls of Congress, in terms of fanciful ideals and social utopia, is not it. Basic geopolitical reality mandates that military conflict is unavoidable, although not always necessary, but there are liberals who oppose warfare of any kind, no matter the justification. Big Business is a greatly hated entity, but it is necessary to the function of modern America, so staunchly opposing anything related to these enterprises is futile, at best. True that tragedies in Darfur, among others, are saddening, but America cannot be both eminently peaceful and the world’s police force. An all-green, oil-free America is a fantastic goal to strive for, but weeping over legislation that doesn’t achieve all such goals at once benefits no-one. The list goes on.

Liberals need to realize is that there is a distinction, often great, between what can be achieved in modern politics and what should be done – the road to universal healthcare is through incremental implementation, just as the road to peace is realistically through war. Far-left liberal ideologies are fanciful, at best, and they influence, without question, the direction of the nation’s future, but such beliefs should be played closer to the chest in the game of national politics. Without a greater consensus among liberals within the Democratic Party, in terms of items feasible versus ideal, there will be no progress, and, as a consequence, a swing in power to conservatives that have no problem thinking, speaking, and voting as a bloc.

Green Peace, PETA, and their brethren may have more ideologically acceptable, and rational, opinions, but they are still political outliers, fringe movements that attempt to dominate debates without realizing the damage they cause. Interestingly enough, this is the same behavior of the irrational Tea Party.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

News Corp. disclosed recently that they donated $1 million to the Republican Governor’s Association, an amount far exceeding donation limits for federal level campaigns, and this simple act of partisan bias belies a basic fact that is laid more bare by the day: Rupert Murdoch’s operations are anything but unbiased.

As the parent company of FOX “News,” the famously conservative and anti-Obama TV network that masquerades as a news channel, and The Wall Street Journal, an increasingly politicized publication since the change in ownership, News Corp. has no business getting directly involved with politics. Even prior to such a cash expenditure, so-called entertainment hosts Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, along with a multitude of other party-line lackeys, had pushed the network into the realm of opinion and bias more than anything resembling journalism. MSNBC, the only comparable network with an opposing, but similar, bias, donates to political organizations, but makes sure to do so in equal amounts to both sides of American politics, just as they are able to maintain the truth in their reporting necessary to attain the label of journalism.

This is the Fourth Estate? News Corp., courtesy of its properties, claims to be of the fabled private sector group intended to provide accountability and a semblance of transparency for the American government, even while behaving in a contrary manner. It’s one issue to have opinions on politics or other arenas of life that may bleed into other avenues, but it’s entirely different to allow those opinions to influence the thoughts and beliefs of the masses. Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but untruthful journalism is its circus.

The institution of journalism is, on all fronts, fading in America, as more individuals choose to read, watch, and listen to only what agrees with their viewpoints, if they pay attention to the outside world at all. With the degradation of television and print vehicles for news delivery, and the rise of entertainment-oriented pseudo-information enterprises, over the last decade, the citizens of the United States are more politicized, influenced by demagoguery, and ignorant than ever before – the blatant, open, and utterly shameful actions of those like News Corp. do not aid the situation.

Journalism should, by definition, be as unbiased as possible, and adhere to a certain set of principles that include integrity, honesty, and gravitas – FOX “News”, WikiLeaks, and any number of online efforts simply do not qualify to be placed in such a category, except that they, for some reason, are. If this method of self-determined labeling would be applied to other industries, BP would, right now, be a consumer-friendly, environmentally-conscious energy company, just as AT&T would be a reliable and popular-by-choice communications network.

Why is such behavior tolerated? Keith Olbermann may have openly liberal opinions, but not only does he carefully designate which portions of his show are news and which are commentary, he does not participate in outrageous invective, sponsor borderline-treasonous movements, or shill for corporations, all of which makes him, and MSNBC, his employer, a false comparison to the disturbingly dedicated talent seen on FOX “News”. WikiLeaks is run by a man with a clear agenda that involves anti-government, anti-corporation, anti-conflict sentiments, even when a situation justifies government involvement, large companies, or military action, yet he is hailed as an unbiased hero of journalism, despite having nothing in common with journalists or legitimate whistleblowers.

There was, once upon a time, a requirement for news organizations to be unbiased, or, if not unbiased to at least equally present opposing viewpoints, that would have prevented such a situation from evolving within America – except that it was repealed long ago and never reinstated. The time has come, although admittedly long past, for Congress, the FCC, the President, or any other body with the political power to make it clear, via any means necessary, that news organizations have obligations to the American people that must be met, lest the organizations lose the freedom to call themselves a journalistic enterprise. Or, at a minimum, for it to be made clear to citizens nationwide that when a company decides to donate large sums of money to a single political party, they are most definitively not unbiased.

Not even close.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

The following is a letter that was sent to the church of which I was once considered a member.

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Kyle Brady, and I’m writing to you for a very specific purpose: to be stricken from any and all registries, local and otherwise, that shows me as a Catholic.

As an intelligent, thoughtful, and highly aware individual, I long ago renounced my religion for atheism, somewhere around a decade ago. Now that I’m 22 years old and my opinion on the absolutely ludicrous belief in some higher, supreme power has not only failed to change, but grown stronger as I delve ever-deeper into the reality of science and mathematics and seen the horrors that religion is the fundamental source of, I can no longer rationalize my inclusion in Vatican statistics for worldwide believers. No matter how small my single existence on such a massive list may be, if there are more like me who choose to renounce Catholicism for the more intelligent choice, that statistically impressive membership number eventually grows smaller and the draw of the Church shrinks.

Between the behavior of the Pope (massive hypocrisy and criminal activity), the behavior of priests (disgusting criminality and fear mongering), and the behavior of believers (persecution of others in the name of their so-called god), I find it difficult to see religion as a source of hope, good, or change. The only members of the religious community that I still hold respect for are the Jesuits, who have been called the scientists of Christianity for their emphasis on learning and rationality, and even they were once not considered friends of the Church – why should I be any different? There’s no-one to blame for the loss of my former faith besides the very religion you serve.

I fully expect that I will be removed from any and all lists, registries, and otherwise databases, and that I will no longer be considered, in any fashion, a Catholic by anyone within the Church.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

While the so-called “9/11 mosque”, which is actually instead an Islamic community center, has merits on both sides of the conversation regarding its existence, the conversation should not even be occurring, let alone at the level or with the furor that it currently holds. The simple answer to the situation is Freedom of Religion, via the Constitution’s 1^st Amendment, and that should be enough to silence any of the ludicrous commentary.

Except it apparently isn’t.

There are two core problems that are either confusing or enlarging the issue: a Republican interest in psychotic, election-cycle pandering, and fundamental misrepresentation. It would be slightly more understandable for people to be upset if a traditional-style mosque were opening at the very foot of the fallen towers, but the basic fact is that it’s a community center, no different than a Y with a different religious bent, that’s going inside of a former warehouse. There will be no spires, no minarets, no calls to prayer – none of the traditional items associated with Islamic properties. More importantly, however, is that it is not as close to the World Trade Center as is being portrayed: a few blocks, yes, but bringing such an institution to an area of strip clubs, sex toy shops, and other not-so-Christian-values enterprises is not quite the outrageous event that is being put forth.

The overwhelming problem, however, is one of Constitutionality. As a nation, the United States promotes religious freedom, and has since its founding – why should that be subject to geographical location, local proximity, or specific religions? A small group of fundamentalist individuals with extreme views of their religion has caused great trauma and havoc, but they do not represent their religion, as has been proclaimed so often since the events of September 11^th, 2001 by Muslims worldwide. True that there are those who believe their religion justifies such acts of terror and aggression, but this mindset of justified abhorrent behavior is not limited to Islam – are all Christians held accountable for the slaughtering seen during the Crusades? Are all Germans held responsible, presently, for the actions of a dictator half a century ago?

Islam is merely an extension of Christianity, and yet it’s demonized as some sort of inhuman belief system, especially by those of fervent Christian belief – there is deep irony in the persecution of Islams at the hand of Christians in the United States, because some of the very reasons for the founding of the United States having ties to religious freedom. The 1^st Amendment delivers freedom of religion to all religions and all individuals within the United States, not just selectively chosen groups of people or religious sects, and believing otherwise belies an arrogance and ignorance that is simply unacceptable.

The fact that this is even an issue points to the motives of those arguing against the building of the community center: elections. Republicans are currently in the process of pandering to their extreme base, made even more extreme by the laughable Tea Party, which involves, essentially, the subjugation of any and all cultures and people that aren’t white – Arizona’s racist attempt at immigration law, a scramble to modify or repeal the 14^th Amendment, the Manhattan Islamic center, and various other behaviors of the last year have proven this quite staunchly. After the elections in November, Republicans will have no interest in touching the 14^th Amendment, walking all over the 1^st Amendment, or participating in any other actions that will essentially frame their party as one of an anti-Constitution, anti-minority, pro-white ideology – at least until the next election cycle. This coming from the party that believes, wrongly and without evidence, that President Obama is “walking all over” the Constitution, even while they attempt to do so.

Build the Islamic community center in Manhattan – there’s no reason not to, unless those reasons include racism, religious discrimination, or political pandering.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.