Inauguration

Hello, hello! Welcome to our new blog.

As the inaugural post, I'll just say that we are college buddies, who both happen to be passionate about politics, culture, and other areas of life that tend to spark arguments, and we are hoping to continue our arguing in cyberspace, at this very blog in fact.

Anyways, let's jump right into the skinny. A lot of attention is being lavished on the renewed Republican push for the FMA. However, it's looking like it may not pan out the way they would like:

With Mr. Bush struggling to win back support of fellow Republicans who have grown discouraged, the president has been under increasing pressure to advocate forcefully on an issue that religious conservatives consider of utmost importance, especially with state court cases under way that could lead to legalization of same-sex marriage. Congress faces even larger political stakes: low public approval ratings, and, unlike Bush, danger of low voter turnout this fall in the midterm elections among social conservatives that could hurt Republicans seeking to maintain their majority.

At the same time, the GOP's efforts at creating a "big tent" image will be put to the test. Some of the most vulnerable members of Congress - many of them moderate Republicans from the Northeast - could be hurt by the debate, as it highlights a point of view less resonant in that part of the country than in others.

The debate could also reverberate further into the future, into the 2008 presidential contest. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a likely GOP contender, opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, arguing that the issue should be left up to the states. He has long faced hostility from social conservative leaders over this and other positions, and his recent efforts at reconciliation with this activist wing of the party could be set back by the debate.

Not only could this drive away independents and moderate Republicans, it seems like this could fail to gin up the hardcore Christian base. It seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot with this one; why put aside an issue like immigration that the base is clamoring for to pull out this piece of garbage?

I also found this sad story.

The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.

In somewhat related news, the ABA has recently said that they would launch an investigation into Bush's extensive use of signing statements. Especially after Specter said and then failed to launch an investigation into this, it's nice to see an independent organization stepping up to the plate. The most egregious example, I think, was his use of a signing statement on the McCain amendment barring torture, passed with overwhelming majorities (read: veto-proof) in both houses.

Will their investigation actually produce results? I doubt it. If anything, it'll be another voice in a loud sea of bitching. But it will be another respected voice, from an independent organization. Hell, maybe they'll finish their investigation and say everything's legit (I doubt it).

ps By the way, hell of a date to start the first post, eh?