By Ben Luongo
PoHo contributor

Our debate on health care reform has been a disappointing state of affairs. Stories of town hall meetings turning violent and reports of organizations planting disruptors are hardly proud examples of a successful democratic process. It speaks volumes of how political a society we have come to be.

Click after the jump to watch what has been happening in Florida.

The purpose of the town hall meetings have been to discuss the future of our health care system – whether it needs to be reformed, what kinds of reform, etc. However, while our current health care system may be flawed, the discord and violence at these town hall meetings have exposed a more urgent concern – the politicization of the issue, the disregard for mutual understanding, the heightened emotions and lack of reason mark our inability to constructively exchange ideas for the discovery of a better way. Our ability and need to deliberate on the issues rationally and without agenda is somehow overpowered by the political animal in us that is all too quick to leap to action.

Rather than being used as a forum of public discourse, these town hall meetings have been used as a place of protest. Is this the new way of American democracy? Is the town hall meeting still a public square and a market place for ideas, or sadly, do we make up our minds at home and treat the town hall as a fighter’s ring only to gratify our political nature.

It is important to remember that basic tenets in democracy, the right to speech, the right to press, the right to assemble, are not merely ends in themselves, but are meant to promote an exchange in society. John Stuart Mill believed that such an exchange could lead to the discovery of truth

“The peculiar evil in silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth.” – On Liberty

For John Stuart Mill “we can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion.” However, these town hall meetings turn loud and violent, where the freedom of speech is abused and seen as an instrument to stifle others. The exchange of error for truth could never happen in this environment and we walk away from a missed opportunity to find a better way.

Democracy requires deliberation, which means that the ideal of free speech does not only grant us the right to speak but also obligates us to listen. More importantly, both sides have to enter discussions with a desire to learn the truth (in this case the truth would be the ideal American healthcare system), which would require us to abandon any preconceived notions of the truth (such as partisan views of healthcare held to be true without good reason).

It is not an easy lesson but America must learn that a healthy democracy is one where its participants calm their political animals and inspire in themselves a desire to listen and learn from each other.

By Ben Luongo
PoHo contributor

Jeb Bush spoke recently with the Miami Herald about our education system and offered that America should be open to learning from other successful education systems around the world and adopting similar working models if they apply.

According to Bush:

We should be taking the best ideas from around the world, tearing down the barriers to let these things happen, and apply them in a way that we move away from this homogenous type education system where every child learns the same way and learns the same thing.

Watch the video and read the rest after the jump.

Learning from others and “tearing down boundaries” to adopt other successful models is an excellent idea. We should always be eager to look to others with an open mind for advice. However, we must be careful in our comparative analysis (comparing our education system to Sweden’s) that the ideas we hope to borrow apply correctly to our own situation.

Bush draws on Sweden’s education system as a successful example of school vouchers. Arguing for the United States to use vouchers, he says “just visualize how it could be, if we just stole these ideas that are already tested and proven to be the catalyst for improved learning.” Unfortunately, this optimism oversimplifies the argument for American school vouchers.

Sweden’s voucher system has been tested and it does lead to the country’s improved learning, but only in a Swedish context; Sweden’s education and voucher system are completely different from the education system and any existing voucher system in the United States. Just because vouchers work in one education system does not mean that vouchers could be successfully implemented into every education system.

American school vouchers refer to an amount of money given to a family to send their child to a private school instead of a failing public school. Many times, though, the money granted isn’t enough to cover the total cost of the private schools which denies poorer families the same education options as everyone else.

Swedish vouchers, on the other hand, cover the total education costs because private schools can’t ask for fees beyond the voucher’s value. Furthermore, Swedish schools don’t discriminate who can attend a school according to ability.

The Swedish voucher system is designed to grant everyone equal education choices despite economics and ability, while America’s existing voucher systems don’t completely cover the costs leaving many still behind. This is not to say that a voucher system in the U.S. wouldn’t work, but it would require much education reform as well as new ways of implementing vouchers. More importantly, it would require us to reflect on our current education system and how our market-driven mentalities affect equal access to education.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the declared winner of the Iranian election last week, has told Obama to stop interfering with Iran’s affairs. According to Ahmadinejad:

We don’t expect much from British government and other European governments whose records and background are known for everybody and have no dignity but I wonder why Mr. Obama who has come with the slogan of change has fallen into the trap and taken the same route that Bush took and experienced its consequences.

After the jump is a video of Ahmadinejad asking Obama to stop “interfering” and express “regret.”

This comes after President Obama “strongly condemned” the violence that Iranian authorities were using against demonstrators in the streets.

Obama’s response?

Many have been critical of Obama’s neutrality saying that he needs to be stronger with his rhetoric and speak up against the injustice in Iran. Paul Wolfowitz’s Washington Post article, “‘No Comment’ Is Not an Option,” argued that Obama should not “dig in to a neutral posture” and that it was time to “change course.” His argument draws upon a case when Ronald Reagan chose a neutral position but later switched to take a stronger stance.

Wolfowitz argues that it was Reagan’s rhetoric that, in condemning Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos for rigging the election, caused Marcos to step down out of power and leave the country. The problem with comparing the Philippines to Iran, however, is that the U.S. does not have the same relationship with Iran as it did with the Philippines in 1986 and there for cannot assume the same influential role with Iran.

He also argues that George H. W. Bush’s rhetorical support for Yeltsin was the determining factor that dissolved the 1991 Soviet coup, (the actual reason was that the White House was sharing NSA information with Yeltsin that informed him which military officials were a liability).

Wolfowitz is not the only one who believes in the power of words. Many believe now that the rhetorical expression of virtue by the American President is enough to halt armies, tear down walls, and strike fear in our enemies. However, this is an incomplete and completely unrealistic revision of history. The world is too complex to reduce history to mere presidential rhetoric.

Furthermore, its a complete misunderstanding of human behavior, and state behavior for that matter. Tough talk does not bend our opponents to our will but only further exacerbates hostilities. Flexing your muscles doesn’t cause other to cower, rather they flex back. Were we expecting Ahmadinejad to bend simply because Obama said so? Instead, Ahmadinejad has fired back with a demand for an apology.  This is not the way to normalizing relations.

I am not suggesting that America should retain a permanently neutral posture, but we do have to show care for how we posture ourselves.  Our words and actions do have an impact on others, and its not always the impact that we anticipate.

Local transportation agencies have been holding joint public outreach meetings in an effort to inform and involve the public on transportation issues. These agencies, which are the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), and Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART), have coordinated efforts forming a transportation task force which has held public meetings throughout the city.

The need for public transportation is growing, especially in Tampa, which makes these meetings rather important. Wednesday, I attended a meeting at the Community Center on 22nd Street. Thursday, I was able to chat with the MPO Executive Director Ray Chiaramonte.

Why is developing public transportation in Tampa important? Here is what we talked about:

The need for public transportation could not be overstated.  A city that enjoys an effective public transit has greater economic opportunities, a higher environmental quality, and added safety and security.  People benefit from the increased mobility offering them more entertainment and employment options.  This is not a hard idea to sell.  In fact, Chiaramonte says that public support for an effective transportation system has been on the rise.  “People are thinking practically now,” says Chiaramonte, “especially now that oil prices are rising”.

So then, let’s talk about what it takes to develop an effective transportation system and how we’re going about it.

First, it is important to realize that the plans and projects of MPO, TBARTA, and HART are coordinated to form a coherent whole of transportation services. This is important because their cooperation avoids typical pitfalls of competing agencies, such as fighting over land, funding, etc.

Second, our transportation needs go beyond our county lines and are interconnected with the greater metropolitan area. Thinking about improving public transportation in our area, then, requires incorporating other neighboring areas, such as Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Manatee and others, into a regional plan. Click here for other regional maps.

The obvious reason for this is that we are a traveling community. We commute to work and to school, we visit our family and friends. What is most important to understanding our regional dynamics is the role that Hillsborough plays for other counties. According to Chiaramonte, Hillsborough could be seen as the center of Tampa because it provides a number of services and employs a tremendous amount of people; “It really is the heart of employment.”

When asked how Chiaramonte would describe Hillsborough’s transportation system compared to other competing cities, he said “We’re somewhat behind other cities such as Charlotte, Dallas, Atlanta, all of these cities have some form of rail”. This is not to suggest that we haven’t made any improvements but more are still needed, especially since Tampa is growing. “The past five years Tampa has gone up a tier I would say.”

This is why it is so important to move forward with plans for developing a regional and multimodal transportation system.  Between the traffic congestion, population, carbon emissions, and price of gasoline, developing public transit just makes sense. However, it is up to the community to get involved and communicate with the MPO and other agencies.  Designing the system requires the publics input and consent.

On a closing note, Chiaramonte said that it is important to “understand that we are living in a different world.” We can no longer rely on “old thinking” when it comes to designing our cities. I couldn’t agree more and urge the rest of Tampa to get involved with improving our public transportation.

Here is how you can get involved with the MPO:

On its website on the left is a “get involved” sidebar. I suggest you sign up for their mailing list. You can also email them your suggestions and take a survey letting them know your transportation priorities.

Here is a calendar you can view for their events and attend a public meeting.

Here is how to contact the transportation planning agency.

Again, TBARTA’s website is www.tbarta.com and HART’s website is www.gohart.org.

Experts and analysts were prepared for a close election between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi. That didn’t happen; Ahmadinejad won by a landslide, 2 to 1.

Civil unrest has ensued. On Saturday, disappointed and suspicious demonstrators took to the streets. Those protests, supporters of Mousavi, were countered the next day with pro-Ahmadinejad rallies. Divide is growing and Khamenei is now calling for an investigation hoping to quell the unrest.

Here’s the video from that violence:

Again, the count says that Ahmadinejad received more votes, but many are suspicious; not only is the count itself not credible but neither is the speed at which the results came in. Beyond that, even if the results were valid the only thing Ahmadinejad has won is a destabilizing situation.

Mousavi didn’t win the election, but he was able to mobilize a large about of voters who had hopes of reform when it came to Iran’s economy and foreign relations. What his supporters have been able to do is pressure Khamenei to call for an investigation. However, if Mousavi supporters are questioning the transparency of the election, what are they to think of the validity of an investigation into the matter.

Many are now talking about the possibility of a revolution in Iran, though revolutions are incredibly hard to predict. If anything, such civil unrest undermines Iran’s elite. Mousavi was able to mobilize women and young voters, voters who don’s share much in common with Iran’s clerics. Such unrest from Iran’s progressives, televised all over the world, may pressure the regime to normalize foreign relations.

It’s unclear as to what happens next but one thing is for sure, the world is eager to watch how this plays out.

Charlie Crist leads over Marco Rubio 54 percent-23 percent (measuring registered Republicans) for the 2010 Senate seat in Florida according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll. The other 23 percent of voters are undecided or giving other answers.

Rubio has a lot of ground to cover. Only 14 percent of those polled had a favorable opinion of Rubio and 73 percent said they did not know enough about Rubio to have an opinion of him. On the other hand, 60 percent of those polled have a favorable opinion of Crist.

This is not all that surprising as we usually explain who leads a race by name recognition and campaign fundraising, and Crist has plenty of capital in both. Rubio has plenty of experience fundraising also but it may be hard for him to compete with Crist. However, there is an interesting part of this race measured in the Quinnipiac poll that could provide Rubio with a chance to truly challenge Crist.

The poll asked Republicans what’s more important when voting in the primary – the candidates experience or the candidates’ ideas?  Only 36 percent said experience and 56 percent said ideas.  The influence of ideas grew for men where 64 percent of men said that ideas are more important compared to 28 percent of men that said experience was.

This could be read optimistically for Rubio as it challenges the traditional wisdom that name and money win all while asserting the role of ideas in politics.  Rather than out-fundraising Crist and challenging his experience, Rubio might find it more effective to challenge Crist on ideas.

This could potentially be an exciting race if that happens.

The Marion County School Board has ruled on the Code of Student Conduct, which now requires students to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, after a meeting last week. For months, the school board debated the proposed change to the code which wouldn’t require students to stand. Veterans from the area attended the meeting to protest the proposed change arguing that not standing for the pledge is disrespectful. The only leeway in the code allows students not to stand as long as they have a note from their parents.

The school board decided to remove the “standing clause” last year after a federal court ruling did not require students to stand. However, this change was met with pressure for the past couple of months from local veterans and possible lawsuits.

Are we comfortable with requiring our students to stand?

It has always been a controversial debate where freedom of expression meets respect for nation, and this particular debate is more complicated because it concerns our children.  We want to teach and guide our children the best we can, which means that we often need to assert our authority over their actions.  However, should we intervene in this case?

First, this isn’t a case of parents providing guidance for their children, this is a case of the school requiring the students to act a certain way.  I realize that the parents have an option of writing a note excusing their child from participating in the pledge, but we should ask ourselves if the school should have any authority on the political behavior of students what so ever.

Second, what do we hope to accomplish by requiring students to stand.  The Pledge of Allegiance is an expression of loyalty and devotion to the United States.  Can such an expression be sincere if it is coerced?

The protestors that wanted the “standing clause” to remain argued that standing was a sign of respect.  However, what are children learning about respect when the school doesn’t respect the personal wishes of a child.  Shouldn’t respect go both ways?  Can’t a child be respectful during the pledge when not participating in it?  What is disrespectful is assuming that all children naturally feel devoted or loyal to the country.

Sincere loyalty and love of country requires an understanding of what happens in the nation and reflecting on it.  Typically, children don’t have much civic experience or a firm understanding of government or politics.  Requiring children to pledge allegiance to a country that they may be too young to fully grasp is presumptuous.  In other words, should we assume children have the maturity to devote loyalty and pledge allegiance to anything let alone force them to do it.

The Marion School Board may have good intentions but the community needs to reflect on the role that the school plays in our youths’ national convictions.

By Ben Luongo
PoHo contributor

Iran’s missile launch on Wednesday is not making President Barack Obama’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East any easier. This demonstration, however, could be seen as more of a reason for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to embrace the two-state solution.

Netanyahu has made it clear that he sees Iran as a threat.  On Tuesday, after meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he said:

“[Iran] is a great danger to all of us, to Israel specifically and to the moderate Arab regime, and to America.  Especially if this regime were to arm itself or arm terrorists with nuclear weapons, the consequences could be unimaginable.”

Here’s video of the Israeli leader in Washington, after the jump.

Netanyahu’s anxiety over Iran is understandable especially with President Ahmadinejad’s language towards Israel.  However, Netanyahu has made it clear that he is open to a military response against Iran if he sees it fit.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was right when she warned that Iran’s nuclear ambitions could spark an arms race in the region, but Israel responding with force could turn a cold war hot.

First, it doesn’t look like this launch was an act of aggression.  Ahmadinejad is facing reelection and the success of his campaign depends on him demonstrating his ability to protect Iran from national security threats.  This launch is likely such a demonstration.

Second, of course two nations are going to be increasingly hostile as long as they are constantly threatening each other.  Netanyahu’s talk of resorting to military action against Iran doesn’t deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions; rather such threats are an incentive for hurrying its program.

Obama and Netanyahu’s discussions concerning the need for a two-state solution, however, should have more weight after Iran’s missile launch.  Iran exploits the hostility between Israel and the Palestinians for its own political agenda.  Ending the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians could cripple Iran’s influence and make it easier to undermine Iran’s nuclear programs.

Reaching a two-state solution is tricky though.  Israel shouldn’t expect a two-state solution on solely its terms; It would most likely have to stop developing on the West Bank and Gaza.  Nonetheless, a two-state solution is necessary for security of both Israel and Palestine, as well as crippling the influence of Iran in the region.

By Ben Luongo
PoHo contributor

President Obama spoke at Notre Dame’s commencent address on Sunday. There has been some controversy as to whether Notre Dame would honor him with an honorary law degree or not.  Some from Notre Dame are opposed to Obama receiving a honorary degree because of his policy preferences, such as abortion, have not reflected the Catholic morality.

The controversy over honoring Obama with a degree may not be the most impacting news story in the world, but it does speak volumes on the issue of morality and religion and how they intersect with politics.

See video of Obama getting his honorary degree at Notre Dame after the jump.

First of all, the honorary degree is a law degree and should be granted based on one’s legal scholarship and experience.  Denying a law degree based on a moral judgment is incomprehensible.  It no longer serves its original purpose of honoring legal scholarship but becomes politicized by those granting it.

On another note, both Father Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, and President Obama gave excellent and most appropriate speeches concerning the importance of engaging fair-minded dialogue.  Americans can disagree on moral issues, but the important things is that we talk about our disagreements and work on understanding them and reaching common ground.  In this context, the honorary degree served as a gesture towards reaching that mutual understanding, which again compromises the original intention of the honorary law degree, but serves a higher purpose to constantly strive for respecting and understanding others.  Only then can we recognize our common moral backgrounds and create a higher and more peaceful society.

I first approved of Obama receiving the law degree because of his legal scholarship.  I now am glad that it was granted to him upon the gesture of working towards mutual understanding. Such a gesture of respect promises a hopeful future where morality and religion meet politics and society.

Has anyone else noticed that Dick Cheney just won’t go away?  Maureen Dowd of The New York Times has.  Her take on Cheney as the new “Rogue Diva of Doom” after the jump.

In Dowd’s latest she writes:

Cheney has replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva.  Just as Jeb Bush and other Republicans are getting kinder and gentler, Cheney has popped out of his dungeon, scary organ music blaring, to carry on his nasty campaign of fear and loathing.

Read the rest of the article here.

This comes after Cheney appeared in an interview with CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Sunday still declaring the effectiveness and rightness of torture.

Cheney could very well be hurting the republican party rather than helping it. The GOP has been searching for a leader but instead has found nothing but prima donnas starting with Sarah Palin. During the McCain/Palin campaign, Joe the Plumber emerged as the Republican populist hero. Lately Rush Limbaugh has taken a leadership role for Republican purists. Just a week ago Ms. California stole the spotlight with her marriage protection activism. Now Cheney could be added to the lot of them as nothing but lost voices without a party to turn to.

One thing is for sure. Cheney isn’t going to provide strong leadership for the Republican Party because he doesn’t speak for the majority of conservatives. Leadership can only rise through the consensus of the Republican Party. SInce the party is rife with disagreement, and Cheney only exacerbates such disagreement, the party willl continue to struggle with its identity.