the woes of relativism in journalism

Being part of a college newspaper could be one of the bigger tests of self-esteem. Having your words in ink for all your peers to read and critique can be nerve-racking, especially when they stir up controversy. As a former opinion editor for my student newspaper, I remember always being a little nervous whenever the paper was distributed. Not only were my thoughts open to the public, but I also had to take responsibility for the opinions of four or five other student writers.

It took me several issues to gain the confidence to write and assign hard-hitting stories on issues like birth control and abortion, global health, political parties, public policies, sexual abuse and campus affairs. However, essential to the journalism education is learning how to take a stand and stay standing in the midst of opposition and criticism. No lecture or book can prepare a budding journalist for his or her first dose of disparagement.

Unfortunately, I’ve found my student newspaper is currently not providing such an education to its journalism students. Controversial subjects like gay marriage, race relations, party politics, foreign policy, gender issues—all hot topics in light of this year’s presidential elections—are absent from the opinion pages. According to inside sources, the paper has intentionally shied away from such subjects, particularly proposition 8, because the editors feel they cannot ask students to take an unpopular stance on issues that may result in negative backlash from the student body.

Beyond protecting student writers, editors have also noted self-censorship for the sake of self-preservation. They expressed concern that if sections were too controversial, the university administration may force censorship, as seen in other student newspapers like APU rival Biola University’s The Chimes. Because of a few inappropriate and touchy articles, The Chimes is required to submit their copy for staff review before going to print.

However, one look at the opinion pages of The Chimes and it’s clear that their mandated review has not kept the paper from covering hard-hitting issues. The Opinion section boasts headlines like “What if the Right is wrong?”, “The reasons behind ‘No-bama’”, and “Eugenics, systematic genocide and President-elect Barack Obama.” To be fair, APU's The Clause has touched on issues like pornography, women in leadership, religion and science, and the presidential elections. However, approach is everything. By the end of many articles, the writers seem to have all but retracted her or his original opinion.

So who or is what is to blame? While the opinion editor sure is at fault for coddling her writers, I cannot help but think it goes deeper. My generation is a generation of relativists. We’re quick to condemn intolerance and slow to judge anyone. Those, in and of themselves, are great qualities. However, has relativism begun to taint Generation Y’s opinion writing?

I often find myself writing a “no judgment” clause in the midst of my columns and editorials. I’m quick to remind my readers that my way may not be the right way. To offend anyone but the close-minded folk would be so “intolerant” of me! But what is the point of living in a free society if we walk around with our tails in between our legs in fear that our beliefs may cause offense?

Maybe this aversion to oppose others comes from the way we were parented. Many of my generation grew up with “helicopter” parents—the ones that bully our coaches into putting us in the game or confront the mothers of our archenemies. We grew up with the desire, or burden, to please Mom and Dad because they poured all their energy and resources into our success.

Or maybe it’s because in the midst of our human rights campaigns and protests, we’ve come to believe that everyone deserves the right to say what they want, love who they want, and worship how they want. Ironically, though, relativism actually ends up nullifying the concept of justice because relativism says there are no standards that are absolute. And my generation fights for justice on the basis that it is a value that should apply to everyone.

Regardless of the root of paradoxical relativism, it’s hurting the expression of ideas. By shying away from offending, the student newspaper is surrendering its freedoms of speech. It is a sad day for those of us who daily enjoy First Amendment rights when relativism begins to infringe on the freedom of ideas and beliefs. Students, both writers and readers of news and opinion, need to begin to take a stand or the healthy dialogue that comes from disagreements will begin to whither on this campus. And that should begin with the leadership of campus opinion editors.

you call that a prank?

Last Friday, a group of students noticed a white truck parked in our university parking lot with a swastika painted in the middle of a confederate flag. Of course, they were outraged and contacted our Campus Safety. The driver of the car was detained and questioned. The story is that he & his friends had been pranking each other over the past two weeks and that was the end result. Then, this student was too lazy to wash his car that week, and had been driving his car on campus all week until it was reported on Friday.

It took our students FIVE DAYS to report two of the most insensitive and hateful symbols in our society. I don't doubt that when students saw they car, they didn't agree with it. However, not until Friday did someone care enough to take the effort to report it. That deeply saddens me. How have we become so concerned with our own time that we cannot stop to stand against something that so hateful and wrong?

Then the next Wednesday, I picked up our student newspaper The Clause to find this article. With a title like "Prank taken too far?" the paper, probably unintentionally, seemed to dismiss the act as a prank. The rest of the article when on to describe what a nice guy this student was and that he didn't mean to do. Just because he's a "nice" guy and didn't mean to offend anyone, doesn't make it okay. Below is my letter to the editor:

Thank you for acknowledging the racist actions that took place last week on our campus in “Prank Taken Too Far?”(11/12). I know “hot topics” are risky for student journalists to tackle. And in order for our student body to start addressing racism on our campus, we need to begin to openly discuss the brokenness in our community. Our administrators’ honest and specific letter was a start. And your article had the potential to be another great step. However, the failure to present both sides was a step back.

Since the Clause is a communitarian paper, I think it was appropriate to give Andrew Salazar a chance to share his side. However, the article failed to present the “other” voice. Your staff writer did not interview those (who I hope are the entire student body) who were offended by Salazar’s truck. There should be no doubt in the eyes of the students, that this act, regardless of original intent, is seen as unacceptable. Never are the confederate flag or the swastika symbols that should be excused in the name of a prank. Whether or not it was your intention, the absence of such thoughts speaks loudly. Your oversight has deeply hurt the student body and I hope you will take that hurt to heart.

As a former Clause editor, I understand the nature of a student press and all the complexities that go into producing a paper. There are a dozen explanations for why they reported the story like they did. However, in light of the sensitive state of our campus, their oversights have only added to the hurt and frustration so prevalent on our campus.

But the bigger picture is not simply the insensitivities of the student newspaper. It's the system our school, and most of our society, operates under. It's a system that allows these actions to be labeled a "prank" because they never meant to be hurtful. This system failes to recongize that racism in the 21st century does not look like segratation, lynchings & other blatant acts as it did in the 60s. Racism today looks like stereoptypes, social segregation & asking a member of a minory race to speak for her/his entire race.

Until we begin to acknowledge that racism still exists today, in ways that maybe don't stand out to those in the majority culture--those who, whether they want to not, benefit from the system--then we have little hope at become a just society.

And for those of us who claim to be Christians, I think APU president Jon Wallace has some wise words. "We can talk about faith and empathy, but sometimes we must just do justice... we live in accountability to each other and to God—that we act with justice, mercy, humility, and love of another kind with each other and with our neighbors."

from the outside

Our presidential election has captured the attention of the world. And Obama’s victory has captured their hearts. And no better time then now.

Below is an excerpt from a post-election email from my dear South African friend. I think this letter is pretty telling:

"Obama's election was really cool. It lifted the morale of this 
country. People from different walks of life, including the most 
conservative South Africans were talking about it ... the US 
elections came at a time where we are going through a very 
interesting time in our politics … I think the world will be a little safer with Obama. The Iranians who Bush labeled as 'axis of evil' have 
welcomed Obama's election, Hugo Chaves was also raving about Obama's 
election, the Pope was one of the first people to congratulate him, 
the German chancellor was pretty excited about Obama's election, she 
said she knows that the relationship between the EU and the US will 
not be as fragile as its been under Bush and our very own Nelson 
Mandela said Obama's election was an inspiration and he believes 
he'll go on and become a good president.


 Anyway, the excitement is still evident here. This weekend was a voter registration weekend and a lot of people registered. The whole 
nation is saying, "Yes, I can!”

Currently, in one of my classes, I’m studying the recent history of U.S. relations in the Middle East and I’m realizing the grave implications of the negative reputation we’ve established in the last 60 years. Our cultural ignorance, inconsiderate national interest, and manipulative politics has put the American people in harm’s way—not to mention the livelihood of our global allies, as well.

When it comes to international relationships, we must approach the world holistically and creatively. We must make the effort to understand the cultures we engage with. And above all, we must value humanity—all humanity. We must grant dignity to all we come in contact with. And that’s where I believe our future president will excel.

The time is now to reshape our image—from the inside and, maybe more importantly, from the outside.

race in the Race

Did it really happen? Did America finally elect an African-American president? Are we really not going to be governed by an old white male? How comforting. It’s about time.

The polls are showing that race was not a defining factor in the election. And clearly, that is true. But what about for those where race was the defining factor?

What about the skinheads from Tennessee who planned to kill 88 African Americans and eventually our new president? What about those text messages I got telling all white people to report to the cotton fields in the morning, courtesy of President Obama? What about my peers who mourn that we have elected a “terrorist” as our president? What about the student at my university who flew a confederate flag with a swastika in the middle?

Race is still a factor. So how we do continue as a nation united? I’m afraid I don’t have any answers. But I do know we certainly can’t pat ourselves on the back and pretend that now all racism has been eliminated from America. We still have a long way to go.

a new hope

Whether you voted red or blue, tonight is a proud moment in U.S. history. As I watched President-elect Barack Obama give his acceptance speech, I knew this was a night to remember. For decades to come, this speech will be replayed in classrooms across the world.

I spent part of the night discussing the victory with my politically invested friends. But the best part of the night was spent with those friends, who would, for the first time, have a president that looked like them. And I realized the election of Barack Obama wasn’t as much about the change in policies in America but rather about the change in spirit of America.

Hope is a powerful thing. It’s stronger than any welfare system. It’s more productive than any assembly-line worker. It’s far more trustworthy than any politician. And once lost, it’s a hard thing to get back. But tonight, I saw hope restored. And with a new hope, I see America restored to its people.

your VOTE affects the world

titles or actions?

The Washington Post wrote a very telling story today on Liberty University students’ campaign for McCain. The article briefly touches on the point that most evangelical, religious right folk originally opposed McCain, in 2000 and in 2008—and with much fervor, too. But now, they are falling in line, again, with the GOP and claiming McCain as their candidate.

Why? Is it just because McCain is Republican? Did the religious conservatives even examine Obama’s stances? Or have they allowed the framing of Obama’s “pro-choice” stance or "socialists" economics to cloud all other possibilities?

But that’s actually not the topic I wish to touch on today. Although it is one that deserves more thought.

What resonated most with me in this article was one of the student activists’ comments. "My goal is not to make laws Christian but to make government as small as possible so you can be as biblically Christian as you so choose," says Meghan Allen.

The role and size of the government is a question I struggle with often in my politics.

In my ideal world, the Christian church and other faith communities would be so active in caring for the poor, seeking justice and helping the oppressed, as Isaiah writes in chapter 1 of Isaiah. However, due to a number of reasons, the Church has departed from that—at least on a grand scale.

So do we put our hope—or at least our efforts—into a system of this world?

Maybe that’s not the ultimate answer. I think I’ve read somewhere that Jesus is the only way. But maybe, in the meantime, we do support a form of government that looks closest to Jesus’ words in Luke 4 and Matthew 25. Maybe we support a government that “brings good news to the poor,” feeds the hungry, clothes the naked and cares for the sick.

Maybe that government won’t do such things in the name of Christ. But maybe that doesn’t matter. Maybe, just maybe, actions mean more than words or titles. Maybe we shouldn’t be scared of the titles given to policies, but instead focus on what those policies look like, and how they line up with the words of the Christ we claim to follow.

Yes on Prop 11

The California election has been bombarded by attack ads on both sides of Prop 8. And while it certainly is an important issue, what may stand to be even more impacting is Prop 11. This proposition addresses redistricting—a practice that often taints true democracy. And it’s a proposition that must pass.

Every ten years, maps outlining the borders for legislative districts must be redrawn to make sure each district is similar in size, in order to maintain equal representation. The state legislature is responsible for drawing up the maps for 80 seats in the State Assembly, the 40 seats in the State Senate and California’s seas in the U.S. Congress. Whoever is in office at the time of redistricting wins the jackpot because they can map out districts in a way that lend to their easy re-elections. Currently there is a 99% re-election race in the California legislature. This redistricting puts little accountability on our lawmakers.

Prop 11 will create a 14-member independent citizens commission to redraw the state legislative district maps based on strict non-partisan rules. Prop 11 will make the redistricting process transparent and considerate of already existing city and county boundaries.

With the next map to be drawn in 2011, Prop 11 is essential to keep our government fairly representative of California.

"the post-american world"

Recently, there’s much some controversy over a book Obama was photographed holding in his hand. Conservatives have raised concern over Obama’s reading of The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria. I’ve received several email forwards with captions below this photo reading “Revealing! Obama is reading The Post-American World, written by an Muslim” or “Post-America? This photo exposes Obama’s radical ideas and intent for this country!”

A handful of emotions come up when reading such emails. For one, America isn’t reading enough these days. If Americans were well read, this book would be on the top of the list as it is of key intellectual value to our society. And if Americans had read this book, they’d realize in no way is the book “anti-American.” Also, American conservatives should note that Zakaria is the editor for Newsweek International, a magazine often favored over Time by conservatives.

Second, claims that this book was written by a Muslim only shows ignorance and intolerance. While it’s a bit unclear as to whether or not the Indian-born author is a practicing Muslim, it’s important to note the extreme Islam that is manifested in terrorist behavior is not the norm. If the longtime American-resident is indeed a practicing Muslim, I doubt he is calling jihad upon his neighbors. This assumption that all Muslims equal terrorists only proves ignorance.

But what I want to give is a brief-synopsis of the book, in a hopeful effort to clear up misunderstandings. The Post-American World is about a new era, which is no longer dominated by America. However, it’s not the decline of America, but rather the “Rise of the Rest.” Because money makes the world go ‘round, economics is the root of this new trend. Now, other countries are able to compete at the same economic level as the U.S. These countries include Japan, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, South Africa and others. While the U.S. still remains the military superpower, the global spread of capital, labor, innovation, ideas and information are beginning to limit the American influence world-wide. While some may see this “rise of the rest” as a threat to America, Zakaria praises the success of global capitalism (a cornerstone in the conservative ideology) and suggests that the superpowers in the UN embrace this shift. He suggests inviting these countries to participate in G8 summits, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

For America, the “rise of the rest” means that America will need to work a little harder. He argues that the U.S. has passed up some key opportunities in recent years. "[It] has had an extraordinary hand to play in global politics—the best of any country in history. Yet by almost any measure—problems solved, success achieved, institutions built, reputation enhanced—Washington has played this hand badly." His lenses are certainly tainted by the Bush doctrine and subsequent mess in Iraq. But he doesn’t pass all the blame on the recent administration’s poor decisions. Instead, he argues that since the collapsed of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington has become “careless, arrogant and lazy.”

However, he notes that this rise of the rest is not to America’s detriment, if played right. Because countries are becoming more democratic, open and market-friendly, this shift could be beneficial. But the U.S. first must come to understand they will need to cooperate and even compromise with the rest of the world. It is not longer the global boss. He praises the America’s success in globalizing the world, but warns America to not forget to globalize itself.

While the title may raise alarm, it’s good read and one that represents a lot of current thinking coming out of today’s top think tanks and publishing houses. So, pay attention, America and start reading!

Prop 8

Well this is a rare moment—I’m glad I’m a Californian. Yes, I said it. And if you know me, that’s a big statement. But I’m proud I’m a Californian because this is a big election. And as party of the voting constituent in California, a belll-weather state, what I say will in part dictate what happens in the rest of the country.

What happens in California doesn’t stay in California… it’s coming to a state near you.

And even more uniquely, Californians have a Constitution that supports direct democracy. So we can write our own laws, apart from our legislature, as vote on them. It’s a freedom that carries much responsibility. This year, California voters will vote on 12 different propositions. Of those propositions, Prop 8 has received national attention, because it very likely will have national implications.

Prop 8 seeks to put into the California Constitution that only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized by the State. In 2000, voters passed a law to define marriage between a man and a woman. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court said that the State Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry.

Some background, marriage has been defined by the State and society as a union that produces offspring. The government has provided tax benefits to those marriages that have produced offspring, because children are an asset to society. And, whether it is its place or not, the government had deemed homosexual marriages the most beneficial relationships for society—hence the gold star called marriage.

As of 2007, domestic partnerships—whether homosexual or heterosexual—give domestic partners the same state rights and benefits as married spouses. However, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 does limit some of the federal rights. Currently, marriage is a right for everyone, given that your marriage fits the definition. So technically, we all, gay or straight, have the same right. However, the current definition of marriage does not give validation to homosexual couples who have made lifelong commitments to each other.

Those arguing for Prop 8, state that this decision will restore the definition that voters approved by 60% in 2000. Because traditional marriage has been deemed the ideal by the State, there is a law that requires schools to encourage marriage. So by changing the definition of marriage, it will affect education. Depending on the individual that can be a positive or negative change for society.

The argument against Prop 8 is that the Court already made it decision. And, that domestic partnerships, or civil unions, are not the same as a marriage. They are just legal documents and do not provide the same dignity, respect and commitment that marriage does.

Again this is an issue of equality versus freedom. (See my previous blog.) And this proposition, in my opinion, is not as much about civil rights as it is about validation and social respect—two noble pursuits. But the question is, is it the government’s job to demand such respect? During the Civil Rights movement, the government changed our laws in order to give equal rights to all. However, they didn’t, or couldn’t, force everyone to change their attitude. Can you force some to accept and affirm another person? Should you?

Those are the questions I’ll be struggling through during the coming weeks.

equality vs. freedom

I’ve always why wondered conservatives and liberals have approached civil rights from such a different angle. I know good-hearted and well-meaning people from both camps. Yet, it’s always perplexed me why both sides support particular issues—ones that either violate personal freedom or restrict civil equality.

I heard a very enlightening lecture last night that may have shed light on my perplexities. This great country was built on two ideas: freedom and equality. (Granted, it’s still taking us a long time to get the equality thing down.) The Puritans and the Pilgrims arrived in America to found a new country that allowed for religious and individual freedom. Now, again, we certainly didn’t get it right the first time, considering we put millions in captivity in the midst of our efforts. But nonetheless, the country was based on the ideals of freedom and equality.

However, it’s interesting to note that these two ideals are often in conflict with each other. In order to one to happen, the other must come first. But, in which order? And where do put our value?

And hence, the divide. Generally, liberals would ascertain that equality must come first in order to have freedom. And conversely, many conservatives will say freedom is the means to equality.

Equality first means unless we treated each individual equally, there is no freedom. It also means that sometimes we sacrifice our own freedom for everyone else’s equality. To value freedom first means, that unless each individual is free to be his or her self, then equality will not come to be.

This tension between equality and freedom applies to many issues on the table for the November election. For example, in the case of Prop 8, those who favor equality above freedom would argue that it’s unfair—or unequal—that some couples can enjoy the dignity of marriage while others can. For those in favor of Prop 8, they would argue that California law still gives the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples, but preserving marriage between a man and a woman allows religious institutions the freedom to continue to conduct their business according to their beliefs. More on this in the coming blog.

So as Christians, what should we value? Paul writes on both topics. In Galatians, he says that we have been set free so that we may be in bondage to Christ, so that we may love others. And then he later talks about mutual care, which is displayed as love, and ideally equality. This is the idea that when one has come on bad fortune and the other the opposite, the one with more to give recognizes that both are equal, regardless of circumstance, and generously shares. And when the tables have turned, the one who received will give back. In the midst of differences equality is mutual care for each other.

There seems to be a case for both. And I think it’s one of those “agree-to-disagree” principals. But what will set Christians apart from the rest of the world, is the choice to love each other in the midst of differences.

As you make your decisions about what candidates and propositions to support, take the time to work through these ideals of equality and freedom. It’ll most likely add clarity as you make your personal decision.

The choice to lead? I think not.

Last week, in Azusa Pacific University’s student newspaper The Clause, Laura Kinney wrote, “Women have the choice of leadership” (10/15). Her opinion article was in response to the ever-clever Anna Quindlen’s 10/13 Newsweek column “The Leadership Lid.” In this article, Quindlen makes the valid point that women are still an anomaly in leadership—only 20 percent of leaders in business, journalism and politics are women. At a global level, our female representation in politics ranks 69th, putting us behind Iraq and North Korea.

How have we managed to stifle female leadership more so than countries that bear Bush’s “axis of evil” stamp?

In The Clause article, Kinney negates Quindlen’s well-reasoned argument and instead argues the low numbers don’t attest to discrimination, or any other –ism, but rather because of choice. Women have simply chosen not to lead.

While there’s no virtue in diminishing women who genuinely have made that choice, I don’t believe women have willingly ceded the opportunity to lead. Or at least, I certainly hope that more than 20 percent of workingwomen aspire beyond what the glass ceiling has to offer.

I offer a simple example to make my point; last year during APU’s student government elections, three very capable women and one very capable man ran against a student body president. Today, we are lead by that very capable male. I believe all three of those women had every intention of leading our student body.

Until we stop justifying the absence of female leadership while offering up the “token” women leaders—ahem, Sarah Palin, Meg Whitman, and Katie Couric—as cheap examples of equal opportunity, women’s mobility will remain at a stalemate.

This letter was printed in APU's student paper, The Clause.

live thoughts from the debate.

6:00 PM PST Watching CNN debate coverage of town hall-style presidential debate in APU’s Student Union

6:10 PM McCain is asked for suggestions as to who would take over for Treasury Secretary Paulson. He suggests Meg Whitman, who is the former CEO of EBay. Point for McCain—he knows of EBay! Take that, critics who think he's "out of the loop!"

6:13 PM McCain addresses the issue of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. He accuses Obama and "his cronies" (minus a point for McCain—his choice in vocab dates him) for allowing Americans to purchase homes way beyond their means. Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in history. McCain cites his vocal opposition to Fannie & Freddie. It's about time McCain brings up that point. Throughout the years, he has consistently spoken against Fannie & Freddie.

6:16 PM Obama claims he alerted Paulson that we were in a sub-prime lending crisis a year ago. So who had the insight? And why didn't Obama address McCain's accusation of benefiting from Fannie & Freddie? Sounds fishy to me.

6:19 PM McCain says, "We can fix our economy. Americans are the best workers in the world. We've got to give them a chance. They are the innocent bystanders in the biggest financial crisis in our time."

It’s interesting that both candidates blame each other. The Democrats resisted tighter regulation. The Republicans pushed for too much financial deregulation. But what about all those greedy Americans who insisted on spending beyond their means? We’ve got to take some individual responsibility for this mess. I don’t think we’re as innocent as we want to be.

6:20 PM "How can we trust either of you when both of your parties got us into this global economic mess?" A brilliant question, that won’t receive an honest answer.

Obama of course goes back to George W. (I'm amazed at how much he focuses on George. We all know he messed up. Move on. Stop capitalizing on someone's mistakes & come up with some creative ideas.) "I'm cutting more than I'm spending… Are our priorities working for you? We've got to put an end to lobbyists & special interests dictating public policy.” I find it hard to believe he’ll put an end to that.

6:29 PM McCain states we need to eliminate some government programs. We have to look at what programs aren't working. For example, defense spending (AMEN to that!). He recommends a spending freeze except for vital programs like defense, veteran's defense & others. Which others, I wonder? But I agree. It’s time to cut back on government & give that power to nongovernmental organizations.

6:35 PM Obama proposes doubling the Peace Corps, which is a bad idea. During his administration, Clinton introduced an initiative to send out 10,000 Peace Corps volunteers by 2000. And in 2002 Bush asked for the current Peace Corps to be doubled. Congress passed a\ budget increase at $325 million in 2004. Both presidents pat themselves on the back because they sent Americans out to help the less fortunate. However, this did nothing to solve the problem. As an accepted and potential Peace Corps volunteer, I’ve been informed that countries were receiving too many volunteers for their infrastructure to support and in turn, American Peace Corps volunteers were becoming bored & actually causing mischief--and thus harming the American reputation.

6:39 PM Obama says he wants to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans. If you make less that $250000, you won't lose a dime. And if you make less than $200,000 you will receive a tax cut. Economic experts have said once retirees and those without children are factored in, only 81% of American will truly benefit from Obama's tax cuts. And my other question is, won’t that discourage productivity for those at an income level of $250,000? Why make $251,000 if you can avoid the extra tax and just make $250,000?

6:50 PM McCain voted against a Bush-Cheney bill currently on the floor with all kinds of "goodies for the oil company." But Obama voted for the bill. I’d be interested to see why.

6:54 PM McCain gets a few of the facts to his healthcare plan wrong. "The government will do this and the government will do that. I propose a $5,000 refundable tax credit for each American family to buy their healthcare," says McCain. Some things to note about his plan: It’s actually $2,500 per individual. Workers would be taxed on the value of any employer-paid health benefits, which would offset some of that credit. Experts have said a tax credit plan like this could cause companies to reduce health benefits for their employees.

7:02 PM McCain: "We don't have time for on the job training." --maybe one of the better sound bites of the night.

7:09 PM "Should America respect Pakistan?"

Obama: We have this situation in Pakistan because we went into Iraq before the job was finished in Afghanistan. It's important to end the War in Iraq & finish the job in Afghanistan. We have to change our policies in Pakistan. We can't coddle their dictator. He needs to expand our non-military aid so that they have more invested. If we have Osama bin Laden in our sight & Pakistan is unable or refuses to take him out, then we will go in. We will kill Osama and we will crush Al Qaeda. I agree with Obama on all of the above. However, it’s important that we don’t simply end Iraq, but that we finish what we started, no matter how corrupt it started. Unfortunately, our current president has put us in harm’s way and now we’ve got to clean up after him.

McCain: Teddy Roosevelt said, "Talk softly, but carry a big stick." Obama wants to talk loudly and carry a small stick. I can’t say which one is better. I feel safer with Roosevelt’s plan. But am wondering what’s morally right.
7:20 PM McCain reminds us that when he looked into Putin’s eyes, he “saw a K, a G, and a B.” Maybe it's time to drop that line…

7:26 PM "If Iran attacks Israel, will you wait for the UN Security Council or will you act on your own?"

McCain: We will obviously not wait for the UN Security Council. Russia & China would provide obstacles. Iran is not only a threat to Israel but the entire Middle East. Definitely a military answer.

Obama: We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. We will never take military action off the table. And we cannot provide veto power to the UN. If we can diplomatically blah blah blah... which doesn't answer the question. But I will agree with Obama, that we should have direct talks with not only our friends but also our enemies.

7:31 PM What don't you know? And how will you learn it?

Points for anyone who answers this correctly.

Obama: Ask Michelle.
McCain: The future.

Guess that’s a tie. And pretty indicative of the entire night.

don't vote. or do?

October 20th is the deadline in Calfornia to register to vote.

VOTE.

It's your right. And your duty. One that millions of Americans have died to protect.

Just do it. Then you'll also have the right to complain.

Not yet.

Well gosh darn, Thursday night was one for the history books. You betcha, it was the always-dull vice presidential debates. Yet this year was different. For the first time, a hockey mom took the stage to win the hearts of the 70 million Americans that tuned in to watch the debate.

I will say, Governor Palin’s performance was quite impressive given her recent blunders in interviews with CBS, ABC and even the always-gracious-towards-the-right Fox News. Her charm certainly had the GOP cheering, and probably letting out a few sighs of relief, too. She was witty and well spoken. She even managed to avoid equating her geographic position with her foreign policy experience.

She made it very clear she wasn’t from Washington. “It's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate,” Palin told Senator Biden.

Exactly. She’s not used to the way Washington is run.

Sure, Washington’s corrupt and could use a big dose of reform. But it will continue to operate as it has for the last 200 years, and Governor Palin simply does not know the operations manual. So how will she be able to gain the respect, and attention, of those inside the Beltway?

I’ll admit, I do like Ms. Palin. I appreciate her spunk, her ambition and her strong resolve. And I do think she’s smart, too. I’d probably even vote for her to lead my state or represent me in Congress. But to be second in command?

Not yet.

Education for All

A lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of a California law which grants in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants is continuing forward in a state appellate court. Three year ago a group of out-of-state students filed a lawsuit against California’s public university and community college systems. Out-of-state students are angered that illegal immigrant students growing up in California are paying the discounted in-state rates.

Legally, states must provide K-12 education for undocumented children. For the last seven years, undocumented immigrants in California have also had access to in-state University tuition rates. The plaintiffs are arguing that federal law requires states that provide in-state tuition rates to undocumented students must offer the same for out-of-state students.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly states, “An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit.”

While it’s easily understood to be unfair to provide public benefits to children whose parents are not contributing to the tax system, it’s also important to keep societal values in check. Most of these children crossed the board illegally not by choice, but by the will of their parents. It seems immoral to withhold an education from bright students because of their parents’ mistakes.

And beyond the moral duty of California, it is in the state’s economic best interest to provide more affordable higher education for these students. To ignore California’s brightest because of their parents’ actions, is an injustice that will cost our taxpayers. Recent studies have shown that providing education for immigrants keeps them out of the public welfare system and rather participating in the marketplace. The contributions such educated immigrants will make to the California economy far offsets the costs of subsidized college tuition. Immigrants will continue to come illegally into California. It only makes sense to educate and equip these new residents to be productive contributor to our society and economy.

Given the socioeconomic state of California, it’s in the state’s best interest to educate all California youth, illegal or not. Out-of-state students should think twice before complaining and instead seek out the deeper issues behind the break in tuition.

pulpit politics

“Who would Jesus vote for?”

This weekend over 30 pastors nationwide gave their opinion on “God’s choice” for 2009.

Some pastors alluded to who they would be voting for while others went as far as to state that their endorsement was the only candidate approved by God.

This pulpit politics is a result of a meeting two weeks ago between 150 pastors and Alliance Defense Fund. The socially conservative legal group pushed their “Pulpit Initiative,” which encouraged pastors to speak up this past Sunday in an effort to “restore the right of each pastor to speak Scriptural truth from the pulpit about moral, social, governmental, and other issues without fear of losing his church’s tax exempt status.”

According to law, any political endorsement from a church official violates the laws that keep tax-exempt organizations from involvement in political campaigns. However, the Alliance Defense Fund promised to sue the IRS if the department threatens these churches. ADF is arguing that these pastors are being censored by not being allowed to share their opinion.

But no one is telling pastors they can’t speak their mind. They just can’t do so when taxpayers are subsidizing their organizations. And neither can any other tax-exempt organization. It’s not a faith-discrimination thing. It’s about protecting the taxpayer’s money.

Do I want my tax money subsidizing a Baptist church’s campaign to elect the “Christian” choice for a nation I do not believe to be Christian by Constitution? Certainly not.

For example, Pastor Gus Booth of Minnesota announced in his church that, “If you're a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.” There’s no way I can support such a statement. So thank you, IRS, for protecting the use of my money.

As I go about trying to live according to the faith I’ve chosen to believe in, I try my best to picture Jesus acting in the context of our society. And I just cannot picture him standing in the synagogue telling listeners which Pharisee to listen to. Throughout the Bible Jesus continued to remind his followers that our hope is not in a worldly order but rather in a new government that is yet to come.

Maybe if pastors spent more time paying attention to the words of Jesus and less time listening to special interest groups more concerning with power than truth, our politics would look a lot different.

Accountablity Needed in Bailout Plan

Congress has been handed the overwhelming task of deciding the fate of our economy. In regards to the Treasure Bailout Plan proposed by Secretary Paulson, there are several things to keep in mind. First, the potential cost of this deal, especially to the taxpayers, is drastic. Congress must come up with an effective plan that is mindful of its taxpayers. A large increase in taxpayer support will drastically limit the fiscal programs of our next president. And, why should theses losses be borne by taxpayers instead of the shareholders and debt holders? It’s time the CEOs of these companies need to be held accountable. Justice must be served. It is unfair for these executives to continue to enjoy the luxuries of second homes and expensive cars when the taxpayers are carrying the burdens of their mistakes.

When deciding on the best plan of action, Congress and the Bush Administration needs to seek a solution that promptly restores stability to our economy at the lowest cost to the taxpayer, that holds those responsible for such huge losses accountable and a plan that address the root of this crisis—the price collapse in the residential real-estate market due to a lack of government regulation on mortgage and lending companies.

I urge you all to send a letter to your senators and state representative. To find out who your state representatives in Congress are, visit www.votesmart.org. We need them to fight for the taxpayers of California and push for corporate accountability. And the urgency of this matter is paramount. Now is a time for all members of our Congress to put party politics aside and unite for the betterment of America.

“Wall Street lives on as a capitalist symbol, but the new inhabitants of its bricks and mortar have reduced its reality to an echo." --Wall Street Journal Sept. 25, 2008

A telling time for South Africa

While, the world has its focus on the global economic upheaval, South Africa faces its own political upheaval—one that will define the young republic’s modern history.

Last week, Thabo Mbeki, the second president of post-Apartheid South Africa, announced his resignation. The resignation comes only after a bitter battle with the African National Conference (ANC) party leader and former deputy vice president Jacob Zuma. President Mbeki will be leaving office on Thursday after accusations that he interfered in the prosecution of Zuma on corruption charges.

Jacob Zuma served as Mbeki’s deputy president from 1999 until 2005 when Mbeki let Zuma go due to corruption charges against him. Since then, the two prominent leaders have been at odds with each other. Those tensions heightened when Zuma was elected last December as the leader of the ANC Party. That election makes Zuma the clear favorite in the upcoming 2009 elections to become the third President of South Africa.

Mbeki was elected in 1999 and reelected in 2004. In his time as president he has had his glory moments and equally dark moments. His is well respected for his diplomacy efforts throughout the continent. He has supported peace operations in Burundi, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Ivory Coast. Although not very fruitful, Mbeki has also moderated a number of peace talks between long-time Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

But his role at home is cause for many South Africans’ disapproval. His infamous refusal to recognize the HIV/AIDS pandemic as a crisis in his country still haunts him today. He is also blamed, although maybe not rightly, for the increased economic gap between the rich and the poor. In addition, he received much criticism for firing Zuma as his deputy president in 2005.

The biggest obstacle to Zuma’s presidency was the corruption charges held against him. It has been perceived that Mbeki was interfering with the trial. "The political elite within the ANC then felt that the Jacob Zuma trial would never go away while Thabo Mbeki was in office," Adam Habib, a political analyst from the University of Johannesburg, told the BBC this week.

Because of Zuma’s current control over the ANC, Mbeki’s presidency has been rather restrictive during the past nine months so his resignation will not disrupt domestic political life.

So what’s next?

This is a defining moment in South African politics. So far, the country’s story of democracy has been a success. Thabo Mbeki is the country’s second president elected through democratic process and 2009 will bring the country’s 4th national election season.

So far the peaceful transition is telling of a working democratic society. But the rise of Jacob Zuma, a self-declared socialist and economic populist, will determine the course for South Africa. If the lifting of corruption charges are truly a result of the political elite, then South Africa could be in for a bumpy ride. Only time will tell…

the right woman?

At the fearless age of ten, I boldly announced my decision to run as president of the U.S. While most candidates wait until about two years before elections to announce their campaign, I decided I might need some extra time to convince my country it was time for a woman.

I was too young to witness the appointment of Geraldine Ferraro as the first female vice presidential nominee but I do remember watching Mrs. Clinton on TV—she seemed like a strong woman with political ambition, but I wasn’t convinced that the country would ever be ready for her. So what would the best female presidential candidate look like? I figured I had thirty years to figure out.

Fast forward a decade. Mrs. Clinton did run after all, but, alas, America wasn’t ready for her. It looked like we’d have to wait another four years before a Ms. President could be a realistic hope.

But wait. Then out of the middle of nowhere, literally, hails Beauty Queen/Hockey Mom/“Political Maverick” Sarah Palin. Much like Walter Mondale’s decision to run alongside Geraldine Ferraro, Senator McCain picks the little-known governor from Alaska in hopes of shaking up an otherwise doomed race for the White House. As the first Republican female vice presidential candidate, the second X chromosome will finally find its place on the November ballot. And if the 2009 vice president inherits the power our current vice president possesses, we could get our first taste of a female president.

So, is Sarah Palin the best woman to first represent American women in the White House? I’m not sure.

At age ten, did I imagine leading our country with a child on one arm and a hunting rifle on the other? Certainly not.

I’m convinced that if Sarah Palin does enter the White House on January 20th, it will be a half-ass win for female presidential hopefuls. But only time will tell if the pseudo victory becomes a setback.

My concerns are rooted not in political ideology, but rather in feminist theory. Classical feminism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries bred two schools of thought: conservatism and egalitarian. Conservative feminism was traditionalist and family-centered, embracing women’s roles in the home while also fighting for the education of women so that they may influence beyond the realm of the home. Egalitarian feminists sought to liberate women from their own womanhood, demanding that they be given the same rights as men. Both schools of thought worked together to bring women the rights we enjoy today.

Today, the contemporary feminism movement is dominated by the egalitarian ideology. This ideology of liberation has come to oppose female liberty—the choice to chose either the home or the workplace, or even both. Modern feminism has alienated the intelligent women who decide to rear children and care after their home. Conservative feminists, like Christina Hoff Sommers, are calling women around the country to reclaim feminism and to “Make the movement attractive once again to the silent majority of American women who really do not want to be liberated from their womanhood.”

All this to say, Sarah Palin, a could-be success story for the conservative camp, steps onto the ice with little-to-none experience and a feisty overconfidence. If she misses the goal, we could be sitting on the bench longer than we expected.

the media's war for truth

Coverage of the War in Iraq, in a sense, parallels that of the Vietnam War. News coverage of wars changed drastically during Vietnam. Because of technology, citizens were getting faster and more in depth coverage. Journalists were on the front lines, reporting back with vivid images of the fighting that took place. For the first time, U.S. citizens were able to stay on top of the military’s actions.

Today, journalists are able to report from Iraq in “real time.” During the first war in Iraq, a CNN crew broadcasted live as bombs were falling in Baghdad. In the current Iraq war, journalists accompany military brigades and often right in on the action. This new access has led to more accurate and informative reporting.

The morph of press bias and sentiment of the Iraq war also parallels the Vietnam War. In the beginning years of the war, journalists were supportive of U.S. efforts and worked peacefully alongside the government. However, as the war continued to drone on, journalists became weary, skeptical and often attached to soldiers or civilians in the areas they were covering.
Soon, journalists were making bold efforts to report the losses of the military. They were no longer painting the war in a positive light.

Likewise, current journalists in the past two or three years have begun reflect their doubts and cynicisms. Often the press has been accused of being anti-Bush. While those accusations are probably true, journalists are simply reporting what they observe from the front lines. As we’ve just passed the 5th year anniversary of the war, journalists continue to pose the question of when an end will come. With U.S. war casualties (4,000) now far surpassing deaths from 9/11, many citizens and journalists alike are very skeptical.

I, personally, hold a lot of respect for the journalists in Iraq. After reading some of their personal stories, I cannot image the toll covering the war has taken on them. They are constantly exposed to violence and danger. They have put themselves in the line of battle in order to inform the U.S. public of what is going on. Like the brave men and women of our military, they are risking their lives for their country. However, in a sense, I have more respect for the journalists because of their dedication to provide the truth in a war campaign that has been filled with lies and deceit. So I commend them for their sacrifices.

The War in Iraq has been a long journey and will continue on far beyond Bush’s presidency. As technology continues to improve and journalists become even more frustrated with what they are witnessing on the battle lines, it will be interesting to see what the role of the media in this war eventually becomes.

yes we can

may this leave you inspired. whether you're an obama fan or not, be encouraged:

there is hope for change.