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.
30 October 2008
29 October 2008
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.
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.
26 October 2008
"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!
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!
22 October 2008
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.
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.
20 October 2008
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.
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.
18 October 2008
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.
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.
07 October 2008
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.
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.
04 October 2008
don't vote. or do?
October 20th is the deadline in Calfornia to register to vote.
Just do it. Then you'll also have the right to complain.
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.
01 October 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)