Last week, I read this story about a Canadian woman who lost custody of her children over her racist beliefs. She sent her 7 year old daughter to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. The second time it happened, Child and Family Services came to her home, saw Neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took the children. That was four months ago, and the state still has custody of the children.
Now, I am not a racist. I definitely DO NOT agree with this woman's "politics, [her] beliefs", as she calls them. However, I also find it hard to believe that her children could be taken away from her FOR her beliefs.
We also saw this in the FLDS case. The children were taken away because the sheriff in the town was looking for an excuse to raid the compound. Texas Child Protective Services got what they thought was an excuse, took all of the children away for a few months, and then had to give them back because they couldn't prove the children were in imminent danger. According to the ruling of the Texas Court of Appeals,Nor did the Department offer any evidence that any of Relator's pubescent female children were in physical danger other than that those children live at the ranch among a group of people who have a "pervasive system of belief" that condones polygamous marriage and underage females having children. The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger.
Essentially, the children were taken away because of their parents' beliefs. And some people think the state should still have custody of the children!
All of this frightens me. Of course I don't have any weird or hateful beliefs, but a lot of uninformed people think weird things about Mormon beliefs. Who decides what beliefs are acceptable and what beliefs are not?
In 2002, the Swedish parliament included references to sexual orientation in a list of groups protected against persecution in the form of threat or disdain. In 2003, Pentecostal Christian Pastor Ake Green delivered a sermon on homosexuality. As a result, a local member of an LGBT equal rights organization reported him to the police, and he was sentenced to one month in jail under Sweden's law against "hate speech" (he was later acquitted).
Lesser known is another case in Sweden in 2005 where Leif Liljestrom, administrator of a Christian website called Bibeltemplet (The Bible Temple) was sentenced to two months in prison for holding and expressing critical views of homosexuality. He was recently acquitted of all charges.
In 2006, Christian Vanneste, a member of the French Parliament was fined the equivalent of US$4000 under France's "hate speech" law for remarks opposing homosexuality.
Canada, Sweden and France are among the most "progressive" countries in the world.
U.S. Lawmakers are considering H.R. 1592, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as federally protected groups under hate crimes legislation. Given the "progressive" trends in America, is the following scenario feasible?
A church (LDS?) teaches that homosexual activity is a sin. A member of that church (me?) teaches my own children the same thing in my home. Someone else who disagrees with me and this belief reports my teachings to Child Protective Services, who take away my children because of my "hateful" beliefs - maybe not permanantly, but just long enough to "send a message" to other parents who are considering teaching the same thing to their children.
Is it possible? And if so, would you find it acceptable?
woo-hoo!
Monday, July 21, 2008
Parental Rights
Thursday, July 17, 2008
veep stakes, part 2
Here, in all their glory, are Rogan's Rankings for Barack Obama's vice-presidential options. (Note - I disabled comments for this post, let's put the discussion for both candidates together in the prior comment thread)
Evan Bayh, senator from Indiana
This guy is kind of angling for the job. He has executive experience as governor, where he had a reputation for doing good work with the state budget. I dunno. I guess he'd be ok. He's from Indiana. He kinda bores me and I don't really have anything to say about him, but I also know he's on the short list... anyone know anything about this guy? B
Wesley Clark, retired U.S. General
This guy shores up Obama's perceived weakness on national security with experience that is basically beyond reproach. But, wait... what? "I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," he said. That's not Obama-style politics. Plus he has had NO success as a campaigner. B-
Hillary Clinton, senator from New York
She has supporters - a lot of them, some of whom will vote McCain if Obama doesn't pick her. So we have our big group of Hillary supporters and our big group of undecided swing voters. If Obama doesn't pick Clinton, I figure the Hillary supporters still go for him 70+%, especially if he picks someone palatable to them, and the undecideds - let's say 50-50 with McCain. If Obama does pick Clinton, then your Hillary supporters go for him en masse - and your undecideds go largely to McCain. She is not well-liked outside of her rabid base, enough so that I imagine Obama would actually lose some Dems who just can't stand her. Long story short, she's a net voter loss waiting to happen. D
John Edwards, former senator from North Carolina
Like Lieberman, has a previous VP strikeout, but I blame that largely on the great blah-ness that is John Kerry (how did that ever happen, by the way?). He's likable, passionate, from the South, and fits well with Obama's change message. If not VP, then a great choice for Attorney General. A-
Chuck Hagel, senator from Nebraska
There's been a lot of talk about this possibility, since what screams "change" more than a Republican VP under a Democratic president? And if the war was the only issue (Hagel's been a very vocal critic), I'd say let's go for it. But there are a whole lot more issues out there, and not a lot of agreement between Obama and Hagel. While he'd certainly help the ticket pick up swing voters, he'd be a great risk to alienate Obama's liberal core. How about Secretary of Defense, Chuck? Let's limit him to the issues he's right about. C
Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia
Ooh, Virginia, shiny... Obama wants it, and Kaine could deliver it. He was one of the earliest national pols to declare for Obama, he's young, popular, a smart campaigner, and perhaps most importantly, popular with white rural voters. On the other hand, he doesn't do anything to shore up Obama's experience issues, he's not strong on the economy, and he's not going to make abortion-rights advocates happy. B-
Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona
Well, she certainly puts Arizona in play! (And New Mexico, and Colorado...) Napolitano is certainly popular around here, although some recent budget problems may have tarnished that. Her gender is an asset, she has great executive experience, excellent work on immigration and education issues, and her demeanor would lend a needed practicality to the lofty words and ideas of the Obama campaign. I'm biased, because I like her, but I'm not seeing many cons. A-
Sam Nunn, former senator from Georgia
Experience - yeah, he's got experience, the guy's 70 and was a senator for 20+ years. He brings strong national security credentials, as well as popularity in the South. He's also quite a bit more moderate than Obama - and, as we all know, candidates head for the fringes during primary season and speed for the center as the election approaches. He's been out of the Senate for some time, but keeping busy. One problem is that he's not popular with the gay community ("don't ask, don't tell" is his baby), but I can't envision a gay exodus to McCain. I think this is the guy we need... A
Bill Richardson, governor from New Mexico
...unless this is the guy we need. Obama has a Hispanic problem, and picking Richardson would go a good long way towards bridging the gap. He has a lot of national experience, including a run as Secretary of Energy, and a lot of foreign policy experience, especially with hostile governments. He's a very popular governor, and with good reason. I actually preferred Richardson to Obama for the presidential nomination, and don't see how Obama could go wrong with this pick. A
Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas
She's been a serious reformer in Kansas who has accomplished a lot of good things for their government and economy. She got some national exposure by doing the Democratic response to the State of the Union (which I enjoyed, though many found it dull). Obama has expressed serious admiration for her. As a Dem governor in a red state, she's developed a reputation for reaching across the aisle. But Kansas? Besides the gender card, she doesn't bring much by way of electoral votes. B+
Honorable mention: Russ Feingold! I wish!
To sum up: I hate that I have to spend so much time talking about these candidates' race and gender, but that's the reality of our current political culture. I think Obama's race gives him an advantage, at least as far as the appearance of "out-with-the-old", that McCain may feel obligated to counteract with Palin or Jindal (note - I mean like the old guard, not the old-age McCain!). Long story short, I think McCain has a lot of ground to make up if he's going to beat Obama. A number of these candidates provide a very tough-to-beat ticket, with Obama/Nunn and Obama/Richardson being the best. McCain/Palin, I think, is his best bet. The wildcards - the ones that are hardest to really "rank" - are Obama/Clinton and McCain/Romney. I have my opinions, but I'm not sure I really trust my predictions about how the electorate would respond to these tickets. If I had to guess who they're picking, I think McCain will go with Crist or Giuliani and Obama will go with Richardson or Kaine.
Comment on this post
veep stakes
While the polls seem to indicate Obama with a decent lead in the polls, I've talked to a number of people who are on the fence, waiting to see who the nominees choose as their running mates - who knows, it could make or break a candidacy this year. So today, let me share Rogan's Rankings of the top twenty VP possibilities - starting with the Republicans.
Haley Barbour, governor of Mississippi
He's got the real conservative credentials that McCain lacks, so he might energize the base, but he wouldn't particularly appeal to independents and undecided. Plus, Mississippi's already going for the Republican. However, he served as RNC chair from '93-'97, when the Republicans captured the House and the Senate, and gained national attention for his masterly handling of Hurricane Katrina. C+
Charlie Crist, governor of Florida
Crist delivered the Florida primary for McCain, so many think that Mac "owes him one". Of course, the one could be an attorney generalship or something. Florida is such a key state, and Crist's popularity there could be a big help. I hate to see someone so obviously pandering for the job, though. B
Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City
Nationally well-known, and moderate enough on social issues to attract a number of swing voters. His biggest weakness in the primaries was the management of his campaign, which would no longer be a problem. The biggest problem is that his greatest strength, national security, matches McCain, but you could make the argument that national security is McCain's only ticket to the White House. B+
Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas
BLECH. Brings zero swing voters, brings only states that are in the bag for Mac, only popular with the evangelical portion of the conservative base, and just leaves a foul taste in the mouth. F
Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana
At age 36, brings much-needed youth to the ticket. He's also the first Indian-American governor in U.S. history. Like Barbour, Jindal has serious conservative credentials. He may not want to hitch his wagon to the McCain train, though, since he's got the potential to be the Barack Obama of the 2012 or 2016 Republican party. But if McCain could get him... A-
Joe Lieberman, senator from Connecticut
Well, "Joe-mentum" already has experience running for VPOTUS - failed experience. He's a Democrat, sort of, and he's Jewish, and he's got the whole "maverick" thing kinda working for him. On the other hand, like Giuliani, he's really only strong on foreign policy. Unlike Rudy, he's not particularly popular. B-
Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska
Quite a few disgruntled Hillary supporters have the potential to go over to McCain, and Palin could seriously help in that regard. Immensely popular in her home state, she's young, a strong conservative who has truly lived her pro-life credentials (she has a child with Down's syndrome). Her one problem that I see is her relative inexperience (she's only been governor since 2006) but who's going to call her on that? Barack Obama? Pssh. A
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State
Would have been the best choice in 2000, but he's a little aged now, plus he's got Bush tarnish on him, and again, he's all national security. On the other hand, he's always been intensely popular, and he's a strong moderate who appeals to the swing vote. B
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Quite popular with conservatives, got the minority/female thing all covered, but she has even more Bush tarnish on her than Powell does. McCain has got to run, run, run away from all things W. She's strong on national security but I don't really know much about her other policies. Plus she's always indicated her disinterest in running for elected office. B-
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts
"It's the economy, stupid." Whether or not you agree with his policies, Romney brings the strongest economic credentials to the table, which, as things get worse, could actually give him some swing voter appeal - he's definitely lacking in that area. I didn't think his Mormonism particulary hurt him in the primaries, and wouldn't be a general election factor. Sure seemed like he and McCain hated each other in the primaries, though, and if McCain can't get it done in '08, Romney is in prime position for '12, when regardless of presidential policies, the economy may well still be struggling. By then his flip-flopper reputation may have waned a bit if he sticks to his new conservative guns. B+
Honorable mention: Tim Pawlenty, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn
I'll do Obama's tonight or tomorrow.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Acceptance
Race and ethnicity are funny things. Not funny in the comical sense, of course.
Some people who refer to themselves are "mixies" might identify with their father's race, or their mother's race but not both. Other people refuse to check the box stating Caucasian, pacific-islander, Asian, Native American, whathaveyou because they say that they are not simply one race and there isn't a box available to check Euro-Caucasian-Asian-Caribbean-African-American.
Personally, I don't blame them.
I think it is interesting how certain races are stereotyped to the point of exhaustion, yet nothing is really being done to end this. For example, if you're a black american there is a huge chance that people will look at you and assume you're better at basketball than a white kid the same age. Obviously there are enough people who happen to be African American or Caribbean American who are extremely talented at basketball to see where this stereotype comes from. But every single kid? C'mon. And yet many people make this common assumption. Conversely, there are a lot of black Americans who see a black man make a successful life doing business or law and they assume that this person has sold out to White Culture. What??
On a related note, did you know that Jin and Sun's relationship in LOST is the first time that an Asian couple's relationship has been explored on American television and the show has been popular? Why is this? Aren't Asians an integral part of American community? Why aren't there more television shows with Asian families starring as the core subject? I was talking to one of my good friends who happens to be American Chinese, and we were talking about this subject. Her entire attitude caught me by surprise. I said something about how I thought it would be interesting to see all the Asian innuendos on tv and how it would be interesting to see an Asian become prominent in politics, say President or VP someday. She said "Are you kidding me? There is no way there will ever be an Asian president of America." I asked why not. She said "Asians might be good at music and math and some are good at business, but no one would take an Asian politician seriously. No one would vote for him. Asians wouldn't vote for him. Look around---how many Asians do you see in politics right now? How many Asian sitcoms are there? There is usually one Asian and one Latino to make all the white and black people look politically correct."
Also, I get tired of people being scared of Muslims and anyone from the middle east. One of my favorite college professors here in California is Iranian, and he is awesome. Such a cute old man. Yet he even admitted to me at the end of the semester that he doesn't like to tell people he is Iranian until he knows they won't judge him because after 9/11 he feels like anyone who is Persian gets evil looks from fellow Americans. Sorry if you don't agree with me, but this is wrong. I've met so many people from Turkey, Iran, and Iraq who all happen to be Muslim and they are some of the best people I know. And, something else to consider, there is a reason why so many people left the Middle East when the ruling regimes changed hands 30-40 years ago. Do your homework before you call names, throw things, and make life generally difficult for another human being.
Now obviously we don't live in a perfect world yet, but I do think that a lot of strides in the right direction have been taken, especially in the last fifty years. The fact that our nation is seriously considering electing someone who identifies as black is a good indicator of this. But we still have a ways to go.
This is America. Discrimination, and reverse discrimination, are things we need to continue to rise above. Men are created equal, so in my mind that tells me that as long as someone is a hard worker and doesn't give up they should be able to accomplish anything, including get elected as a prominent politician.
So, please. Just because someone looks a certain way, or has a certain cultural heritage, don't judge. Everyone is an individual. We all have our own strengths and weaknesses, and I believe that if you are willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt you are enabling them to reach more potential simply by acknowledging it is a possibility.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
It's 3:00 A.M....
...and I think it's worth revisiting Hillary Clinton's infamous television advertisement now that the Democratic primary season is past and the general election is upon us.
On the surface, Barack Obama appears no match for John McCain on national security issues. McCain is a bona-fide war hero, a former fighter pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam. He is the ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and has been a leader on issues of national security for much of his Senate career. I certainly respect McCain's service and record, but if we frame the "3 AM" question slightly differently, I begin to think a bit differently:
It's October 15, 1962, and photographs taken by a U2 spy plane have just revealed that mobile missile bases are being erected in Cuba, capable of launching nuclear strikes against any location in the continental United States.
The United States emerged unscathed from the Cuban Missile Crisis, without a doubt the closest we have ever come to nuclear war, because cooler heads prevailed. Yes, we had to secretly surrender our position in Turkey, but it was a major political victory for President Kennedy, the entire country, and democracy in general. There were major factions, notably military men, in both the American and Soviet governments that were pushing for war. We owe the peaceful resolution of the crisis to men like John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Adlai Stevenson that put passions aside and found the better way.
I want a Commander in Chief that is calm and collected in the heat of the moment, and I just don't see that in John McCain. He is prone to emotional fits of anger on the Senate floor, for example recently dropping the f-bomb on fellow Senator John Cornyn during open debate on an immigration bill.
In 2000, Newsweek published the following:
Why can't McCain win the votes of his own colleagues? To explain, a Republican senator tells this story: at a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, "Only an a--hole would put together a budget like this." Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: "I wouldn't call you an a--hole unless you really were an a--hole." The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. "I decided," the senator told NEWSWEEK, "I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger."
McCain's support among military leadership is also tenuous. Here are several examples:
"I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor. I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."
-retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton
"I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military. It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?" Gration asked. "I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."
-retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama
"One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability. [Obama] is not that up when he is up and not that down when he is down. He is kind of a steady Eddie. This is a very important feature. McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile."
-retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Republican now supporting Obama, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions
"A little volatile" is not what we need in these times. If we want cooler heads to prevail the next time we have a serious threat, nuclear or otherwise, John McCain better not be our next President. So question Barack Obama's lack of foreign policy experience if you must - it's a legitimate concern. Obama correctly stood up against the Iraq invasion at a time when it was unpopular to do so, pushing for a diplomatic solution. Without question I'd rather it be his inexperienced-yet-cool head be pressed against that red phone as opposed to McCain's hot head.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
The Elephant in the Room
The Bloggernacle is abuzz over this letter sent from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to church leaders to be read to all congregations in California last Sunday. The letter asks church members to
do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.I have read a variety of comments on the matter, but comments focused on the idea that the church should stay out of politics (to maintain tax-exempt status, because church and state should be separate, etc.) are what got me wondering: what is the church's position on political neutrality?
It can be found here.
The church's mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.
The church does not:
- Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates, or platforms
- Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes
- Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
- Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader
The church does:
- Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections
- Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters
- Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the church
- Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the church
The church is very clear that it is not involved in partisan politics. The proposed amendment to the California state constitution has nothing to do with political parties. It is, however, an "issue that [the church] believes [has] significant community or moral consequences or that directly affects the interests of the church". Therefore, I find no inconsistency between the church's position on political neutrality and its involvement in the California state amendment issue.
Further, The Family: A Proclamation to the World says
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
Since the Proclamation was given, our church leaders continue to encourage us to be involved in protecting the family.
We call upon government and political leaders to put the needs of children and parents first and to think in terms of family impact in all legislation and policy making.
I was greatly saddened to read an (opinion) article that says the pro-family movement in America appears to be dying.
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), the only openly lesbian Member of Congress, is predicting passage of hate crimes legislation and repeal of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the next Congress regardless of who is elected President.
In 2000, the people of California voted yes to Proposition 22 that defined marriage as a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman , to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. In March of this year, the California Supreme Court voted 4-3 to legalize homosexual marriage.
This fall, the people of California will again have the opportunity to make their voices heard with the vote on the constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. In 2000, 64.1% voted "yes" on the issue. This isn't even as high as many other states that have voted on the same issue. Currently, 40 states have DOMAs or constitutional amendments defining marriage as one woman and one man. I suspect that the tide has turned, and this time around, CA will not pass the traditional marriage amendment.
What would this mean for the pro-family movement? Is it really dead? The article referenced above says:
Unless and until the pro-family groups again are able to go on the offense they are likely to lose ground. As unfortunate as that may be, it is reality. To return to the offense the pro-family forces would need more members of Congress. At this stage it appears they will be dealing next year with fewer, not more, in sympathy with their agenda. More members, it seems to me, must be that community's first priority if it expects to be successful.
I agree with the author - I think that the percentage of congress members sympathetic to family causes will decline come November. I can't help but place at least partial blame on Bush and his administration. He is a pro-family man. He ran as a strong conservative and helped Republicans win great victories sweeping both houses of congress in 2002. We had a chance to make things happen and improve things for the better. Instead, he screwed up so heavily in areas like the Iraq war and immigration so that now people are so angry at the "Republicans" that they'll vote any Democrat into office just to get rid of the Republicans. The result is fewer and fewer "pro-family" members of congress.
The Proclamation on the Family is clear about a lot of things. One is this:
[W]e warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
Do you believe that? Do you see a connection between the dying pro-family movement and the disintegration of the family? Do you believe that we will see "calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets"?
I do. I believe we are already seeing them, and I believe it will get worse. Time to get my food storage in order.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
this leaves a foul taste
I was at a friend's house today and he asked me, "Did you hear about the Supreme Court ruling?" He then informed me that the Court ruled 5-4 that child rapists can't be executed; they limited the death penalty to murder cases. He then went off about how stupid the decision is, ultimately concluding by saying it wouldn't matter what the Court says, because if anyone hurt his child like that, he would apply his own capital punishment.
And how many of us would blame him, vilify him?
Well, I would. There is no place for vigilantism in our justice system - it would fall apart. I know, I don't have kids, so I don't "understand", but it would still be wrong. Just as I think the state executing them would be wrong. The punishment would not befit the crime. As abhorrent as it is, it's not a crime which causes death. It's the ruination of life, and that generally deserves the ruination of the criminal's life, e.g. lengthy imprisonment and sex offender status. I also believe in rehabilitation, even for these most heinous criminals, because I know that repentance is a crucial element of gospel of Christ. That's not to say that some people won't be mentally ill for their entire lives, and would always be a danger to others. But how can we ever say that they'll never be cured, whether through therapy or miracle?
Some may respond with an argument that the death penalty is needed to help the prison system. There are massively better legislative changes that would improve the prison system (legalizing marijuana, for one). When people become a problem or an expense we're not justified in KILLING them.
It's hard for me to get worked up about this, since these crimes sicken me so much, but justice has to apply across the board.
The biggest problem I have with the death penalty is this. Death is irreversible, irrevocable, permanent - as far as the State is concerned. Whether or not you think the State has the right to dole out executions at all, at least I think we can all agree it should only be done in the most extreme circumstances - and those circumstances, I believe, are limited to unrepentant killers.
Why is it that we liberals are always defending the world's crappiest people?
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Tainted?
The Midwest Democracy Network sent a questionnaire to various political campaigns in September 2007. One question asked:
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?Obama answered the following:
In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator JohnMcCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
On Thursday, June 19, 2008, Obama released this statement:
We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we’ll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election. It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken. . .Really? Did Obama suddenly have a change of heart because sometime between September of 2007 and today, he realized that the system is "broken"? I suspect it has more to do with the fact that between September of 2007 and today, he realized that he can raise a heck of a lot of money. $295.52 million, so far, including $10.72 million for the general election. Compare that to McCain's paltry $121.9 million.
Sounds to me like an announcement by some presidential candidate that [he] would forgo public financing so [he] could raise unlimited funds in the general election.
How is that for preserv[ing] the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election?
More importantly, how is that for "a new kind of politics"?
Offshore Drilling
I heard something on the radio that caught my ear, and I had to look it up to be sure I had heard it right. We all know that Bush and some Republicans (including McCain) are pushing to end the ban on offshore drilling. I had heard reasons why this is a “bad” idea from the opposing side (bad for the environment, it would take years to actually get the oil, we need to focus on alternative sources of energy, etc.), but this reason caught my ear:
Barack Obama and fellow Democrats have denounced proposals for offshore drilling as nothing more than a favor to oil companies.
How is that exactly?
It seems to me that the status quo is a favor to oil companies. With supply restricted in comparison to demand, coupled with rampant speculation, oil companies are making a killing. Record profits, in fact (note that I pulled that from a liberal website just for fun). I’ve heard the whole "Blood for Oil" theory that Bush invaded Iraq to get cheap oil as a favor to Big Oil companies. That doesn’t seem to have worked “as planned”, but the status quo is working out much better for Bush’s cronies, don’t you think? The Big Oil companies sit back, don’t explore or increase refinery capacity, but make record profits.
The Democrats have had a hey-day dragging oil executives before congress to drill them on their profits and the high price of oil.
"You have to sense what you're doing to us - we're on the precipice here, about to fall into recession," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "Does it trouble any one of you - the costs you're imposing on families, on small businesses, on truckers?"
The executives said it did, and that they are doing all they can to bring new oil supplies to market, but that the fundamental reasons for the surge in oil prices are largely out of their control.
Here’s a quote from the Americanprogress.org site linked to above :
Rhetorically, President Bush acknowledges that the United States needs to reduce its oil dependence, which would decrease demand, lower pressure on prices, and reduce profits . . . Yet in reality, the president is protecting oil company profits at the public’s expense.
So, let’s walk through this together. We currently have restricted oil supply = record prices = record profits = favor to Big Oil.
Republicans are pushing to expand drilling in the U.S., which would increase supply = lower prices = lower profits = favor to Big Oil? Can you have it both ways?
It sounds like a bit of political rhetoric to me.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
In order to ... establish justice
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled for a third consecutive time against Bush administration policies denying writs of habeas corpus to prisoners unlawfully held at the military compound at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Bush and his yes-man attorneys have been defying Constitutional law for far too long, and I am very pleased that the people who have been held at Gitmo for seven years may soon finally have their days in court. The right of a detainee to challenge his or her detention is the absolute foundation of our justice system, and is guaranteed by the Constitution, both in Article 1, Section 9:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
...and in the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Has there been a rebellion or invasion I am not aware of? Are non-citizens not people? Is not Guantánamo Bay part of the sovereign United States of America, or at the very least "within its jurisdiction"? This is absolutely cut-and-dry to me - the Constitution clearly states that people held at locations under the jurisdiction of the USA have the right to challenge unlawful detention, and that the government cannot deny liberty without due process of law.
I am grateful that justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter and Stevens were there to stand for the Constitution and for human rights. Justice Kennedy, author of the majority opinion in this case, eloquently wrote, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law."
I am equally disgusted with justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas for their short-sighted ploy to twist and bend the Constitution to suit the times. Kennedy's assertion that the Constitution was designed for extraordinary times is absolutely correct. Just because we grant Gitmo detainees due process does not make us any less safe - each detainee will still be tried by our best prosecutors in a court of law - it just makes us right, fair, and balanced. Just like Fox News. :)
If not for habeas corpus, how are we any better than the Vietcong who held and tortured John McCain for years in a time of war? How can we expect other nations or entities to treat our soldiers with respect if we cannot treat theirs with the same respect? If America wishes to claim the moral high ground, she cannot wantonly imprison and indefinitely detain whomever she wishes.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Health insurance - a novel, by Rachel Dixon
So, I've been thinking about health insurance lately.
My head feels like it's about to explode from the insanity of it all, so I thought I'd squeeze out a post while I still have the power of coherent speech.
I'm not too fussed about what the candidates specifically have planned for the healthcare system once they're in office, because it's not up to them. They just get to veto or not veto whatever version of their original plan Congress chews up and spits out, if indeed they can produce anything at all. What I want to see is their general goals for the system, and how firm a grasp they seem to have on reality - do they have good ideas, and do they seem to be surrounding themselves with people who have good ideas? And I'm trying to more firmly compose my own thoughts on the subject. Here's what I have come up with so far:
1) We need to start over. The insurance system as it is, I truly believe, is hopeless. I know this is not likely to ever be a view shared by any major political candidate, and I know it would be costly in the short-term to overhaul the whole enchilada as it were, but I just can't stand the thought of either mandating the current system onto every American citizen, or giving the insurance companies even *more* power to place profits over ethics. They do this now, because it's a business endeavor. Many insurance companies are publicly held, so they are "serving" their shareholders by maximizing profits - which of course, means paying out as little as possible while taking in as much money as they can.
2) So, to my mind, the way to fix that is to make insuring people a break-even type of operation, or a non-profit, or through the government, or something. I don't think insurance companies themselves should be in the business of making money. What do they do? They are middlemen. They should be involved as little as possible in the medical process - leave it to the doctors and the patients. Whoa! How about that? Letting doctors and patients decide together how to be healthy, instead of asking your insurance company permission to have this treatment or that. I have no problem with doctors being paid well: they dig themselves into a tremendous financial hole so they can go to school for literally decades and then work long hours trying to keep people healthy and give them a better quality of life. What could be more honorable? Insurance companies don't do any of those things - they shuffle papers, confuse the snot out of doctors and patients alike, and siphon profits away from the people who are earning them by the sweat of their brow. I don't blame them, per se, since the system as it is currently is set up so that insurance companies have incentive to be profitable, not to provide quality care. I just think that dynamic should be reversed.
3) Insurance should not be tied to place of employment. This is such a screwed-up idea I hardly know where to start. Right now, only 60% of companies provide health insurance for their employees. Those people are the "lucky" ones, because they get to reap the benefits of mass purchasing power. People who are have to seek out their own private insurance cannot possibly compete with this, especially if they have the audacity to actually *get sick*. But even those who are covered at their job don't have it easy: they still don't have much in the way of choice (if we're lucky, we get to choose between paying less for less coverage and paying more for more coverage). And there are millions of people who have good, steady jobs - prestigious jobs - who have achieved success and respect in their profession, and yet still either cannot afford insurance, or who pay astronomical amounts for pathetic coverage because they are self-employed, or their employment is of such a nature that employer-subsidized healthcare is not one of the benefits. Take my dad, for example - in a twist of delicious irony, he is an established PHYSICIAN who pays a monthly insurance premium that my family, with our very comfortable salary, could not begin to afford. His deductible is a mere $10,000 a year, never mind co-pays and mental health services, which are badly needed and often not covered at all.
4) I think insurance should be available to anyone who wants it. This "pre-existing condition" stuff is CRAP. Of course, the whole methodology of insurance requires that the risk be spread over a large population, so all these young healthy types who roll the dice and go without insurance are screwing the system just as badly as all the Boomers who are just now realizing that yes, their lifestyles are going to catch up with them. Additionally, there has got to be some way to differentiate between those who willfully eschew coverage when they are healthy, then go looking for it when they get sick, and those who have done their best to maintain coverage and are forced to switch because of a change in employment, for example. It seems to me that mandating coverage is the only way around this particular problem (as well as removing the tie between employment and coverage).
The more I think about it, the more it seems that universal, equal, mandatory insurance coverage is the best way to solve most of these issues. It removes the "insurance company as moneymaking industry" factor. It most effectively spreads the risk over the largest population, which would make it possible to cover even those people with pre-existing conditions, or - gasp! - actual health problems. It would maintain the mass-purchasing power that large companies currently have. It would take the burden off employers, who foot a tremendous bill to subsidize coverage for their employees.
I do not think that mandating coverage, as it is currently constituted, for everyone is a good solution. But I do think that reshaping the insurance "industry" from the bottom up and THEN making coverage universal is the way to go. I delivered Rick his cookies this afternoon for correctly sussing out my Monty Python quote, and I have another plate for everyone who made it through this marathon post and still finds it in their heart to offer me their own thoughts. I'm painfully aware that I don't have a comprehensive understanding of this yet, and I would love to get some other perspectives and points to ponder...
...tomorrow. Tonight, my brain is plum tuckered out.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Blogging: Not for the faint of heart
I am writing what is painfully obvious to most people who read this site: the number of contributions has dwindled from 3/week to maybe 3/month.
My understanding of the purpose behind the creation of this blog is that it was designed to provide a forum for Democrat, Republican, or other as well as member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or other, to converse in a non contentious manner the state of the country and the world of politics.
The thing about this that makes me smile is that this site always makes me think of some of our best friends in the world, who happen to not be members of the same church, and who are also not politically minded. I smile because the first time we met them they shook our hands and introduced themselves as "Hi, I'm ____ and I don't talk about religion or politics." Ha! Can you get a better conversation starter than that?
Of course we asked what the story was behind getting those declarations over at the first introduction was, and we were told that every time this couple ever talked religion or politics with any friends....after a while they had a hard time being friends. Too much emotion got embroiled from belief systems to the point where the relationship was no longer viable.
I smile because this site, from the creation of its title onwards, embraces discussion of politics, and mentions religion from time to time.
So now that the contributions have become increasingly sparse, as have the comments, I wonder if perhaps a little too much emotion has gotten invested here. Are people not contributing or commenting because they are working longer hours, they are on vacation, they have final exams, they have lives outside of the blogging world? Or has this site morphed into something where people don't feel like contributing posts or comments to because they don't want to feel a personal attack for their political view?
These are just a few of my thoughts. What do you think?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Hillary, Oh Hillary
Last night I heard on the news that Hillary was going to be making an announcement within the hour, conceding to Obama and declaring her willingness to be VP
I was surprised! I think that she has worked really hard to get as far as she has gotten. She's been planning this move to the White House for many years, despite her denials in the past of having presidential intention (c'mon, we all knew 4 years ago that she was waiting to run even though she said she wasn't interested). She has campaigned and plotted and planned with the best of them. What a huge slap in the face for her to have Obama come out of nowhere and pull the rug out from under her.
To set the record straight, I am not too impressed with Obama and I don't like Hillary as a general rule. However, I genuinely felt bad for her last night. After all her conniving pains to get the democratic nomination...thats got to be rough.
Well, sure enough, the news casters were putting their own spin on things because she didn't announce her withdrawal from the presidential race. And she didn't announce that she wanted to be Obama's VP.
Personally I think the election is a lot more fascinating with the two of them going head-to-head. If she were to simply drop out for the sake of being VP it wouldn't be as newsworthy because everyone would just assume that it was a done deal.
Although a black president and female vice president would certainly get the historians ready to start writing as soon as they were sworn in.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Gas Out the Roof - what do we do?
Gas is higher than $4.00 a gallon in many parts of the US, and by the looks of it, it'll keep rising over the next year. Predictions seem to indicate that we might see a $5.00 per gallon price within the next 3 months, $6-7.00 per gallon by next year, and some even say we could see $12-15 in the not too distant future. Sure, this may be a "boy who cried wolf" or "the sky is falling" scenerio - it may be a political scandal to push an agenda (like many of you seem to think Global Warming is) but it COULD be a real problem. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is a real threat and a real problem, we (by we I mean us as citizens and our govenrment) don't act quickly, it could lead to disaster.
My frustration is that the Gas has been steadily rising since 9/11. No, It's been steadily rising since....like the 60's, or something, but we have ignored it - just kind of grinned and bared it - but, will we be able to really bear it when one tank of gass for a small two-door sedan costs $165?
In Many parts of Europe, including the UK, I'm hearing, Gas already costs nearly $12 per gallon (That is Dollars, not Euros). So, this is not far fetched fiction. As I said earlier, our government needs to do something, as do we as citizens.
We could talk all day about what we feel the government should do. That doesn't make them actually doing something any more likely. In my opinion, we need strong leaders who pass legislation to support the development and cost-effectiveness of alternate energy sources. There are a myrid of options - Hydrogen, Electric, Solar, etc - but the problem is that they haven't become a commercially viable option because they all seem cost prohibitive. Fully electric cars are still astronomically priced, and Hybrids are not cheap. That's where the govenrment could help, be it with tax breaks, research assistance, increase in publich transoprtation, whatever - there needs to be a pro-active stance taken. Whatever the government does, I do not think that ripping up our natural reasources in the USA is the answer. I've heard the phrase "screw the caribou" thrown around these last few days as a slogan to promote drilling in Alaska. Honestly, part of my reasoning is because I quite like pristine nature, and I don't think it's our responsibility to mess up every beautiful tract of land on this planet. But, in addition to that, It is such a temporary fix - Gas is a limited commodity. It won't last forever. Our mindset should not be "stop the US dependance on foreign oil" but, rather, "stop the US dependance on ANY oil."
But more important and more immediate than asking, "what should the government do?" is for the individual to adjust his or her life to be prepared for whatever comes. I don't know about you, but in my ward, these last few months, Emergency Preparedness has really been stressed. I have a feeling it's a church wide thing - And I don't think it takes a prophet to know that we are headed for hard times. So, what do we do about curbing the heroine-like addictions that we as a nation and individuals have to gasoline? I mean, throw all the environmental reasons (of which I am so fond) aside - the cost alone will break all but the most wealthy of us.
One option (that is more a quick bide-your-time fix than anything) is Propane - according to my friend who works on engins for a living, Propane burns just very slightly less efficently than Petrolium - which means you would get just a very small amount less travel per gallon - and it burns clean, with virtually no byproduct. Currently, Propane is about $2.50 per gallon.
Hybrids and Smart Cars - these are great ways to increase your miles to the gallon, but they are still both dependant on Gasoline. Smart Cars are really cool looking, though.
Bio-fuel - This is NOT a viable option - it's a failed experiment - lets not keep fooling ourselves - the reason Wheat is so high right now is because farmers stopped growing wheat to grow corn to turn into fuel. Not only that, but the Slash/Burn policy in the Brazilian Amazon has become an even bigger problem because those farmers have decided Corn is more important than the Rain Forest.
Electric and Hydrogen - For some reason (I'm a conspiricy theorist, so don't ask me why - chances are you won't like my answer) These just havn't made it yet. Here's hoping.
Public Transportation - Look, guys - it really isn't that bad. I've relied on public transportation in Utah, Arizona, Southern California, Northern California, Phildelphia, you name it. It's an adventure, it's entertaining, but - It's not the horror that you imagine. The more we use it, the more money will be put into the system, and the better it will be.
Bikes - you laugh, but seriously - there is no better way to get around. I haven't missed my car one bit in this last year. Except when it rains. But that's why god gave us rain coats and umbrellas.
Walking - We all have a different background, but, here in Mesa, where I've relocated -and everywhere Else I've ever lived in the US, There are large shopping centers not too far from most major housing developments. God gave us legs.
Internet Shopping - Okay, a LOT of gas is wasted on eating out and shopping for useless stuff - what is the point!? Just stay home or buy it ("it" being the useless stuff you want to buy) on Amazon or Ebay - it'll probably be cheaper. Go for a walk in the park, instead.
Planning - Jillions of Dollars of gas could be saved every year if we just planned our outings in the car even a little.
I know it's kind of crazy, but something in me hopes the Gas prices DO continue to rise to the astronomical levels I opened this post with - just so that people would have to start living more responsibly, and so that the govenrment's hand will be forced and they will have to work to develope alternate forms. But if it gets to that point, we, as a nation, are in trouble.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
the case for Hillary('s continued candidacy), in two parts
EDIT, 5/14: had to add this pic.Now that that's settled... Everyone seems to be saying Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race, that she can't win, that she's mathematically eliminated, that she's hurting Obama's chances at the nomination, that she's hurting the party, that she's ruining her own political future, that she's too egotistical to drop out, etc., etc.
I've been thinking about it a lot, and you know what?
They're all wrong. Hillary should stick around.
Part I. Why Hillary Clinton should remain in the race
Like it or not, the Democrats have superdelegates. What does this mean? Well, it means that in the event of multiple candidates coming out of the primary season with a good-sized share of delegates, the party bigwigs can basically pick who they want. When people talk about this system going against "the will of the people", they forget that the Democratic Party is not our government. It's a political party, and those who control it can do whatever they want, and if citizen Democrats don't like it, they can lobby for change, or leave the party. The Democratic Party isn't obligated to choose as its nominee the person who wins the most delegates in the primaries. I know it seems unfair because it seems like whoever gets the most votes should win, like in the government, but it's perhaps more aptly compared to Ben and Jerry's running a promotion in which you vote on what ice cream flavor you'd like to see made permanent. Then Ben and Jerry might look over the results and see that 55% want Fig Newton, 40% want Nutter Butter, and 5% want Oatmeal. This gives them some good evidence that Fig Newton may be the optimal choice, but they may take into account some other factors and decide that Nutter Butter is more likely to post better sales numbers across the board - for example, maybe they figure that even though Fig Newton fares better than Nutter Butter among their customers who care enough to submit a vote, Nutter Butter will outsell Fig Newton against the newest Häagen-Dazs flavor.
The facts of the matter are these: though Sen. Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates awarded via primary, they are neck-and-neck in pledged superdelegates. If Sen. Clinton can convince enough superdelegates that she's the best choice for the party - an argument she is making with all of her might - then she'll be the rightful nominee. The scenario is not really that far-fetched, especially since Clinton is about to demolish Obama in a few primaries. And, though many have frothed at the mouth about how a superdelegate coup would "destroy the party" - it wouldn't. It would be forgotten about as quickly as the Supreme Court coup in the general election was forgotten in 2000.
Part II. Why Barack Obama is the better choice
However, if I was a superdelegate, I'd carefully look at Clinton and Obama and quickly realize that Obama's general election chances are superior to Clinton's. The crux of her argument that she would fare better against McCain is that she is more popular among white voters; therefore, since there are so many more white voters than black, she's the better pick. And, yes, it's sad that we're reducing this to racial terms in 2008, but that's another story. Anyway, the Senator from New York is conveniently one important fact:
Republicans loathe Hillary Clinton.
That's right, my friends: they hate her. And as I've said before, whether they should or shouldn't feel that way is irrelevant - what's relevant is that they won't vote for her. Clinton has more support among white Democrats, but it's likely that the Democrats will coalesce around the candidate (especially when the nomination loser asks his/her supporters to do so). That leaves Republican crossover votes. Who is more likely to bring Republicans over to his/her side? Obama. Who is more likely to inspire Democrats to go vote who might not otherwise do so? Obama. If Obama is nominated, it'll take a lot more work by McCain & Co. to get Republicans to come out and vote against him; he simply hasn't been in the national spotlight long enough to be as roundly disliked by the right as Hillary has. She's the one person who can make the Republicans - who are still pretty iffy about ol' Big Mac - come out in droves to support him. It would be a colossal misstep by the Democrats to nominate Hillary. Plus, setting aside everything I said earlier about superdelegates, McCain would immediately set to work as the candidate of the bigwigs, the "one who couldn't even get a legit win in her own party." It'd work; that kind of thing sells well.
So stick around, Hillary; tough this thing out for a while longer. Make your pitch to the party elite; The Clintons, for all their faults, are tenacious and have a history of winning. She's earned the right to be in the race. Let's have a thrilling convention.
