On Politics

On the death of an evil man and the enemy to replace him...

2011-05-03T14:25:00.002-04:00

Below, find some thoughts and some rants on the recently announced death of Osama bin Laden. This was originally written as a private journal entry, but I decided it'd been a while since I posted anything on this blog, so I figured I'd share.

My earliest recollection of "terrorism" is from 2000; I was 14 years old. The USS Cole was bombed in Yemen. I think this was the first time I'd heard the name "Osama bin Laden." Having been only six years old when the World Trade Center was bombed (1993), that was in the back of my head, but not really something I remembered experiencing. It was Mrs. Diaz's Honors World Cultures class (ninth grade "current events" assignment / discussion) where I first learned about terrorism and extremism. I think teaching it any earlier than that would have been rather futile anyway. Prior to 2000, my knowledge of terrorism was that is was bad and performed by bad people. We didn't learn about economic strife or sanctions or oil or religion or any of that stuff. We didn't learn politics.

I've grown up with this man being the center of the "criminal" world. I was 15 years old when the towers went down. I knew the act was wrong and hateful and I was hoping to see my fellow countrymen take the higher road. I was disappointed. I didn't like the anti-Muslim sentiments or the chest thumping. (Even in the wake of this man's death, I still don't believe chest thumping is appropriate.) I didn't want war, but if we had to go to war, I would have preferred it being legal and organized. I would have preferred a war where we knew the enemy or, at least, understood his gripes and had soldiers and intelligence personnel who actually spoke his language. I didn't see the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq (in the ways we went about them, at least) as legitimate answers anymore than I thought the act itself was legitimate.

Since I was young and impressionable when the towers were hit, the devastation and reactions completely shaped my views. For as long as I have been capable of independent thought, I have known that this man was an enemy (an enemy of what or whom, I wasn't sure, but enemy nonetheless). We all had to learn. Americans have had A LOT to learn and we have learned since 2000 / 2001, but we shouldn't think we're done yet. We were shocked - a lot of us legitimately - when the towers came down. I was among them, but I was only 15 after all. Some adult out there was supposed to be keener than I.

Had the towers not been hit, I find it unlikely that I would have pursued a political science degree. The act woke some of us up. We knew "they" didn't like us much, but we never imaged that "they" hated us so violently and learning this made me want to understand why. I wanted to know what reasons they had that were potentially extreme and what reasons were potentially legitimate and I found more of the latter than I'd expected. There are no black-and-whites. There are no total right-and-wrongs. The globe itself is a blur. America has made mistakes and has screwed people over in other countries for her own benefit and sometimes to the direct detriment of the people of those other countries. With little remorse. Often, with little or no admission. Not that we haven't done ANY good, but they get to dislike us for that. We have participated in some - arguably - terrorist activities (only we do it by arming the terrorists we want to win and making sure they DO win and then we call in a "military coup" in the country without recognizing the serial numbers on the guns). We like to pick and choose our terrorists. This is not to say that the "terrorists" we recognize are anything less than terrorists. This is to say that they have some points and in some ways we have brought this on ourselves. We have been arrogant and we have been quick-to-act. We have done harm for which we should, reasonably, expect some form of backlash.

However, there are plenty of things that these people stand for that are wrong no matter what America has done. Women should not be covered from head to foot while living in a desert if they do not choose nor should they be executed for being "impure" victims of rape. Additionally, murder in the name of any cause or religion is thoroughly unacceptable. I am pro-choice and I am even pro-assisted suicide, but I am not for senseless murder of living, independently-breathing human beings who WANT to live. Human beings are such minuscule and, frankly, unnecessary blips in the cosmos; we really don't need to be offing ourselves. If the only way for you to express yourself and your opinions is through causing physical harm to someone else, it is not a legitimate form of expression. We hurt each other enough with the shit we spew into the air. We don't need to do it with bombs and bullets.

So, I'm really not trying to get put on any terrorist watch list for believing that some of their concerns are legitimate. It's just not as simple as "there's the bad guy, go get him." Terrorists may always be bad, but they may not always be wrong. This is an important distinction from which too many Americans have been blinded. Now, I fear that too many people will take this as a literal victory, will think that little more needs to be done. I fear that people will gloss over all the things we've since learned about why "they hate us" as if, without him, they won't hate us anymore.

In any event, I think America grew up as a direct result of this man's existence. We learned we CAN be hit on our home turf and it doesn't even take much. Some of us even went out and tried to learn about our enemies. These are healthy reactions to a tragic event. There will be a new al Qaeda leader and, likely, more attacks (though hopefully none to the magnitude of September 11, 2011). Killing one man is only a symbolic victory, but I do think it is an important one. His death does mark the end of an era and provides a certain amount of closure for those of us who were alive and cognizant when the towers fell. We can feel like someone was held accountable for the tragedy. We may even be able to feel a little safer knowing that the mind that thought up such awful things can no longer scheme against us, though there may be a mind of equal evil lurking just behind. I don't, however, view his death as "justice" especially since his followers will only describe him as a martyr from this point on. I don't find solace is his death. I would have preferred his capture and trial as opposed to his death; I think we could have learned more that way, but it might have been the only choice we had.

What NEEDS to happen, globally, is serious reorganization and recognition. A lot of first-world countries are doing harm: both to less advanced countries, but also to the planet. Just because we have money (maybe) and can operate covertly, does not make it any less tragic. Everything is run by greed. There is no such thing as "enough." Companies make money and money is in the interest of government, so the two are going to let the world implode if citizens of the world are not vigilant. Money is important to people too, but I think a fair amount of people can recognize when they have enough and don't feel the need to plunder for more once they have found financial security. (If this is not the case, then we really are doomed.) Companies don't seem to have that meter. This isn't a joke. This isn't make believe. Our environment is going to hell. Companies are in business to make money and it doesn't matter to them what ends up in the air or in the water or whose 12 year old daughter is working in some factory for $0.03 an hour, but it matters to the people in those countries and it matters to the birds and the fish that inhabit its skies and its seas. This is why they hate us. I don't even think it is a direct hatred of America or Americans, but of what we symbolize. There are other countries with similar power who do similarly bad things, but we're the ones who brag about it. They hate us for being so arrogant and for being so greedy. But the planet doesn't need us. Our universe, the cosmos beyond don't need us. Everything survived for billions on years without us and will thrive again should we bring about our own demise. We're a tumor on our world, but WE get to choose whether to be benign or malignant. The only ones who can save us are, quite literally, ourselves.

If the world needs an enemy, it should not be some Arab man wearing a turban. The enemy should be pollutants and any company or government that is complacent. The enemy should be anyone who can find rationalizations for child labor and unsafe / unfair working conditions. The enemy should be anyone who would like to squelch education. Education, I think, is the key to everything and needs to be available to everyone. The higher one's education, the less likely one is to fall into extremism or to follow blindly any faith or leader. Plus, we just desperately need smart people. We need smart people to find us energy alternatives. We need smart people to innovate.

The cause can't just be to "end" terrorism because we can't end terrorism without curing the decease of which terrorism is a mere symptom. We need better global business policies, fair labor laws and practices, and greater value on and accessibility to education. The world doesn't hate us for our "freedom." It hates us because we pick and choose who gets freedom and we base that on who can benefit us the most. Greed needs to be laying in a pool of blood with a bullet over its left eye. Greed interferes with peaceful enterprise and interaction. Greed is public enemy number one.

Recently viewed:
The Corporation (2004)
written by: Mark Achbar, Harold Crooks, Joel Bakan, and Thomas Shandel
Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (1980)
written by: Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, and Steven Soter

Recently read:
The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen
written by Howard Carter and A.C. Mace

[Je suis un dork extraordinaire.]

Love Thy Neighbor

2009-12-13T12:21:00.008-05:00

Back in November, New Jersey elected Republican Chris Christie as governor. This result was and wasn't surprising. It WAS surprising because Corzine, the Democrat, was the incumbent and out-spent Christie. It WASN'T surprising because of the political atmosphere in New Jersey: high taxes, corruption, and a lack of patience with "businessmen" (which Corzine is perceived as being) nationwide as a result of the "bailout."

The election results were depressing, though - really - they were bound to be one way or another. Christie is the worse of the two evils. Corzine isn't ideal either, but I liked that he attempted to rally the true liberal base and didn't really try to cater to the conservatives that he would likely not win over anyway. He chose not to pander to them; he chose not to validate them. Unfortunately, they are the ones who came out and voted for Christie.

The election was probably decided primarily on taxes. Corzine had to raise them despite his promises and, really, they need to be raised. We have - not only a huge federal debt, but - a huge state debt. Christie claims he's not going to raise taxes. Who doesn't promise that? It can't happen with the way the state is run, though, and the things we need. I'm all for major structural overhaul of Trenton, but that's gonna cost even more. It's the whole: "things are going to get worse before they get better" philosophy. That's the problem with reform: it's going to cost a lot before you'll be able to see any return and people are impatient. [For example: the nation was struck by an economic disaster that was in little or no way caused by Obama / his administration, but because his solutions have yet to grant us a full recovery, we are already jumping to the conclusion of failure. It may well fail, but the administration has already admitted that we will not really see any gains until - at the earliest - next year.] Restructuring and change are going to cost: both money and time. There are infrastructures that need to be put in place, people who must be hired and trained. All of that costs.

I can't imagine that Christie will be able to reduce taxes and even if he does, it'll be at the expense of something else. Even if he manages to not raise them, at what detriment? Since I do not agree with his version of "public good," I fear what he'll cut. Education? His kids go to private schools and he supports parents who get their children into private schools, so what happens to my public schools? Health care? If he doesn't think public education is valuable, do you really think he cares about your uninsured son? How many jobs are going to be lost to cut corners? Is New Jersey going to make abortion illegal? He is quoted: "I am pro-life. Hearing the strong heartbeat of my unborn daughter 14 years ago at 13 weeks gestation had a profound effect on me and my beliefs...." (
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bohrer/another-leading-republica_b_220452.html) which is all fine and good for one's personal beliefs, but not as a legislative mandate, not as a rule by which those who DO NOT share his beliefs should be forced to abide. We need to educate women on choices both before and after they become pregnant (including SAFE sex options and not just "don't have sex" options). We need to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the conservative method has proven to fail over and over and over again. Moving on: are we going to impede even more on the right of homosexuals? We need to move forward. Civil rights aren't matters of beliefs or opinions. Gay rights - or lack thereof - is an area in which New Jersey had begun to progress. At least we allow civil unions and I really had hopes that we would soon be among the elite who've woken up and have thrown fear aside for equality. Now, I'm not so sure. We have a governor-elect now who is willing to veto a gay marriage bill.

[For the record, this is not a "societal change" as Governor-Elect Christie claims. Society is not being asked to change. In fact, no one is being asked to change. No straight person who doesn't want to be impacted by this will be impacted by this. Your faith will not be challenged (and if it is, you should look more closely at YOUR relationship to God and leave me to sort out my own). There are no victims if gays can marry; there are only victims if they are denied that right.]

Currently, New Jersey is scrambling to make gay marriage legal before Governor Corzine relinquishes his power in January. [See: NY Times (Tuesday, December 8, 2009) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/nyregion/08marriage.html?_r=1.]

I guess I'm really a Socialist. I really have no problem with spending a little more now to help the whole of my state or nation to make it a better place (even if it is not in my direct, everyday interest). I only make $12 and hour and I get about $200 taken out of my paycheck every two weeks for taxes. It sucks, but it's needed. It pays for our infrastructure which many people STILL think doesn't run as smoothly as they should (whether this be the running of state business via the state's bureaucracy or the building of roads and buildings). It goes towards our police and fire departments. It goes towards education. And, yes, it probably goes towards things I'm sure I'd rather it not go to, but there is no such thing as a "perfect" union. No ONE person can really get everything he / she wants. Living in a republic, you'll always have to compromise a little.

In particular, we NEED to pour money into public education. We need to get good people in there running the school and we need to treat and pay teachers respectfully. Every once in a while, someone grunts about how high taxes are. People with kids in private schools or without kids at all moan: "why am I paying for public schools?" Well...why are you paying for the fire department? The police? I've never had a fire at my house and I've never had to call the cops, so why should I have to pay those guys? Or, as my mother cites: I don't support the war and I don't have any loved ones fighting over seas, so...why are my tax dollars funding wars I don't believe should be fought?

The answer is: because it's for the overall good of the nation. Or, at least, enough people think it is. I don't approve of the war(s), but we need a military as much as I wish we didn't. We pay taxes for the fire and police departments because we recognize those are services that are valuable. How is education exempt from that category? How is education not a general public good? Good public schools mean that someday, maybe, we'll have legions of really fucking smart people and they can make not only our country, but the world, a really amazing place. We're kind of in the shitter right now. We're allowing capitalism and greed to blind us from the realities: our kids can't compete with kids around the world and this is going to lead to the downfall of America. And on a more expansive note: the downfall - possibly - of humanity. We need smart people to find alternate solutions to problems that don't include guns and tanks. We need smart people who use their brains and not their fears to make decisions on civil rights. It's a cycle that can't easily be broken, but I fear we're only going to move farther and farther from where we MUST be to fix it if we continue to care about ourselves alone. Sometimes it's okay to "spread the wealth" and one of those times is when the wealth is knowledge.

Lastly, New Jersey did have corruption issues under Corzine, but it had corruption issues during pretty much every administration over the last couple decades prior too. This doesn't excuse it, but it'll likely happen under Christie's watch too...unless he really plans to overhaul the whole system. Which could be awesome, but only if he's moving in a progressive direction. Otherwise, I just fear we're going to wind up decades behind. Our goal should not be to end up back where we've been; we've got to keep moving. It worries me, the prospect that New Jersey may be becoming more conservative. Then again, Jersey is weird and even has a history of voting against the party just elected for the presidency in their off-year elections. So, this may not really illustrate much of anything. Corruption is a societal disease. When people seek that which they cannot have or have not earned, an environment is created where cheating is acceptable as long as it is hidden under the table. Politicians have been living in this world for a long time.

On an optimistic note, Christie has a decent environmental record. The New Jersey Environmental Federation actually endorsed Christie, the first Republican they've endorsed in three decades. [See: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/nj_environmental_federation_en.html.] If he keeps his promises on the environment, New Jersey could become an example. If he keeps his promises on the environment.

On the whole, though, there is not much optimism here. This election has made me not only question the fate of my government, but the state of New Jersians as people and what we stand for anymore, what they value. It saddens me how much self-interest and a "to hell with everyone else" attitude people seem to have. We are sadly proving Hobbes' theory on human behavior: that we are all "nasty, brutish, and short" and that, without some form a authority, we would probably all live in caves and hit each other with mallets. We are keen on referring to ourselves in the US as "civilized," but our intentions are really no more pure than anyone else's. We need a new social contract based firmly on what's good for the whole. We need a society less driven by markets and more driven by life and living it. We need to stop pissing on each other.

What ever happened to "love thy neighbor"?

Restoring Marriage And Protecting California Children

2009-06-18T16:58:00.003-04:00

While Laughing In The Face of the Constitution

Since the inauguration of Barack Obama, I am less fearful of reading the newspaper or tuning into the evening news. CNN keeps my unemployed ass company during my daily job searches; it sometimes provides whispers while I'm writing. I haven't been compelled to weep for my country much in the last six months.

And then there was May 26th, 2009. The California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8: a ballot initiative making gay and lesbian marriages (previously made legal) illegal in the state. It changes the state's constitutional language, making only marriage between one man and one woman constitutional in the state. The initiative was placed on the November ballot and passed; the implication here is that voters who came out in stride to elect Mr. Obama also voted passionately to withhold equal rights from select members of society. I hope the irony of this is not lost on anyone.

Both sides of the battle then went to court and the May 26th decision gave merit to current same-sex marriages, but stated that further same-sex unions would not be recognized as "marriage" in California.

This news brought me to tears despite the fact that I'm not gay. We may never have another civil rights struggle like those for African Americans and women in the 60s and 70s, but I've held the belief for a long time that homosexuals in America are among the most systematically discriminated against across the country today. We legalize the discrimination of this group. (This isn't to say that other social minorities are always treated equally, but - at least - as written law goes, those forms of discrimination are no longer encouraged by the government or the majority of Americans.) My hope that the election of Mr. Obama last November marked a shift in the American ideology was tarnished by the news that Proposition 8 had passed in the first place. Its supporters' continued aggression is nothing short of mind boggling to my poor, young, impressionable mind.

Some arguments against same-sex marriage are explained here:

Protect Marriage is an 'informational' and fund raising website. According to Mormons For 8, 35% of the donations are from Mormon churches. [The Daily Harold breaks the numbers down more here: LDS donate millions to fight gay marriage.] Not surprisingly, the push against same-sex marriage is coming from the religious (arguably, Christian) right.

Upon investigation of their website, 'Protect Marriage,' Proposition 8, and and anti-equality movement are concerned - of course - about religious freedom and the children. Those seem to be their reoccurring concerns. They claim that same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriage and that the acceptance of gays in society is somehow detrimental to children.

In understanding this first argument, I find it helpful to rediscover simple word meanings. For this, I turn to the ever trustworthy Dictionary.com for a basic definition.

Traditional
- adjective
1. of or pertaining to tradition.
2. handed down by tradition.
3. in accordance with tradition.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the older styles of jazz, esp. New Orleans style, Chicago style, Kansas City style, and Dixieland. Compare mainstream (def. 4).

The definition of "traditional" is interestingly vague. The problem with the abstract concept of "tradition" is that it depends thoroughly upon from whom these behaviors are being "handed down." It is a line drawn by families over generations or cultural and religious groups over ages. A "traditional" marriage in India may amount to what most Americans would refer to as an "arranged" marriage. Arranged marriages are the "tradition" in many parts of the world including such industrialized nations as India and Japan. That doesn't make them practices that are inherently good (nor, granted, inherently bad). (And when I discuss "arranged" marriages, I am not even touching on "forced" marriage or any non-consensual unions, although those may certainly be included under the "tradition" umbrella as well.) This begs the question, then: from whose "traditions" are we taking our definition of "traditional" marriage (that is: marriage between one man and one woman)?

Given the amount of support Proposition 8 has from the Mormon church, it seems that looking at extremists of the Judea-Christian guild is a good place to start. I have to pick on the Judea-Christian "tradition" because it certainly doesn't appear that Prop 8 supporters are supporting arranged marriages or marriages deemed "traditional" outside of Judea-Christian beliefs. Ponder for a moment, this ad also featured on the 'Protect Marriage' website:

The first issue in this ad is: "What [does] it means when gay marriage conflicts with our religious freedoms?" The next shot is a very angry man insisting that gay marriage was "forced" on him by the courts. Then, lastly, they have a very distressed little girl and her mother questioning what same-sex marriage "means" for the little girl.

Keep in mind, none of those questions are answered in the ad nor does the ad tell you where your questions can be directly and unbiasedly answered.

Religious freedom is a foundation of American life. However, the issue of same-sex marriage is not a religious issue: it's a civil rights issue. My decision to marry someone who has the same sexual organs as I do in no way conflicts with your unbreakable belief that such a union is a sin, unless you and I happen to be the same person. However, your passion for denying me that right based on your belief that my union is a sin DOES conflict with my civil rights. Both freedom of religion and civil rights are protected under the US Constitution. However, my marriage doesn't impede on your ability to worship whereas your beliefs are making it impossible for me to have my full rights under the Constitution.

Religion being made the headline of this organization's ad says to me that religion is a driving force even beyond the Mormon church. While Americans often identify themselves as Christians, America is NOT a Christian country. (And I am not even totally sure Christianity still holds the majority, as even Atheism gains in popularity.) We use religious dictum - from many religions - for moral guidance, sure, but "do not murder" is going to be made into law regardless of whether God commanded it to be so because it's good for the whole of society.

Any argument based on religion should automatically be thrown out because we have a separation of church (whatever religious center in which you worship) and state (the government under which you live your daily, civil life). Religious declarations are not by default laws and, unless it is for the mortal protection of society, such declarations should not be made into laws. If God chooses to damn homosexuals then let that job be left for God; it is not the place for mere mortals. Morality is subjective; it is not something that can or should be legislated unless the lack of legislation causes harm (as in : "nah, go ahead, commit that murder").

Moving on to the angry man's argument. I'm choosing not to touch on this at length because of its utter absurdity. Unless a San Francisco judge is forcing people to marry other people of the same sex, no judge is forcing anything on anyone. Similarly to abortion: legalizing gay marriage does not make gay marriage the only legal type of marriage, just as the legalization of abortion doesn't mean every woman must have an abortion. It is simply an option for those who find themselves in those respective positions.

However, the word "force," even without any validity to the claim, is powerfully psychologically menacing. A 30 second spot, on in the background while changing diapers or making dinner, which claims that anything is being "forced" upon citizens, is going to be a powerful, though in this case preposterous, claim. It's going to raise eyebrows, but most people will take it at face value and not research the claim. Any amount of research and one might realize the he/she is not being forced to do anything accept be tolerant of different people and a slightly different lifestyle.

The final argument pulls at your heart strings. Or is supposed to. If I understood the argument, perhaps I could provide a less snarky interpretation, but the best I can offer is as follows: parents fear that the utterance of words like "gay" and "lesbian" will...miraculously...turn their kids...gay? And, apparently, they have a problem with that?

A recent bulletin posted on the site expresses outrage over new curriculum (probably put in place to promote an understanding and tolerance for those who are gay or have gay friends/family) that explores homosexuality as a lifestyle. "Providing yet another example of the threat that gay marriage and the gay agenda provides to school children and parental authority...The newly adopted curriculum specifically elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds" (Elementary School Children to be Indoctrinated with New Gay Curriculum). Apparently, that's...a terrible, terrible thing?

I find it hard to believe that the curriculum "elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds," but even if that is true, perhaps the reason is because racial and religious groups are not legally oppressed anymore. The need to teach children to respect those groups may have dissipated slightly.

The real issue here is that parents don't want there little boys and girls to know anything about sex. Ever, apparently. Therefore, discussing sexuality and why Tommy has two mommies is a sticky situation. Sex and sexuality are sensitive issues, but lying to children or pretending "those" sorts of people aren't out there, is no way to protect your child from the inevitabilities of the real world. If you won't teach your children tolerance towards gays, someone has to. Or someone should. Homosexuality is not a choice. Who would chose this kind of hate a discrimination for him or herself? Learning about a different lifestyle does not by default turn you into a practitioner of that lifestyle any more than learning about slavery makes you a slave or even an African. Learning about Islam doesn't make you Muslim. There's a difference between being something and understanding / empathizing with something.

And if your child is gay, wouldn't you want to foster a home that embraces that child regardless? Isn't that moral? Homosexuality is not a disease. There is nothing about it which should make gays second-class citizens.

That is how to teach your children about homosexuality. It is nothing to be afraid of nor is it anything about which one should ever feel any shame. It is two people who love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other. How is teaching that a bad thing?

Other arguments for Prop 8 are discussed here: What Is Prop 8? Most of these arguments are concerned with religion and children too. Many are knit-picky. It's worth a skim.

The bottom line is that regardless of the inconveniences the opposition addresses, you CANNOT deny members of society certain rights unless protecting that group's rights is gravely detrimental to the whole of society. (For example, "ageism" is okay in certain situations because you don't want twelve-year-olds driving or drinking or going to war.) The 14th Amendment states:

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.
(Cornell Law: US Constitution, 14th Amendment, emphasis added)

The moment one of these cases reaches the Supreme Court, there is no way same-sex marriage can be denied short of a US Constitutional Amendment banning it (which George W. Bush threatened to do, more-or-less proving that denying same-sex marriage is currently unconstitutional). The basic philosophy behind the Equal Protection Clause is that separate-but-equal is inherently unequal. Granted, it was written with freed slaves and segregation in mind, but the "othering" of blacks and the "othering" of gays in terms of legislation seem to run parallel. Proposition 8 would not pass a rational-basis test: there is no mortal danger to society posed by same-sex marriage; nor should it pass the court's strict scrutiny of the law where a party must prove a compelling state interest in denying people their rights. If all gay-marriages included human sacrifice, then maybe they'd have a case, but - with the exception of "this makes me feel icky" - there is no reason for citizens of California to feel threatened by same-sex unions.

Same-sex couples can be just as devoted and loving to each other and their children as heterosexual couples. They have the same ups and downs as any couple in any sort of relationship may have. I think any abandoned child would gladly chose adoption by a same-sex couple over life in orphanages or foster homes.

Let us remember that same-sex couples were accepted in ancient Egypt as well as Rome before Judaism and Christianity became popular. (So, if you're really talking "traditional," don't forget it's buried deep in history as well...even the history of Judaism and Christianity.) Let us also remember that heterosexual couples don't necessarily provide a happy or healthy family for children. The sexes of the parents don't make or break family life; it's how well the partners interact with one another.

Six states in the US have already legalized gay unions (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont). New York and Washington, D.C. recognize out-of-jurisdiction same-sex marriage, but do not perform any. Several states have legalized civil-unions. The tide is going in a progressive direction. And it has to. Throughout history, Americans have abolished status-quo doctrines that prohibit rights. (Note: prohibition didn't last long, right? Blacks can now marry whites, right? Women can now vote, right?) Maybe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but the Bible says a lot of things that we chose not to write laws banning. And, on that note, I shall end this post on an upper. Enjoy:

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more...

Optimism Within Realism

2009-01-25T17:29:00.011-05:00

A New Era Of Compromise In Washington

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 was truly something else.

In keeping with his serious and somber demeanor after his election on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama reiterated his charges for change and national responsibility during his inaugural speech. His presidency, he hopes, will be one that focuses on restoring America's reputation in the world and revitalizing her economy and her people. To the disappointment of many, his speech was not the normal chest-thumping to which we've become accustomed. He promised that America would meet her challenges, but he didn't sprinkle the challenges she faces with glitter and flowers. Our challenges are many and America has the will to overcome them, but the strength must come from both her people and her government. Obama's election can't be the end of the road. It has to be the beginning of America's long road towards regaining respect around the world and standing as a strong example of democracy once again.

Not to forget the now former President Bush, George W. and Laura Bush left the White House after Obama's inauguration via helicopter. Personally, it was one of the most satisfying sights I've ever witnessed.

Just for fun:

You can hear happy singing it the background as the helicopter flies off. I wonder if any other departing president has been so happily sent off.

I also have to add that Tuesday night's The Daily Show may be one of the funniest ever. This, alone, proves that:

They, literally, had to push Cheney out of the White House.

The last eight years has left my country in deep debt both monetarily and, I believe, morally. However, I think this new administration will restore some global faith in America, her values, and her people. We're no longer the hillbilly country with the cowboy president. Now, we're a country of adults. Barack Obama is smart, articulate, and respectful: three things the executive branch of American government has been missing for nearly a decade.

If feels good to have faith in leadership. Of course, I don't expect President Obama to change the world over night, but I feel relatively safe in the hands of my government again. I feel like Obama's agenda will be the advancement and well-being on America and NOT the thoughtless kowtowing to corporate buddies. (Part of why I voted for him - both during the primary and the presidential election - is because he IS young. How many corporate buddies could he possible have!?) I don't think he will so blatantly disregard the American people OR the people of the world like Bush did. I don't think he'll let our reputation in the world dip any lower.

The inauguration ceremony was an amazing sight. This president is a symbol of progression and hope to so many in the country who have suffered due to the mismanagement of the Bush years. The crowd was massive. It was unbelievable. I only hope that some of those people keep watch and stay informed. This president will bring change and he'll move the country back to the 'plus' side, but when his work ends, the next president must go even further. We cannot become complacent now. America still has a long way to go. She still discriminates. She still hates. She still starves and bleeds. She still asks God to solve her problems instead of standing up and solving them herself. We have opened a door with this president. Liberals have a shot now to show conservatives that we're not so scary and - maybe - we can win some of them over. We can't treat them with the disdain the Bush administration treated us. That'll only rile their base up against us. Now is not the time for that. Now we need to recognize mistakes, face challenges, and reach out to ALL Americans in order to see our problems resolved.

Obama's inaugural speech did include some religious rhetoric and even some "we won't back down" language. I could have lived without that, but I think that most president wind up calling on God and trying to hype Americans up. They're popular American cliches. In our country, you won't get elected unless you appear to be a "good Christian" and thank God time and time again. When Obama invokes the image of God, though, I think he does so more to placate those who are looking for him to prove his religiosity. Not that I think he's a "non-believer." His religion makes no difference to me so long as his religion is not his only driving force as president. I agree that religion can serve as a handy moral guide, but it should not be the only guide. I think he hopes for God's support and, given the mess he is now charged with cleaning, I can't blame him. I don't think Barack Obama claims to ACTUALLY speak to God in the way George W. Bush did. Further, when Obama says that America WILL defend herself, I don't think he means it in a Bush Doctrine sort of way. I think he plans to defend the country responsibly and - where ever possible - diplomatically.

President Obama has my trust. For now. I'm not saying I won't be skeptical and watch him carefully, but there's no reason to doubt him yet. I have my hopes and I have things I want to see this president do. If he does even some of them, I think that'll be a great improvement. He's not catering to any ONE ideology. He has to try to compromise with all types of people and some people are not as liberal as we are here in the Northeast. I expect some disappointments, but just because there's something I want for this country doesn't mean that that something is good or pleasing for the country as a whole. We NEED cooperation and compromise now. Liberals need to show conservatives that we're not evil. We need to work with people who don't agree with us and try to get them on our side. They, too, need to understand that no president should cater to just their beliefs. Then - maybe someday - we COULD have a liberal and open country. Maybe we COULD take God out of politics. Maybe we COULD see gays legally marrying. Maybe we COULD call a truce on the culture wars.

We're not there yet, though. As early as November 5th, Prop 8 should have shown all us starry-eyed liberals that our dreams had not quite come true yet. But this should be seen as a step. This is a baby step in the right direction. So, for now, I'm going to be proud. I'm going to smile, laugh, and cry happy little tears because even though this administration won't give me everything I want, it's a sign that someday there could be an administration that will get us there, once more of America is ready for it.

National ideologies CAN change. The first white Americans were strict Puritans who would probably put even today's conservative right to shame. We once saw no moral issue with keeping darker colored human beings as captives, objects, worthless workers. We once thought women were too inferior to work or vote. In time, all of these characteristics that once made up America were disregarded. If you're not a progressive, you're living in the past.

History is a series of progressions.

One Day After Election Day 2008

2008-11-05T20:23:00.000-05:00

I have not really read any post-Election opinions written by my friends because I'm trying to keep my thoughts my thoughts and use my own words to get them out. That said, I feel like all the sentiments about which I plan to lament upon have already been lamented upon by many people so I apologize for any repetition.

Last night, I became a proud American. I'm not sure I've ever said that before. Sure, I was happy during the Clinton years, but I was probably too young to really feel proud and have that feeling be based in anything substantial. Last night, America voted for a man who has true potential to turn the course of this country around and bring respect back to us in the eyes of the world.

As all my friends and I happily basked in the news and held on to every word of both John McCain's concession and Barack Obama's victory speeches, I could almost hear the world breath a sigh of relief. The darkness of the last eight years may really be over. We have a chance now. We've reached the fork in the road. We can make this better before it's too late, but it has to be now. Americans proved last night that that IS what they want.

Barack Obama is the face of America in the 21st century. He comes from a mixed racial background, middle class, raised by his mother and then grandparents, worked his way up. He was not born into prominence. He did not get to where he finds himself today because of his background, but because of his work ethic. He can be seen, in many ways, as the embodiment of the American dream, a dream that is - mostly - mythical, but can still be found in the greatest and most determined of citizens and I think we will see more American dreams coming true with Barack Obama as our leader. I'm not sure how the McCain campaign became the face of "real" America, but Barack Obama lived that: he lived the middle class life and became an example of what "real" Americans can achieve. He proved that you really can work your way up, but you have to want it and you have to try. He proved that America gives you opportunities few other countries can afford and that those who have benefited most from America should give the most back: in his case, running for the highest office with hopes of making America - and the world - better. (All he's asking the rest of you to do is pay a few more taxes so we can, yanno, have roads and schools and fire departments: silly stuff like that!)

He proved that America really can change and that sentiment was obvious in the tears of Jesse Jackson, Oprah, and every other Barack Obama supporter brought to tears last night. Working the polls yesterday, a new excitement was tough to deny.

His victory does not necessarily mean that we can stop worrying. Obama is still a politician and politicians break promises, but his message throughout the campaign resonated from coast to coast in all kinds of people. During the campaign, he managed to change the mind set in America from one that would stickily vote for old white guys to one that would vote for a young minority if he stood for what they stood for. Thankfully, what we stand for in the aftermath of this election are the ideals of hope, change, cooperation, and unity.

Notably, Barack Obama's victory speech was a serious one. He didn't give us the usual "USA USA WE'RE NUMBER ONE WE'RE NUMBER ONE!" speech. He didn't pound his chest or dance on McCain's (hypothetical) grave. He told us truths. While he'd never say it, he knows Americans can often be selfish and individualistic and that this country needs cooperation and selflessness to survive. This wasn't a "we can stop fighting now: the battle's over" speech. This was a "the battle's just beginning" speech. President Obama can't fix the world, but - hopefully - he can convince the world into fixing itself using sound plans and peaceful negotiations. The work behind us pales in comparison to the work ahead of us and I don't think Americans like to think of themselves as people on whom work is needed, but we are. We have to reach out to our neighbors and help those who are down of their luck. We can't just think of ourselves anymore, but of our communities and of the world and we have to recognize that we don't live in our own little bubbles.

Are Americans up for that?

Obama has set high expectations for himself among his supporters and I don't expect him to live up to every single one of them, but I do expect him to run this country efficiently and intelligently with eloquence and grace. I expect the agenda of 'making America strong again' to be the only agenda, not the agenda in addition to his super-secret hidden agenda. I am forever skeptical, but I have hope and I know that Barack Obama - right now - is the man we need, even if just to prove that the ideals for which he claims to stand are ideals Americans, too, share.

As of 11pm on November 4th, 2008, America elected a new president. He will face the greatest challenges of any new president in cleaning up the last eight years, but he is young and smart and - if anyone can do it - it is he.

**EDIT** And just when I become proud of my country, it disappoints me again: http://news.aol.com/elections/article/ballot-initiatives/237398. More to come, I'm sure.

One Day Left Until Election Day 2008

2008-11-03T16:24:00.000-05:00

Normally, I try to cite a news article or some sort of current event as basis for an entry because, otherwise, this blog is sort of purely opinion based, but - on this occasion - I think all I want to do is share an opinion.

Regardless of what the McCain campaign and their Fox News partners want to spew about the "east coast elites" and the "un-American" parts of the country, I know that - for my friends and I - we care so deeply about this country that we want only the best for it and the best doesn't come from divisive politics or fear mongering. The best America can be, for right now, is unattainable unless her leaders drastically change course and, yes, possibly even admit some wrong-doing. America has lost her respect and much of her power in the eyes of the world. Her people are tattered and tired, but - I don't believe - done, by any means.

We need leadership, though. Real leadership. We need someone who will stop spewing bullshit and be honest...as honest as any politician really can be, at least. Obama has the potential to change America's direction. Personally, his "inexperience" is almost a plus for me because, as I'm sure I've lamented before, I feel he isn't as entrenched in the Washington status quo as McCain (or even Clinton). You can't survive in politics without becoming indebted to someone, but I do think he has tried to keep his hands pretty clean. He has a vision. He has intelligence and eloquence. He has the potential to bring respect and class back to a country that's lacked it for so fucking long.

America's democracy is in trouble. We shouldn't have people waiting out in line for two to eight hours outside polling places. We shouldn't have fear and confusion in polling booths. It shouldn't even cross our minds in this country that a vote may not be counted. People have to know their rights; they have to know that - even if there are police officers everywhere - it's still their right to vote and they can intimidate you, but they can't stop you. (Well, unless you're actually doing something aside from voting that is illegal. Haha.) We need an informed electorate and this race, more so than any other in recent history, seems to have gotten people who would otherwise look away, to stand up and notice what's going on around them. I only hope they actually go out and vote. While McCain is certainly not the most heinous among the Republican party, what good will he bring to the nation? What change has he really told us he'd bring to the White House? McCain would not be the worst case scenario, but Palin really would be.

Anyone who was on the fence between Obama and McCain should have flung himself excitedly over to Obama's side after the announcement of Sarah Palin for Vice President. That decision alone proves how unequipped he is for the presidency. She does nothing but tell Americans over and over how perfect America is and how - to be a true American - you have to blindly follow failing leadership; you have to think America is great even when the evidence around you proves we have serious problems both in our backyards and overseas. Is it really un-American to point out your country's short-comings and vow to improve upon them? Lying to your fellow people, to other countries, and to yourself about America's perfection helps NO ONE, so stop calling Michelle Obama and the rest of us "unpatriotic" for not being proud of America's behavior. Over the passed five years, America has lost over 4,000 citizens to a war in Iraq (http://icasualties.org/oif/) not to mention soldiers from other countries, Iraqi solders, Iraqi civilians, the wounded, the troops in Afghanistan, or the families of all of the above. There are countless lives that have been ruined, so don't tell me America should be proud of it. There ARE things more important than being right, America. Like being smart. And smart is something Barack Obama exudes. He will - responsibly - end this nightmare.

We need to shred this "mightier than thou," "city on a hill," American exceptionalism shit and realize we are not the only players in the world anymore...and the world is shrinking. McCain hounds Obama for saying he'd meet with world leaders (specifically Ahmadinejad) without "preconditions." Yes, Obama thinks negotiation without preconditions is better than no negotiations at all...how terrible. We can't keep ragging on people and expecting them to drop their beliefs (no matter how passionately we may disagree with them) just because the mighty U.S. wants it so. There has to be understanding. There has to be compromise. Omaba seems like a man who knows the world is bigger than America's borders. American isolation simply will not work and we have to be active (but RESPONSIBLE) as a world leader...while we can still call ourselves one.

We also have to help our own right here. We can't have people falling more and more in debt, taking out loans only to dig deeper holes. It's a wretched cycle most Americans face as early as college (for those lucky enough to attend) with college loans. At 21 years old, you can find yourself under piles of debt. The cost of living goes up, while jobs decrease; they get sent elsewhere. We give breaks to big businesses so they'll stay big while the small ones get smaller and smaller until there are no Mom 'n' Pop places anymore. (As much as I do love my Starbucks, I'd take a smaller, independent coffee shop over it any day.) Maybe "spreading the wealth" sounds like Socialism, but I certainly think it's better than keeping all the wealth in the hands of the wealthy while the rest of us (and the economy) find ourselves in the shitter.

Further, we need to end the era of bigotry and hatred within our borders. In 2008, whether Barack Obama is an Arab shouldn't even be a factor. You shouldn't vote for him just because he's black, but you should also not vote against him because he's black. I don't dislike Palin because she has a vagina; I dislike her because everything about her, to me, is anti-American, anti-women, anti-environment, anti-civil rights, and anti-progressivism in general. In 2008, there is no reason why gays shouldn't - without question - have the right to marry. In 2008, there is NO reason why America is not leading the way towards energy efficient cars, homes, dogs, cats, everything! There's no reason for it and it needs to change. It needed to change four years ago, but...we'll take it now.

Election Day is tomorrow. I'm a mess of anxiety and excitement. I have little crying fits. I want to see this county be so much healthier than it is and has been for the last eight years.

The last eight years should have been so much different. Let's make the next eight brighter. Let's pull out of this period of de-regulation and executive-privilege-on-steroids and make America a country about which we can all feel truly proud again.

Please go out and vote tomorrow. It is one of the only parts of American "democracy" in which citizens actually get to be involved. There are many websites with polling information. One I came across is: http://www.vote411.org and it seems very helpful. Most polling places open between 6am and 8am and close between 6pm and 8pm. It's your right and the country needs you.

No, Sarah Palin Really Isn't Hillary Clinton. Promise.

2008-09-15T17:44:00.000-04:00

You probably know it better than me, but it really seems like your country is in trouble! Things were looking up with Obama and all, but the Republicans are up to their usual antics, or even worse. The actuaries put McCain at 30% chance of dying in his first term. Then it's president Palin!

The future is going to be very turbulent, partly because of the loss of wealth and influence that the US will experience, especially if the Republicans are elected again. It's quite sad to see what is happeneing, to the extent that I almost cancelled my trip to go somewhere like Japan or Australia! But I'm sure it will still be interesting to see what it is like in the US.

At least you can console yourself with this fact: No matter how bad it seems there, the things that are happening with my country's leadership is worse! At least there intelligent people almost have a chance to elect a reasonable government. Here, we are just resigned to the fact that it will be an idiot of epic proportions.

- Written by Warren / my friend in South Africa
in his recent email to me.

-------------------------------------------------

Naturally, promting a long response (with a few additions including the video):

(Written back to Warren)

...

Ugh...the election. Yeah. From my perspective, Obama is the best guy for the job. I've heard reports from European media outlets that say people in Europe think Obama would heal international relations. Is that the basic feeling there too? He wasn't my top pick, but - between Clinton and Obama - I voted Obama in the primary.

The fact that the polls have this election so close is disgusting. If McCain is elected, the entire world is going to laugh at us collectively (not that they haven't been the last eight years)...and then weep. I don't know what - if any - of the convention coverage you saw or read, but somehow the Republicans were trying to paint themselves as bringers of change. If their party was so great, why would people want change in the first place and WHY ON EARTH would we elect the same guys to bring about that change?

And Palin...oh, God. That is the most hypocritical and blatantly strategic move I've ever seen. They attack Obama's "inexperience" and then nominate someone with less experience than he for the second most important position in the country? With a presidential candidate in his 70's. Wonderful. She doesn't know anything about foreign policy. She did this interview and she was on the defensive the whole time while the interviewer really wasn't trying to fool her, I don't think. The interviewer (Charles Gibson) was calm and relaxed and was asking her honest questions about herself and her qualifications. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is!? I wouldn't expect any regular citizen to know what that is, but anyone looking to be president should. Period. If I know what it is, so should this woman. My mom doesn't, but she's not a student of politics; she's not running for anything. Granted, the Doctrine has had a few incarnations since its first inception during Bush Senior's presidency.

This isn't fucking rocket science. I learned it in American Defense Policy as a second year political science student and I probably should have learned it sooner, but it was only the second international relations course I took. Does she know what the NPT is? North Korea ring a bell?

Aside from that, I pray that the women in my country are smarter than McCain thinks they are. If they do even minimal research they will find that Palin is NOT a stand-in for Hillary Clinton. I didn't vote for Clinton mainly because I worried that she is already too immersed in the Washington status quo that she won't want to change a lot of it...she's in debt to a lot of it. I just think Washington as a whole is corrupt (with lobbying, partisan bickering, etc.) and needs someone new who ISN'T waste-deep in it to try to clean it up. Obama's in it, but not as deeply, I think...I hope. I think Clinton would be good at the job and better than McCain, certainly, but I wanted Obama if those were my choices. Regardless, Palin IS NOT Hillary Clinton and I really want to see Clinton out there telling her supporters how she and Palin are polar opposites. Have you heard of "PUMA?" They are former Hillary supporters who have vowed to vote McCain in Clinton's absence. I don't understand it at all, but she has a lot of supporters considering McCain and with this Palin nomination, they may win some over. Clinton really needs to get out there and tell people the truth about Palin, that this woman does not stand for woman's reproductive rights, for gender equality, for gay rights, not even for gun safety. As I think they said in SNL this week: she thinks global warming is God hugging a little too tight. Haha...so that's may be too much, but you get the point. And It's appalling. Everything about this woman angers and sickens me. And saddens me.

Lastly, all this shit about sexism coming out NOW, now that we know Palin's daughter is pregnant especially. It was - apparently - perfectly acceptable for people to be sexist against an evil liberal like Hillary Clinton, but not this little lady with her "American" values. They want to say Bristol's pregnancy is a family matter. What does it say about her parents' ability to control their children? She's 17 and unmarried. Abstinence education didn't work within her own family, but it's good enough for the country? They said it was Bristol's "decision" to have the baby. (A) She didn't have a choice because of her family's conservatism and the fact that the spotlight is squarely on her now. (B) Let's say, for argument's sake, the family did allow Bristol to choose...the very fact that women have that right - that Bristol / her family had the right - to choose would be taken away is Palin had her way.

They said it was Bristol's decision and that the media should stay out of it; it's a private decision. Yes, it IS a private decision. But Palin would allot the government the right to make that decision if she had her way: and the decision would be to keep the baby even in cases of rape and incest. Her family is taking advantage of a freedom this country has for the time being, a freedom that they would have taken away so that it is no longer a private decision, but a governmental one, if they have their way.

How can that sound like a good way to run a country? As far as economic and foreign policy, I can't even talk since she has little knowledge or experience with either. McCain's war view is to keep it going, but how are we going to win anyone over while we're bombing them? I often wonder how George Bush sleeps at night...especially after the recent anniversary of the terror attacks. Watching the memorial stuff and all the shows about the buildings' collapsing: the whole time Bush had a warning. Nothing was done preceding the attacks to warn or prepare citizens and little has been done in the aftermath to prevent it from happening again. We got caught with our pants down and then turned around and bombed a bunch of innocent people. Awesome. A+, America. Way to fucking go. That's how we win hearts and minds...by scaring them into loving us and killing the rest.

Nah...I'm not bitter at all.

Sorry for that long rant. You can't get me started on politics in an election year and expect me NOT to go off! I'm very interested in your take on everything and what you've heard or know about the election. What is the political situation where you are? Since it's an election year here, it's like all other news just stops.

...

-------------------------------------------------

Lastly, and this is just for a quick LOL, Warren sent me this:

These are questions the US asks those applying for VISAs. He is in the process of planning of trip here in the winter. Number 3 is my favorite. Because, apparently, the terrorists who were smart enough to plan the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 are dumb enough to tell you that they are terrorists who want access to our country.

Empty Gestures

2008-03-01T14:48:00.000-05:00

"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he added. "Instead I'm gonna try to tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." - Barack Obama (October 2007)

I'm tired of people looking at a politician (or anyone, really) and checking off their marks of patriotism. I'm a little tired of 'patriotism' even being in the debate at all. People express their patriotism in different ways. I usually feel that being knowledgeable enough to speak out against certain political moves (or being able to coherently defend them) is the best form of patriotism. While others think rallying around the president in war time is patriotic, I stick by descension being the greatest form of patriotism: speaking out when things are getting too fucked up and doing your part to stop it. That's what it means to be patriotic. It's not lapel pins; it's not car magnets; it's not flags on your antennae. Learn something. Care about something.

Instead, what we have more and more is people looking at a person's name and calling him a terrorist. Or looking at his pin-less lapel and saying he lacks patriotism.

Exactly what does wearing a pin tell me about Barack Obama (or anyone else)? Does it tell me what his economic plan is? Does it tell me his health care views? Does it tell me how long he'll keep the US in Iraq?

No.

He made a choice not to wear a pin because he doesn't wear his patriotism in a small metal button on his jacket. He expresses it by (a) having a vision to fix the country, (b) knowing enough and having plans towards achieving a healthier country, and (c) being bold enough to run for the cursed job on president despite all the hurdles which still lay in front of him.

I don't think it's unpatriotic for Obama (or anyone else) to ignore the lapel pin trend in Washington because the most unpatriotic of people can still pin a little flag on themselves and say they want what's best: fucking SHOW me. I dare you. George W. Bush isn't a patriot; he's an emperor. All his pin tells me is that he knows how to put a pin on his jacket...or, at least, knows someone who can do that task for him.

But this is an old rant that was re-ignited Friday night. All the English classes I've been taking this semester have forced me to spend less time reading news articles and things I would normally fit into my schedule, but I have to have my nightly therapy of either "The Daily Show" or "Real Time With Bill Maher."

This picture was shown on "Real Time" this week:

The picture plainly shows Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and Hillary Clinton standing in front of an American flag, all with hands over their hearts except Obama. I have been unable to find anything online about what Maher said about the picture, but he claimed that it was being used against Obama: as a sign he does not respect America because his hand was not over his heart. What Obama's opposition neglects to mention is that the photo was not taken during a recitation of "The Pledge Of Allegance" (as even the caption on www.time.com states), rather "The Star-Spangled Banner."

What difference does it make?

The difference is that the only time it is "required" to put your hand over your heart is during the recitation of the former, NOT the latter. It is, in fact, unnecessary and sometimes incorrect to place your hand over your heart for "The Star-Spangled Banner," "God Bless America," or any of America's other theme songs.

I guess this goes back to my main theme: stop feeding me bullshit and show me what you're really about. But, even more to the point, the American public needs to stop eating the bullshit. Wearing a pin and placing your hand over your heart means NOTHING. Nothing. And whether it's Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or someone else: it still means nothing. Prove to me that you're a patriot by acting in a way that promotes the country's well being! Be a fucking public servant and do the job WELL. This country deserves it after eight years of terrible mismanagement and diservice.

Dennis Kucinich: Forever And Always

2008-02-13T23:00:00.000-05:00

Imagine a Congress with no voice for impeachment. Imagine Congress with no questions about Iraqi civilian casualties. Imagine a Congress without Kucinich when Bush decides on his pretext for war against Iran. Imagine the worst, because that is what we will have if Kucinich is defeated.

As if I wasn't depressed enough about Kucinich's lack of a chance in the presidential election, now this?

No one should feel this disheartened in the political system at 21 years old. I've researched Kucinich and, everywhere I look, his name is attached to ideas that I whole-heartedly agree with, though they maybe radical ideas for anyone who actually wants to be in (or remain in) office. As I've written previously, in my observations, it seems like major party candidates make careers out of catering to whatever audience is listening. Though I will vote for Obama if nominated, my vote is in full acknowledgement of his guilt in this; a guilt I don't think can be avoided in today's political climate.

It's a symptom, though, of a sick political system as a whole. The ways in which politicians are elected: it's not about experience, but about name recognition (which is closely associated with funding). Even candidates who desperately want to do something good and change the landscape of government face enormous challenges in even being recognized as serious candidates without support of big business or influential lobbies. So, unless you are ridiculously rich and can, somehow, run an entire campaign on your own money, you wind up having to cozy up next to people you may have wanted to avoid, just to stay in the game.

Though the founders obviously did not think very highly of common folk (as evident by their decision to create the Electoral College to help decide election outcomes), I don't think they ever quite envisioned a political system that was so married to corporations and money. Just because a man is rich does not make him worthy of running a country.

The idea of "democracy" is not the type on government by which we claim to live today. Democracy is government for the people, by the people. This is PoliSci101. In a democracy - literally - EVERYONE has a say. Rather, what we have is a rather loose form of a republic; we have a representative government. There's nothing wrong with that except that we're kidding ourselves if we think there's anything about OUR form of republic that is true to its name.

This is something for which I don't even completely blame our government. WE don't vote. WE don't allow our government to hear our voices. WE say nothing more than we should. And then, when we actually do vote, many of us are not informed enough to vote for the candidates which best represent who we are and who are most qualified to defend our priorities and values. But, this is a rant better writers have gone on and - if you're interested in knowing more about how voters become bamboozled and vote for candidates that do not serve their interests at all - you should check out What's The Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank.

However, in picking up where I left off last blog (and in picking back up my Kucinich point), honesty in government is something I've learned to believe doesn't exist and I think that's horribly unfair. It appears that Kucinich is what he says he is and he'll tell you what he really stands for, regardless of who you may be. He stands by his principles and, while it's cost him elections, it's saved him his soul and - at least in my case - has won him respect.

For whatever it's worth, though, I intend to follow his work until they either throw him out of government or elect him into a position where he can clean up the mess of the decades of insanity that have existed thus far. I sincerely hope Kucinich win his re-election bid in Ohio's 10th district. There needs to be at least one voice of reason in government (though I know he is not our only hope). He makes noise, but - unfortunately - he doesn't have the money for a bigger megaphone on a bigger stage.

Eavesdropping And You!

2008-02-12T20:29:00.000-05:00

I told you: the NSA really IS watching me! (Or, in this case, listening.)
"After more than a year of heated political wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program..."

This isn't good. I know right now we're talking about international calls / groups, but it just gives me a queasy feeling. It just doesn't sit well in my stomach. Today, it's eavesdropping on international calls out of suspicion; what's the excuse tomorrow? I'm uncomfortable knowing that at any time for any reason (since there's no or little accountability here, no one running to get a warrant with evidence in hand) that someone could be listening in on other (likely innocent) people. If this sort of thing is becoming tolerable, are they going to say that eavesdropping on activists is okay because they may all be guilty of trying to start riots?

I have friends overseas, one in India and one in South Africa, specifically. Whenever I write to them, I write as if someone other than my friends are reading. I often discuss politics with them (since whatever happens here will very likely effect them) and I often censor myself. Even in emails I send to friends in the US, I'm careful. It's unfortunate and it makes me worry about what could happen down the road. It makes me worried that there may come a day when activists, writers, artists, thinkers of all kinds may feel pressure to censor themselves because...who really knows who's watching or listening?

During and after the French Revolution, the governments in France and England forced a kind of censorship of writers, mostly poets. There's some really good political poetry from that time, but governments would shut down the publishers that printed such poems. Some writers just gave up; Wordsworth, in a way, is an example. He cooled off and decided it wasn't worth the trouble anymore.

We can't allow ourselves to be silenced in any way. Patriotism isn't, as supporters of legalized eavesdropping claim "in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president." Patriotism IS defiance. Patriotism IS speech. Today, they claim their actions are against a small group of people in a very specific circumstance. You can choose to believe that, but - given this administration's propensity for lying - you may want to think about it a little bit harder.

In other news, there are more elections going on today. I really wish I could say I had faith in the people of this country, but the last eight years have taught me better. While I will support Obama, I will never say he was my first choice. I just pray he doesn't let me down...I pray he wins in the first place.

It's not, at all, an issue of "lesser evils." I don't see Obama (or Clinton either, really) as being an "evil." I think he has some good ideas, but I'm also cynical and tired of candidates saying anything they think will get them elected. That's one reason I don't like Clinton; she knows words (which is good) and she knows how to manipulate them so as to be as vague as she wants to be, depending on with whom she is speaking. I don't feel Obama is as guilty of that, but I think any major party candidate with a shot at winning does that; it's survival.

It's also unfortunate.

What's refreshing about third party candidates (or...Kucinich, haha) is that they seem more willing to actually say things. Truth in politics sounds like an oxymoron, but that is what I crave. Tell me the truth. Tell me what you'll really do. Broken campaign promises are as cliche (and predictable) as broken hearts.

Super Tuesday Through The Eyes Of A Pollworker

2008-02-06T15:47:00.000-05:00

I woke up this morning with a text from 'Math' Kevin. It read: "Guys, I need help. I need a quote for class! Who did you vote for and why? Is the race for presidency clear and over?"

Did he think I could answer this in a text? I asked if I could message my response and he said sure, so I did and I thought I'd post it here as my post-Election Day response.

...................................................

You should have known you'd get no short answers from me!

I voted for Obama. He was not my first choice, but he was my "realistic" choice and became my only choice once Kucinich dropped out. I voted for Obama because I want a liberal in the White House. I don't think 'liberal' is a dirty word and that's also why I liked Kucinich so much. While Clinton is a Democrat, she's also sort of part of that old political machine of which I think people (and our generation, especially) are getting sick. When I say I want to see change, I almost want a complete revamping of the government. I guess I think - between the two of them, at least - Obama is the one who is most likely to think independently of that old machine. He's young and his "inexperience" may be what makes him the least corrupt among all the candidates.

But even in terms on inexperience, I think Obama has more than Bush did! Obama - I think - was a State senator for a while and then became the junior Senator from Illinois, so he's held public office for probably ten years or so in one form or another. Bush was a governor. That's it, as far as I know. He didn't even hold that office for very long. [I could be wrong, but I don't remember ever hearing about him holding any other political office. He owned a baseball team before he was governor, right!?] He was never in the Senate. A lot of presidents haven't been Senators. Experience in public office has never been this pressing an issue before.

Anyway, I voted for Obama because I really think he's the future of the Democratic party and is in the best position to pull the US out of this crazy war and all the other messes conservatives have left us. I also think he has a better chance of beating anyone the Republicans put up. Republicans seem to hate Clinton and can probably get more Republican voters to come out and vote against Clinton than they could against Obama. Clinton has baggage that Repubs can pull apart and unite their constituencies against. Again, Obama's "inexperience" saves him from that.

I don't think there are any clear winners, especially on the Democratic side, but even on the Republican side. Obviously, the Obama / Clinton race is neck and neck. McCain seems to be pulling ahead, but the Republican race seems to change almost daily. A few days ago, it was McCain versus Romney and no one was even talking about Huckabee. Now, Huckabee has won some key states and he looks to be back in it. While it's probably safe to say that McCain will win that nomination, Romney and Huckabee aren't even close to dead yet.

Huckabee terrifies me. The last thing we need is another religious fanatic in the White House. I'm so sick of that. Religion is actually a reason why I didn't like Edwards much. I don't want a religious man running the government. I want a man (or woman...haha) who can think objectively and make decisions on what's right for the nation (and the world, since the US has that power for now) as a whole, not just the religious percentages that fund their campaigns. I think that's so dangerous and it scares me - truly scares me - how many evangelicals come out to vote versus the rest of us. Running a country based on religion is not the way to go, especially considering our asses are in deep shit with this war. God's guidance has sort of sucked in this case and it's time to start looking at the actual human suffering and making decisions based on the people who actually exist and what's best for them. You can believe in God, but you shouldn't base laws or make decisions for an ever-more secular nation based on "Oh, God said so."

Bleh. This is long. Sorrrrry!

I think we'll have to wait out the Democratic side for a while. I feel like Clinton could get it, but that's just because I'm setting myself up for disappointment. I don't have anything really against Clinton and I will absolutely vote for her if she wins the nomination. I think either Democratic candidates will do a hell of a lot better than Bush (but I also don't think that's saying much!). I hope that - regardless of who wins the Dem. nomination - that citizens are fed up enough with the Bush administration that, even if they don't like Clinton, they'll vote for her over McCain. McCain seems to just want more of the same in a lot of ways. The only thing that makes me feel slightly better about McCain is that, at least, he WAS in a war and may have better perspective / strategy than Bush, but I'd still never vote for him.

Wow. I knew this would be long, but I didn't think it'd be THIS long. You probably only needed, like, a sentence, and I gave you a paper, but you gotta give me a break: I'm a PoliSci major!

...................................................

I was pondering the difference between hope and optimism yesterday as I drove back to Quibbletown (where Jess and I were pollworkers for the election) from my own polling place as Fellowship Farm. I suppose I can say I am hopefully Obama will win the nomination and the election, but I am not yet optimistic. I think you can have hope without really having a reason behind that hope, but optimism requires some firm evidence that things will work in that favor. I think optimism is an "educated hope."

There were lots of voters yesterday, more than we ever expected (as was evident by the fact that the town didn't give us nearly enough voting slips). Lots of people (including myself) declared party affiliations, almost all Democratic.

What I liked seeing the most, though, was - believe it or not - kids at the polling places with their parents. I think going to vote with my parents when I was younger is a huge reason why I wanted to vote so badly once I 'grew up' and why I only wanted to turn 18 so I could register. Of course, it wasn't computerized when I went into the booth with my parents. Haha. I just remember going with them and the impact that had on me. Now, with such a monumental and historical race going on, I hope that some of those kids remember this election and its importance, regardless of the outcome, and grow up to be good voters too. This election really could change everything, not in just who becomes president, but in the minds of future voters. If either Obama or Clinton win, the younger generation will no longer be stifled by the idea of someone who isn't an old white dude being president. It won't be an impossible / improbable idealistic thing anymore; it'll be something real. I know when my parents were younger, they could never have imagined a day when a woman and an African American were even in the race for president this far down the line.

I guess my thoughts went to the future partially because I am not optimistic, though very hopeful, and if liberals don't succeed this year (and if the US hasn't blown the world to bits by 2012) that the generation watching their parents vote this year will grow up to vote in the next election(s) - with this one in mind - and really force change to occur. I think this election has the power to really stick in people's minds because, regardless of who wins between Obama and Clinton, it WILL be a historic election. Neither one of these candidates was ever supposed to get this far. That, in and of itself, is something of a success and if we're not quite strong enough to pull it off this year, I am optimistic that we will be next time because it won't be such a taboo idea to have a "minority" run.

Someday, in the not too far off future, I hope women and non-white candidates become as normal in elections as computers and iPods have become throughout society. These things that never existed before have become so much a part of the culture that we can't imagine ourselves without them and I hope this sort of trend in electoral politics continues in a similar way. This is the first step and whether we take off or stumble, it's better than nothing and we're on our way.