We've got a few roaring comment threads going still, but there are a lot of things worth discussing right now, so let's have a catch-all. Post any comment about any subject you want in the comment thread. Some things that are going on:
- Barack Obama selected Joe Biden as his running mate (with the vaunted text message going out around 3 AM EST - a parting shot at Hillary, perhaps?)
- Rumors that McCain has picked Mitt Romney as his running mate
- The flap over McCain's houses gaffe
- The dropping price of oil; why's that happening?
- The Olympics
- The debate over the drinking age
- Rumors (that are false, but still entertaining) that the Church put in a offer to buy Facebook!
Catch-All
Fat America
Is anyone else sick of hearing about how fat America is compared to other countries? I am.
I guess its just my share of national pride manifesting, but I feel like every single country in the world goes off on America's weight problem. Or maybe its just that when I run into people from other countries and we talk food then invariably it comes up and irks me.
Yes, I admit, there are a lot of people living in the US who don't pay enough attention to their health, including maintaining a proper BMI. But you never hear people on the news or in other countries singing America's praises for their anti-smoking laws or decreased teen smoking numbers.
But, perhaps it would hurt a little less if it weren't true. America is fat. I'm not talking about people with hormone related disorders or actual medical issues that contribute to their weight and BMI. What I'm saying here is generally directed at people whose only issue is lack of exercise---not any other health-related issue which increases their weight.
According to this article that just came out, America's obesity numbers grew in 37 states this year. I think that this is pretty horrible, but not entirely unexpected.
On talk radio today I listened to a program talking about how some communities are having to cancel schoolbus routes due to increased cost of fuel combined with lack of budget, and kids are now being asked to walk 20 minutes to get to school. Apparently many of the kids are freaking out and don't want to do it. (cue the old grandpa voice "when I was a lad I walked 20 miles to get to school...") Now those cities are projecting more traffic congestion as parents drive their kids to school so they won't have to walk. What is wrong with walking to school if you live in a safe neighborhood community?
I think that this has something to do with it. If you click on any links I'm referencing, please: click this one.
Now, I'm not going to blame the kids for being drawn to video games, computers, or texting. I'm going to blame their parents. Why? Not only because their parents are the ones buying them access to these indoor gadgets...but because their parents are IMO pursuing an obesity-prone lifestyle themselves. Kids aren't the only ones putting on pounds. Adults are as well. Its the adults who severely impact what the kids do, for how long they do it, and whether the kids stay indoors or out. And its the adults who do the grocery shopping, fast food drive-ins, and refuse to cook regularly with lots of fiber-rich veggies. (for every gram of fiber you consume you automatically burn at least 7 calories simply by passing the fiber through the digestive system. Do you get enough fiber in your diet?) Imagine if everyone actually ate enough fiber---plus some extra.
I live in a densely populated area in California. There are many walking trails, sidewalks, and pedestrian-friendly modifications conducive to walking/biking to work. Yes, some people use them. But not enough people do. There are so many people who would rather sleep an extra 15 minutes than leave the required 15 minutes early to walk rather than drive to the office. I think this is a problem of our parents and our generation, relatively new to the history books. Before the fifties people were conserving fuel during WWII, couldn't afford it or a car during the depression, and the majority didn't own cars in the twenties or earlier 1900s. So to get around locally you had to walk, run, ride your bike, or take the horse. Not anymore. Now you can pop into the car and zip 4 blocks down the road to work. Or around the corner to church. Lazy. Ridiculous. Is it any wonder Americans are steadily gaining weight?
I was reading this posting about public adult exercise parks in China, and I was actually impressed. Here in America they are probably a lawsuit waiting to happen, which is sad, but what a great idea! How many of you would jump on playground equipment if it were sized for an adult? How about if it were gym equipment in a cute little park? I would...but then, I have no pride. And hey, if it is a free workout--sign me up! Is it possible to believe that most Americans would like a freebie over sitting on their buns? Yes, the community government would have to build these parks, but if my tax dollars are being used to create/maintain/renew parks as it is, why not throw in one of these and see what happens?
Now some ethnicities are credited or assumed to have a better health ethic than others. Maybe some just have a better sense or lack of self pride when it comes to exercising in public. After all, isn't a feeling of wellbeing, increased pheromones, increased energy, increased clarity of thoughts, increased range of motion, increased muscle as opposed to fat, and a sense of accomplishment more important than what the next person thinks about what you look like? And isn't it a bit ironic that exercise makes people look better, but some are too embarrassed to exercise publicly because of what they think they look like to others while they're doing it?
Photo I took last summer of an AsianAmerican doing tai chi at Coit TowerI wish everyone would take a walk after dinner around the block, or get up early enough to do something physical before breakfast and the workday. But I know it isn't always possible. But it is possible to limit the amount of television you watch, the amount of electronic games your children are allowed to play, and the amount of time you spend sitting on the couch. So make a goal and walk out the door to meet it!
Anyway, I just wanted to sound off on this a bit. What irks you about this subject?
Health Care Revisited
After the economy and the Iraq war, health care is the top concern for voters this fall. It is certainly a hot topic on this blog. We had a roaring discussion going a couple of months ago thanks to Wizzle's post, but I would like to review it again, specifically looking at Obama's and McCain's health care proposals and comparing them to my own ideas of what should change.
The symptoms of the health care crisis in America are too many uninsured and underinsured Americans, but the root cause is inflationary medical costs - not a new problem. (In fact, HMOs were created in 1973 to address medical costs that were rising faster than the rate of inflation. Didn't work out so well.) In my opinion, the top three contributors to rising medical costs are:
- For-profit managed care - This website gives an excellent historical overview of the rise of HMO's (Health Maintenance Organizations) and why they have been so damaging to health care in the U.S.
- Skyrocketing medical liability insurance for doctors - The average premium for emergency care doctors was $53,500 in 2003. Other medical specialists, like neurosurgeons and Obstetricians pay $200,000-$300,000 (wonder why it is so expensive to have that baby?)
- Uninsured receiving expensive mandated emergency care - half of all emergency room care in the U.S. goes uncompensated (even after government pitches in, and government pays roughly 44% of ALL medical expenses in the U.S. through Medicaid and Medicare), meaning hospitals have to write it off as charity or bad debt
Rising medical costs lead to rising health insurance premiums lead to increasing numbers of uninsured people leads to uninsured people waiting until small health concerns become emergencies meaning doctors provide the care but don't get paid, which leads to rising medical costs for everyone else, etc. etc. We are caught in a spiral. We need real solutions that curb the rising cost of medical care so insurance and medical care ARE affordable and available to every citizen in America. In my opinion, a real solution to the health care crisis in America needs to encompass the following:
- Repeal of for-profit managed care - When investors are making money off of health insurance, it means that money is coming from the pockets of doctors or patients. And if it is coming out of the pockets of doctors, you can bet it is coming out of the pockets of patients. And when an HMO is making decisions on what care will be covered and what care won't, that ties a physician's hands on providing the best care. We need to go back to non-profit, traditional insurance plans.
- Mandated minimum health insurance coverage - When someone doesn't have health insurance but does require expensive emergency medical care and doesn't pay for it, hospitals and the government pay for it, which really means that the rest of us taxpayers, insured, and those without insurance who DO pay their bills pay for it. I think that just as it is the law for drivers to carry at least a minimum liability insurance, we should have a law that requires every individual to at least care a minimal traditional health insurance policy so that if something big happens, it will be covered.
- Change insurance from employer-based to individual-based - Individuals should purchase insurance on the open market, but employers can retain the choice to supplement part of the premium as a benefit if they choose (or, better yet, salaries will increase). That way, if an employee loses their job, they don't lose their insurance (known as "portability").
- A tax on health insurance premiums that goes into a government fund (a REAL trust fund - none of this Social Security Trust Fund crap) for one of two reasons - 1. to subsidize private insurance premiums for low-income families, or 2. (see #5)
- A government-sponsored, non-profit health insurance plan to provide insurance for those who don't have it otherwise. Likely, this means that it would have a disproportionate number of "pre-existing condition", unemployed or low-income people in the pool. To off-set this, see #4 (yes, me, a conservative, proposes adding this tax - mostly because I think that the overall costs to individuals will decline this way, so even with the tax, individuals will be paying less for health care overall)
- Expanded use of retail clinics
How would I accomplish these objectives? Instead of HMO's, I would go back to traditional insurance plans. Individuals can choose what level of coverage they want in terms of deductible and coinsurance (up to a maximum $20,000 deductible for mandated coverage, with all expenses over $20,000 covered at 100% for "essential" care). And the coverage would be per family or "per insured".
It works like car insurance. You are required to have a minimal level of coverage for liability purposes (to protect OTHERS), but you can choose how much coverage you want according to your needs/budget. When we were poor students, we knew that if something happened to our car, we were toast. So we budgeted in higher premiums in return for full coverage with a low deductible (something like $250). Now that we have a bit more cushion and can afford a higher deductible, we pay a lower premium. Currently with health care, people obtain coverage through their employer, so the employer works out the details of the coverage. Basically, you get what you get as an employee. But, with individual, portable insurance, each individual could choose the coverage appropriate to them - from a small $250 deductible to a large $20,000 deductible, and from a 99/1 split to a 50/50 split on coinsurance (with all "essential" expenses over $20,000 covered at 100%). Since everyone is putting into the pot, the premiums would be reduced.
Therefore, the max that an individual could possibly pay out-of-pocket (above premiums) in any given year is $20,000 if they purchase the minimal mandated health coverage and have an accident or catastrophic illness. If they are healthy and don't want any other health care, they wouldn't pay anything besides their very small insurance premium.
On the other hand, a low-income family could choose a plan like the 99/1 split with a $250 deductible. If they meet income requirements, part or all of their premium would be subsidized. For a very poor family whose premium is completely subsidized, the most they would possibly pay given an accident or catastrophic illness is $2225 ($250 deductible plus 1% of any costs up to $20,000, covered completely after that), which could be financed with the hospital.
In return for a pretty low premium, a family like mine might choose a $5,000 deductible with an 80/20 split. In a typical year, we would likely pay for any care received just out of pocket, but in the case of an accident or catastrophic illness, we would pay a maximum of $8,000 (and be able to deduct it on our taxes given current tax laws that allow deduction for medical expenses once they exceed 7% of income. Plus, we would use a Health Savings Account to save up the $5000 deductible tax-free).
The reason I like this plan is that it addresses the costs while ensuring coverage for every American in a way that returns the power, responsibility and "profit" back to doctors and patients. Individuals can make all of their own decisions. They are not limited to "in-network" providers; they can choose how much risk to assume; they can decide what care they want. Any decision to seek medical care comes knowing that you will pay a portion of that care that you already decided is reasonable and affordable for you. Free market principles are at play. Operations like MinuteClinics can flourish that make simple health care more accessible and affordable.
Under this plan, hospitals that provide expensive emergency medical care will be paid (at least above and beyond $20,000) because everyone would be covered for that "essential" care through their mandated minimal insurance.
Also, I support nationwide tort reform to reduce medical liability insurance premiums, which will further reduce the cost of medical care (particularly for surgeons and OBs - we need more specialists, not less!)
So, with that as a background, let's evaluate Barack Obama's and John McCain's health care proposals. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised to read both. Obama's is not the socialized medicine nightmare, and McCain's is not the uncompassionate status quo that I thought they were. In fact, they actually have a lot in common.
Similarities between Obama's and McCain's healthcare proposals:
- Both propose an optional national health plan that does not replace existing private insurance plans, but that does provide coverage to anyone, regardless of illness or pre-existing conditions.
- Both propose subsidizing health insurance premiums for low-income Americans.
- Both support making health insurance portable.
- Both support reducing drug costs through allowing importation of American drugs from other countries and increasing availability of generics.
- Both emphasize prevention and early detection of chronic illnesses.
- Both think we should utilize technology to streamline records and care.
- Both want to bring transparency to medical costs.
- Both specifically mention bringing more attention to autism.
Differences (Obama):
- Obama's national health plan is managed care that covers all "essential medical services".
- Obama's proposal requires a lot more regulations and reporting data from insurance companies and doctors.
- Obama supports taxing employers who do not provide (enough) health insurance to pay for the national plan.
- Obama proposes that the government subsidize employer health plans for a portion of catastrophic costs.
- Obama plans to expand eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP programs.
- Obama supports mandatory disease management programs.
- Insurance reform: Obama will strengthen anti-trust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
- Obama supports [forcing] insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profit and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition from insurers.
- A bunch of other stuff that I perceive as government getting more involved than necessary.
Differences (McCain):
- McCain will reform the tax code to offer more choices beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit -effectively cash - of $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.
- McCain supports Health Savings Accounts so families can save money tax-free to pay for medical expenses.
- McCain supports expanding walk-in clinics in retail outlets.
- McCain wants to reform the system that pays Medicare and Medicaid providers.
- McCain wants tort reform that eliminates lawsuits aimed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocol.
- McCain proposes a plan to help seniors by giving them a monthly stipend to use for in-home care. (not really sure where the money to pay for that is supposed to come from)
Both Obama's and McCain's plans have some things that I like: an optional, affordable plan that is available to everyone, subsidies for low-income Americans, portability. Neither actually goes as far as I would like in eliminating for-profit managed care and mandating coverage (do I sound like a liberal or what?).
BUT, overall (and not surprisingly), I prefer McCain's health care proposal, and his vision is why:
John McCain's Vision for Health Care Reform John McCain believes the key to health care reform is to restore control to the patients themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care . . . An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability . . . When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health Savings Accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for.
Ooh, the empowerment. The control. ME making decisions about MY health care. I LOVE it.
"In God We Trust"
I know that this has no real significance, since laws aren't enforced by what the people actually want in this country anyways...but, I figured I'd take an opportunity to encourage you all to vote the same as me (except David, of course;) Actually, I'm surprised that I feel this to be so important - especially considering how it came to me - by a forward - I hate forwards!!!! Anyways, basically, some athiest somewhere is petitioning to get "in god we trust" taken off our legal tender. So, MSNBC started a poll to see what America thinks. The athiest says this establishes Christianity as the official religion and does not seperate church and state. The other arguement is that this phrase has cultural and historical significance and does nothing to establish one religion above the other. I agree. Therfore, lets all go cast our vote in this pole - I know, silly, but I figured this is an acceptable place for me to make my plug. Kay, I 've wasted enough words on this silly debate. here is the link.
The Value of Not Cheating On Your Flippin' Wife
Another mighty one has fallen. That's right, he stepped out on his wife, who had been diagnosed with incurable breast cancer, and may or may not have fathered a love child.
What is with these people?!
John Edwards.
Eliot Spitzer.
Mark Foley.
Larry Craig.
Duke Cunningham.
Newt Gingrich.
David Vitter.
Gary Hart.
...John McCain
And, of course, the big one: President Bill Clinton.
Can you conceive of the arrogance required to believe you were the best person to represent your party in a critical presidential election while you're cheating on your cancer-stricken wife? Can you imagine if he was the nominee right now? It's terrifying to me to think about just how little we actually know about these politicians who run the world.
What does this actually tell us about these people? Are their personal lives our business? Bill Clinton was an excellent president, his personal failings aside, but what about trust? We know that these folks are willing to break sacred oaths, so how do we know they won't break their oath of office? The worst part is the hypocrisy. “I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen,” said Edwards in 1999. And don't get me started on some of those Republican cheaters, who spend half their lives trying to think of ways to inconvenience gay people and then get caught tapping their feet under the stall.
So how do you McCain supporters feel about his admitted infidelities? Does time heal all wounds? Or do you, like Sean Hannity, float him a pass because he was a POW? Are you at least squirming a little bit, the way us Democrats squirmed through Lewinsky-gate?
This is how I feel: you have to consider candidates/politicians as a total package. There are issues of integrity to political issues as well as personal integrity, and, to me, the former is most important for elected officials. Take Mitt Romney as an example: by all accounts, he is a paragon of personal integrity, but in terms of his politics, you could make a convincing case that he lacks conviction, integrity and core beliefs and follows the prevailing political winds. The same could be said for a post-2000 John McCain. The same could never be said about Fred Thompson, or Russ Feingold, or a number of centrists who break from the party line about issues that are important to them.
If Bill was running against Hillary, I'd vote for Hillary, because while their politics are essential identical, he's shown a monstrous personal failing, as well as a disrespect for the office of President. If Bill was running against Dubya, I'd campaign for Bill, because Bill's problems pale in comparison to the Bush administration's actual failures. (On a side note, I get such a kick out of those who criticize Obama and his supporters for being a part of a "cult of personality". When I hear that, all I can think of is George W. Bush.)
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:16) I would rather have a politician who I disagreed with on many issues, but who had a coherent belief structure and fought for it - in other words, who stood for something, then a politician who I agree or disagree with depending on the time of day or the most recent lobbyist meeting. When it comes to personal life, I'd rather have a politician who shows respect and love for their families, and, when and if mistakes are made, owns up to them and doesn't do it again. Both are important, but when it comes down to it, the latter issues takes the gold medal.
Pro-Death?
Wow, It's been a while since I had my own post - but, please forgive me, as I'm living outside of the country - and it has become increasingly difficult to get involved with US current affairs. So here we go. The following is presented with, I admit, some sarcasm - The intent is not to hurt feelings, or belittle anyone, but to show the other point of view:
I was particularly struck with Stephanie's post on the Sanctity of Life. I feel that I have a quite good appreciation of and embracal of the sanctity of life. Therefore, I was, I feel justifiably, perturbed by the continual use of "Pro-Life" as a descriptive for one who takes Stephanie's stances. I felt that if I don't line up with that Pro-life stance, what does that make me? Pro-death? I don't blame Stephanie for this - actually, I think it is quite common, and has been shown over and over again in multiple posts and comments by many conservative contributers. There is an unsettling preference by quite a few to call the morality and desencey of the left-view point into question. I feel this is unfortunate. For this reason, I have decided to, at least for the extent of this post, claim the title of "Pro-death" - since i find myself in a contrary position to what has been defined as the "pro-life stance" on just about every issue.
I am Pro-death. On one level, this means that I am not anti-abortion. Sure, I disagree with people's reasons for abortion most of the time, but I feel that it is their choice to make (because i don't believe that human life starts at fertilization). I can't see a clear way of defining "rape" and therefore cant understand how one could legislate abortion on more than a superficial level. Therefore, I don't think it is a reasonable or helpful legislation to society as a whole. For this reason, I am generally in favor of not legislating abortion - though I think there should be some sort of parental cosent, doctor's consent, etc.
So, I am pro-death on the issue of abortion. But, that is not all. I am also pro-death on the issue of animal rights. I would never define myself that way - I do it, because it seems that my point of view is against the stand taken by pro-lifers. I feel that human kind's gross misuse of animial products and its blatant disregard for animal life is detestable. I am not a member of PETA and disagree with their occasionally voilent approach - but I do think that legilsation against overconsumption is a good idea - even if that meant putting some beef farmers out of business. I could only imagine how their families might suffer when dad's beef production livelihood is brought to a halt. I do consider myself an animal rights actavist. It has been said, "Animal rights activists have no problem potentially killing or maiming children to try and stop animal research." I could argue that I do not fit this stereotype, but will not bother at this point - I am already claiming to be pro-death, afterall.
I am also pro-death because I see some amount of value in stem-cell research (as I see some amount of value in animal research - If done humanely, and respectfully - and not for cosmetics and other useless stuff. I again don't consider embryonic stem-cells to generally be based in human life. Pro-death all the way.
I am also, apperantly pro-death when it comes to the environment. My wife and I have decided to have only 1 or 2 children by means of natural birth (if possible), and to adopt another 1 or 2 from suffering countries. We feel honestly that increasing the population of earth at this stage is irresponsible particularly when there are so many children that are not recieving the basic needs of human life and are dying in suffering countries.
I further feel that trying to "reduce our carbon footprint," besides being very in vouge right now (green is the new black), is a seriously important commitment for people of faith to make. We are the stewards of this planet and have a responsibility to it. I also feel that there comes a certian point where we, as Americans, cease to be responsible and instead, become addicted or obsessed to a certian way of life that has been engrained in us by generations of Christian breeding mixed with the supreme quality in neo-natal and pedeatric health care. The earth (as David has commented) has been replenished - it doesn't need to be desroyed by us - God's crowning creations. In fact, I'm so pro-death that I'd encourage others who are in a position to seriously ponder making a similar choice, as I sincerly feel it to be right - at least for me and my family.
Following my one-two children, I plan on procuring some change to ensure that I don't have more. Indeed, I will intentionally do things to stop a pregnancy from occuring. I will interfer with the natural processes of human sexuality and reproduction and, "play god" to some extent to ensure that my wife and I don't have a pregnancy that we're not prepared for. I see very little difference between unfertilized reproductive cells, and fertilized ones. If this makes me pro-death, then so be-it. However, I am positive that most people, in and out of the church, make a similar choice all of the time.
Refering to the Scripture quoted previously:
For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
We need to remember that this was revealed in the early 1830's, when the population of planet earth had just reached 1 billion - as opposed to the 7 Billion that it will reach in 2012 - about 200 years later. There definately was enough to spare in 1830. Now, the tables have been turned - thanks to our gross overconsumption. I believe it is "moral" to place the earth and it's needs above the desire to have continually larger and larger families. Is this really pro-death?
I am also pro-death when it comes to dying. I sincerely believe that when a person is in constant pain, suffering, sorrow, and physical anguish - that will NOT get better over the course of his or her natural lifespan, that it is only charitable and loving to allow that person to gracefully exit this life. I read what the official church's stance is. Good for the official stance. That has no bearing on what I sincerely feel in my heart of hearts to be the most cheritable and loving approach. Pro-death one more time.
Because of my stance on these issues, does that make me a champion for human death? I recognize that my opinions will often differ from many of yours - maybe even all of you. But I do not, however, truely feel myself to be pro-death. I simply feel that I view things from a different point of view. Extremes on both sids (blowing up a research lab to blowing up an abortion clinic) are wrong. As long as we are avoiding those extremes, lets work to garner a healthy respect for BOTH points of view, rather than make one the champion of life and the other the champion of...death. Lets keep in mind that we have our different viewpoints for a reason.
Sending "others" to war
It has been decided that a United States Marine will stand trial for "unpremeditated murder and dereliction of duty" for apparently killing an unarmed Iraqi militant in Fallujah in 2004. Are you kidding me? We not only are sending people to war to "defend" our country, we are now also trying to send them to prison for murders that occurred in a war zone while they were carrying out their missions. C'mon, people. They eventually stormed the mosque, killing 10 insurgents and wounding five others, and showing off a cache of rifles and grenades for journalists. The Marines told the pool reporter that the wounded men would be left behind for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents and attacked it again, only to find the same wounded men inside."
I am admittedly biased. I have two younger brothers who are active duty Marines. One spent six months in Iraq last year. I don't hear much about what goes on over there from him; it isn't something he likes to talk about. I know my brother, and his relative silence means that the stuff that really goes on over there is beyond not good.
Guess what? War ain't pretty and it ain't for everybody. But somebody has to do it. Somebody that stands up and says "Send me." Somebody that does that and then does his or her best to make the correct split second decisions while storming one of the most heavily guarded and fortified cities of the entire conflict should be applauded. Making a wrong decision under these circumstances is just one of those things that should be swept under the rug. We should not be criminalizing killing bad guys during war.
This happened in November 2004. This makes it during the Second Battle of Fallujah or "Operation Phantom Fury". The U.S. and Iraqi Security Forces stormed Fallujah where 4000-5000 buttheads were waiting to kill us. We had 5000-10000 combat troops. Those are pretty blasted even numbers when you think about the kind of resistance we normally encounter. We lost 95 soldiers in this battle and had 560 wounded. Admittedly, we did better than the bad guys (which is a good thing!), as they lost somewhere around 1350 people. And we took 1500 prisoners. Point is, this was a very, very hot combat zone during these few months. Marines were literally moving from house to house fighting the insurgency.
Here is a blib from CNN from this battle (Tues, Nov 16, 2004):
"Friday, the Marines were fired upon by snipers and insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades from a mosque and an adjacent building. The Marines returned fire with tank shells and machine guns.
These charges seem wrong to me, though there are admittedly very few details. I'm sorry, but this just stinks of war. Much worse has been done, and much worse is being done. If you ask me, Sgt. Weemer is partly to blame for his current legal trouble as he volunteered information when applying to a Secret Service position. I don't blame him for doing what was done, though. If you close your eyes and envision what the situation must have been like; the chaos, bullets flying, constant gunfire, very close quarters, invading enemy territory, RPG explosions, overturned cars, not seeing your enemy, trying to keep track of your friends, everything moving so fast... No, I can't say I wouldn't have reacted the same way.
I think that war is a very bad place to be. We cannot be holding our soldiers to standards that are near impossible. We can't have soldiers second-guessing themselves at critical times. The vast majority of the time, they make the right decisions. They took more prisoners during this battle then people that were killed. That is a testament to the skill and training and split-second decision making capabilities of our soldiers.
Now let's remember what the deal is here and go kill Osama!
The Value of Human Life
I am pro-life. On an obvious and most basic level, this means that I am anti-abortion. Sure, I am pro-choice, too. I believe women have the right to be responsible about their own reproductive choices. When you choose to have sex, you choose to accept the potential consequences, one of which is pregnancy. Except in cases of rape and incest (where obviously the victim did not make a choice), that pregnancy represents a choice that was already made, and therefore, choosing to kill the unborn baby represents another choice - the choice to kill an unborn baby. Just as murder is not a choice we "allow" in our society, I don't think that abortion is a choice we should allow if we truly value the sanctity of life (except in the rare cases I mentioned above). a firebomb erupted in the townhouse of assistant biology professor David Feldheim. As smoke and flames filled the first floor, Feldheim, his wife, their 7-year old son and 6 year-old daughter were forced to use a drop ladder to escape from a second floor bedroom. Jerry Vlasak, who, as a spokeman for the Animal Liberation Press Office, serves as an apologist for animal rights zealots, issued this statement: "This is historically what happens whenever revolutionaries begin to take the oppression and suffering of their fellow beings seriously, whether human or nonhuman. It's regrettable that certain scientists are willing to put their families at risk by choosing to do wasteful animal experiments in this day and age". Wow, really? These attempted murderers are "revolutionaries"? The nonhuman "fellow beings" have more value than the family of a scientist? Animal rights activists have no problem potentially killing or maiming children to try and stop animal research? What exactly is this research? Feldheim studies neural connections in the brain and their effect on vision using mice. Other scientists who use animals in their research develop drugs to treat (or even eradicate) cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, etc. They develop compounds, and when they think they have one that appears to work on a cellular level, they test it in mice for effectiveness and toxicity. What exactly are the extreme animal activists hoping to accomplish in terrorizing scientists? Have scientists test the drugs on actual humans first instead of mice so that humans can suffer side-effects (possibly death) if the drug or the dose proves too dangerous to go to market? Stop the development of drugs altogether that have the potential to save lives or significantly improve the quality of life for humans? Both of these "solutions" show a clear preference for animal life over human life. Are these activists the same ones advocating for embryonic stem cell research that would destroy viable embryos in the name of scientific research that could "save lives or significantly improve the quality of life for humans"? Oh wait, that DOES devalue (embyonic) human life. Well, as long as they're consistent . . . But, that is not all. I am also pro-life when it comes to the environment. I read this article about couples who are choosing sterilization so they don't "pollute" the environment with children. Toni Vernelli was sterilized at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprint . . . "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet" says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population". While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future. But when she was 25, disaster struck. "I discovered that despite taking the pill, I'd accidentally fallen pregnant by my boyfriend. I was horrified. I knew straight away there was no option of having the baby. I went to the doctor about having a termination, and asked if I could be sterilized at the same time [the doctor said no - sterilization took place two years later as noted above]. I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt would only be a burden to the world". Yeah, good thing she did the "moral" thing and chose to have an abortion. Toni is not the only one. Sarah Irving and fiance Mark Hudson opted for Mark to have a vasectomy. From a young age, Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonized over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species, and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child . . . "I realized then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do" . . . Mark adds, "we do everything we can do reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong of me to add to climate change and the destruction of earth . . . What makes us happy is knowing we are doing our bit to save our precious planet." Oh, there's that whole morality thing again. Funny how "morality" is a taboo word when it comes to chastity because it is associated with religion, but perfectly fine when it comes to environmentalism (the religion of some). Anyways, back to post - sure, each of us is responsible for our own choice of whether or not to have children (before we choose to have sex, of course). People who don't want children definitely should not have them - that is just common courtesy to the child! But, I found some of their comments to be a bit chilling. Children are a burden to the world? A sinister threat to the future? Doing "our bit" to "save the planet" means not having children because they will add to climate change and the destruction of the earth?!?!? Since when is "the planet" worth more than a human life? Why does "the planet" even have value? It seems to me that "the planet's" whole purpose is to sustain human life. D&C 104:17 Sure, I am all for doing reasonable things to preserve our environment (particularly for future generations of PEOPLE), but holding the "morality" of environmentalism above the value of children and people in our world reeks of disdain for human life. But, that is not all. Oh, no! That is not all! I am also pro-life when it comes to dying. Barbara Wagner of Oregon was denied cancer treatment by the Oregon Health Plan (the state health program), but was offered pallative care, which includes assisted suicide. Since assisted suicide in Oregon is legal, offering assisted suicide is just one of the many "benefits" of state health care. (Well, that certainly increases my desire for a national health care plan [eyes rolling]. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical company that sells the drug stepped up and is offering a year of treatment to the woman for free - those evil, nasty, for-profit capitalists.) On the other hand, this does have the potential to solve our aging population problem. Instead of actually helping to care for all these elderly people, let's just deny them medical care and instead offer to "assist" them in passing on. When we deem that their cost to society outweighs their contribution, let's put them out of their (and our economic) misery. Plus, it will help the environment! Those liberals think of everything. So, yes, I am a champion for human life - life before birth, life before death, life before the environment, human life before animal life. Considering that so many liberal causes seem to have it the other way around, what does that say about the sanctity of human life?
So, I am pro-life on the issue of abortion. But, that is not all. I am also pro-life on the issue of animal rights. I read this article about how extreme animal rights activists are terrorizing medical researchers into giving up their research for fear of their families' safety. What are some of the tactics of these animals rights activists? Early Saturday morning, For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan. (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
Pollution Revisited
Have you heard about the plan China has been using to lower its air pollution prior to the Olympic games?
They have been implementing restricted driving, allowing people with plates whose last number is even to drive one day, people whose last number is odd to drive the next. In addition, they've curtailed some factory production to cut pollution.
While I am ecstatic that the officials in China are doing this in an attempt to lower air pollution so that the number of athletes competing while wearing face masks is at a minimum, I'm also a bit astounded they haven't been doing this all along. I mean, as terrible as it is to see a bunch of athletes developing asthma because they're competing in an area with dirty air, its also terrible that there are MILLIONS of people who breathe in this air year round, when both even and odd licence plates are allowed to drive on the roads.
While I'm not the biggest fanatic about global warming and I have room for improvement when it comes to sorting garbage from recycling, I do believe pollution is something that everyone should be wary of and do something to limit. Even if you can't do everything that is recommended you can do something, and something is better than nothing.
China is one of the biggest countries in the world, both in size and population. Many believe it will emerge as the new global powerhouse in #?# years. I'm glad that America is pushing the stop pollution/littering agenda with its own citizens, but China and India are huge contributors to global pollution as well, and it is discouraging to see what little is being done there.
Well, I mentioned littering. I have heard that the big cities in China are immaculately clean, so I have to give them credence for that. I have heard that there are little old men on bicycles that go up and down the streets, and as soon as they see some litter they sweep it into a bin on the back of their bikes. San Francisco could DEFINITELY learn from that example. So go China for that. Not only are your streets clean, but you've created jobs and pushed back the retirement age. Go you.
On the other hand though, the sheer number of inhabitants, many of whom smoke and drive and probably use aerosol hair spray is enormous. I think China has some responsibility to set a global example here and implement some pollution cut-back policies for the sake of its citizens. I'm not sure what they can do without losing money for decreased production of Made in China stickers, but even if it is only to continue the even/odd driving days...well, at least that is something.
Parental Rights
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?
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)
Barack Obama
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.
John McCain
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
