I was at a friend's house today and he asked me, "Did you hear about the Supreme Court ruling?" He then informed me that the Court ruled 5-4 that child rapists can't be executed; they limited the death penalty to murder cases. He then went off about how stupid the decision is, ultimately concluding by saying it wouldn't matter what the Court says, because if anyone hurt his child like that, he would apply his own capital punishment.
And how many of us would blame him, vilify him?
Well, I would. There is no place for vigilantism in our justice system - it would fall apart. I know, I don't have kids, so I don't "understand", but it would still be wrong. Just as I think the state executing them would be wrong. The punishment would not befit the crime. As abhorrent as it is, it's not a crime which causes death. It's the ruination of life, and that generally deserves the ruination of the criminal's life, e.g. lengthy imprisonment and sex offender status. I also believe in rehabilitation, even for these most heinous criminals, because I know that repentance is a crucial element of gospel of Christ. That's not to say that some people won't be mentally ill for their entire lives, and would always be a danger to others. But how can we ever say that they'll never be cured, whether through therapy or miracle?
Some may respond with an argument that the death penalty is needed to help the prison system. There are massively better legislative changes that would improve the prison system (legalizing marijuana, for one). When people become a problem or an expense we're not justified in KILLING them.
It's hard for me to get worked up about this, since these crimes sicken me so much, but justice has to apply across the board.
The biggest problem I have with the death penalty is this. Death is irreversible, irrevocable, permanent - as far as the State is concerned. Whether or not you think the State has the right to dole out executions at all, at least I think we can all agree it should only be done in the most extreme circumstances - and those circumstances, I believe, are limited to unrepentant killers.
Why is it that we liberals are always defending the world's crappiest people?
this leaves a foul taste
Tainted?
The Midwest Democracy Network sent a questionnaire to various political campaigns in September 2007. One question asked:
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?Obama answered the following:
In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator JohnMcCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
On Thursday, June 19, 2008, Obama released this statement:
We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we’ll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election. It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken. . .Really? Did Obama suddenly have a change of heart because sometime between September of 2007 and today, he realized that the system is "broken"? I suspect it has more to do with the fact that between September of 2007 and today, he realized that he can raise a heck of a lot of money. $295.52 million, so far, including $10.72 million for the general election. Compare that to McCain's paltry $121.9 million.
Sounds to me like an announcement by some presidential candidate that [he] would forgo public financing so [he] could raise unlimited funds in the general election.
How is that for preserv[ing] the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election?
More importantly, how is that for "a new kind of politics"?
Offshore Drilling
I heard something on the radio that caught my ear, and I had to look it up to be sure I had heard it right. We all know that Bush and some Republicans (including McCain) are pushing to end the ban on offshore drilling. I had heard reasons why this is a “bad” idea from the opposing side (bad for the environment, it would take years to actually get the oil, we need to focus on alternative sources of energy, etc.), but this reason caught my ear:
Barack Obama and fellow Democrats have denounced proposals for offshore drilling as nothing more than a favor to oil companies.
How is that exactly?
It seems to me that the status quo is a favor to oil companies. With supply restricted in comparison to demand, coupled with rampant speculation, oil companies are making a killing. Record profits, in fact (note that I pulled that from a liberal website just for fun). I’ve heard the whole "Blood for Oil" theory that Bush invaded Iraq to get cheap oil as a favor to Big Oil companies. That doesn’t seem to have worked “as planned”, but the status quo is working out much better for Bush’s cronies, don’t you think? The Big Oil companies sit back, don’t explore or increase refinery capacity, but make record profits.
The Democrats have had a hey-day dragging oil executives before congress to drill them on their profits and the high price of oil.
"You have to sense what you're doing to us - we're on the precipice here, about to fall into recession," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "Does it trouble any one of you - the costs you're imposing on families, on small businesses, on truckers?"
The executives said it did, and that they are doing all they can to bring new oil supplies to market, but that the fundamental reasons for the surge in oil prices are largely out of their control.
Here’s a quote from the Americanprogress.org site linked to above :
Rhetorically, President Bush acknowledges that the United States needs to reduce its oil dependence, which would decrease demand, lower pressure on prices, and reduce profits . . . Yet in reality, the president is protecting oil company profits at the public’s expense.
So, let’s walk through this together. We currently have restricted oil supply = record prices = record profits = favor to Big Oil.
Republicans are pushing to expand drilling in the U.S., which would increase supply = lower prices = lower profits = favor to Big Oil? Can you have it both ways?
It sounds like a bit of political rhetoric to me.
In order to ... establish justice
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled for a third consecutive time against Bush administration policies denying writs of habeas corpus to prisoners unlawfully held at the military compound at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Bush and his yes-man attorneys have been defying Constitutional law for far too long, and I am very pleased that the people who have been held at Gitmo for seven years may soon finally have their days in court. The right of a detainee to challenge his or her detention is the absolute foundation of our justice system, and is guaranteed by the Constitution, both in Article 1, Section 9:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
...and in the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Has there been a rebellion or invasion I am not aware of? Are non-citizens not people? Is not Guantánamo Bay part of the sovereign United States of America, or at the very least "within its jurisdiction"? This is absolutely cut-and-dry to me - the Constitution clearly states that people held at locations under the jurisdiction of the USA have the right to challenge unlawful detention, and that the government cannot deny liberty without due process of law.
I am grateful that justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter and Stevens were there to stand for the Constitution and for human rights. Justice Kennedy, author of the majority opinion in this case, eloquently wrote, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law."
I am equally disgusted with justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas for their short-sighted ploy to twist and bend the Constitution to suit the times. Kennedy's assertion that the Constitution was designed for extraordinary times is absolutely correct. Just because we grant Gitmo detainees due process does not make us any less safe - each detainee will still be tried by our best prosecutors in a court of law - it just makes us right, fair, and balanced. Just like Fox News. :)
If not for habeas corpus, how are we any better than the Vietcong who held and tortured John McCain for years in a time of war? How can we expect other nations or entities to treat our soldiers with respect if we cannot treat theirs with the same respect? If America wishes to claim the moral high ground, she cannot wantonly imprison and indefinitely detain whomever she wishes.
Health insurance - a novel, by Rachel Dixon
So, I've been thinking about health insurance lately.
My head feels like it's about to explode from the insanity of it all, so I thought I'd squeeze out a post while I still have the power of coherent speech.
I'm not too fussed about what the candidates specifically have planned for the healthcare system once they're in office, because it's not up to them. They just get to veto or not veto whatever version of their original plan Congress chews up and spits out, if indeed they can produce anything at all. What I want to see is their general goals for the system, and how firm a grasp they seem to have on reality - do they have good ideas, and do they seem to be surrounding themselves with people who have good ideas? And I'm trying to more firmly compose my own thoughts on the subject. Here's what I have come up with so far:
1) We need to start over. The insurance system as it is, I truly believe, is hopeless. I know this is not likely to ever be a view shared by any major political candidate, and I know it would be costly in the short-term to overhaul the whole enchilada as it were, but I just can't stand the thought of either mandating the current system onto every American citizen, or giving the insurance companies even *more* power to place profits over ethics. They do this now, because it's a business endeavor. Many insurance companies are publicly held, so they are "serving" their shareholders by maximizing profits - which of course, means paying out as little as possible while taking in as much money as they can.
2) So, to my mind, the way to fix that is to make insuring people a break-even type of operation, or a non-profit, or through the government, or something. I don't think insurance companies themselves should be in the business of making money. What do they do? They are middlemen. They should be involved as little as possible in the medical process - leave it to the doctors and the patients. Whoa! How about that? Letting doctors and patients decide together how to be healthy, instead of asking your insurance company permission to have this treatment or that. I have no problem with doctors being paid well: they dig themselves into a tremendous financial hole so they can go to school for literally decades and then work long hours trying to keep people healthy and give them a better quality of life. What could be more honorable? Insurance companies don't do any of those things - they shuffle papers, confuse the snot out of doctors and patients alike, and siphon profits away from the people who are earning them by the sweat of their brow. I don't blame them, per se, since the system as it is currently is set up so that insurance companies have incentive to be profitable, not to provide quality care. I just think that dynamic should be reversed.
3) Insurance should not be tied to place of employment. This is such a screwed-up idea I hardly know where to start. Right now, only 60% of companies provide health insurance for their employees. Those people are the "lucky" ones, because they get to reap the benefits of mass purchasing power. People who are have to seek out their own private insurance cannot possibly compete with this, especially if they have the audacity to actually *get sick*. But even those who are covered at their job don't have it easy: they still don't have much in the way of choice (if we're lucky, we get to choose between paying less for less coverage and paying more for more coverage). And there are millions of people who have good, steady jobs - prestigious jobs - who have achieved success and respect in their profession, and yet still either cannot afford insurance, or who pay astronomical amounts for pathetic coverage because they are self-employed, or their employment is of such a nature that employer-subsidized healthcare is not one of the benefits. Take my dad, for example - in a twist of delicious irony, he is an established PHYSICIAN who pays a monthly insurance premium that my family, with our very comfortable salary, could not begin to afford. His deductible is a mere $10,000 a year, never mind co-pays and mental health services, which are badly needed and often not covered at all.
4) I think insurance should be available to anyone who wants it. This "pre-existing condition" stuff is CRAP. Of course, the whole methodology of insurance requires that the risk be spread over a large population, so all these young healthy types who roll the dice and go without insurance are screwing the system just as badly as all the Boomers who are just now realizing that yes, their lifestyles are going to catch up with them. Additionally, there has got to be some way to differentiate between those who willfully eschew coverage when they are healthy, then go looking for it when they get sick, and those who have done their best to maintain coverage and are forced to switch because of a change in employment, for example. It seems to me that mandating coverage is the only way around this particular problem (as well as removing the tie between employment and coverage).
The more I think about it, the more it seems that universal, equal, mandatory insurance coverage is the best way to solve most of these issues. It removes the "insurance company as moneymaking industry" factor. It most effectively spreads the risk over the largest population, which would make it possible to cover even those people with pre-existing conditions, or - gasp! - actual health problems. It would maintain the mass-purchasing power that large companies currently have. It would take the burden off employers, who foot a tremendous bill to subsidize coverage for their employees.
I do not think that mandating coverage, as it is currently constituted, for everyone is a good solution. But I do think that reshaping the insurance "industry" from the bottom up and THEN making coverage universal is the way to go. I delivered Rick his cookies this afternoon for correctly sussing out my Monty Python quote, and I have another plate for everyone who made it through this marathon post and still finds it in their heart to offer me their own thoughts. I'm painfully aware that I don't have a comprehensive understanding of this yet, and I would love to get some other perspectives and points to ponder...
...tomorrow. Tonight, my brain is plum tuckered out.
Blogging: Not for the faint of heart
I am writing what is painfully obvious to most people who read this site: the number of contributions has dwindled from 3/week to maybe 3/month.
My understanding of the purpose behind the creation of this blog is that it was designed to provide a forum for Democrat, Republican, or other as well as member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or other, to converse in a non contentious manner the state of the country and the world of politics.
The thing about this that makes me smile is that this site always makes me think of some of our best friends in the world, who happen to not be members of the same church, and who are also not politically minded. I smile because the first time we met them they shook our hands and introduced themselves as "Hi, I'm ____ and I don't talk about religion or politics." Ha! Can you get a better conversation starter than that?
Of course we asked what the story was behind getting those declarations over at the first introduction was, and we were told that every time this couple ever talked religion or politics with any friends....after a while they had a hard time being friends. Too much emotion got embroiled from belief systems to the point where the relationship was no longer viable.
I smile because this site, from the creation of its title onwards, embraces discussion of politics, and mentions religion from time to time.
So now that the contributions have become increasingly sparse, as have the comments, I wonder if perhaps a little too much emotion has gotten invested here. Are people not contributing or commenting because they are working longer hours, they are on vacation, they have final exams, they have lives outside of the blogging world? Or has this site morphed into something where people don't feel like contributing posts or comments to because they don't want to feel a personal attack for their political view?
These are just a few of my thoughts. What do you think?
Hillary, Oh Hillary
Last night I heard on the news that Hillary was going to be making an announcement within the hour, conceding to Obama and declaring her willingness to be VP
I was surprised! I think that she has worked really hard to get as far as she has gotten. She's been planning this move to the White House for many years, despite her denials in the past of having presidential intention (c'mon, we all knew 4 years ago that she was waiting to run even though she said she wasn't interested). She has campaigned and plotted and planned with the best of them. What a huge slap in the face for her to have Obama come out of nowhere and pull the rug out from under her.
To set the record straight, I am not too impressed with Obama and I don't like Hillary as a general rule. However, I genuinely felt bad for her last night. After all her conniving pains to get the democratic nomination...thats got to be rough.
Well, sure enough, the news casters were putting their own spin on things because she didn't announce her withdrawal from the presidential race. And she didn't announce that she wanted to be Obama's VP.
Personally I think the election is a lot more fascinating with the two of them going head-to-head. If she were to simply drop out for the sake of being VP it wouldn't be as newsworthy because everyone would just assume that it was a done deal.
Although a black president and female vice president would certainly get the historians ready to start writing as soon as they were sworn in.
Gas Out the Roof - what do we do?
Gas is higher than $4.00 a gallon in many parts of the US, and by the looks of it, it'll keep rising over the next year. Predictions seem to indicate that we might see a $5.00 per gallon price within the next 3 months, $6-7.00 per gallon by next year, and some even say we could see $12-15 in the not too distant future. Sure, this may be a "boy who cried wolf" or "the sky is falling" scenerio - it may be a political scandal to push an agenda (like many of you seem to think Global Warming is) but it COULD be a real problem. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is a real threat and a real problem, we (by we I mean us as citizens and our govenrment) don't act quickly, it could lead to disaster.
My frustration is that the Gas has been steadily rising since 9/11. No, It's been steadily rising since....like the 60's, or something, but we have ignored it - just kind of grinned and bared it - but, will we be able to really bear it when one tank of gass for a small two-door sedan costs $165?
In Many parts of Europe, including the UK, I'm hearing, Gas already costs nearly $12 per gallon (That is Dollars, not Euros). So, this is not far fetched fiction. As I said earlier, our government needs to do something, as do we as citizens.
We could talk all day about what we feel the government should do. That doesn't make them actually doing something any more likely. In my opinion, we need strong leaders who pass legislation to support the development and cost-effectiveness of alternate energy sources. There are a myrid of options - Hydrogen, Electric, Solar, etc - but the problem is that they haven't become a commercially viable option because they all seem cost prohibitive. Fully electric cars are still astronomically priced, and Hybrids are not cheap. That's where the govenrment could help, be it with tax breaks, research assistance, increase in publich transoprtation, whatever - there needs to be a pro-active stance taken. Whatever the government does, I do not think that ripping up our natural reasources in the USA is the answer. I've heard the phrase "screw the caribou" thrown around these last few days as a slogan to promote drilling in Alaska. Honestly, part of my reasoning is because I quite like pristine nature, and I don't think it's our responsibility to mess up every beautiful tract of land on this planet. But, in addition to that, It is such a temporary fix - Gas is a limited commodity. It won't last forever. Our mindset should not be "stop the US dependance on foreign oil" but, rather, "stop the US dependance on ANY oil."
But more important and more immediate than asking, "what should the government do?" is for the individual to adjust his or her life to be prepared for whatever comes. I don't know about you, but in my ward, these last few months, Emergency Preparedness has really been stressed. I have a feeling it's a church wide thing - And I don't think it takes a prophet to know that we are headed for hard times. So, what do we do about curbing the heroine-like addictions that we as a nation and individuals have to gasoline? I mean, throw all the environmental reasons (of which I am so fond) aside - the cost alone will break all but the most wealthy of us.
One option (that is more a quick bide-your-time fix than anything) is Propane - according to my friend who works on engins for a living, Propane burns just very slightly less efficently than Petrolium - which means you would get just a very small amount less travel per gallon - and it burns clean, with virtually no byproduct. Currently, Propane is about $2.50 per gallon.
Hybrids and Smart Cars - these are great ways to increase your miles to the gallon, but they are still both dependant on Gasoline. Smart Cars are really cool looking, though.
Bio-fuel - This is NOT a viable option - it's a failed experiment - lets not keep fooling ourselves - the reason Wheat is so high right now is because farmers stopped growing wheat to grow corn to turn into fuel. Not only that, but the Slash/Burn policy in the Brazilian Amazon has become an even bigger problem because those farmers have decided Corn is more important than the Rain Forest.
Electric and Hydrogen - For some reason (I'm a conspiricy theorist, so don't ask me why - chances are you won't like my answer) These just havn't made it yet. Here's hoping.
Public Transportation - Look, guys - it really isn't that bad. I've relied on public transportation in Utah, Arizona, Southern California, Northern California, Phildelphia, you name it. It's an adventure, it's entertaining, but - It's not the horror that you imagine. The more we use it, the more money will be put into the system, and the better it will be.
Bikes - you laugh, but seriously - there is no better way to get around. I haven't missed my car one bit in this last year. Except when it rains. But that's why god gave us rain coats and umbrellas.
Walking - We all have a different background, but, here in Mesa, where I've relocated -and everywhere Else I've ever lived in the US, There are large shopping centers not too far from most major housing developments. God gave us legs.
Internet Shopping - Okay, a LOT of gas is wasted on eating out and shopping for useless stuff - what is the point!? Just stay home or buy it ("it" being the useless stuff you want to buy) on Amazon or Ebay - it'll probably be cheaper. Go for a walk in the park, instead.
Planning - Jillions of Dollars of gas could be saved every year if we just planned our outings in the car even a little.
I know it's kind of crazy, but something in me hopes the Gas prices DO continue to rise to the astronomical levels I opened this post with - just so that people would have to start living more responsibly, and so that the govenrment's hand will be forced and they will have to work to develope alternate forms. But if it gets to that point, we, as a nation, are in trouble.
the case for Hillary('s continued candidacy), in two parts
EDIT, 5/14: had to add this pic.Now that that's settled... Everyone seems to be saying Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race, that she can't win, that she's mathematically eliminated, that she's hurting Obama's chances at the nomination, that she's hurting the party, that she's ruining her own political future, that she's too egotistical to drop out, etc., etc.
I've been thinking about it a lot, and you know what?
They're all wrong. Hillary should stick around.
Part I. Why Hillary Clinton should remain in the race
Like it or not, the Democrats have superdelegates. What does this mean? Well, it means that in the event of multiple candidates coming out of the primary season with a good-sized share of delegates, the party bigwigs can basically pick who they want. When people talk about this system going against "the will of the people", they forget that the Democratic Party is not our government. It's a political party, and those who control it can do whatever they want, and if citizen Democrats don't like it, they can lobby for change, or leave the party. The Democratic Party isn't obligated to choose as its nominee the person who wins the most delegates in the primaries. I know it seems unfair because it seems like whoever gets the most votes should win, like in the government, but it's perhaps more aptly compared to Ben and Jerry's running a promotion in which you vote on what ice cream flavor you'd like to see made permanent. Then Ben and Jerry might look over the results and see that 55% want Fig Newton, 40% want Nutter Butter, and 5% want Oatmeal. This gives them some good evidence that Fig Newton may be the optimal choice, but they may take into account some other factors and decide that Nutter Butter is more likely to post better sales numbers across the board - for example, maybe they figure that even though Fig Newton fares better than Nutter Butter among their customers who care enough to submit a vote, Nutter Butter will outsell Fig Newton against the newest Häagen-Dazs flavor.
The facts of the matter are these: though Sen. Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates awarded via primary, they are neck-and-neck in pledged superdelegates. If Sen. Clinton can convince enough superdelegates that she's the best choice for the party - an argument she is making with all of her might - then she'll be the rightful nominee. The scenario is not really that far-fetched, especially since Clinton is about to demolish Obama in a few primaries. And, though many have frothed at the mouth about how a superdelegate coup would "destroy the party" - it wouldn't. It would be forgotten about as quickly as the Supreme Court coup in the general election was forgotten in 2000.
Part II. Why Barack Obama is the better choice
However, if I was a superdelegate, I'd carefully look at Clinton and Obama and quickly realize that Obama's general election chances are superior to Clinton's. The crux of her argument that she would fare better against McCain is that she is more popular among white voters; therefore, since there are so many more white voters than black, she's the better pick. And, yes, it's sad that we're reducing this to racial terms in 2008, but that's another story. Anyway, the Senator from New York is conveniently one important fact:
Republicans loathe Hillary Clinton.
That's right, my friends: they hate her. And as I've said before, whether they should or shouldn't feel that way is irrelevant - what's relevant is that they won't vote for her. Clinton has more support among white Democrats, but it's likely that the Democrats will coalesce around the candidate (especially when the nomination loser asks his/her supporters to do so). That leaves Republican crossover votes. Who is more likely to bring Republicans over to his/her side? Obama. Who is more likely to inspire Democrats to go vote who might not otherwise do so? Obama. If Obama is nominated, it'll take a lot more work by McCain & Co. to get Republicans to come out and vote against him; he simply hasn't been in the national spotlight long enough to be as roundly disliked by the right as Hillary has. She's the one person who can make the Republicans - who are still pretty iffy about ol' Big Mac - come out in droves to support him. It would be a colossal misstep by the Democrats to nominate Hillary. Plus, setting aside everything I said earlier about superdelegates, McCain would immediately set to work as the candidate of the bigwigs, the "one who couldn't even get a legit win in her own party." It'd work; that kind of thing sells well.
So stick around, Hillary; tough this thing out for a while longer. Make your pitch to the party elite; The Clintons, for all their faults, are tenacious and have a history of winning. She's earned the right to be in the race. Let's have a thrilling convention.
The Government's Current Affairs, quoting Glenn Beck
Basically, Glenn Beck starts out with the following scenarios, all of which we've heard the likes of before (sadly) and make a great point for what is WRONG with America today:
"#1 A woman who says she lost more $1 million gambling in Atlantic City sues some casinos for $20 million, claiming they should've stopped her compulsive gambling.
#2 People who bought houses they couldn't afford with loans they didn't understand want their lenders to change the terms.
#3 Congress authorizes a war and then tries everything it can think of to get out of it.
#4 Our country gets addicted to oil and then blames OPEC when it doesn't like the price.
These stories prove how personal responsibility has all but vanished in America, and our government is leading the way."
Glenn Beck makes an excellent point: just as children learn from their parents, we the American people are taking the government's example to heart and are doing everything in our power to avoid taking the fall. People want their cake, they want to eat it, and they want to avoid paying full-price for it.
This attitude drives me nuts. Unfortunately I am more than aware that I am in the minority here. How am I supposed to live an honest life, doing what is right by my fellow man, trying to be an upright citizen who upholds the law of the land when the majority of other citizens just don't care about being honest? Or they don't care about working hard for what they have, preferring to do whatever it takes to get as much handed to them on a silver platter as possible?
The answer, to me, is to be honest anyway. Even if I know that other people are going to do everything in their power to get ahead (meaning that they are willing to bend the rules, lie, cheat, [insert more descriptors]) I still need to maintain my personal integrity and refuse to be persuaded to join them.
This leads to me to a bigger question: how is the populace supposed to function from day to day in a country where people cannot be counted on? The government cannot be counted on? Everything is taken to an extreme in order to avoid potential lawsuits?
The answer to this, in my opinion, is that it can't. Functioning on the grand scale will cease; at least, it will become more inefficient and sluggish than it is now. Hard to imagine that isn't it? Interactions and deals will be brought to a minimum due to a lack of trust and fear of losing everything to pay court fees, and people will reduced to minimal interaction with any group mainly due to lack of trust.
Think about it. The whining, complaining, ill-will, mindset that ripping off big businesses is ok because after all, they are just a big business that can absorb the loss, getting away with not paying debts and boasting about it...what is this teaching our children? What does this say about our society?
So perhaps the biggest question of all is this: how do we bring integrity back to America?
*If you'd like to read the actual article I'm quoting, click here.
Terrorism Comes In Many Forms
I love 24; the first seasons were the best, but I've got high hopes for season 7, and I can't BELIEVE we have to wait until next January for it. In 24, Jack Bauer runs around trying to save the world, and in the process he does some nasty things to some terrorists. There's definitely a subtle conservative message in the show, if you associate putting security over individual liberties with conservatism (and, yes, George W. Bush is still the Republican standard-bearer).
As a nation we have forgotten the words of FDR: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." We have allowed fear of terrorism to cause us to strike out blindly in Iraq, which has been an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps worst of all, we have allowed this fear to corrupt us morally to the point where our administration utilizes torture in the name of national security.
Check out this link. Do you remember John Ashcroft? He was the first-term Attorney General in the Bush Administration, famous for stuff like: losing a U.S. Senate election to a dead guy, pushing through the PATRIOT Act, and being the Bush posterboy for civil liberties violations. Long story short, Ashcroft was answering questions in a public forum, and some kid brought up the fact that, in 1947, the United States convicted a Japanese officer of war crimes for using waterboarding on an American civilian, and sentenced him to 15 years of hard labor. The crux of Ashcroft's response was that American waterboarding doesn't compare to what the Japanese officer did, because the documents the questioner referred to said that the officer "forced" water on the torturee, whereas we Americans are simply "pouring" it.
It's very different, you see, because it's "pouring", not "forcing".
Is this really what we've been reduced to? Quibbling over the semantics of simulated drowning? It is torture. It is un-American. It is morally wrong. And it's not just torture. It's holding people without trials and the decay of other rights.
What's the legacy of 9/11 in this nation? For a while, the legacy was a sense of national pride, a sense of unity. Do you remember how we came together as a nation after that tragedy? I will never forget it. Unfortunately, 9/11 was also the starting point that enabled the Bush administration to use the politics of fear to accomplish its political purposes.
The minute we start sacrificing human rights in the name of national security is the minute we have no security at all!
I hope the next president -- be it Clinton, Obama, or former POW John McCain -- will have the integrity and the courage to stand up and say, "We are the United States of America. We will take the moral high ground. We will find a better way."
A Shot Across the Bow
What does it mean when the North Carolina Republican Committee puts up green dollars to attack Barack Obama on something that is yesterday's news? Nominally, it's to smear the gubernatorial hopeful Democrat for supporting Obama. I think it serves a better purpose yet.
John McCain has asked the NCRC to stop airing this ad.
I tend to agree; the story is stale and never really was relevant to the issues. But why should McCain want it to stop? With a Democratic Party on its way to a first-class schism, I think attacking Obama there and now makes sense. If I were a McCain planner, I would welcome any chance right now to strengthen Hillary Clinton in NC and other states where she probably can't come close to Obama in the upcoming primaries. After all, the only way Hillary can get the nomination is by dirty, behind-closed-doors wheeling, dealing, and betrayal at convention. It might come down to that anyway, the way she waves around her Pennsylvania victory, but hey! why not cut down Obama's lead and further inflate her sense of entitlement? If she was down by 20 points in NC and then loses by only 10, she will consider the nomination already hers!
So while it looks like a state committee gone off the GOP reservation (against McCain's wishes, even!), I suspect McCain's people orchestrated this. But they were smart to give the national committee and McCain by extension some plausibly deniable distance from it, cuz it's rotten politics.
How are you Democrats feeling about your race these days? Does anyone believe the nice-talk of TV "strategists," or are you coming to realize that my prediction from early March is beginning to come true??
Happy Earth Day...Tomorrow
Well, one of my favorite holidays is upon us. Therefore, I though I'd take the opportunity to do a little PSA for this most under-represented holiday.
This multi-national celebration was founded in 1970 by Senetor Gaylord Nelson, and is now celebrated by many nations around the world. On April 22, 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums to demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment. Denis Hayes, the national coordinator, and his youthful staff organized massive coast-to-coast rallies. Thousands of colleges and universities organized protests against the deterioration of the environment. Groups that had been fighting against oil spills, polluting factories and power plants, raw sewage, toxic dumps, pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness, and the extinction of wildlife suddenly realized they shared common values.
As the millennium approached, Hayes agreed to spearhead another campaign, this time focused on global warming and a push for clean energy. The April 22 Earth Day in 2000 combined the big-picture feistiness of the first Earth Day with the international grassroots activism of Earth Day 1990. For 2000, Earth. By the time April 22 rolled around, 5,000 environmental groups around the world were on board, reaching out to hundreds of millions of people in a record 184 countries.
Earth Day 2000 sent the message loud and clear that citizens the world 'round wanted quick and decisive action on clean energy. Earth Day 2007 was one of the largest Earth Days to date, with an estimated billion people participating in the activities in thousands of places like Kiev, Ukraine; Carcas, Venezuela; Tuvalu; Manila, Philippines; Togo; Madrid, Spain; London; and New York (Courtesy of Wikipedia.)
I remember hearing about Earthday for the very first time as a student in Elementary School and thinking, "what a load of crap. - What, they think that us planting a bean in a styrofoam cup is going to help the environment? The Styrofoam itself is doing much more harm than good." Well, so much for my activism as a child. So, I've been trying to make up for it as an adult to atone for my pre-adolescent pessimism and my adolescent indifference.
Often I vent and rant about the indifference that so many people, especially in the US have toward the environment. Don't believe me? Just look at my previous post on environmentalism - I ranted a bunch. Anyways, I just want to encourage you all to decide what you will do tomarrow to be a better steward of this earth that god has Given us. I don't think it's an accident that the creation of earth - of the trees, wildlife, rivers and oceans take such a prominent role in our most sacred worship. This place really is our home and it's a great place at that. Go out in nature tomarrow - if you can - just for a few minutes (even those nasty business parks ussually have some sort of pond with grass and ducks) and ponder on the world we've been given and what you can do personally to help make it better. Here are some suggestions.
Ride a bike instead of a car whenever possible; buy organic when possible; use reusable grocery bags (yeah Amy and your Southern California coercion); plant a tree; buy local; don't shop at major corporations; concerve water; recycle; use cloth diapers; make the choice to buy foods with less packaging; donate to environmental agencies; choose cage-free/free range meat/eggs/dairy; don't support new developments; don't litter....
The list could literally go on for pages. There is something that everyone can do.
On a related note, Arbor Day, in the US, is this coming Friday (the same week as Earth Day, strangely.) The city of Provo decided to celebrate Arbor Day early this year, in a way that only local government could, by CUTTING DOWN 4 really old trees that were lining the street in my neighborhood. I was sad. I'd encourage all of you to plant a tree. If you used a live Christmas Tree this year, plant two. If you used more than your fair share of office paper, or toilet paper, plant 6. Seriously, no one ever got prosecuted or chastised for planting trees - it's generally seen as a good thing.
I think what it really boils down to is us, as a nation and as a people developing a love for each other and a love for our world - and developing a sense of responsibility. So, I leave you with this thought. Consequently, it is the year of the Rat this Year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PScUdYTO0UM
My Favorite Government Woman
I just wanted to take a moment and focus on a woman who I personally think has made a positive impact on our nation, and maybe more importantly, our world. I really respect her. Some people have asked her if she will ever run for President, or would like to be McCain's running mate. She always responds that she is not interested in any political office that would require voting to get elected. That makes me respect her even more because I think it shows how she truly has a lack of desire for power, that what she does, she does because she believes it really will make a difference and make the world a better, happier place to live. Here are some random facts that you may or may not have known about my favorite government woman:
Condoleeza Rice is the first black woman to serve as Secretary of State. I love that!
She used to be a political science professor at Stanford.
Condoleeza also pioneered a new movement called Transformational Democracy: basically a movement to revive the role and respect and constructive participation of American diplomats serving.
She speaks 5 languages.
She served as the Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification. (under George H. W. Bush)
Condoleeza grew up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama....one of her girlfriends lost her life in a church bombing. Of that incident she stated "I remember the bombing of that Sunday School at 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963. I did not see it happen, but I heard it happen, and I felt it happen, just a few blocks away at my father’s church. It is a sound that I will never forget, that will forever reverberate in my ears. That bomb took the lives of four young girls, including my friend and playmate, Denise McNair. The crime was calculated to suck the hope out of young lives, bury their aspirations. But those fears were not propelled forward, those terrorists failed." – Condoleezza Rice, Commencement 2004, Vanderbilt University, May 13, 2004
As Stanford's Provost, Rice was responsible for managing the university's multi-billion dollar budget. The school at that time was running a deficit of $20 million. When Rice took office, she promised that the budget deficit would be balanced within "two years." Coit Blacker, Stanford's deputy director of the Institute for International Studies, said there "was a sort of conventional wisdom that said it couldn't be done ... that [the deficit] was structural, that we just had to live with it." Two years later, Rice announced that the deficit had been eliminated and the university was holding a record surplus of over $14.5 million. Rice drew protests when, as provost, she departed from the practice of applying affirmative action to tenure decisions and unsuccessfully sought to consolidate the university's ethnic community centers. (In other words, she recognized everything that is wrong with the country's obsession with being 'politically correct' and got criticized for suggesting that people ought to be rewarded on merit rather than ethnic/demographic descriptions.)
She has promoted peace talks between Palestine and Israel for years.
Condoleeza does not want the government to force its views on abortions on citizens, one way or the other. But she has said she is against late-term abortion.
Racial slurs have been made about her repeatedly, yet it is never a "big" enough deal in the media for public apologies to be made. For example: radio host John Sylvester called her "Aunt Jemima" and a "black trophy" of the Bush Administration. Cartoons by liberal Pat Oliphant portrayed her as President Bush's thick-lipped parrot. Nationally-syndicated commentator Ted Rall referred to Secretary Rice as President Bush's "House Nigga." Gary Trudeau showed President Bush calling her "Brown Sugar" in his Doonesbury comic strip. The fact that she doesn't make a really big deal out of these rude things that other politicians can get really strung up about shows how mature she is, and how she refuses to stoop to other people's level.
She has been listed on Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People list four times: only 3 people in the entire world have been on the list this many times.
Condoleeza refuses to deal with terrorists.
"We will not meet the challenges of the 21st century through military or any other means alone. Our national security requires the integration of our universal principles with all elements of our national power: our defense, our diplomacy, our development assistance, our democracy promotion efforts, free trade, and the good work of our private sector and society. And it is the State Department, more than any other agency of government, that is called to lead this work."
Bad For Us, Too, Methinks...
In case you've been living in a hole, there is a lot going on in the world of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Basically, these are some whack job people that live in relative isolation, practicing in plural marriages, communities that are self-supporting, suppression of women, the rape of children, and more-or-less imprisoning everybody who is unfortunate enough to be born in the community. Warren Jeffs is their "prophet", and he has been convicted of rape in Utah and is currently standing trial in AZ for eight other charges.
Recently a call was made to a family violence shelter by a girl named Sarah, who claimed to be 16 years old. She said she'd been forced to enter into a "spiritual" marriage to a 50 year old man, who'd since beaten and abused her. Oh, and this girl has already mothered a child.
Thus, the FLDS compound in Eldorado, TX was raided. All the children, 416 of them, were taken by the state. Another 139 women have been reported to have left voluntarily. Since then, the people at the compound have "opened up" to the media. Interviews, tours, etc. "Give us our children back... (sob, sob, sob)"
Okay, let's pause a second and cut through the crap! Nobody has answered a question with a straight answer. "Did you ever witness underage children being married to older men?" "Nobody was ever forced to do anything they didn't want to." Oh, Shut Up! These people are so full of crap and it really pisses me off. OF COURSE they witnessed underage children being raped by older perverts! Of course 14 year old brainwashed girls didn't say no to their "religious leaders"! This is one of the worst communities in the history of man. I hope not one of them EVER see any of their children again. I hope that they suffer everyday thinking about what they put innocent children through. And I hope that when all is said and done, many of these adults are held criminally responsible for these abominations.
Completely different direction, but one that is what I want to focus on here: I really think that this affects the average person's view of our faith. The media is doing a good job of stating that this is the Fundamentalist sect, but they always follow that word with "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". I understand that this is the name of their cult, but I know that people are getting confused. Especially when they see stories like this, where it is indicated that "several copies of the Book of Mormon" were confiscated at the compound, or this AP story, where they call them "a renegade Mormon splinter group". Is it just me, or don't you think that this group is having some negative impact on how the masses view our (already not so highly held) faith?
