Civil Unions

While I believe that the Author of “Same-Sex Marriage” is entitled to their constitutional right to free speech, I also believe that the “Homosexuals who can’t get it through their thick skulls” are entitled to fair and equal treatment under the same US constitution that ensures the liberties of freedom of conscience (religion) which is sited as the reasoning for the homophobic views of said author. I was raised in an Irish-Catholic Republican household, and even I have a hard time jumping on this wagon. The problem with the argument that Same-Sex marriage is wrong because it is “unnatural,” “a perversion,” and that it’s “unfair to expose defenseless children to [such] unnatural view points” is a purely religious line of reasoning. There is no science behind, nor is there any constitution basing for this line of reasoning. Religious or not, Majority Rule is not supposed to become a Tyranny of the Majority that tramples on the rights and liberties of any citizens in the minority. In addition in general making blanket statements such absolute using words like “always” or “never” doesn’t strengthen an argument, but shows the inflexibility of the views of he who utters them. Likewise, the argument that Same-Sex Marriage is wrong due to the influence on children of these unions is particularly weak for several reasons: 1- not all Homosexual partners want children, 2-banning Civil Unions will not keep them from having children out of wedlock, and 3-the two discussions are entirely separate (marriage does not= parenting, even in a traditional marriage).
On a more personal level, not to preach or to seem too motherly, I hope the author of “Same-Sex Marriage” (and all of us) will in the future become more objective in addressing matters outside his/her personal/religious sphere. This can be difficult to do, especially for subjects that are of personal importance, but as a religious or even ethical individual it is especially helpful to put yourself in others shoes before passing judgment. As Jesus once said “Let he without sin throw the first stone.” None of us has all the answers or is perfect, having different views is both enriching and healthy, not only for democracy, but for society in general. Good luck to all in the future, and don’t be afraid to speak your mind, but do so with caution and thoughtfulness.

Money, Money, Money...Is that what it's all about?

Today’s “economic downturn,” i.e. Total disaster, citizens of the US are struggling to not only make ends meet, but to make sense of the current situation. We have begun to ask the questions: Why are we, the reigning super-power in this mess? How did it get this way?, and How do we fix this? While it might take a blog the length of the equator to simply answer this question, I will not attempt to do so, but I have a few more questions and observations to pose…

In a world where a student is no longer allowed to get a tiny bit of tax relief for books and study materials for students trying to educate themselves and better the nation, why are the super-rich corporate elite allowed to claim private jets in order to receive a tax break?

To quote a wise man (Middle Class Populist’s author) “Who the hell are these Lords of the Corporate Collectives to receive such enormous rates of compensation!”
He insists we ask:
· “What did they do for society that justifies such sweeping rates of compensation?”
· “Why should they be paid so much more than the average American? Hey it’s not like they EARNED IT! (Wow can you believe I said that)!”
Said author claims that it’s “True we don’t want the government to become involved in the ratio of pay scales. But there comes a point when it is time to check in with reality! That is why the progressive income tax is so important! No one is trying to stop these effete snobs from being millionaires but there has to be some balance for the PRODUCERS in our society!”
I couldn’t agree more.
In his article, the author reminds us how Nancy Pelosi requested the use of US Air Force jets for transportation, and was denied, yet “these effete snobs of corporate America cite “security reasons” for having private corporate jets to fly them, each in separately, while they come begging to Congress” for funds.

In my opinion, this excess and elite-rule culture and insistence to spread the like abroad is quite possibly why Americans are so hated. Our country was founded on highly admirable principles, but actions speak louder than words. If we feel we have the right to spread our version of democracy and way of life, perhaps we should concentrate on revising our notions of fairness and freedom to include tending to the most basic needs of all citizens and not just the super-rich. Americans take so much for granted, we have so much to be thankful for; if we intend to better the world, and then some things simply must change.

Islam = Terrorism: part two (the sequel?)

I don’t want to appear as a masked crusader for Muslim rights, but I feel almost obligated to try and make some sense out of the world’s new obsession- the Muslim people. Ever heard that “Muslim is the new black?” Well, with the implication that the American, especially Anglo, population are targeting people in an undemocratic and discriminatory fashion as in past history of the U.S. towards African Americans, then yes I guess they are. I fully understand the position of my colleague (I had a research project on illegal immigration and its effects on the country, and it is a huge problem), yet I respectfully disagree on a few tiny points. As we have seen throughout history, people do, well, stupid things when afraid. I worry about the implication of letting the fear of another terrorist attack allow the discrimination and unjust treatment of other human beings.
Profiling for any reason is wrong; even if profiling seems to be rational and gets results, it is still discrimination and a breach of the Constitution. As US. Citizens, tourist, immigrants, or even illegals human beings all deserve fair treatment, and in a nation that boasts of being so democratic no one should have to explain the obvious link of profiling to unfair treatment.
First, I would like to say that while I too understand the link between the Muslim people with terrorist acts (since past events have shown a link), I still have a hard time making the jump to believing that it is okay to assume an individual guilty before being proven innocent. In addition, I would like to say that it is our job as “The People” to keep an eye on the government, its practices and procedures and ensure that we
‘the People” are being protected by our government.
In the case of illegal immigration, of course the government should pursue those individuals found guilty. However, not all Muslims are illegals, immigrants, recently immigrated, or even middle eastern looking. Profiling has effectively done two things in addition to providing leads:
1) Helped Americans become paranoid and hostile towards a people based on their religious beliefs or appearance.
2) Helped many American citizens become the target of despicable injustices, discrimination, and violent acts.
However logical, rational or real the link may be, to forge ahead with a practice that strongly violates ethical and democratic ideals is, to put it plainly, wrong.
On another note, I saw a 30 days episode recently when I had questions about the truth of the teachings of the Quran (does it really promote violence) and I was surprised at what was observed. I urge anyone who has the time to take a look and open more debate o this issue, as it is great for democracy to shed some perspective through quality debate on any subject.

Who to Vote For?

For some individuals this question is a no-brainer. However, I have never been active in politics. Until recently, I couldn’t have cared less who was president. In my point of view, no great change in my life had come from Presidential policies, and politicians were merely different faces of the same evil. My distain for the government’s lack of ability to deal with the myriad of issues that seemed to slip between the cracks coupled with their sticky fingered policies that seemed to squelch more and more of our constitutional liberties were almost enough to confirm me a libertarian.
In a strange way, I’m almost glad that I have kept my distance from the volatile political arena until I had a proper education on the subject and a healthy couple of decades of “real world” experience to give me a more mature and objective opinion. It wasn’t until I enrolled into two government classes this semester and begin to read the federalist papers and the constitution of the United States that I realized the founder’s vision and design for a democratic society eerily resembled the same utopia of which I had often wished for. A flood of questions entered my mind. How had their vision become so distorted? What went wrong? How do we fix it? With the upcoming election drawing near, I felt pressed to come to some conclusions to internal queries as well. What is my ideology? What are my views regarding economic and public policy? Who do I vote for? The simple truth is I wasn’t sure. I could regurgitate the views of my family members, yet I had not formed solid political opinions, which is possibly why I never made it a priority to vote. The idea that our ideology is inherited (if we come from a line of Republicans, then we will most likely be a Republican) doesn’t sit well with me. I like to think that I am in charge of my decisions. I’ve always been a tad rebellious; maybe this is why I am the black sheep. I couldn’t in good conscience vote for anybody until I had answered the questions above, so I endeavored to do so…
First, I looked at the fundamental differences between the two partisan ideologies to determine where I stood and measured which party platform better represented the democratic principles set forth by the founders.
Below is a list of positions taken by the Republican and Democratic parties, and my own thoughts about them.

Republican Platform
“No Kyoto, no mandatory carbon emissions controls” = more emissions & pollution
“Strongly support voluntary student-initiated prayer” = religion in schools
“Limit role of federal government in education” = education standard & funding left to
who?
“Support the death penalty” = Kill people
“Let Boy Scouts exercise free speech (ok to ban gays)” = constitutional rights protected
(What?)
“States should not recognize gay marriage from other states” = not honoring a
advocated point in both the federalist papers and constitution (bad)
“The Patriot Act is used to track terrorist activity” = yep, but who are the terrorists-
everyone?
“Homosexuality is incompatible with military service” = Is this the sexual preference or
a new alien life form I missed coming to Earth. How does sexual preference determine the worthiness of a soldier?
“Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment” = WOW I should stay out of this one! BUT-
I lost two children before I had my three angles, and I could never abort a life growing inside of me. My sister at 16 had an abortion and I (10) tortured her for a whole month with snide “baby Killer” comments egged on by my strict Roman Catholic & Republican upbringing. I am sure most of my bad Karma has stemmed from moments like this. I can not describe the intensity of the hell it was to reach the second trimester of a pregnancy and loose your child- twice, and I can not imagine how terrible my sister felt making her decision. There are no words for how sorry I feel for ever adding to her pain. It was hard for me to understand why someone would choose to carry out the deed, until it was discussed that so many woman who had a child from a rape or similar situation beat their child or mentally abuse them, the mothers could not handle the daily reminder of their encounter. I am no fan of abortion, and I am certainly no fan of child abuse. Alternately, If a woman finds out that she is due to give birth to a child with such severe birth defects that they might not survive, Is she right to decide not to go through with the pregnancy? I don’t know, but I still have a hard time telling others what they should or should not do in this situation. Rest assured the woman suffers anyway!
“Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals” = absolutely,
responsibility is key, and abortion should never be promoted.


Democratic Platform
“Develop renewable energy and efficient vehicles” = More $ for us, less pollution for the
environment
“Cut the deficit in half over the next four years” = less debt
“Support affirmative action to redress discrimination” = This one comes dangerously close to
giving an unearned advantage to peoples (an anti-constitutional move), but is geared to counteract and make right on the “redress of grievances” which is constitutionally consistent.
“Racial and religious profiling is wrong” = of course it is
“Tax credits and investment support for small business” = small business is incredibly important to the economy
“Transparency in corporate accounting” = yes, no more Enron…
“Support lifelong learning and Distance Learning” = support education!!!
“Expand coverage and cut healthcare costs” = More people with affordable health care
“Put science ahead of ideology in research and policymaking” = advances in science should be
encouraged
“Cut taxes for middle class, not the wealthy” = Heck yes, trickle down doesn’t work & don’t
the wealthy have enough?


Social conservatism embraces the idea of Social Darwinism (the rich or powerful have risen to the top through their own hard work and intelligence; the poor belong there due to their lack of effort or intelligence. Survival of the fittest, and the elite rule). This is simply not in keeping with the democratic principles, nor is the economic theory of trickle-down (tax breaks to the rich will also benefit the poor by trickling down a small bit of the wealth to those individuals). The other three cornerstones of the Republican platform seem to be religiously based (gays, abortion, prayer in schools) Which aren’t gays citizens as well, afforded the same constitutional protections as heterosexuals? In addition aren’t matters of religion meant to be separate and thereby respecting the diversity of the nation’s people?

The democratic platform is hard to criticize if you hold it to the democratic principle test, but I do have a few observations… First, enacting a draft is in my opinion a breach of free will; while it is not a breach of the democratic principles per say, it is an uneasy transition for me. Second, the ever unpopular subject of affirmative action- When put in black and white (no pun intended) the idea seems undemocratic as it appears to pose an “unearned advantage” which is a violation of democratic principles, yet it is enacted in order to make right on a long history of the oppression of minorities and women. The ideals of balancing out the political weight of classes and races are most definitely a main democratic principle. In light of the big picture I can understand the need for such policies granted they are not taken to an extreme.
All being equal, I would have to say that the ticket that best represents an attempt to adhere to said principles and thereby helping to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of welfare” as stated in the constitution, appears to be an Obama ticket (much to the dismay of my family, who are Republican. I guess that shoots down that whole inherited theory). Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that we might not be in the predicament we are in if we would vote according to the candidate that more readily represents the democratic ideals (benefiting the whole), and not simply for the candidate who serves their best interest.

Islam = Terrorism?

On the home page of the right-leaning blog site Little Green Footballs, a very short, perplexing piece was posted. This blog was not perplexing in a deep-though-inducing manner, rather, perplexing in the sense of how did this get published? The title?… Equating Islam with Terrorism Will Lead to Terrorism The author, remaining nameless, I suspect might have been blogging without his or her morning cup of Joe. This blog seems wildly incomplete and confusing. For example: evidence(?) in the form of quotes are dropped in unaccompanied with a clear explanation as to the reason for their inclusion, no clear cut line of logic is followed, there is an overall lack of flow, and worst, the thesis statement remains elusive. Is the author in fact trying to make the claim that linking Islam and terrorism encourages terrorism? If so, how?
The blog begins with a short quote from the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan, M. Tazhin, which read “equating Islam with terrorism is dangerous”, followed with the author’s statement “Because it will lead to…uh…terrorism.” I am assuming this to be the author’s deduction, as there is a period rather than a question mark. Certainly, this brief and flawed statement will need solid evidence to back it. Said blog continues with two “dropped-in” quotes by Tazhin, taken from the recent Inter-Faith Conference. The Minister shared his belief that “it is a great pity that we see incessant attempts to authenticate and unify Islam and terrorism.” Tazhin goes on to state that “the doctrinal substance of Islam is distorted” and that Muslims “cannot help but be offended by such treatment of the Quran.” The author ends this quote with a subtle “Tazhin warns” in order to conjure imagery of Tazhin with his finger waving and eyes squinted. The piece then jumps to another short utterance from the blogger stating, “The amazing thing about these kinds of statements, which are issued almost every day by one Islamic leader or another, is that the people who say them have no apparent recognition that they’re tying themselves into a rhetorical knot.”
Maybe I missed something ominous and threatening in Tazhin’s comments, but for me the quotes only prove that the Islamic community is tired of being linked with the image of some crazed, turban-wearing bomber, rather than a citizen who happens to practice a different faith. If you ask me this blog only illustrates the author’s lack of respect for other’s religious views, not that there is a link between Islam and perpetuating terrorism. The author looses all credibility, in my opinion, with the lack of logic, convincing evidence, credible sources, and clarity of both reason and presentation. While Little Green Football is a right-leaning site (denoting a smaller number of minority readers), citizens will, hopefully, see through this prejudice. Thus, I feel conservative site or not, the audience will find this blog half-baked.


*In addition, I felt somewhat uneasy about interpreting the words of Minister Tazhin without investigating him elsewhere, so I did. In an editorial entitled Kazakhstan Celebrates Eid ul-Fitr festivalhe, Tazhin stated, “I wish the thoughts and prayers of the people who fasted and who celebrate the holiday today to reach Allah. I wish our country to preserve friendship relations among people and religions…All religions have one philosophy – friendship, respect to each other, and giving a helping hand to neighbor.” WOW, sounds like a blood thirsty extremist to me! In all seriousness, shame on you sleepy blogger.

With Liberty and Housing for All

The New York Times recently published an editorial written by Chris Mayer, a professor of real estate and senior vice dean of Columbia Business School. The editorial, entitled “Help Housing” states that “at the heart of the financial crisis is an unprecedented decline in house prices,” to which Mr. Mayer says the government bailout has simply served to “prop up insolvent financial institutions while doing nothing about the underlying housing problem.” The good professor suggests the government should instead treat the “infection with antibiotics” and not a “cold compress” by directly stabilizing the housing market. Mayer sets up his step program for an appropriate and effective plan as such:

Step 1- reduce mortgage interest rates closer to the “1.6 percentage points above the interest rate for 10-year Treasury notes” as is normal in a functioning market, not the 2.5% we currently have.
Step 2- “government should provide temporary down-payment assistance for buyers…for
example, match the amount of money that buyers use for a down payment, up to $15,000”(possibly provided directly at closing).
Step 3- Those refinancing “their current mortgages should also receive assistance, allowing them to avoid foreclosure.”

The effects of the above stated plan Mayer claims would “draw buyers into the housing market and reduce the backlog of unsold and vacant homes.” Mayer suggests that investors and speculators should be ineligible, only families in jeopardy of loosing their home would benefit from said assistance. Price stability, as Mayer sees it, would “more directly achieve the goals of the Wall Street bailout: increase the value of mortgage-backed securities (by increasing the value of the underlying houses) while injecting government capital into the financial system.”

Mayer goes on to reject the ideas some have brought to light such as “allowing homeowners to go to bankruptcy court to lower their mortgage payments,” saying that this will only discourage lenders from granting lines of credit. In addition, Mayer says to allow this option clogs the courts, hits owners of mortgages harder, and allows only the extreme “indebted and, in some cases, financially irresponsible homeowners” to benefit. Professor Mayer concludes that the credit crisis won’t cease until home prices stabilize, and “Direct assistance for home buyers and homeowners is the best, and the fairest, way to make this happen.”

Wow, I finally agree with a column written about financial matters. Aside from the fact that I personally agree with the above argument, I have heard the same commentary from the mouths of a few close family members whose profession is in the real estate market. My father in particular has been a contractor, realtor, private real estate investor, homeowner, and firm Republican longer than I have been alive. Yet, even he can see how important it is to make the distinction of helping individuals in danger of joining the homeless rather than investors and financial institutions alone as the right course of action. Regardless of my personal background, I found the article to be particularly well put together. Professor Mayer made his points clear and used verifiable evidence to support his claims. The professor steered clear of using generalizations, inflammatory language, and fallacies in logic. He addressed opposing arguments with tact and a compelling message. The professor gains credibility with his credentials as a professor of real estate and a senior vice dean of a business school. Thus, Chris Mayer’s message should be well received by the intended audience; if it had been a financial institution or group of investors as the target audience, this column would most certainly have been less effective. However, Mayer’s use of actual measurable figures and statistics is to his credit, although I would have preferred to have the sources of these statistics. All being equal, I believe this editorial to be a reasonably believable and well thought through argument.

On a more personal note, as a homeowner myself, I would love to see this advice be headed as so many are struggling. Whatever the path, let’s all hope that the worst in the present economic crisis is behind us, and that the government will act in the best interest of all citizens, not simply the very rich.

A Free Spirit Indeed

I am a firm believer in that both your experiences as a child and the choices you make both play integral parts in shaping the human being you will eventually become. For example, I once worked with an older, partially-crippled woman whom to most was known to be, well, a real pain in the rear. Everything had to be done her way and she often came across rude and disrespectful to both customers and co-workers. As I also have at times a “fiery personality”, not apt to being bullied, I felt it best to avoid her. Nearly a year passed working fifty-hour weeks beside her without incident and without much communication at all frankly. One day, I came in to discover her hunched over the table head in hands, obviously distraught. I couldn't’t help but to offer up assistance. Completely out of character, this steely, stern old lady opened up and divulged some truly horrible details of her life beginning with her molestation and rape as a child by her father, and ending with her daughter's disabling diabetes that had just recently resulted in the amputation of her leg. I began to see how her life's events had influenced the person she had become. I felt not only truly regretful for ever thinking that she was a b***h, but I came to really appreciate her life’s struggle and see her as the beautiful, strong and spirited woman that she was. Again and again, I have seen that in order to understand a person’s point of view or to judge their character or motives, some basic knowledge of the individuals background is needed to put their words and demeanor into context. In my journey to gain some political knowledge and be able to make more that a blind interpretation of some candidate’s words about pigs wearing lipstick, I stumbled across a work titled “A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama’s Path" in the New York Times. In an attempt to gain some context in which to “judge” the comments of a politician I knew little about I found this particular article fascinating. While some may not find this work to be relevant to pressing political issues, I caution you; to know where someone comes from and what setting they were raised is more telling of their future choices and the context from which their perceptions and priorities are set than you may think.


Thus,the above stated article is a three-page moving account of the life of Barak Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro and the influences she had on the young presidential candidate told not exclusively by an uninterested columnist, but mostly in the words of those who knew her best. It can be said indefinitely that she was not a conventional sort of gal, but a trail blazing, intelligent, free spirited strong woman who raised the man many are enthusiastically standing behind as the leader of this great country. Ms. Soetoro was remembered to be “unusually intelligent, curious and open”. She “worked for the Ford Foundation, championed women’s work”, went to school and wrote an “800 page dissertation on peasant blacksmithing in Java”, all the while raising young Barak. The article goes on to state that Stanley Ann “brought home recordings of Mahalia Jackson, [and] speeches by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” Mr. Obama’s half-sister Maya stated that “ her philosophy of life [was]— to not be limited by fear or narrow definitions, to not build walls around ourselves and to do our best to find kinship and beauty in unexpected places.” In said article it was pointed out that, in Obama’s memoirs he stated how "his biggest mistake was not being at her bedside when she died,” and when “The Associated Press asked the candidates about “prized keepsakes” — others mentioned signed baseballs, a pocket watch, a “trophy wife” — Mr. Obama said his was a photograph of the cliffs of the South Shore of Oahu in Hawaii where his mother’s ashes were scattered.” It was said in Obama’s memoirs that “ she was the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known, and that what is best in me I owe to her.” I believe this article is worth the few minutes it takes to read, and who knows, maybe my next blog will be about an unknown and fascinating side of Mr. McCain or Mrs. Palin.