Ricardo J Gonzalez for a Better America

In California today, Supreme Court for that State overturned the ban on gay marriage. San Fransisco allowed it, law makers outlawed it, and now the court is saying its OK again. Just when you thought the madness would stop, it seems that many predict this will only last for a few months, until a ballot initiative to change the state constitution to ban gay marriages goes through in November.

While this would be a great opportunity to discuss the sides of the gay marriage debate, I find that overdone and uninteresting. In the interest of full disclosure I will say that I generally agree that the Government has no business telling consenting adults who they can or cannot marry, be it because of their race, or because of their sexuality. That being said, I want to discuss what I find to be the more interesting topic at hand: so called Activist Judges.

Activist Judges is a term thrown around a lot, mostly by conservatives, to describe judges they don't like under the idea that they are interpreting laws and the constitution incorrectly. While I have no numbers to support it, I would guess that it's used to refer to left leaning judges more than the opposite, but in general I think it applies to anyone who makes a decision they don't like. As someone who generally agrees with the idea of a checks-and-balances form of government, I absolutely despise this term.

Each of our States, much like our federal government, has as the foundation for all of its laws the State Constitution. This Constitution exists because the citizens of each state gave some of their power to the government, which is to say other citizens, and placed some restrictions on the power that these governments were to have. The Supreme court is essentially charged with being the living advocate for this document, in charge of deciding whether the actions of the other branches, legislature and executive, are following the rules that the citizens set. They use as a basis the collection of information they have from the previous Constitutional Spokesmen, along with their own interpretations to make their decisions. This is why why the judges write their opinions down, not only to explain them to the citizenship, but to help future Judges to understand their decisions in the hopes that they will make better, more informed rulings in the future.

If our Judges are truly "activist judges" interpreting the Constitution in whichever way suits them in order to bring about change, then we as citizens have not only the right, but the responsibility to remove them from their job. However, if we allow them to be accused of this when it is not true, to be denigrated for doing their job and defending the rules that we have set forth to limit the power that our elected officials have over us, then we are giving away our power, and there is no need for the Judicial branch at all.

I have the highest respect for our Constitutional Judges, and I do not envy the difficulty of their position. I do not always agree with the decisions they make, but it is their responsibility to make them to the best of their ability. It is their responsibility to tell those that are in power that they are wrong, that they don't have the authority to do this or that, and because of that I am sure they are not endeared with our politicians, and in fact, I would be very concerned if they were. Next time you hear talk of Judicial Activism, remember that judges are their to protect your rights, not the rights of the government.

Read More...

Summary only...

I was watching the news this morning and I saw a headline that caught my eye. "DNC Delegate Sells his Vote for $20 million", or something of that nature. While at first I expected some sort of interesting controversy about an idiot superdelegate trying to profit from the highly contested primary, what I found out was actually quite different, and quite interesting.

Steven Ybarra's role as a superdelegate, as far as I can find, comes from his work in the DNC Hispanic Caucus, where he currently works as "Chair of the Committee on new citizens' outreach and voter registration for the DNC Hispanic Caucus and is the Pacific Regional Director for the DNC Hispanic Caucus". Quite the lofty title. As for the purpose of the $20 million he's demanding for his vote: Mr. Ybarra wants the money in order to setup concerted efforts to court the Mexican-American community of eligible voters, something that according to him, both Democratic candidates have largely ignored.

Hispanics as a voting bloc are relatively new to the scene. The Democrats have a long established relationship with the African-American community, but these strong ties do not exist with Latino voters. It seems surprising to me to see how little effort they are putting into building those ties, considering the evidence that shows Hispanic voters were a key voting bloc that delivered the 2004 election to George Bush. I would think that a relatively unaffiliated voting bloc, that is large and getting larger, would be a gigantic point of focus for anyone interested in becoming the next President. While Obama and Clinton focus on people that will probably vote for them anyway, namely African-Americans and Blue-Collar European-Americans, McCain is launching an aggressive campaign to court the Hispanic vote. Mr. Ybarra is not trying to get a bribe to vote for a candidate, he's trying to push the Democrats into doing the same, which would be an extremely good idea.

In an extreme exercise in missing the point, a blogger on the Official DNC site says:

Many minorities share democratic values such as social equity and social justice therefore there is vast potential for democratic candidates to gain these votes. Steven Ybarra has blatantly violated these values and may have turned away minority votes by attempting to extort 20 million dollars from other Democrats.

I think the Democrats are making an extremely dangerous assumption in thinking that Hispanics will vote for them simply because they are a minority. The past two Presidential elections have proven that this was wrong. The Democrats have built a relationship with African Americans by listening to their problems, their concerns, their efforts, and working with them to accomplish their goals. Their idea of building relationships with Hispanics is pointing to the Republicans and saying "Those guys want tougher immigration laws and therefore hate you, so you have no choice but to vote for us" while the McCain and the Republicans are knocking on doors, meeting with community leaders, and bringing Hispanic voters to the table. Which approach do you think will help build a strong long-lasting voter base?

While Ybarra's method might be disagreeable to some, he makes a strong point when he says that Democrats cannot afford to ignore Hispanic voters. If either of the democratic candidates actually stop long enough to listen to what he's saying, it might be the best $20 million they will spend. If they don't, Latino's will start to realize that they have more in common with the Republicans than they were led to believe, and I won't be surprised to hear talk in 2012 about how it was the Hispanic voters that helped lock McCain into the Presidency in 2008.

Read More...

Summary only...

Now that most everyone has accepted that Sen. Obama has won the primary, rumors are going around that he might choose Sen. Clinton as a running mate. In a Gallup poll asking Democrats if he should choose her, 55% said yes:



I wonder about the wisdom of this idea. Clinton has for the most part been ruthless in attacking Obama, saying he's unprepared to run, attacking him for being disconnected, etc, etc. I would assume that all of these things will come back to bite them in a general election. Can she really be the VP candidate if she believes all these things? If it turns out she was 'just kidding' about every single piece of negative campaigning she did, are we supposed to just accept that?

I sincerely doubt that Sen. Clinton would accept the VP nomination. Not only would she have to eat her words, which I doubt she'd find appetizing, but it would also mean she'd have to try to win in the General Election. It would confirm too many of the ideas that people already have that she's ruthless and completely self-interested, and would do anything for power. The problem with her having to try to win the general election is that if she tried too hard, and actually won, she wouldn't be able to run for President in 2012.

The interesting part is that Clinton supporters seem to be all about having her in the Whitehouse however she can get there. Among them, 73% favor the idea of her as VP. Obama supporters aren't as willing to forget everything she said during the campaign. 52% of them would prefer if he chose someone else. I'm sure they're worried, like I am, that if she got into the White House in any office other than President, she would do her best to take over.

Either way, the Obama vs McCain election should pan out to be an interesting one.

Link to the Gallup poll info here.

Este articulo en español en: http://rickyenespanol.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-clinton-08.html

Read More...

Summary only...

Former Congressman Bob Barr announced his candidacy for President on the Libertarian Ticket today, some several months behind all of the other candidates. Rep. Barr, who is probably most known for introducing the resolution to look into impeachment proceedings for President Clinton, left the Republican Party in 2004 to join the Libertarian Party.

Commentary is already popping up that Rep. Barr is just trying to become a spoiler for Sen. McCain, much in the same way that Nader did for Al Gore in 2000. Prof. Charles Bullock, a Political Science professor at the University of Georgia, Rep. Barr's home state, disagrees:

Even disenchanted Republican voters, once they see how far apart the options being offered them by McCain and Obama are, they're going to conclude that they prefer McCain. He may not be their first choice, but they would prefer him substantially more than Obama, and realizing that McCain's going to need every vote he can get to have any chance of winning.

Whether or not Bob Barr and the LP can get enough votes to make a big difference in the campaign at all is debatable. The Libertarians have shown a history of having no clue how to run a campaign, even though they have some of the strongest ideas on the political landscape. I wonder what the purpose of the announcement this far into the race is however, if it is not to do exactly what they're accused of. If the Clinton years taught us anything, its that Republicans stick closer to their true philosophical roots when there is a Democrat in the White House. Newt Gingrich's Contract with America shows evidence of that. So maybe the goal of getting a Democrat in the White House isn't a terrible one from a Conservatives perspective.

Regardless, we'll keep a close eye on this campaign and see what develops, and how successful the LP is at not embarrassing itself this year. I sincerely doubt that Barr can replicate the success that Ron Paul has had in the primary.

A short clip of his announcement below:


Addendum: Official Bob Barr campaign website at: http://www.bobbarr2008.com

Read More...

Summary only...

Probably not. But I found this clip from last night's show that echo's some of my sentiments on Hillary Clinton that I pointed out in my post about the Indiana Primary. Tongue-in-cheek as it might be, I don't think they're too far from the truth.

Clip at Hulu.com

Read More...

Summary only...

It's Friday! Prepare yourself for small chat at cocktail parties by catching up on news you might have missed.

---

The Clinton camp has some good news for those who are getting tired of the longest campaign ever. Even though Sen. Clinton loves announcing that she'll never give up, Her campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe, suggested that she'll probably give up before the convention. A shift can already be seen in the Obama campaign as they move towards a strategy that would be more useful in the general election. It seems that the only ones that don't know that the Clinton campaign is dead, is the Clintons.

---

The Chief of Mexico's Federal police was shot down on thursday morning, supposedly because of his involvement in President Calderon's efforts to crack down on drug cartels. With over 200 officers dead so far, and countless other victims, I would hope this "drug war" would come to an end soon. However, it seems that the drug war begets more violence between the vendors and regulators, than from the actual drug users.

---

Speaking of the drug war, Hit-and-Run, the blog from Reason Magazine, has some interesting analysis of the latest numbers in the war on drugs, mainly, on how it seems to show systemic racism. The article focuses mostly on the report from Human Rights Watch that:

a black man is 11.8 times more likely than a white man to be sent to prison on drug charges, and a black woman is 4.8 times more likely than a white woman.

If the goal of the drug war is to save lives like many claim, it seems that in some places police feel the need to protect some people from themselves, more than others.

---

The disaster stricken nation of Myanmar, which was hit by a cyclone that is reported to have killed up to 100,000 people, is refusing to allow foreign aid workers to enter the country, although it will accept aid donations. I would assume that most countries would have concerns about handing large quantities of aid supplies and funds to untrained workers, and a military led government with a history of abuse and oppression.

Read More...

Summary only...

Today the final touches were put on this year's farm bill. The subject of farm aid comes up every few years, since the first Agriculture Adjustment act of 1933. However you would think that in a year where we can constantly hear the whispers and screams of the "Global Food Crisis", it would be a great time to reexamine the way we deal with farm subsidies.

First the good news: If you're a farmer making less than $1.5 Million a year, help is on the way (maybe)! God forbid you only get a piddly $700,000 in income or so. The bill, which comes with a $300 Billion price tag for tax-payers, would also increase food stamps and emergency food assistance, eliminates some loopholes, and has a $3.8 billion disaster fund to help farmers through extreme national disasters. These could be considered good things for some, I suppose.

Now the bad news: The bill increases subsidies for certain crops. It also continues the subsidies for ethanol, albeit reduced from $0.51 to $0.45 per gallon, our token bio-fuel program. Ethanol is where most of the blame is being placed for the food crisis, and it seems, does absolutely nothing to reduce harmful emissions.

Citizens Against Government Waste, a non-profit organization that focuses on tracking wasteful government spending, or pork-barrel spending, is urging the President to veto this "reform bill", because, well:

There is no significant reform in H.R. 2419.

There are rumors that the President just might. However, I doubt that any bill that met with the President's approval would stop the most egregious abuses of this bill, such as paying people who don't grow anything.

While the Federal Government might have some role in creating assistance programs to help with natural disasters, as are outlined in the new bill, It seems ridiculous to me that we would be spending billions of dollars a year paying anyone not to work, or paying subsidies for ethanol, whose value is still constantly debated. In a year where there have been riots over the availability and cost of food around the world, it would make sense to me to stop giving farmers tax-payer money to produce less of it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Today, I decided I would see what it would be like to actually go on a gas tax vacation. I crunched all the numbers, did all the equations, calculated the interest and added in the inflation, and figured out exactly how much money I would save this month, if this was implemented today. Then I went out and spent that money. While originally I thought it was a dumb idea, I now I might have to think twice.


Take a look at everything I bought (and I even had some change left over):



That's right. I would save $5.76. Enough to buy a Whopper Combo, but not King Size, and no cheese. Then again, I barely drive, and when I do, its a small, 4 cylinder, Nissan. I called my brother up, who has a 1 hour commute to work in some behemoth vehicle. He said that on average he goes through about 72 gallons of gas a week. For him the "Gas Tax Vacation" would add up to about $50 a month, assuming that the oil companies didn't increase the costs as a result. His gas tank holds 24 gallons, and the month of "savings" wouldn't even buy him an extra tank.

What would you do with your gas tax vacation?

Read More...

Summary only...

The Indiana primary is happening tonight. It seems to me that there is a lot of hubbub over the State, when it won't actually decide anything. Delegates are split evenly between the candidates, and neither seems likely to win by a large margin. In fact, from the numbers I have seen, it won't matter at all in terms of overall delegates.

So why is this primary important? It's all about the Superdelegates. For the most part, the primaries are relatively unimportant at this point, as even if Sen. Clinton were to win every state that's left by 10 points, she would still not even tie Sen. Obama. The result is that these Superdelegates, get to decide who runs again Sen. McCain. These party members are tasked with finding which of the two would have the biggest advantage against the Republican nominee, and that's what the Indiana primary is really all about.

To win against McCain, either candidate will have to prove that they are able to take votes from what is usually assumed to be the Republican base. Blue collar, lower/middle class, white Americans. What is increasingly interesting to see is how the candidates perceive this voter base.

The first thing that strikes me, is that the Democratic campaigns assume that they (Blue collar white America) are racist. The Clinton campaign made sure that the controversy with Rev. Wright stayed in the news as long as possible. The most obvious benefit that I can see to what should be an unimportant issue is to make sure that everyone is constantly reminded that no matter how he acts,Obama is still a black man. As I've said before, Rev. Wright seems to epitomize many of the "angry black man" stereotypes, and the Clinton campaign wants to make sure people are reminded of that stereotype when they think of Obama. They wouldn't push the issue if they didn't think it would benefit them in the vote totals, so they must be under the assumption that Indiana voters are secretly racist. The fact that Obama was forced to break ties with the Reverend, suggests that his camp bought the idea too.

The second, is that they think Indiana voters believe that the wolf in sheep's clothing, is actually a sheep. I cant keep track of all the places Clinton has claimed to be from, but it seems that she grew up in every small town in the country. Clinton has spent the past few decades living in Governors mansions, the White House, and who knows how many homes with wings larger than my apartment, yet she seems determined to prove that she's a small town, blue collar girl. Whether it's doing shots of Crown (well, sipping them anyway), or talking about how she remembers seeing her dad at work in the factory (that he owned), Hillary wants Indiana voters to believe that beneath her silk gloves lay hardened callouses. Meanwhile, Obama is out shooting hoops, and drinking beers, right out of the can. They're trying hard to make people think that these millionaires are really just one of the guys.


The third, and the only one in which I see a big difference between the candidates, is that the Clinton campaign thinks that they can buy some votes for pretty cheap, About $0.18 on the gallon. While the Clinton campaign is trying to present it as the equivalent of a free vacation, the Obama campaign is siding with the 230 or so economists that are saying this is a pretty terrible idea:

First, research shows that waiving the gas tax would generate major profits for oil companies rather than significantly lowering prices for consumers," they wrote. "Second, it would encourage people to keep buying costly imported oil and do nothing to encourage conservation. Third, a tax holiday would provide very little relief to families feeling squeezed.

Sen. Clinton responded that she wasn't going to go with these elitist economists. What do they know about the economy anyway!

The Democrats are trying to prove to their party that they can win over these voters, but I wonder how many people they'll actually win over by constantly insulting their intelligence. I guess we'll see tonight.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Chicago International Pipe and Tobacciana show, which was held in St. Charles, Illinois this past weekend, is a yearly event that has been held in the Chicagoland area for the past 12 years. Pipe and tobacco vendors from across the world come to show off their latest creations in what really is a display of artistic craftsmanship.

The show, which featured over 300 vendors from across the world, ran into a bit of a hitch this year. While the event's planners were very careful to ensure that the event would comply with all smoking rules, they were still prohibited from smoking inside the event hall where the show was taking place.

The law against smoking, whose enforcement started on January 1st of this year, was intended to make it

makes it safe for people to visit or work in restaurants and bars without putting their health at risk.

. The CPCC, which hosts the event, made sure that there was no chance that people who did not wish to be exposed to second-hand smoke, did not. They required all attendees to be members of the organization and to sign waivers that they were of legal age to smoke, and understood all of the risks associated with first, second, and third hand smoke inhalation. As a secondary precaution, they set up an outdoor tent for those who just wanted to hang out and smoke a pipe, but didn't need to be in the exhibition hall. In essence, if the intended purpose was to prevent non-smokers from being unwillingly exposed to the health risks of secondhand smoke, the CPCC went above and beyond what they should have to do, in order to ensure that this didn't happen.

Yet still, they were not allowed to smoke at their event. The Chicago Tribune reports Mike Grady of the American Cancer Association describing the efforts of the CPCC to ensure that the patrons understand what they're getting into as an attempt to "actually underminde the law through legal sophistry". I wouldn't call what the CPCC was doing an attempt to undermine the law. I would call it a strong effort to make sure that the spirit of the law was carried through. But aparently it has become acceptable in this country to take away people's freedom to associate in whichever peaceful way they see fit, as long as you're protecting them from something they don't want to be protected against.

So why smoking was still disallowed, even though they took every step imaginable to ensure that people concerned about the health risks would not enter ground zero of second-hand tobacco smoke? Again from the Tribune article:

Grady said that if smoking were allowed in the convention hall, harmful contaminants would remain in the air even after the pipe collectors' event ended and could pose a health risk to others

So aparently, tobacco smoke is the environmental equivalent of toxic waste. Any location in which it was ever present, should probably be declared a national disaster area.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Read More...

Summary only...

The week's news you might have missed:

The Greek Island of Lesbos is suing the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece, because their use of the term "Lesbian" is offensive to natives of the island. If they are successful, the term "Lesbian" will no longer refer to homosexual women, but to gay-bashing bigots of Greek descent. Good luck to them.

---

A giant squid that was captured last year and frozen was recently thawed out and is being studied at Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand. The gigantic beast is said to posses the largest known eyes in the animal kingdom. But can it see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch? (Too easy...)

---

The Global Online Freedom Act is slated to go before Congress soon. The bill's intended purpose is

To promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments, and for other purposes.

The bill, which was crafted as a result of a controversy where Yahoo! turned over information to the Chinese government, that led to the arrest of pro-democracy advocates. It would come with a $50 Million a year price tag for tax-payers and impose a fine of up to $2 Million to the business breaking its rules. Of course, the act does absolutely nothing for the US citizens paying for it since the President may waive the application of it if

the important national interest of the United States requires the exercise of such waiver authority.

That's nice of congress, to use taxpayer money to protect citizens of other countries, while offering no protection from the same intrusions to our own.

---

Yesterday, May 1st, is known around the world as May Day, or International Workers day. While there were immigation protests this year in major cities like Chicago and LA, they pale in comparison to those staged a few years ago. What many people don't know is that the supposed holiday, although originating right here in Chicago was taken over by communist supporters long ago long ago. In order to not be left out of the May Day celebrations, The Distributed Republic uses the day to remember the victims of communism. Don't miss out!

Thats all for today. If you have any stories you'd like to add, feel free to post them in the comments. Have a great weekend!

Read More...

Summary only...

Thanks for checking out FABA (For A better America). I'm still actively working on the blog, and hopefully it will be a bit closer to perfection soon. For the time being, be sure to check in every day as I will be keeping the blog updated. For suggestions on stories, comments, or anything else, feel free to e-mail me at rickygonzalez@gmail.com.

Thanks,
Ricky

Read More...

Summary only...

With the latest release in the GTA series, we see many of the same complaints that have accompanied every other release. The gist of the game is that a player can do pretty much anything they want in order to become more successful in their life of crime. For people and organizations that are constantly looking to pin the blame for all of societies ills (except personal responsibility, of course), the GTA franchise makes them salivate more than Pavlov's steaks.

It seems that if it were up to some, Grand Theft Auto would take place in a city where driving drunk would get you instantly arrested and jailed, weapons would be unavailable, since they are outlawed, you would spend the vast majority indoors, studying for your bachelor's degree or going to a 9-5 job in a cubicle only to come home to watch tv and finally fall asleep after a nice long cry. The game would be pointless and boring; it would be The Sims.

The complaint of these busybodies, is that people will be unable to distinguish what is acceptable in this video game from what is acceptable in every day life, because the game strives to be so realistic. My circle of friends includes college students, doctoral candidates, architects, engineers, lawyers, writers, and financial analysts, the vast majority of whom will at one point or another play this game. We are its target demographic, and for the most part, we love it. I can almost guarantee unanimous resent from these friends of the idea that they would be unable to handle the content of the GTA series without eventually becoming criminals themselves. For the gamer generation that has grown up in the 70s and the 80s with all sorts of video gaems, this form of entertainment has taken over the place of what for many other generations was going to the movies or watching television.

What makes the game so disturbing to some, is that there are no rules. But this is the same factor that makes it so appealing. For the vast majority of our lives, the gamer generation (middle class college student/graduates) have been living within a fairly confined set of rules. From our first day of kindergarten to our last day of graduate school, there has been a set of expectations. From the time that we started watching television we were bombarded with "don'ts". Don't do drugs, don't drink and drive, don't mess with Texas. While we understand why these are good ideas, and I can't think of anyone I know that disagrees with them, it is nice to have an escape where these rules, and really no rules apply.

If the concern is that children who can't make this distinction between fantasy and reality will get a hold of the game, then the solution lies not in trying to prevent the game from reaching the market, and having long ineffectual tirades against it, it lies in educating parents that not all video games are for children, and that just like they have to be careful of what movies their kids are watching, they need to be mindful of what games they are playing. The solution to the "problem" of Grand Theft Auto, lies not in more regulation, but in more personal responsibility.

Read More...

Summary only...

Labels: GTA, nanny state, Personal resposibility

When I heard that Ben Stein was releasing a movie, I have to admit I was a little excited. I had generally agreed the few comments and snippets of articles of his that had come my way. I knew him to be generally in favor of individual rights and free markets, ideas which I support myself. While I wasn't yet born when he was an advisor to Richard Nixon, I understood that this now pop-icon was a generally respected economist and conservative pundit, and I was interested to see what would come of this intersection of Washington Politics and Hollywood fame.

The actual result is, to say the least, something that I am not interested in watching. The movie, titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is by most accounts, a piece of creationist propaganda that sets out to demonize the scientific community for not accepting "intelligent design" as a scientific theory (although, you know, its not). This in itself is not terrible. I have myself in the past argued that we need to keep an open mind regarding alternate scientific theories, so as to not prevent the progress of science. However early reviews suggest that Ben Stein, and the creators of the film, go much further than just this argument.

The main argument of the movie?

Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Intelligent Design discussion has officially been Godwin'd. This type of logical fallacy is so often invoked in our society that it has its own intellectually appealing name "Argumentum ad Nazium". Even if we accept the idea that the theory of evolution has a small chance of leading to eugenics and genocide, this does not in itself discredit the theory. Some of the scientific research of the 20th century led to the building of an atomic bomb that was was used to kill thousands upon thousands of people in Japan during World War 2. This tragic event does not mean that the science behind it was bad, it just means that people have a capability of doing very terrible things.

I agree with the broad point of the movie (as I understand it) that scientific inquiry should not be dismissed as nonsense before the evidence is analyzed, and this is no less true today than it was in the middle ages. However, when a theory is disproved, or when it becomes clear that it is not following the rules of the scientific method, then the so-called "conspiracy to suppress it", ends up being the common sense reaction to someone trying to portray pseudo-science as science. Intelligent design falls clearly into this category, as its main point, that the universe as we know it was created by an unseen designer, is untestable. On any note, anyone hoping to hold an intelligent design discussion, well, intelligently, is going have to find a better argument for disproving evolution than "it sounds like something Hitler would support".

I have not watched, nor will I most likely watch this movie. The reviews for it have been negative pretty much across the board, to the extent that I doubt its worth watching, even for the entertainment factor of seeing Ben Stein throw away his credibility. My fondness of the man wasn't cemented strong enough to make me feel guilty for being fickle.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama essentially broke all ties today with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. After months of controversies stemming from comments made by his Chicago Pastor, he felt that his political career was more valuable than the relationship with the man who married him and baptized his children. While this is his decision, and probably the correct one for his campaign, I can't help but notice the duality between what we expect from Obama, and what we expect from McCain.

Rev. Wright's comments are inflammatory but not without merit.

We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and The Pentagon"

he said in a sermon about the 9-11 bombings.

Rev. Jerry Falwell's response to the same incident:

"...the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."

When compared to this nonsense, Wright's comments almost seem insightful and enlightened.

Rev. Wright's sermons and comments are the angry screams of another generation, one that has faced many trials and suffered many abuses, most of them from white men in positions of power. His church, a "black church" as he describes it, is based on the idea of sticking together to fight these abuses, to get a support network against what was for centuries a history of injustice and exploitation of the black community. Society today has made great strides towards changing its attitudes and making amends for the mistakes of the past, and while America as a whole might want to forget, it seems comical to expect Rev. Wright and and those who lived through the abuses, to simply forgive and forget. Yet rarely are these issues brought up when talking about Rev. Wright. He's dismissed as another "angry black man". Because of this anger, Sen. Obama has been pressured to distance and break ties with Rev. Wright.

On the other side of the aisle, we have people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, the mad prophets of the Christian Conservative right. In his 2000 bid for the Presidential nomination, Sen. McCain said

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.

A sentiment that I completely agree with. Yet 6 years later he was forced to eat his words, due to the amount of political power that these fear-mongering, hateful, extremist pastors have in the Republican right. Their words don't come from a history of abuse and oppression, they come from a fire and brimstone worldview, in which they create and use fear and hate to maintain power. While Rev. Wright's comments can be understood as frustrations, Falwell's words only seem to support the very mindset that created the need for a "Black Church" to begin with. Yet instead of having to distance themselves from maniacs like Robertson and Falwell, Republican contenders are forced to grovel at their feet.

When talking about the duality of America, this is one of the clearest examples I can see. Obama is forced to condemn the "angry black-man" Pastor that married him, while McCain issues a statementthat a racist, bigoted, homophobe like Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country."

I'm not saying that the right needs to cut all its ties to Religion, but McCain needs to regain the chutzpah to once again distance himself from these lunatic preachers of hatred, just as Obama had to denounce his.

Read More...

Summary only...

You may have heard about the "Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints" in Texas, that have recently been the source of quite some craziness. The gist of it is this: Supposedly, a 16 year old girl called the police and said she was forced to marry a 50 year old man and have his children. The government's response? Take over the camp, take over 400 children from their families, remove 130+ women from the camp, and stop any of the men from leaving the "compound".

One of the things that makes this sort of thing so difficult to look at objectively, is that there were some children in danger. If there is a risk that children are being abused, surely its withing the scope of the government to step in and prevent this abuse. However, instead of taking on cases in which there was evidence of abuse, a Texas judge decided that all 416 children should be removed from their homes.

In any other small town, where the accused abuser was the mayor and some cops, and 5% of the children were confirmed abuse victims, the rest of the children, in this case 416 of them, would be left at home, with their mothers, while an extensive investigation was taking place. If these people were Methodists, watched 5 hours of TV a day, and worked in diners and factories, they would never have been forcefully removed from their homes, with all of their children put into foster care, when there is no evidence that they were at risk of abuse.

These people are different. Their beliefs, to most of us, seem very wierd. Some of them are allegedly criminal, and if they are guilty of child abuse and rape, then they should be jailed, but the rest of these families should be alone. If polygamy is a crime, it shouldn't be. It should be the decision of consenting adults how they want to run their families, and it only becomes the governments business where there is evidence of abuse, force, or fraud; but not otherwise. While some may consider wanting to have more than one wife to show a serious lack in judgment, it shouldn't be a criminal offense. And it surely isn't enough to justify taking 416 children from their homes.

Why should you care? Because the government's stance seems to be if you're wierd, and someone you know does something wrong, we're taking your children.

Read More...

Summary only...