Month: March 2008

Posted on
by

I say “evangelical,” and what do you think?

Perhaps the name George W. Bush comes to mind.  Maybe Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.  And yes, Ted Haggard really is an evangelical.  Then I tell you some new names.  Jimmy Carter.  Jim Wallis.  Amy Sullivan.  The first is rather more recognizable than the other two, but I think you know where I’m going with this after seeing Carter’s name in the list.

For those of you who haven’t already been enlightened to the fact, you better get yourself out of stereotype central, because liberal evangelicals do exist.

“But this can’t be”, you say.  “Aren’t evangelicals those people who dislike the idea of homosexuality and abortions?”

Perhaps there are many out there who could be defined by this, but it’s unfair to say all of them are like this.  Evangelicalism is not purely interrelated with politics.  Yes, there are many people who do mix the two.  But, you’ve got to think that not everybody who follows the movement thinks the same way about the issues in the world?

And it’s true.  Evangelicalism is first and foremost a religious movement.  From my studies, to be an evangelical, you usually have to have a strong commitment to Jesus Christ, and to be active in spreading His word.  Sometimes, there is also a conversion element to it (being born again).

It makes sense to me, then, that many types of people would wish to spread the word of Jesus, and yet may care for the environment, or want to be active in civil rights.  You know, those things traditionally associated with liberalism.

Now, I try to keep myself open-minded as possible, and yet, I am not devoid of personal prejudices.  There was a time where I believed “all evangelicals are right-wing fundamentalists.”  Then you get into the real world and find out what’s different.  Like how one of the best professors I’ve had is very much a practicing Catholic with strong views on the subject.  If you think he’s a conservative, try again.

So, because of things like this, it is not surprising to me that there are liberal evangelicals.  It’s doesn’t really phase me much because I know that people in this world are not robots.  There is no one person with quite the same views.  It’s be a boring world if this were the case.

Posted on
by

Monday’s entry will be the next IC 2008 entry. Then, hopefully, all this weekend and next week I’ll have one per day. Here’s why:

Spring Break! Ahh, it feels good to have a break every once in a while, and this upcoming week will be no exception. Nothing special going on, unfortunately, but the rest will be nice.

There was no entry yesterday, simply because it was a long day. I was more or less going from 11-11 that day. First, getting ready for an exam, then taking the exam. Then, went to a meeting to try to get some club money transferred into our budget account. Turns out I only need to fill out some form. That’s doable.

Then I had work, followed by setup for the news. We did something pretty awesome last night. We’ve been going live for a while, but have never done an actual live shot. You’ve see them all the time. A reporter is on location at a courthouse, a farm, a business, whatever. We’ve never done one, though. One of our newer members suggested doing it, found out how to do it, and then we set it up and did it. It went off very nicely, I must say.

Then, I went out for a bit with some fellow club members, then waited to find out whether we were or were not a go for a PSA shoot very late. Like, 2am late. See, the PSA we’re doing is about underage drinking, and having parents talk to their kids. Our location is a hospital. So, we can only do it when the emergency room isn’t busy. That means checking out that night to see what’s up. Unfortunately, our contact at the hospital found out it was busy last night, so it was no go. Hopefully we’ll have better luck on Monday night, though.

Today, had a class, then work. Our prop room was a mess, so me and my fellow lab assistant re-arranged it. Now it looks pretty and sparkling. Well, perhaps not sparkling, but it’s prettier than it used to be. You can walk in it, now, for instance, and not fear tripping over a chair.

Well, that’s it. Haven’t done a personal life entry in a while, so it was good to do. Now to work on the next IC 2008 entry…

Posted on
by

In the first installment of the newly retitled “Independents Week” (since one week won’t be enough), I present the first Independent: Donald K. Allen.

First, though, a quick reminder as to how this is all going to go down.  First, and foremost, I’ll be profiling the candidate.  Basically, I’ll give a summary of the platform they’re running on.  Then, I’ll provide my own commentary on the candidate.  However, in the end, you’ll decide if you like them.

I’ve decided to keep all this solely to candidates I can confirm are actually Independents.  If they’re part of an Independent party (such as the New American Independent Party), are endorsed by a third party, or I just cannot tell if they’re an Independent, I won’t be profiling them as part of this series.  The former category because of the fact that the party they’re in or endorsed by is probably eventually going to decide on one of their candidates to run nationally, and the latter because it’s just easier for me.  I have limited time in my day, so I can’t go around pulling my hair out to decide whether someone is an Independent.  If they actually are, they’re usually proud to say so, and that makes it easy to tell.

So, with that clarified, on to Dr. Allen.

Background

Donald Allen was born in Rockford, Ill. on April 16, 1947.  He served in the U.S. Air Force for four year, enlisting in 1967.  He worked as a journalist in the Philippines and in the 467th Combat Support Group, and at George Airforce Base in California with the 479th Tactical Fighter.  He was discharge in 1971.  After spending several years as a horseshoer, he graduated from veterinary school in 1980.  He has been married three times and has two daughters.

Issues

Allen is for compulsory national service, explaining that two years in the military did him a lot of good.  He’d be for military or civilian service.  On the issue of NAFTA, he believes the government is working hard to create a common American (U.S., Canada, Mexico) economy.

In the area of foreign affairs, he is a strong believer in making sure that Islamic terrorism is not a threat to the country, and appears to support a continuation of the Iraq war, arguing that public opinion will make us lose and cost lives.  On the United Nations, my inference is that he’s not a big supporter.  He says the United Nations HQ should leave the U.S. for “remodeling” to bring the building up to code (saying he heard that is wasn’t).

On the issue of war, he is in favor of giving the generals whatever leeway they need to win (short of nukes, of course).  On immigration, he is for a guest worker program, but says we need to protect our borders, and identify all illegals residing here.  He’s also in favor of racial profiling, arguing that the current non-profiling system targets the wrong people.

His Social Security plan is a bit different than we usually see.  He wants to see a SS payments go into a true trust fund that cannot be touched by the government, along with any I.O.U.’s, and gaining interest.

His tax plan is the FairTax system, that would transform the income tax into a sales tax.

On Congressional issues, he’d like to see Congressional term limits, arguing that being on Congress too long allows them to become too used to it.  For Congressional budgets, he’s a supporter of a line-item veto.

On energy independence, he’d award one billion dollars to the company that gets us energy independent in 10 years.

His rather unique plan on health care doesn’t involve universal health care or personal health portfolios.  Instead, he says the root source of the problem are all the lawsuits that end us raising premiums.  He says implementing a “loser pays” system will stop frivilous law suits, and lower premiums.  He is in favor of continuing Medicare, SCHIP, et al. for those who need it.  He’s also in favor of teaching more home-based healthcare and first aid, arguing it’d lower costs because people who have a simple cold won’t go in to the doctors, leaving their time better suited for those who really need the doctors.   For pharmaceuticals, he would require all companies makes a “one world price”.

He says mandatory drug testing for all politicians would make them more serious about fighting drugs, and says that harsher penalties should be imposed on sellers, and their buyers publicized.

He is for national referendums on issues, saying that politicians should not have all the power.

He is for asking all K-12 teachers in the U.S. what should be done about education, and then putting those plans into implementation.

Finally, he thinks anyone who wants to leave the U.S. because they’re unhappy should be offered $25,000 to leave and never be allowed to come back.

Finally, as a veterinarian, he is a fierce advocate against puppy mills, and would take measures to shut them down.

Commentary

Dr. Allen is definitely an Independent, no doubt about that.  He subscribes to no ideology fully, and in my opinion, that’s not a bad thing.  He seems to consider his platform issue by issue, which is my definition of an Independent.

There are some things I agree with him on, and some I don’t.  I like his Social Security plan.  It’d backtrack on things a bit, and bring social security where it needs to be: a place the government can’t touch it.  These days, more and more of our social security is being spent for things it shouldn’t be.  Social security is meant to help people who are retired, and not other things.

Now, I know what you’re going to say, “But what about Medicaid and such?”  Yea, I know, a lot of those payments come from social security, too.  I just think there has to be a different way to pay for those things.  More and more people are going on plans such as
Medicaid, which drys up more money from the social security well.  It may be great now, but when we get old, and there’s no money for us, that we paid to social security?  Then it won’t look so great anymore.

I’m also a big fan of the Health Care plan.  In the past, I’ve been rather moderate on this, promoting an “in-the-middle-of-the-road” plan.  However, I think going to the source of increasing premiums, lawsuits, will help.  Now, I’m not saying stop them all.  There’s definitely a need for malpractice suits still.  But, they need to be only used for some of the most serious cases…ones where the doctors screw up royally.  I know that when we get to the day where we get to lawsuits for a medicine that causes a non-fatal but negative reaction is the day we’re all screwed.  Wait, we’re already there you say?  Damnit!

I’m also with him on national referendums.  Anything that promotes direct democracy is good in my book.  Among the current nationally known candidates, he shares this view with Mike Gravel (who also supports a FairTax plan – see, not only the domain of the Mike Huckabees of the world).

There are some places I disagree starkly, however.  Lets take racial profiling for one.  Forget allowing it to happen, it already does.  I’m no fan of racial profiling, because I believe it instills unwarranted fear into people.  Mostly, this continues to be propagated by the media, but that’s an issue for another entry.

I’m also not for publicizing buyer lists of drug sellers.  What’s the point in shaming people?  Yes, punish the sellers, but I’m going to guess the majority of drug users (hard drug users, not your college pot smoker) are there because of real addiction.  Yea, yea, I know, personal choice and responsibility, but everyone makes mistakes.  Some pay for it by sacrificing their mental and physical health.  We’re not going to humiliate cigarette smokers, are we?  Yet, many of them are just as addicted.

Finally, why should we have to pay for someone who wants to renounce their citizenship.  If they want out of this country so bad, I say good riddance.  Now, I’m not talking about someone who moves to Italy to go work or school, or just wants to experience another way of life for a while.  I’m talking about people who really hate America, and want to leave and go renounce their citizenship over it.  Want to do that?  Fine? But don’t except support from the taxpayers.  For a guy who’s against nationalized health care causing taxpayers grief, why he’d want us to pay to have someone leave is beyond me.

I’m also against his somewhat “tin-foil-hat” fear of a New World Order.  First off, we Americans appreciate our sovereignty.  So, like with the Brits, the idea of fully integrating into some kind of regional coalition, or one world government, is never going to happen.  Not in my lifetime, anyway.

That said, I’m for more economic cooperation, and fair trade, as long as it doesn’t affect us.  I can’t really make any sound judgments on NAFTA without studying it further, so I won’t.  But, if the countries around us could cooperate a little more on economics, the world might be a better place.

I like his Lincoln bedroom idea.  Our soldiers have done a lot for us.  So, I say, give ’em a night in the White House.  It’d cost air fair, and perhaps gas for a limo.  The stay would otherwise be free.  I also like the idea of getting regular Americans to stay there.  Perhaps it’d work nicely for youths.  Have ’em do an essay, and get an independent council together to decide which gets the night.

Finally, I fully support his puppy mill policy.  After all, who likes Puppy Mills?

Well, that’s Donald K. Allen for you.  I’ve given you some of his positions and my take on him.  Now you decide.

Stay tuned tomorrow for another Independent Candidate.

Posted on
by

Ahh, after an intense end of week, weekend, and beginning of week (nothing to worry about, just busy busy busy), it’s good to be back.  That Independents Week I keep discussing?  Stay tuned to shortly after this entry.

Anyway…I agree with Robert Stein over at The Moderate Voice when he says it seems the main stream media is more interested in the sex life of Eliot Spitzer than it is in the real issues.  Namely a new report by the government that shows 1-in-4 teenage girls are being infected with STDs.

I won’t get into a discussion about Spitzer.  This is one where I’m too late; it’s already well covered elsewhere, so what do I have to add?  He resigned, and that’s probably the best option for him and the state of New York.

So, we go back to the STD study.  1-in-4?  That’s huge!  If you need a visual, find four of your friends that are girls.  According to the study, one of them has an STD.  Now, keep note that STD doesn’t mean HIV!  There are many STDs out there, of which HIV is only one.  You’ve seen the commercials, about genital herpes, and such.

Now, we know that the Bush administration is supportive of abstinence-only education, which is a crock of…well, you know.  According to the NY Times article, the government has spent $1.5 billion on it, and the result is 1-in-4 teenage girls with STDs.

That is why education systems must support contraception education.  Don’t get me wrong.  Abstinence is good option, and should be included in sexual education.  But, it cannot be the sole option taught to American children.  You tell a kid not to do something, and what do they do?  They go and do it.  Look at the prevalence of underage drinking in the U.S.  It’s very high.

The fact is, the numbers of teenagers having sex is rising (or, at least the reported numbers are as the idea becomes more acceptable to talk about).  If a kid chooses not to have sex, great.  More power to ’em.  But, if they do, I don’t think I need to state the obvious: they need to know their options.

But, more than protection, the idea of talking to your partner needs to be emphasized.  I’m trying to remember my own sexual education.  I seem to remember that it spent a great deal of time on contraception, but I don’t think it spent much time on interpersonal communication.

Look, protection is great, and it certainly does a lot to help, but it’s not all.  The article itself makes note that protection devices such as condoms will prevent all STDs.  I think that’s it’s something of a myth that as long as you wear protection, you’re set.

Well, maybe against some STDs, but not all.  And, I don’t think sexual education puts enough pressure on students to talk with their partner about any issues they might have.  For all the progress this country has made toward sexual openness in the past few decades, I still feel like it’s something of a social stigma to talk to one’s partner about any medical issues they might have.  Part of the problem is the idea of your partner have a sexual history.  Bologna, it’s important to know.  I’m not saying someone has to go into all the details, but if there’s anything that could cause a medical problem, it needs to be known, preferably before the idea of having sex comes up.

I think it’s necessary.  A little talking can prevent a big problem.  It might sound inconvenient, but I think it’s important.  I’d certainly rather a girl ask me about past sexual activity causing any medical issues, than to have that not happen.

Finally, testing.  Needs to be done, especially if you think there’s something going on.  Most testing I’ve seen seems to center around HIV, but I think it needs to be expanded to other STDs.  Not having experienced any, I don’t know, but I’m willing to guess that other STDs are pretty big issues, too.

Now for my critique of the article.  It leaves some stuff out, though I cannot tell if this is just the article or the study that does some of these.  The first big glaring thing I see is that the only group it specifically discusses African Americans.  Is there some reason for this?  Do white Americans, Hispanics, or Asians not get STDs?  It does mention a number for white Americans, but not any specific diseases like it does for African Americans.  I don’t want to play the ‘it’s subtle racism’ card quite yet, but the lack of discussion about any other subgroup makes me a little anxious.  The statistics for the group, which was right after the lead, should have been expanded to other groups, or left out entirely.

Finally, my second gripe is with the study itself.  Why only women?  Do men not get STDs either?  I’m going to have to assume there’s another study out there somewhere just for them.  I’d be interested to see a comparison STDs of American teenage men and women.  If I had to make an educated guess, I’d say it’s not so far away from the women statistic.

Posted on
by

CNN is reporting some comments from former President Bill Clinton about how he thinks a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

For a long time now, many commentators from the media and blogosphere have suggested that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket might be necessary in order to keep the party together, once the convention is done and over.  The theory is that, the closeness of the the pledged delegate count, plus the possibility of a split superdelegate vote, would harm the party.  I’m not sure about that, because since Obama since winning 11 states in a row, he had quite a few jump overs.  Still, it is a fear.

Yet, instead of focusing on a “marriage” of convenience, President Clinton focuses on one of strength.  If you think about it, he has a good point.  Consider the demographics the two cover.  Clinton has a huge advantage with women voters.  I think that she might even be able to woo some female Republican voters for that reason alone.  Obama, on the other hand, holds a enormous hold on the African American vote.  Clinton, likewise, has a big advantage with Hispanics.  Finally, Clinton would seem to be doing well those who formerly supported John Edwards – those poor and rural voters, and Obama has a hold on the youth and city vote.  Take all these together, and you have a large swath of the country.

Then you have the message vs. substance debate.  Clinton’s bark about Obama’s “angelic” rhetoric probably sounds worse than she means it to.  We don’t see a lot of Obama’s speeches, especially his stump speeches in states he visits to garner primary votes.  So, he probably has a lot more substance than we think.

Then there’s geography.  Now, technically, both candidates would be considered “northerners,” and that’d go against the old strategy of pairing up North with South.  However, lets not forget that before heading to D.C., Clinton was from Arkansas.  So, conservatives know Clinton.  And despite all this stuff about conservatives hating her and Bill, I think that’s mainly garbage spewed from the talk-radio crowd.  And even if they are both northerners now, the strategy of picking a running mate from the same region of the country isn’t new.  Bill did it in 1992, picking Gore, a southern man.

So, we have a pair that could win some key demographics.  Politically, we see some similar things going on, with Obama having gotten on the good side of many Republicans.  Unlike John McCain, who I think who is probably right to accept Bush’s endorsement, but should probably keep a firewall between himself and Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Obama and Clinton, need the Republicans.

I don’t think they can simply win on their own, unless all the Republicans were to stay home.  Considering the differences in turnout during the primaries, that could very well be the case, but lets not speculate those numbers this far away from the general election.  Lets assume for now they will need a good amount of Republicans in order to be the clear winners in November.  This is where I think Obama’s “I will cross party lines” message is going to help them.  Voters don’t want to hear about partisanship, and I certainly don’t.  If Clinton becomes the nominee, she needs to pick up on this message as well, I think.  Otherwise, she’ll have trouble climbing the hill toward the election.  If they can get a decent amount of Republicans, they’ve got it in the can.

My only concern in this ticket is military experience.  Neither can claim it.  Still, neither could former President Clinton.  Only his running mate, Gore, could.  Still, this may not be an incredible barrier.  Lets not forget that Gore was in the last conflict that required a draft, and Obama came of age after that.  Clinton, on the other hand, has the advantage of 8 years of looking over Bill’s shoulder on his military decisions.  This could help, as Clinton can claim some knowledge of how an actual President makes military choices.

So, to conclude,  an Obama-Clinton, or Clinton-Obama ticket may indeed be more than just a necessity.  It may be indeed a strong ticket destined to win.

Posted on
by

This primary season update brought to you via mobile post, because I’ve been sitting at another dorm for two and a half hours trying to collect clothes for a community service project.

Republicans

Anyway, the big news of the night is the apparent end of the GOP primary race. According to CNN (can’t link to it from my current location but you can’t miss it), Huckabee’s campaign manager says the candidate will drop out from the race.

The reports are saying the McCain has swept up Texas, Ohio, and Vermont, which puts him past the 1,191 delegate count needed to clinch the nomination.

The writing has been on the wall for some time, but for some reason, Huckabee continued to wait. This baffles me somewhat. It was mathematically impossible for him to get the required delegates on his own. It would have likely taken the combined efforts of the unpledged delegates (all of whom usually vote for the state winner for the Republicans, unlike the Democrats) and the remaining delegates from Romney (who already has urged them to vote for McCain), and even then, I don’t think he would have gotten past the marker. So, even if he had gotten every other single pledged delegate in this race, it wouldn’t have gotten him past 1,191. Then there’s the whole thing about McCain’s huge lead in general, but even that’s not a marker of success, as I’ll get to next. Regardless, it just wasn’t happening for Huckabee.

Democrats

On to Clinton and Obama. Since I started writing this post at 9pm or so, Clinton has won Ohio and Rhode Island, and is currently doing so in Texas. Obama has won Vermont o far tonight.

You know, for the past two weeks, the stories in the media and blogosphere seem to have been on the inevitability of an end for Clinton’s run. After 11 wins in a row, it would seem to make some sense. Obama’s unbeatable, isn’t he?

Wrong! Did nobody learn their lesson on Super Tuesday with Mike Huckabee? He was destined to have become a nobody after winning no states after Iowa, and then made that huge comeback that is probably what make Romney decide to leave. Then there’s John McCain. Last Summer, he was dead in the water. No money, staff leaving left and right, no momentum at all, and no chance in hell. Heck, everyone was rooting for Rudy. Now look what’s happened. The man’s the nominee.

In the last two weeks, Clinton has shaken things up in her campaign staff and given herself a loan. Then there was that picture of Obama in Somali garb and her fit over that brochure (which I think may have actually helped her despite the media portrayal of it). Yet, here she is, with a big comeback. She’s won Rhode Island, Ohio, and by my projection, will probably slimly win Texas.

Things have switched up so much on both sides in this primary season, that it is nearly impossible to tell what will happen. I think the media and blogosphere need to take a step back and consider what has happened tonight. Then perhaps they’ll be a little more analytical and a little less knee-jerk when talking about what will happen.

The fact is, I think, you need to consider a few things that have happened in the past couple days. To keep things simple, I’ll do the “-gate” prefix thing. He’s had brochuregate and NAFTAgate. Those are the two big ones I can think of. Maybe there’s some others.

I think the Democrats in Ohio, very touchy about NAFTA, saw the second one in particular, especially after the lack of response to NAFTAgate, and decided he wasn’t worthy of their vote. They didn’t like how he handled that debacle, and he paid for it there.

Look, it’s been shown before several times that bloggers and the media can say it’s over for one candidate or another, and then the people will take things into their own hands. Prove them wrong.

I’ve said it too many times already, and I know I’ll be saying it again before it’s all over. We cannot call the game for the Democrats before all the cards are counted. Votes are proportional, and they often are too close to count. If you think you know what’s going to happen, you’re probably going to be disappointed.

Independents Week

Unfortunately, I’ve got a lot more going on than I intended on this week.  So, I’m going to have to take time this weekend, do a little planning, then hopefully on Sunday, I will finally be able to start this segment.