How Dare He...

I want to know what do you think about this story, Obama's pick of Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration angering the gay community?

At first look, I thought, who cares?  You know, get over it!  But after reading the whole article - which I don't always do - I can kinda see why the LGBT (lesbian, bi-sexual, gay, and transgender) community would be upset.  In fact, there is a quote from one activist suggesting that Obama would experience a tremendous uproar if he had selected a minister who advocated a route to hell for the Jews (which some select conservative churches teach).  This LGBT advocate is of course contrasting the general conservative evangelical views on homosexuality and the ridiculousness of Jews going to hell.  I don't know, I think this is a fair point.

Keep in mind that Rick Warren desires a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one women.  While Obama opposes this hardline stance, he also rejects gay marriage. 

So my question, does it matter?  Is the LBGT community angry over nothing or is this is valid complaint?

READ THE STORY : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16693.html

Obama's Department of Education Appointment.

Obama will announce today that Arne Duncan will be the head of the Department of Education. I think this is a good pick for two reasons.

First, he has led the third largest school district in the nation and he understands the needs of urban schools. Though I don't agree with the standardized testing of most states, he has shown success in raising student test scores. I believe he understands the shortfalls of the system and will be willing to bring in visionaries that can transform our schools over time.

Second, I think he understands the need for quality teachers in our schools. It is far to easy in this country to get a teaching job. Many teachers receive no training in the course of the year, and those who do are victims of the Christmas tree effect. (Trainings all through the year that take teachers away from the classroom and have little to no connection to the content they teach). The second educators stop growing and learning the kids will suffer. Duncan has the chance to bring all the tired educational debates to rest by bringing both sides together in order to achieve something constructive.

Coercion in the Classroom, Coercion in the Culture

Coercion is convenient. Coercion is easy. In the classroom it can move students to work; not harder, but they will do the bare minimum. Principles threaten, posture, give orders and expect absolute compliance. Yet teachers, will only give their bare minimum with such techniques.

Our culture is steeped in coercive maneuvers. 'Common' sense (by common I mean what is commonly assumed and or believed) says that violence is sometimes needed; necessary. Many in our culture believe that when a shot is not fired, a swing not taken, a bomb not dropped, that we have succeeded in a non-violent strategy. This is not true. Violence includes manipulation, coercion, policies that take advantage of, money making schemes that enrich one group of people over another; these too are violence.

My point is this: if we hope to save our public schools, we must let go of coercive management techniques. And that begins with each individual in our society. If we think that threatening, stimulus-response methods will produce quality work, we are mistaken. Our society and our schools need leaders who collaborate. Studies have shown now for years that knowledge is created, not transferred like funds to a savings account for a car payment. We must look at the people around us, the schools we have, the leaders we elect and demand that they collaborate. Our teachers and leaders must speak, live and lead in a way that create new realities of creative solutions.

Schools look too much like prisons. Work places are driven by a dollar that is fragile. Many will say that this isn't practical. That common sense says.... I would challenge anyone who says this to step inside of a classroom and watch coercion take place. Quality suffers in the students work, thus quality goes down in our society.

These are my philosophical reasons for my posts on education. I will offer more pragmatic and practical solutions for our schools and society in posts to come.

Advent Conspiracy

I apologize to you all for the barrage of video media here lately. With little time to sit down and write a lengthy post, it seems to be the faster way of getting across a message (and the less ambiguous as well). This is a promo for Advent Conspiracy. Check it out:

adventconspiracy.org

Happy Birthday, Jesus

I'd like to share this with you all, to commemorate the start of the Christmas season.

Church, State—and Muslims.

I'd like to spill a few thoughts that I've been having lately over the role of religion (in specific, Christianity) in the public/governmental life of our country. Over the past few years, my faith has undergone major foundational changes, and I suppose that I can gauge just how radical the changes have been by the way I disagree more and more with the voices that I grew up with as a kid in the Evangelical Christian church. Evangelicals, if nothing else, take Martin Luther's ideas of personal interpretation and understanding of scripture about as far as it can go (I would say that for myself, I am not a part of the evangelical belief system anymore. If only for the sake of not taking up your time by listing all of my beliefs, you could think of me largely as what is called a 'Postmodern' or 'Emerging' Christian.)

 I noticed this, on CNN this morning (excuse the incredibly annoying anchor):

Now, I know that Cody will saying something to the effect of "they only show you the most radical people!" But in the case supposed scandal of a "muslim president," I'd have to say that the number of people who think this way is more than just a fringe pastor in some cornfield. My parents believe this, even! The pastor in the video spits out a scripture every 2 minutes and when he's challenged, he throws his hands up and says "hey, I'm just saying what the Bible says." The scripture that supposedly supports his claim that having a muslim president "is a sin. Exodus 20:3" states, "No other God, only me." How do you make the jump from 3,000 BC in the middle of the desert on the other side of the world to the present day and present such a phrase as infallible argument against an incoming president? Unbelievable. And even if Obama was Muslim, what exactly is the argument? And why is this a problem in a democracy that prides itself on diversity?

This brings me finally to the point of this post. The efforts of the evangelical christian movement are married to the religious political right, and the amount of people that subscribe to that national view is substantial enough to warrant an observation, I think. It seems pretty clear to me (and most others, I'm sure) that the modern evangelical christian view of an ideal America is not at all what the founding fathers had in mind. Despite what they think, the evidence that the founding fathers wanted a democracy that is independent from the will of the church is apparent. Though they try to assign modern evangelical beliefs to particular founding statesmen, the truth is that Christianity in this form did not exist at the start of our nation and its constitution. The idea that comes into my head when I think of democracy and righteous government is completely different from theirs. But I think that the case can be made that what they want is not at all democracy. You will not find a group more bitterly opposed to Middle Eastern governments (which tend to be theocratic in nature or at the very least hugely influenced by muslim leaders) and the muslim faith. Yet, it seems as though what Evangelicals are arguing for is the very same kind of structure, a theocracy—a government conducted (and a people ruled) according to the principles of a religion. 

Thoughts?

Marriage: Part 2

The debate in this country over who has the 'right' to be married and who doesn't has created an uneasy divide.  Conservatives claim that it is a moral issue (which it is) and liberals claim it is a civil rights issue (which it also is).   As long as the government has their hands in this issue we will never find a middle ground or a resolution.  The government or any religious organization cannot legislate morality onto the populous.  

It wasn't until 1967  that the government legitimized interracial marriage with the Supreme Court ruling of Loving vs. Virginia. Refusing the rights of a gay couple to marry is no different. I do not believe that the government defines what marriage is. My marriage is not based on what the state of Texas has told me on my marriage license.  A highly centralized unit of power does not have the right to define what marriage is.  The fact that they do is coercion and violence. 

The Religious Right would argue that the Bible is clear on prohibiting homosexuality. I think that is a discussion that needs to take place on a larger scale. Rather than take a few verses out of their context and declare them absolute truth, we need to engage in  robust conversations within our faith communities.    

I'm not sure how we are to resolve  the anger and hatred on both sides.  I do not believe that enough constructive conversations are taking place in order to resolve this.  The one thing I'm sure of is that everyone needs to keep there cool and be civil through this whole process. Patience and discernment are key in times like these.

I will end with Andrew Sullivan's take on this issue. He says:

it is a bit like growing up in a big, old house. You're allowed to live there - in fact, you were born there and grew up there - but certain rooms are off-limits. "You can't go in there," the adults say, as soon as you learn to walk. "Or there," they remind you as you get older.  And you wonder why. But you're a good kid and don't want to make a ruckus, and it's your home too and your family, and they seem very insistent. After a while, they allow you to go up to the second floor and even third floor. There are rules there: don't touch that vase, don't put your feet on that couch, don't spill anything on that rug. But you can still hang out there if you really want to.

But there's one room at the very top of the house that has always been forbidden, and the more lee-way you are given elsewhere, the more stringently that rule is enforced. In the end, they say, "You can go anywhere and do anything - apart from that room." And you accept this, because they seem so intent on it. And you love them. But you keep wondering: why that room? What is up there? What am I not allowed to experience or to see?

And one day, you get up your courage and you wait till the adults are out and you gingerly make your way to that room you have never been in before.

And you go in, and look around, with some awe and burning curiosity. And you look in the cupboards and the drawers and under the chairs, and finally you find, in one dusty old desk, what they never wanted you to find.

You find the legal papers, the deed, that proves that they own the house. And you don't. However long you live, whatever you do, however you conduct yourself, this house will never be yours. You can live in it - with their permission, and under their authority. It is your home, because where else were you born and where else would you live - but only to rent, never to own. It is your family, but you are always kept one critical step away from being fully part of it. There is one fine line you will never be allowed to cross.

It is your country, but you are never fully a citizen. You can live here, but you can't vote. Your parents can die here, but you will never inherit this house.

We want to be citizens.

We want to be a full and equal part of our own homes and our own families and our own lives.

And some of us, having been in that room for a short while, know what it feels like.

And we will never, ever let it go.

What is the way forward?

Marriage

Proposition 8 in California has caused quite a ruckus. Here in Texas the gay marriage issue gets voted away pretty quickly because of the highly conservative disposition. I'm not quite sure why conservatives would support the government telling people who can and cannot get married, but it seems pretty ridiculous to me. To me it seems like any loving couple that desires to be wed should have the right to do so.

What are your thoughts?

The Wonders of Government-Funded Healthcare

Yes, socialized healthcare is wonderful. . .healthcare for everybody!

until the government decides

that you're too much of a burden to society. 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/31/australia.residency.denied.ap/index.html

A little wisdom from the Dish

This is a recent post by Andrew Sullivan over at The Daily Dish, enjoy...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-real-mcca-1.html

TAXES

The U.S. Tax System explained in Beer:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

   The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

   The fifth would pay $1.

   The sixth would pay $3.

   

   The seventh would pay $7.

   The eighth would pay $12.

   The ninth would pay $18.

   The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested  that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10! ''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man.

'I only saved a dollar, too.. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I! ''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.

'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?

The wealthy get all the breaks!

''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!

'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

By David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics University of Georgia

What are your views on U.S. Taxes?  

Are you in favor of higher taxes on the wealthily few, tax cuts for all, or the almighty flat tax?  

What happened to the flat tax idea anyway?

The Fear of Socialism

There has been a robust discussion happening among many conservative leaning people. Many are claiming that Obama's health care plan is socialist. Is Obama planning to socialize our health care system? I say no more that it already is. Let me explain...

I think Michael Cannon's definition of socialized medicine is reasonable: Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs. (http://www.cato.org/) The point Cannon goes on to make is that it doesn't matter who owns the hospital, its who provides the resources. The label of 'socialized medicine' as a condemnation of his plan is nothing more than an epithet. This label has been used against Harry Truman and even Mitt Romney. To me is sounds like political posturing by right-wingers in order to gain votes by scaring voters with the word socialism.

If anything, America's health care system is already heavily socialized. Here are three examples:

1. Federal and State licensing laws control how many physicians can be hired, what operations they can and cannot perform and how much they get paid. (Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 621, September 17, 2008..0)

2. The government sets the price for most medical products through Medicaid and Medicare. The FDA says who, how, and how much each clinic or hospital can use or market the products.

3. Even though most hospitals are privately owned, through 'certificate of need' laws, the government controls which hospitals are opened and what technology is used.

Using the the label of 'socialism' as an epithet is nonsense. Much of our daily lives are 'socialized' in one way or the other. Our schools and the postal service are run by our government. The software that we use today was payed for by tax dollars through government subsidies to the military in the 80's.

Before we go about condemning all things 'socialized' we need to be sure we have a firm grip on what truly socialized programs are. If our definition becomes too narrow then no one would be purely democratic or capitalist.

I Love Europe

This has to be the funniest European commercial ever!  I'm not sure what debate we can have over it but it sure is funny.

A New Way To Do Banking?

I recently read about a fascinating new company called LendingClub.  It's a web bank that distributes, what I'm calling "micro-loans" to qualifying individuals.  These loans can be used for education, vacation, home improvments, small business, and more.  What makes this bank unique is how its lending capitol is raised and how bowers are connected to lenders.

Basically, anyone can become a lender assuming they are credible sources.  The average joe invests a little money, entering into LendingClub's lending pool.  Each investor earns interest on his or her invest based on the risk of the loan (higher risk equates to higher interest and profit).  Its very simple and a great way to get more return on a small amount of investment cash.

The process of borrowing is what I love about this business.  Borrowers seeking a loan are processed through a system called LendingMatch, which connects people based on varying degrees of separation.  I like what LendingClub says, "LendingMatch™ finds relationships between borrowers and lenders based on geography, education, profession, or connectedness within a given social network and then presents lenders with diversified loan portfolios reflecting these relationships as well as the lenders' individual risk preferences. Moreover, LendingMatch™ serves to show borrowers that their loans are being funded by real people who rely on their loan payments to meet their own obligations."

Check it out: http://www.lendingclub.com

You might be wondering why I'm promoting this company.  Well, America's current financial crisis has me wondering about the reality of nationalized banking system.  I started reading about LendingClub and thought it would be cool to see a banking system, on a national level, that does business like the LendingClub.

I'd like to hear your thoughts.  Do you think America needs a nationalized banking system like in Great Britain (or some other country)?  Why?  What are the benefits and/or pitfalls?

The VP Debate.

The feared melt-down that many were expecting to see last night from Sarah Palin did not happen. Far from it. I thought Palin did a better job than anyone could have expected; she was civil, smiled through each point, and answered each question without hesitation. The 'folksy-charm' that so many right-wingers love was in full swing (Mayberry should be proud). She appealed to soccer moms and 'joe-six pack', making it clear that she was not of Washington.

I was also impressed with Biden. I was afraid he might eat the microphone in anger or ramble for 90 minuets. Biden flexed his 35 years of experience last night with a menagerie of facts and policy details. His knowledge of foreign affairs and voting records went unmatched. It seemed that Biden was focused on linking McCain to 8 years of a disastrous Bush administration. He continued the campaign strategy by focusing on McCain and not Palin, thus taking the focus away from the Palin sideshow.

Overall, as many commentators and political analysts have said, this debate was not a deal breaker. I don't think anyone who was leaning toward Obama will jump to McCain and vise versa. Palin used all the right language for conservatives, (unabashed love for Israel, traditional definition of marriage, and America is a city on a hill.) Biden used strong language to emphasise Obama's desire to end the War in Iraq and the need for environmentally friendly fuel alternatives.

Although I wasn't swayed to vote for McCain/Palin I thought she showed a much better side of their campaign. For me the folksy, hockey mom, 'Gosh darn it', personality doesn't do it for me. Floating through my head last night was a picture of Palin slapping the hand of Ahmadinejad and saying "Now you watch your mouth young man!, We don't speak that way down in Wasilla, don't cha' know!"

The Debate

OK, Both Obama and McCain are both great at dancing around questions. Much of what we heard was posturing and political horse sneeze. I do not think McCain dominated the debate and conversely Obama didn't necessarily shine. We have another debate coming and I hope we can hear pragmatic solutions to our ailing country. When asked what the candidates would cut spending on neither answered the question; they both divulged what they would spend more money on. There has never been any question about which candidate I am supporting (Obama) and I hope he will offer more in the coming debates.

What was your take?

More Coverage (Paraphrased)

What are the lessons of the Iraq War?

McCain: You cannot go into a conflict such as this one with the failed strategy the way that we did. I went to Iraq in 2003 and said we need to change strategy then.

Obama: This is where we have fundamental differences. I think we need to ask ourselves why we went there in the first place. I told you so. Is listing all of the casualities and spending since 2003. We took our eye off the ball. We should not have gone into Iraq when Afghanistan wasn't finished. It's a mess over there. 

Rebuttal McCain: The next president doesnt have the decision of whether we'll win or not. the decision will be, for him, when we leave and how we leave. Obama didn't go to Iraq for 900 days, he is the on a NATO committee which is involved with afghanistan and he hasn't been involved. 

Rebuttal Obama: my committee had nothing to do with that. McCain is pulling a tactic to contain the damage of the war. He likes to act like the war started in 2007. 

Rebuttal McCain: we're making progress in Iraq, Obama doesn't like to admit that. 

Rebuttal Obama: McCain opposed troop funding when there was a timetable. I opposed funding when there was no timetable. we both suppport troops. The question is not supporting the troops, the troop is, is it wise to be in Iraq? We should be focusing on Afghanistan. We should end this world responsibly. In 16months, we should be able to reduce our troops. 

Rebuttal McCain: under Obama's plan, we would have been totally out of Iraq by last month, before the surge could even work. We should not snatch from the jaws of victory.

What do we do about Afghanistan?

Obama: Send additional troops to afghanistan. get out of iraq. Our major fronts should be Afghanistan and Pakistan. We should deal with the Pakistani's to get them to flush out our enemies. 

McCain: I won't repeat a mistake that I made before. Is that after we finished with Afghanistan we washed our hands. On the issue of dealing with Pakistan, I'm not prepared to cut off funds to them and threaten them like Obama seems to want to do. I been to the area, I know how tough the area is. Obama calls for more troops, but doesn't understand that there has to be a new strategy, the same kind that we used in Iraq that he talks so badly about. We have a lot of work to do in Afghanistan, and I know how to work with them.

Rebuttal Obama: No one wants to attack Pakistan. but if we see enemies there and pakistan is unable or unwilling to help, we should take the enemies out. The problem with the strategy that has been pursued is that we've coddled the dictactors over there. 

More to come. . . . 

Running Commentary on Tonight's Presidential Debate

Fellow blogger Cody and I are sitting in front of the TV watching the debate currently as it starts. I will be trying to write summaries on their comments live. I will post the questions posed and try to paraphrase the best I can what is being said. 

"We must acheive both security and solvency in fact the foundation of military strength is economic strength" Where do you stand on the economic plan?

Obama: We are at defining moment. Recapping what everyone has been hearing for the past two weeks. We have to move swiftly and wisely. Putting forth 

1. we must have oversight

2. we have to make sure taxpayers have a possibility of regaining the money 

3. we have to make sure none of that money goes towards golden parachutes 

4. We have to make sure we are taking care of homeowners

McCain: Poor Kennedy.  Thank you mississipi. I feel bad about whats going on and so are many americans. Rep and Dems coming together to work out solution. Problem is broader than wall street, also main street. we have finally seen a bipartisan activity going on with economic package. Agrees with Obama's points, but adds more. want to emphasize, this is the end of the beginning if we succeed withi this package. bailout plan is not the only solution needed, we need to end our dependency on foreign oil.

Talk to each other about bailout plan, are you in favor of this plan?

Obama. We havent seen the language yet. I'm optimistic. The question we have to ask ourselves is how did we get here? Two years ago me and fellow democrats told you so. Wants to talk about how we got here. how did we get to de-regulate?

McCain: I also told you so. Most of us saw this coming. Talking about Eisenhower before. We have to hold the people accountable that started this. In washington greed and excess are rewarded. My administration will hold people responsibility.

Rebuttal Obama: I agree, but how did this happen? There should have been accountability long ago with SS, wages, healthcare, taxes, etc. 

Rebuttal McCain: We Do have fundamental problems with the system. There's no doubt we have a long way to go. I have a fundamental belief in the strength of the American worker. We are still the greatest. We have to get through these tough times. America with the right leadership our best days are ahead of us.

What are the fundamental difference between you and Obama, Mr. McCain, on spending?

McCain: There has been way too much spending in Washington. Earmark spending and Pork Barrell spending. Obama has spent over 900 million in ear marks.

Obama: I suspended ear mark spending even in my own state. We have to grow the economy from the bottom-up. Americans are suffering and need relief. 

McCain: Obama didn't suspend spending like that until AFTER he began running for President. . . 

Obama: I don't know where McCain is getting his figures. I cut corporate loopholes. cutting earmark spending does not provide relief for the middle class. you are overlooking them. 

More to come. . . 

Why Will Capitalism Survive?

Why will capitalism survive?

Because socialism will always be used to save it.

Another article; Thank you Ralph Nader.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081013/nader

What do you think?

Interesting Article

This article is by George Will over at the Washington Post....Will is not usually very friendly with democrats; he is pulitzer-prize winning conservative journalist.

What do you think?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html

Questions?

Both Barrack Obama and John McCain have been guilty of playing by the old game of slash and burn politics. Both are now claiming the 'change' mantra and many including myself are tired of hearing the word. Each candidates political ads are full of half-truths and information that has nothing to do with the issues. In an effort to bring the conversation back to the issues the editors of The Nation are posing several questions that they would like each candidate to answer. Below I have listed 4 that I thought were important. What questions do you want answered by the candidates? What answers are you looking for?

• Do you agree with Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs, who insist that the Pentagon budget must grow?
  

• Why would you promote NATO expansion as a security building policy considering that had Georgia been a member of NATO when it launched its attack on Southern Ossetia, under the Treaty's Article Five guarantee the US would now be at war with Russia?
  

• The US has the highest childhood poverty rate of any industrialized nation with 20 percent of children under age 6 living in poor families, costing about $500 billion dollars per year to the US economy, or 4 percent of GDP. What is your plan to reduce childhood poverty during your administration?

• The United States is hemorrhaging debt from its trade deficits - $700 billion a year - what is your plan to stop the bleeding?
  
  

All Options On The Table? (by Cody)

American culture is valued around the world; our movies are appreciated by the likes of Kim Jong Il. Our T.V. shows and music can be found in the far reaches of our ever shrinking planet. If you were to look at the highest grossing summer hits over the last 10 years you would notice that action movies consistently top the list. The effect of popular violence in our culture is far reaching and the consequences are deep and largely unseen. The myth of redemptive violence is not seen because our culture accepts it with open arms. On the BBC's The World, one of the men being interviewed about 9/11 told the story of his young sons reaction to the tragic events. He said that when his son saw the plane flying into the buildings he asked, "why is a movie on so early in the day?" Something is radically wrong.

Many in our country attempt to justify our extreme violence by claiming that our nations history is one of liberation and liberating. This is not necessarily the case. Our nation's narrative has been one of expansion, acquisition and consumption. We have continuously fueled the machine of violence through more creative ways to kill our enemies. Our rhetoric has escalated to the point of daring our enemies to make a move. We have been rasing a 5 year old know as Iraq and its throwing a full blown temper tantrum. Consumerism runs rampant, every desire we have is fed and if its not, we will sue. Very few Americans know what self-restraint means anymore. We demand cheap oil and we want it now. We will even destroy one location for the benefit of another thinking that this will ameliorate the problem. All of our practice has been in violence; not non-violent resistant action. If the public consciousness was tuned into non-violent strategies, more options would truly be on the table.

Sarah Palin gave her first interview to Charlie Gibson and her stance on foreign policy stunned me. She is quoted as saying of Iraq and Pakistan: "I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America and our allies...” How can all options be on the table when we have zero experience in non-violent action? She went on to say about Ukraine and Georgia's possible entry into NATO: “I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.” By "help", I'm sure she means military violent action. This interview was extremely helpful for me; I will not be voting for the Mcain/Palin ticket.

So what do we need? Our country is full of creative and beautiful thinkers. I suggest we rediscover our past. When the dirt has been shaken from the roots, its time to swing backwards in order to more further forward. I'm not suggesting that everyone become voracious readers; but they should read a little. The likes of Walt Whitman, Thoreau, Emerson, Franklin, Dorthy Day, Mary Oliver, Dr. King and the list could go on. Our country has a long history of creative non-violent solutions that are widely unknown and ignored. A single trip to the library could open the door for many in our society to reimagine what we as a society could be. Our nations literature is rich and varied; we should not ignore it. To some this may sound idealistic and naive. Yet, when the creative class rises-in any nation- the tide begins to change. Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Bruce Cockburn and Wendell Berry have had far reaching influecne in positive ways. The creative class opened the door to conversations that needed to take place. The same could be true for us today. Where are the Dylans, Springsteens, and Mitchells of our day?

My suggestion: open your eyes to the creativity of this country. Find the voices of those calling out in the desert, proclaiming peace and creative solutions. We've heard the myth of redemptive violence-we are experts at practicing it. Lets truly put all options on the table by exploring options so far ignord.

Community, Politics and America's Hope (by Cody)

By community I mean the commonwealth and common interests, commonly understood, of people living together in a place and wishing to continue to do so. To put it another way, community is a locally understood interdependence of local people, local culture, local economy, and local nature. (Community, of course, is an idea that can extend itself beyond the local, but it does so only metaphorically. The idea of a national or global community is meaningless apart from the realization of local communities)...

- Wendell Berry, Sex, Economy, freedom & Community

I watched and listened to Barrack Obama's acceptance speech last night and was moved. I then listened and read commentary, hatred, and condemnation for everything the man said. To say the least, the negativity and hatred saddened me. The quote above is from a book of essays by Wendell Berry. Berry truly does transcend the liberal/conservative divide.; he opposes big government and big business- (though some call 'transcendence' elitism, I believe that is a naive critique). I believe that there are commonly held values by Americans. The pro-life/pro-choice debate is bogged down in divisive and thwarting rhetoric. Global trade has been reduced to a morality based on monetary gain; what value is their in gaining the whole world yet forfeiting your soul? The environment has been reduced to extreme radicals (Gore/Evangelicals). Most Americans want unwanted/teen pregnancies reduced. Many Americans long for monetary, cultural, and social equity. Many Americans and people of faith (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) long for responsible stewardship of the good earth, even if its not profitable.

Community is the only third party interest that can truly transcend the liberal/conservative divide. America has many problems: lack of self-restraint, indifference to the environment, consumerism, racism and acceptance of the myth of redemptive violence. Local people, cultures, economies, and stewardship of the earth will bring about the change that this nation needs. I am not speaking of some conservative limited government/free market utopia; neither am I speaking of some liberal government program solution. I am talking about local people, citizens of neighborhoods, members of churches and lions clubs taking a stand for their commonly held values and passions.

As I thought about the many view points presented after Obama's speech I thought about my own involvement in my local community. After long hours of meditation, I was saddened. I do not participate as I should in the local economy. I do not promote peace in every aspect of my life. I do not strive to do the best I can (pragmatically) to be a good steward of the good earth, created by our loving creator. In other words, I realized I was a hypocrite. What then are we/I to do?

I believe that as a nation we must realize the importance of local economies, cultures and environments. Our military receives more funding than our endangered species protection agencies. If we are going to continue down this road I would appreciate it if the people who claim we are a 'christian' nation rip out Psalms, Isaiah, and Job. Cherishing and supporting our local economies, cultures, and environments is our only hope of achieving a sustainable, spiritually sound, and responsible solution to our nations ailments. The global/industrial economy deals in abstractions, not humanity and the common good.

Gandhi said, "You must be the change you want to see in the world". I agree. It must begin with me. Obama has been creating many realities with the use of his inspiring language but, without action it is meaningless. Through language Dr. King made possible the reality of equity among peoples of differing cultures. Through creative action he gave the empiricists something tangible to grasp; the idealist something to hope for; the cynics something to ponder. If Obama desires the highest office in the land, he will need to find concrete solutions, rooted in local communities, that will build a bridge between tradition and progress. Speeches are inspiring, action is world shaking.

Come on Obama, give us something to hold on to.

I love our country.  I love Democracy.  However, I'm frustrated with the unwillingness of elected leadership to follow the desire of "the people".  I like what Glenn Beck says, I'll paraphrase: "We the people are in charge, not the elected officials and like it or not, it seems that once 'the people' have spoken our leaders should act accordingly".  I know that's pretty bold but I like it.  Its seems right.  When I think about elections, I don't vote to give complete power to someone for four years.  If that elected official is not doing what he or she said, kick'em out!  Give me a pitch fork!

I've often wondered why so few participate in national elections.  I do have a theory; maybe it feels pointless to many.  After all, why vote for change when change never comes?  The Democrats took congress during the last election cycle and were going to clean up Washington & end the war in Iraq.  What have they done?  Nothing.  Even today, 66% of our nation feels that we should not be in Iraq and 62% feel a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq is in order (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm).  So, why are we still in Iraq?  This same type of situation is true for off-shore drilling.  74% of our nation supports drilling off-shore as a partial fix for energy prices (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1519).  This may or may not be a good solution but like it or hate it, its the will of the people.  So what is Congress doing?  Look at Ms. Pelosi's stance on drilling:

On the Stephanopoulos Sunday news show, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi underscored her refusal to allow a drilling vote. Asked about the Republican rebellion in the House, she said, “What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies.” She went on to say, “We are spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic, when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.”

I can't disagree with her argument but 2/3 of Americans want to drill.  Make a more persuasive argument or get out of the way.

This begs the question: can elected leaders really go by what "the people" want?  I'll agree that decisions can NOT always be made based on the demands of the people.  But thats precisely the problem.  There is NO REAL system for sounding off and giving our leaders direction.  Thus, elected leadership does whatever it wants and the people are told to get in line.  Oh, wait.  we do have a system.  We get the privalige of voting every four years on our leaders, right?  Are we still in Iraq?  Do we still have an economic problem?  Are any elected leaders doing what polls indicate people want?  Nope.  Congress is deadlocked.  Stuck.  The system works real well...

If "we the people" were really allowed to input on decision making, would we always get it right, do the right thing, or demand the right course of action?  No.  But that is not the point.  Democracy does not necessarily require the "right" anything.  It does however require participation and action by both its citizens and elected officials.  Which we don't currently have and may not have for quite sometime.  But I see this lack of participation and ownership by US citizens as systematic of a failed government.

What say you?

Does more experience make for a better president?

The chart to the left (click on it to see a larger version of the chart) shows the amount of experience presidential candidates had at the state and federal level before taking the office of President. The author of the article suggests that the idea of a candidate with the most experience will make the best President is a fallacy. McCain has been around since the beginning of time and Obama appeared out of thin air from Chicago's harsh political arena.

• Will McCain's experience give him the upper hand should he take office?

Will Obama's lack of experience give him a 'fresh' perspective on the politics of Washington?

Does more experience make a better President?

What do you think?



The link to the article is below:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12290.html

Bios

This is Mari. Just a comment: I like how on the bios on the right, I have been affixed the Democratic "D" and everyone else has eventually become Independent. Oh people! Just show an affiliation and get over yourselves!! Dustin, you're a Libertarian, Cody's a Democrat, and Josh is a Republican. We don't have to agree with or endorse every party line, but we do owe readers full disclosure of our political leanings at the very least. Unless you want to be considered above it all as an Independent. But then some noble contributors might object to being called elitist....

What do you think?

The following excerpt comes from the Fort Worth Star Telegram. The article is about how several struggling schools in the Fort Worth ISD are spending grant money.

Ten struggling schools in the Fort Worth district are spending more than $200,000 on staff retreats, including $64,500 by South Hills High School for a three-day stay at the Gaylord Texan in Grapevine.
The money comes from grants through the federal No Child Left Behind program and must be used by the schools to analyze student test data, comprehensively assess needs, make a campus improvement plan and team-build, according to the Texas Education Agency, which distributes the money. The retreats are allowed, but some wonder if the venues might be excessive.

see the article in its entirety here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/793889.html

Is this an abuse of the funds they received?

Is a 200 dollar a night resort the best place to analyze test data?

Weigh in...

DNC Gets A Gas Tax Holiday

Apparently the DNC in Denver - the ones hosting the DNC Convention - has avoided paying state and Federal taxes on gas.  This is shocking, since the DNC has said a gas tax holiday for the average American would be pointless not offering any real help. Apparently, its quite helpful for the DNC politicians in Denver.

Read about it here:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/22/city-gives-dnc-host-committee-pass-gas-tax/

This kind of stuff drives me crazy! I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC is doing the same thing. How is it that our political system continually leaves the average American screwed over? Again, it drives me crazy!  And what a double standard set by the DNC. I just can't believe these politicians would strike down a policy affecting average Americans and then use that same policy to derive benefit from it. 

I personally think the gas tax holiday is a joke because I've read it would bankrupt U.S. road maintenance budgets. It would be nice but the relative benefit is quite low. But for the love of everything, don't say its a waste and then us it for yourself.  What say you?

NCLB and how America's Children Are Left Behind

As the gernal election gets under way I have been looking over our nation's educational policy (NCLB); my hope is that our new commander in chief will bring massive reform to our public schools. No Child Left Behind was enacted in 2001 and gained copious amounts of support. Its goal was to raise math and reading scores and close the education gap along racial and socioeconomic lines. NCLB also contains many accountability measures for schools and teachers: testing, employment standards, 4 tiered system for intervention and so on...

I read an article from the Cato Institute (libertarian think-tank) about NCLB and its failure to follow through with what it promised. The article gives a set of numbers from the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) test. PISA is a test given to students (15 yr old) in 30 countries that tests their reading and math skills. So, according to the PISA test:

U.S. students have suffered overall stagnation or decline in math, reading, and science in the years since NCLB was passed....Taken together, the PISA test data suggest NCLB has been a failure. That same picture is painted by a separate test of 4th grade students: the Program on International Reading Literacy Survey. According to PIRLS, U.S. 4th grade reading achievement fell, though only by a negligible 2 points, between 2001 and 2006. (you can read the article and see the actual numbers from the link below)

NCLB treats students and schools like a car manufacturing plant. You cannot put a kid on an assembly line and expect every student to perform the same way by 2012. It may surprise some to hear me say this but I am wondering if our nations schools should be given to the states and local communities. The Feds hardly fund the programs they create so why on earth would I want them to legislate my curriculum standards and school performance? If NCLB was held to its own accountability standards it would fail-or as NCLB likes to call it, 'under performing'.

I end with these questions:

Should NCLB be "Mended or Ended"?

Is lessening the role of the Federal Government in education a solution or another way of prolonging the problem?

Is school choice a viable option?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8850

Just For Fun Too...

Just For Fun

Any Questions?

Let the drilling begin...so we can save a few bucks in about 20 years (by Mari)

Alright, Bush has now lifted the presidential ban (signed in by his father in 1990) on offshore drilling, and is now calling for Congress to lift theirs. Evidently it's a two-step process in this case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25674571/

What interests me here is that Bush makes this move now, in the middle of a campaign that he can really only damage, despite analysis from economists and pundits (not to mention admission from the Republican candidate) that increasing local drilling will not significantly affect the economy in general or gas prices in particular. If legislation designed to decrease dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise, has been sitting "tabled" in Congress for the last 25 years, going again and again without approval, what does Bush stand to gain by making this wild stab now? Especially considering that it will be a tough sell on a Democratic Congress? According to the MSN article referenced above, even several Republican senators in states with large coastal tourist incomes are less than enthused about the proposition. As for the efficacy of offshore drilling as a solution, this article provides some information:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25287795/

Ironically, this author concludes that the real, immediate solution to rising oil prices is to use less oil. Is this a case of those pesky tree-huggers doing their best to ruin the fun for Big Oil again? Or are there legitimate ecological, not to mention economic, reasons to leave the coasts of America alone? Either in the long or short run, is offshore drilling really the salient resolution? I overheard someone at work claiming that oil companies have found a way to drill that has "no impact" on the environment, that is "completely safe." I don't like to get into it with my Limbaugh-listening coworkers, but I had to pipe up in this case and say that there is no action that we can take, large or small, local or global, that has "no impact" on the environment. It's a matter of measuring and weighing risk vs reward.

Ultimately, we are confronted with the question: how dire is the situation we find ourselves in? Though our fuel prices are still below those in Europe, Australia, Asia, and most of the rest of the industrialized world, have we really hit our breaking point? Are we so crippled by the consequences of our oil addiction that we have to smash the iconic piggy bank of "Sea to Shining Sea"? Have we now come to the juncture at which the risk is worth the reward?

A Tribute to Josh & Other iPhone Users

Religious Crusading, with the new twist of Racial Exploitation! (guest author Mari)

As reported by MSNBC this morning, "the Christian Defense Coalition has launched a campaign against Obama on abortion. It labels Obama 'the abortion President' and uses an image that is sure to offend -- it's a depiction of a black 'Uncle Sam,' saying, 'I want you to pay for abortions.'"

Don't believe it?

Now, I am not a supporter of the destruction of innocent life. In fact, for the first time, I've begun to have a glimpse into the many conflicting emotions, hopes, and fears that women experience through pregnancy. To be very honest, I struggled quite a bit during the first few weeks I knew I was pregnant, because I had firmly decided to move on with my life and career, and was actually facing the alienation and despair of giving up those dreams for the small clump of cells I was now incubating. It's a daunting feeling, and I never thought I'd be able to identify with women who do not want their pregnancies. But for a time I did. And as much as I have come to value the inestimable life inside me, I cannot any longer be a part of an argument that takes that conversation away from women.

I also feel that it is not the place of the government to limit the safe and careful treatment of women who choose this route (that's right Dustin, call me a Libertarian). The funding for state-run clinics is a separate issue. Abortion is and must remain the choice of the individual, as much as I regret the tragic consequences.

However--this issue is quite inflammatory enough without dragging in the politics of race. Yes, Obama is black, and there's no way to create an image of him as Uncle Sam without making Uncle Sam black. But did the CDC really need to go there? The unfortunate impression that this awareness campaign will create among its target audience is an underhanded commingling of distasteful images, meant only to stoke up hatred against a candidate that that audience is predisposed to dislike (for his politics). It's really the height of propaganda, appealing to fears and prejudices, values and allegiances that are deeply ingrained in people in order to force catharsis. Or piss people off, as in my case. Which really amounts to the same thing.

Thoughts? Reactions?

Conservatives Not as Stupid as We Are Led to Believe (By Josh)

This post is purely (read, mostly) for fun. I have grown up conservative, and while nearly all of the conservative voices I heard growing up have now proven to be. . . well, not worthy of my attention, there is one that I receive constant persecution for. (i.e. dude, you listen to Rush Limbaugh, shut up.) 

Recently there was a 9-page article on Limbaugh, and, here, for all of you Limbaugh-and-limbaugh-listener-haters, is this citation, via the New York Times. Enjoy.

'Limbaugh’s audience is often underestimated by critics who don’t listen to the show (only 3 percent of his audience identify themselves as “liberal,” according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press). Recently, Pew reported that, on a series of “news knowledge questions,” Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” — the defiantly self-mocking term for his faithful, supposedly brainwashed, audience — scored higher than NPR listeners. The study found that “readers of newsmagazines, political magazines and business magazines, listeners of Rush Limbaugh and NPR and viewers of the Daily Show and C-SPAN are also much more likely than the average person to have a college degree.”'

FedEx vs. Government Bureaucracy (By Dustin)

Thanks for this video Steve!  I think Newt makes a few funny yet poignant points about government's ability to manage its systems. Lets examine a few: Welfare...check; tax code (one of the most complicated in the world)...check; Katrina...check; CIA intelligence...check. Next up healthcare. 

Let Freedom Reign! (by Dustin)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.  For many this is a win; I'm not so sure.  I think it is a win from the stand point of upholding the constitution and allowing individuals the opportunity to protect themselves in their homes. Its scares me because of the potential abuses and violence that could arise (all though I did read something about gun violence going up after D.C. started the ban).  To be honest, I have not had time to research this ruling because of work but thought it would be fun to discuss.

What are your thoughts?  Is this ruling good or bad for America?

For your enjoyment:

Why I'd Vote for Obama (by Cody)

In one of the comments Jeff asked why I would vote for Obama; and so I will attempt to explain briefly . But first, I need to clarify something; I'm not an Obama fanatic. I don't put stickers on my car, wear a button on my shirt, go to rallies and scream like Justin Timberlake just took off his shirt. I would vote for him, not swoon for him. At this point in the general I'm still all ears. I want to hear what McCain has to say as much as Obama. I still have the lingering question for Obama- Will there be any substance? or merely great speeches?

I will point out three reasons why I like Obama:

1. The first reason is an ideological one. I believe Obama understands our pluralistic society and religions role in it. Or at least he understands it 'differently' than other politicians. For years the religious right hijacked the political sphere for evangelicals, I grew up thinking that to be Christian is to vote Republican. To me, Obama gets the fact that peoples faith is important but it has been used a tool of division in the past; and I would hope that he would be all ears to other faiths in our nation and not just create a religious left. In 2006 Obama gave a speech at the Call to Renewal conference. He said;


...Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends. In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

I agree with what he said about religion telling us what our obligations towards one another are. Our individualism has cause many horrors in our nation in regards to poverty and education. I think that good religion can show us that we are stronger together rather than apart. I think Obama get this.

Now, I'm not going to get into what Dobson said yesterday about this speech- another time. My only point with this first reason is to say that I think that Obama would see the value and the good taking place in the religious activity of our nation (Jew, Muslim, Christian...)


2. My second reason is because I believe Obama has the 'possibility' to bring some creativity to the White House. Again, I am still waiting to see what that creativity is going to look like and if his wonderful speeches are just that-wonderful speeches. There is an new kind of energy about Obama that hasnt been seen since Kennedy. The fact that he is running has already changed the conversation. The area that I'm hoping for the most creativity in is education. The goal of NCLB was a good one but no one paid for it. Schools were given expectations and then no money or resources came. I think that Obama could bring fresh ideas to the education of this country, rather than just coming up with new expectations and then throwing a standarized test at the schools.

3. Finally, I would vote for Obama because of a fundamental difference between him and McCain. The difference comes down to letting the Market solve the problem vs. a Government policy/program. Now dont get me wrong, the Market is good to solve many things (the housing crisis possibly?) but I'm not comfortable putting poverty and our energy crisis in the hands of the Market alone. Example: When the U.S. was attempting to be the first to the moon Kennedy didnt make an announcement and say; "300 million dollars to the first American on the moon". No, he put the full force of the government behind it and made it a reality. Now, I'm trying to get into the whole what use it NASA anyway debate. I think that when good government (I can see the cynics cringing) gets behind an issue, say poverty, I think that some good things can happen. My hope it that Obama can put some energy and traction behind allieviating poverty, education, the environment and so on.

I know that my more conservative friends will have much to say about all of this. This might actually be a good way to see who the best candidate would be; anyone up for writing someting on McCain?