I heard Derek Jeter state on www.jumpman23.com that an education is always something you can fall back on. A lot of people have dreams of being a professional athlete but first, and foremost, an education and good grades should come first because if those dreams of becoming a professional athlete don't come true then your education will be something to fall back on. We hear this message a lot from professional athletes and celebrities in general, right? It sounds good, positive, and "role-model"-worthy. But this statement strikes me as funny and for the first time I heard this message of "getting an education" as mildly offensive and a bit backwards. An education is something to fall back on? Really?
I would say that "to fall back on" implies a secondary option, a contingency plan. Sure, to be recognized as a world-class athlete, with the celebrity treatment, all that money and influence is an enticing nugget to obtain but should it really be the primary motivator for kids? Shouldn't the priorities be the other way around? Get a great education, in fact, never stop being educated and become a star athlete if that comes to be. Primarily, be a person who loves to learn and eventually pass along that knowledge to others so as to change the world. Secondarily, have a celebrity plan to fall back on. What are the ends which are institutionalized in our culture and teach our children?
Education should be placed before celebrity status. Educators, not professional athletes, should be placed higher in the societal hierarchy. But let's be honest, if money drives our economy and our economy is what America is known for then celebrities must exist to help push along consumerism; most educators just don't have the celebrity power of someone of Jeter's caliber.
Finally, I'd like to end by saying I don't think Jeter meant any harm in what he expressed. He promoted education in the societally acceptable manner, but I say that the societally acceptable understanding that celebrity and not educational and intellectual excellence needs to flip in the cultural hierarchy of ends in order for human fulfillment.
According to popular majority, the first 100+ days of President Obama's term have been a welcome change at least and absolute bliss at best. A fairly articulate speaker has replaced a seemingly bumbling moron. A masterful diplomat has ousted a loner cowboy with something to prove to his daddy. A man who seems to exude confidence in his strengths, while at the same time address his weaknesses by surrounding himself with people admittedly smarter than him has exercised the ghost of a president whose eyes gave away his greatest weakness - that weakness that has led to the downfall of so many leaders, the one where a person cannot admit the job is too big for him to do alone and pride steeps the spirit to squelch the necessity for humility. Obama, in short, has been a refreshing change that has done more good for a country's psyche (let alone, the world's)than my memory is aloud to recall. Personally, I began paying attention to politics when Clinton was roasted for sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and more egregiously, for perjury. Since then Washington has seen more bad times than good. However, as I sing the praises of our new President there are areas that need to be improved. In this lengthy posting I will outline some areas where Obama and I don't quite see eye to eye. And that's OK. I'm sure Axelrod and Emanuel could write an expose of greater length and depth. So, I invite you to read at your leisure and come back a few times to get through the entire posting.
The Economy Thank God Obama did something. The idea of giving the American people a tax holiday or simply doing nothing and letting the situation run its course is ludicrous. From a public relations standpoint, while millions are losing their jobs and others are losing retirement funds, homes, and confidence, the government would have been seen as inept for sitting on their hands. For the good of perception, President Obama's stimulus plan was necessary but the manner in which it was distributed, without a plan for accountability left me feeling very uncomfortable. It made it easy for pet projects to be pumped up without the greatest consideration for the general public in mind. Like the banking bailouts, the chance for frivolous spending is inevitable, in my opinion. Something more could be put in place to make sure the money is being spent more wisely.
Bank Bailouts Speaking of those bailouts, who didn't see this corruption and greed coming down Wall Street? Just to recap, human nature failed once again in the capitalist society when individuals were given licenses to make as much money as they could, any way they could. So, by taking some crappy deals, wheeling and dealing on the confidence of a solid market, in the end banking executives made off like bandits leaving their companies and those that represent their financial interests in the toilet. Who's going to pick up the bill? Only the group large enough to handle it. The one who prints the money. The government started handing over billions in relief to keep the WORLD economy propped up. Don't you think it might be a good idea to reorganize and "de-monopolize" these giants that have the entire weight of the world's economy rest on them so this doesn't happen again when people succumb to avarice.
As for the banks leadership, they should be ashamed of themselves and internally blackballed from running anything larger than their kids soccer team. The audacity to take bonuses and buy jets on the taxpayers dime is despicable. President Obama could have and should have been harsher on these individuals. After all, he is the leader of the majority stake holders of these companies now. Step up, Obama, and get rid of the trash!
Stem Cell Research On a heated topic, with drastic medical ramifications, the debate to use embryonic stem cells as a means to remedy such diseases as Parkinson's and ALS has become the newest chapter on the fight between the pro-life and pro-choice camps. Just so my readers know, I fall more into the pro-life camp than the pro-choice one. You can see where this is going, I'm against using EMBRYONIC stem cells. I don't think that the media or the president has clarified the distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells enough. Most of the language I have heard in mainstream media has simply been "stem cells" and that just isn't the case. Just doing some simple research will justify funding for adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cell research.
From a scientific perspective, embryonic stem cell research has found success in regrowing any human cell but published studies have reported that they have a high propensity to develop tumors. On the other hand, researchers have found numerous advancements in using adult stem cells. Why in the world are we not looking at this? Why is President Obama not playing this in the media more? It is reportedly cheaper and evidently more effective.
I have my theories. In the state I am registered in, Missouri, an amendment was passed in the 2006 to guarantee the legality of embryonic stem cell research and provide state funding. Here is a point to consider. $28.7 million was spent on this campaign by proponents of Amendment 2 and $27.9 million has been provided by James and Virginia Stowers, who own a private laboratory in Kansas City, MO. This is the most money spent in the history of Missouri on any campaign. Is the campaign about patients or patents? Adult stem cell lines cannot be patented but embryonic stem cell lines can be and can be profited from.
A direct link can been made between the research of embryonic stem cell research and financial gain. If Obama is aware of this, then shame on him. And if he is ignorant of the differences between adult and embryonic stem cells then he better get educated on the real reasons embryonic stem cells are being pushed and adult stem cell research is not.
Communications As good as President Obama is at maintaining a popular (rock star) persona among the media heads which provide the public with the daily images, he could be better. He's so much better than most. It is impossible to not come across as a doofus every once in a while when one lives in a fishbowl. As is normal, most politician's actions in front of the cameras (for Obama, it is all the time) seem premeditated and contrived. If there was some way for him to look more natural it would help. Also, he could really learn to make his points without reading from the teleprompter exclusively. His press conferences have been good but he could be smoother when answering questions off the cuff. This is a minor thing. It has nothing to do with policy. I've been happy with his selection for the chair of the FCC, Julius Genachowski. I was so happy that he didn't re-activate the "Fairness Doctrine." These suggestions only deal with the presentation of the president. And let's be fair, he's miles ahead of President Bush's media ineptitude.
Immigration Policy For the most part President Obama's policy on immigration is good. I like the fact that he wants to sure up the boarders, not to insulate the United States but to secure it and authenticate those who wish to apply for Visa's. What I do have a problem with is his plan to make those who have entered illegally pay a fine and learn English. If the people coming to the United States because they don't have enough money to support themselves in their home countries is it just to fine them? I don't think so. And to make them learn English goes against the First Amendment. The right to speak includes the right to speak whatever language you want. Enforcing the English language is unconstitutional.
Ban on Gay Marriage I am not sure what to think of this stance by Obama. I can't tell if he really believes it or is just playing politics and choosing his battles and not swinging at this one.
I, for one, think a governmental recognition of gay and lesbian unions should be allowed. Moral and ethical arguments have no barring on this topic. If science is correct and people are genetically hardwired to be attracted to one sex or the other, then how is it constitutionally right to discriminate between who loves one another and who wants to marry one another. A government cannot make concessions for heterosexual partners, while leaving the homosexuals on the sidelines. That is unfair and unjust. So, when President Obama came out and opposed Proposition 8, I had to disagree with him on the matter. OK, he doesn't want them to marry but wants them to have the same rights in the government as heterosexual marriages. His line between the civil recognition and the church's recognition are clear but his messages are mixed.
Torture I wrote a bit on this in an earlier blog post. Congratulations, President Obama on starting the process of closing down the detention center in Guantanamo Bay but more could be done. There are different forms of torture that need to be extinguished. The School of Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia is just one example of how the U.S. government aids in the dissemination of torture techniques. This should not be aloud. The world looks to the United States for guidance in many areas. If our military is going to use torture techniques, then that gives the rest of the world license to use it. We will be feeling the ramifications of the decisions of the past administration for decades. U.S. soldiers, if captured, will be subjected to the same treatment as the rest of the world saw us using on those detained. My greatest fear is that this type of behavior will snowball. The adage, violence breeds violence is ripe in the current climate of warfare where information must be had at any cost. I'm scared of the moral decline of such acts. The world sees these images and read the reports, that leaves the entire nation and all its citizens with a terrible black eye.
Do you know how difficult it is to live in another country and have to tell everyone that you are from the U.S.? While living in Canada I was subjected to some very harsh treatment because I was a citizen from the U.S. And this is Canada we are talking about. This is not some middle eastern nation. This is the closest country to our own, culturally, and I was being ridiculed for being American because of the decisions my government made. I want to see torture end and I want those responsible for legalizing it brought to justice and serve prison time.
Poverty
You can skip ahead to about 1:12 to view Obama's campaign promises to combat poverty.
Related to the bad economy and the toxic environment of corporate greed, poverty has become a very serious issue. Within our own boarders people continue to struggle to meet their financial necessities of affordable housing, food, transportation, and basic utilities. A severe rift between the rich and the poor continues to grow. In some way, Obama has to change the individualistic mentality and culture that breeds greed. It just isn't sustainable. The rich are getting richer off the backs of the poor. This has serious ramifications down the road. As a nation we have to continue to fight the urge to horde wealth and live altruistically for the sake of our fellow people.
The same can be said about the distribution of wealth around the globe. By pillaging the resources from other countries so as to make more goods for us, we are not maintaining a commitment for the livelihood of those people in other countries. This incredible video for kids explains very well how this line of thinking is unjust.
Obama's administration needs to do more to curb the poverty in this country, as well as, abroad. I know this isn't a popular stance because it calls for sacrifice but something needs to change to bring about a better standard of living for the poorest of our fellow persons.
Concluding Remarks It may seem like I am asking a lot from Obama, perhaps even wanting him to be the Messiah, but I cannot deny the fact that some things in the Obama presidency need to change. Yes, he's done remarkable things in this short time he's been in office but still more can be done. It is unreasonable to think he will be able to accomplish everything but it is not unreasonable to voice that changes that I think need to be changed in the Obama doctrine. You've probably seen that I am more conservative than Obama in some respects and more liberal in other areas but the fact of the matter is, the ability to share ideas and views is principally the most important matter that President embraces and encourages. That is the purpose for this blog. We will always be able to better ourselves as people and as a nation, therefore it is important that we never grow weary in our effort to envision and express a different and better reality.
One of the greatest rifts in the current political world is between the nations defined by the Muslim religion and the west, consisting primarily of Europe and The United States. President Obama has continued to define the relationship between these two seemingly different cultures. Today in Turkey he made an important statement when he said that The United States was not at war with Islam.
This is so true and inexplicably important to state to the world. It probably bears being repeated numerous times over. Although, Islam is the national religion of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, all countries with whom we are having diplomatic difficulties with at the moment, the religion itself is not the target of aggressive measures.
Obama even went so far as to link himself to the Muslim religion through his father and point to the fact that Muslims are making a positive contribution to American culture. This may seem like political suicide but I applaud the president for this candid and honest appeal to redefine the relationship between the Muslim world and American culture.
The religion of Islam is a beautiful one; sharing many of the same tenets of other major religions. I for one have learned much from the teachings in the Koran and look forward to continuing that education.
You may have noticed that I haven't written anything in nearly a month. I just couldn't! I was so disgusted by the reports from Washington concerning the economic crisis that I really was stymied by the negativity. But NOW we have some uplifting and positive vibes coming from the political world with the commencement of the G-20 summit. The world is watching! Everyone wants to see how America's new President is going to handle the leaders of the other nations.
Meetings kicked off today, highlighted by talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown where reports have been positive and perhaps relationships mended over assumed coolness between the two nations. More importantly were the congenial talks between President Obama and Russia's President Dmitri Medvedev. Reports are saying that the two sides have agreed to enter discussions regarding the reduction of warheads. These are two good indicators that President Obama is making some positive steps towards mending the American image on a very global stage.
I am happy to say that optimism seems to be reigning again. This is a major reason why Obama was elected President, to reclaim that swagger among the heavy-weights of the world. Keep your eyes on this event.
I had intended for these next few weeks to be writing about the Republican response to the stimulus bill that was passed just a few days ago. The immediate reaction was wonderful. All of the Republicans voted against the bill was the first remarkable response. Then, Republican Governors were threatening to use only parts of the money afforded to their care because of idealogical differences. Governor Jindal's Republican response to the Obama's address to Congress was a johnny-come-lately debacle which set a sore taste in Republican and Democratic mouths alike. Finally, Newt Gingrich arises from the underbrush of the Republican jungle to seemingly take a lead in the party. Needless to say, since the stimulus bill the papers and blogs have been as rich as New York cheesecake. I know I've enjoyed the ride. But, alas, the joyride that is the Republican Party's ineptitude is slowly coming to a halt, at least when it comes to the economy. I only need to chat with my family in Kansas to understand that the gripes of inevitable higher taxes are beginning to peeve my somewhat centrist/right-leaning clan. I get the feeling that public patience is starting to wain.
There has been a turn in the confidence in the Republican Party it seems. Am I crazy to say that? Perhaps, but just look at the swagger in John Boehner's response to the stimulus bill release today. This just serves as a little example that the Republicans stood up to the extremely popular President Obama and are still alive. They've discovered that there are enough people out there that are not so keen on Obama's ideas to turn around the economy to make themselves relevant.
Don't get me wrong, the Republican Party has a long way to go to get back to the stronghold it held nearly 15 years ago, but it seems as though they have found a bit of strength in banding together. They would be wise to not get too big for their britches and over stretch this new found confidence. They are still the minority party and will have a hard time getting any initiative through Congress these next few years. They would be foolish to turn their backs on the Obama administration this early, especially with Obama continuing to make such centralest moves, i.e. staying with Bush's troop withdrawal from Iraq plan, (although, I think most people believe Obama and didn't believe Bush). There are plenty of things that Republicans and Democratics can work towards together. Just look at the numerous mutual ovations Obama received during his Congressional address. The principles of patriotic living - jobs, energy, and education - are held by all, I believe, and I hope that this will be the catalyst for progress rather than partisan nonsense. Here's hoping for change.
You know the old adage, 'history repeats itself.' It seems as though that is just the case for the Republican Party. In a show of absolute disarray, Newt Gingrich has now become the mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
Here is a man who nearly a decade ago was run out of Washington after the 1998 elections. He was one of the most powerful people in Washington as Speaker of the House but was badly outplayed by a more savvy President Clinton - portrayed as a whiny hypocrite. Having lost all favor inside and outside the power-ranks he was discarded and thought to never be heard from again.
But somehow he's been able to weasel his way back into the public sphere without holding an office. Sure he runs his think tanks and charities but for the most part he's been a behind the scenes brainchild for the Republicans.
The New York Times Magazine ran a profile on Mr. Gingrich last weekend, mapping out his life during the last ten years. Primarily he keeps busy by coming up with ideas and passing them along to his buddies on the hill. This along with the lack of leadership and direction has set Gingrich up to once again lead this party back from obscurity.
But how do you fight a party who has a president with a 65% approval rate? Well, you better believe Gingrich has a plan. In his mind there are two ways to go about it. Take this stimulus plan for instance. Newt's idea was to create a tax holiday, where tax payers would be given a reprieve of taxes over a lengthy time period. It would put money into the consumers pocket and continue to move the economy along. OK, sounds like a straight forward plan. But can you really be so radically different from a president who is trying to move towards the center of the political pendulum? In Gingrich's words, "you look like you’re a nihilistic party of reactionary opposition.” Well, that's exactly what the Republics did - they unanimously voted against the stimulus bill and to the surprise of everyone seemed to be stronger for it.
Now with some momentum on their side the Republican party rolled into Washington last week for the Republican jamboree where Gingrich took the podium for the fervorino and implored the party to get back to the principles that made the party what it once was. Read: when Gingrich ran the show. And for all intensive purposes, the Reagan, G. W. H. Bush, Gingrich era was a pretty strong dog and pony show but look where it got us.
The deregulation of Reaganomics showed us the worst in people. Avarice took precedence and the clever got rich while those who played by the rules of justice are now taking the lumps. To say the least a Pandora's box was opened and unleashed was a part of human nature that is ugly and distasteful. Now, Obama and the government is left to reign in those lost with greed so that the rest of America can survive.
The country has been engrossed with the stimulus package over the past few weeks. This is an understatement. Really there is nothing else more pressing for the government than trying to turn around the dire state of the economy. This country depends on it and the entire world is looking towards the US to see what the next step is going to be.
OK, well, the economic stimulus package has been modified, passed by both branches of government, and signed into law. Some $787 billion later it looks as though that money is going to trickle down to the states and federal government departments. And now the real political jockeying takes place.
Most republican governors are going to take a pass on some of the money. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has rejected some of the funds coming his state's way because of an interpretation of the ESP that makes it mandatory for the states to continue to pick up the tab for the unemployed once the money runs out in a couple of years. Gov. Barbour concludes that this will cause an employment tax to subsidize the funds to be covered by the federal governments money now. Likewise, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is rejecting money for the same reason. But will take a good chunk of money to repair roads, bridges, and essentially creating more jobs. But isn't there a way for the state governments to take the money offered to them by Washington and work around this permanency clause in the ESP? Couldn't the state governments simply take the money now and agree to but the law on the books and then change the law when the money runs out? Governments overturn laws all the time and take them off the books. I don't understand why this couldn't happen now. To me, this sounds like political grand standing. I understand the Republican Governor's disagreement with the permanency clause but simple rejecting money for the sake of political face when thousands of citizens could use the aid is just simple wrong. It is uncharitable and I hope that it will come back to haunt their political careers.
Why not take a stand like Florida's Gov. Charlie Crist? He's going to take any help he can get to help the sunshine state because as he said on Meet the Press, he's looking after the people of the sunshine state first and foremost.
Republican Governors who refuse to accept the money can hide behind what seem to be idealogical differences in the ESP, but it doesn't negate the fact that this is political partisanship at its worst. And who's going to pay for it? Those citizens who need that money the most will pay the price for governors attempt to toe a party line so as to rise in the party rather than look after the people they serve. It's despicable!
