Sunday, May 1, 2011
America, F yeah!
Osama bin Laden is dead. Does this mean another four years for Obama? I'll ruminate on this one for a bit and muster a longer post tomorrow.
Monday, April 4, 2011
I don't heart Huckabee
***This was a Facebook note I wrote after hearing some scary words that Mike Huckabee uttered during a recent trip to Israel. I ended up finishing the note while Huckabee was clarifying his ironically sanctimonious comments on Natalie Portman's pregnancy.***
Wow, Huckabee. You won't stop putting your foot in your mouth. Spouting off about Natalie Portman, claiming Obama grew up in Kenya, equating homosexuality with incest, and more. Even worse for a presidential candidate, your past comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are quite troubling.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/huckabee-no-palestinian-s_n_816867.html
Even though he had always been kind of a zero-substance populist, I sorta liked him until recently. He had a certain charm that I can only describe as the natural result of being Sarah Palin and Mr. Rogers' lovechild. However, I'm totally over him after he said that Israel shouldn't cede ANY land to a Palestinian state. He claims Israelis have indigenous rights to the land, making me wonder where, then, do Palestinians have indigenous rights if not "Palestine"...or when Huckabee thinks we should return the United States to its original inhabitants.
Even worse was his suggestion that Muslim-majority states come together to give up portions of their land. I have two things to say about that: 1) It's insulting to suggest that the Palestinians be the displaced stepchildren of someone else's country simply because of a shared religion, and 2) it's presumptuous to think that Arab and other Muslim-majority countries will offer land of value to the displaced Palestinians simply to cater to Huckabee's perverse sense of justice. Sure, there's land to be given out, but I don't think anyone cares to live on the zig-zag line made with Winston Churchill's pen when he sneezed.
Even assuming that Huckabee wasn't uttering pure biblical code-speak (which he probably was), he still may have sent his party's platform on Israel to the ultra-right, dealing a potentially damaging blow to any peace process.
Obama in 2012 campaign starts with a new video
I'm not too impressed with this first campaign video. It is 100% void of substantive material on any important issues. It plays into the common criticism leveled against Obama, that he's all about "hopey changey stuff" (to quote Sarah Palin) rather than actual solutions. While I don't agree with this criticism, I think his fluffy approach to marketing himself actually undersells what he offers rather than oversells.
Anyway, I look forward to a spirited campaign, one that includes more intriguing videos than this one.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Keith Olbermann on Prop 8
Keith Olbermann makes special comments on Prop 8. I'll let the video speak for itself.
In the Wake of Prop 8
In the aftermath of California's Prop 8, amid all of the protests and such, I have come across a few blog posts that raise interesting points. It's nothing too earth-shattering, but they're good representations of some creative thinking on the subject. While I am almost always a proponent of creativity, in many situations--and this one included--the simplest, least creative solution is the best one.
Consider the following passage from a post on "the little cog":
"No state or government entity should issue “marriage” licenses at all. Instead, marriages for none, civil unions for all. It creates a system of equal protection under the law."
I truly appreciate this perspective. First of all, it is perhaps more accurate to describe marriage as a religious institution than a legal one. If we made this simple distinction, we could go a long way in pacifying many people who would object to gay marriage being lumped together with their own marriage, which they may see as a sacred religious institution.
If it's the symbolic state sponsorship of gay marriage that bothers people, then doing away with state-recognized marriage altogether could preclude any outrage over the state's legitimizing of "the gay lifestyle". Marriage would instead be limited to private life, whether conceived through religious ceremony or not.
There is a problem with this, though, which has a lot to do with the endowment effect. (The endowment effect is the tendency for people to value something greater once they feel they have secured a right to it.) Many people--whether religious or not--would feel a great sense of aversion to the loss of marriage. Add to the situation the fact that marriage has been an important state-supported institution in America (for heterosexual white couples) for as long as the country has existed, and you can get a feel for the type of backlash that even such a benign proposal would receive. Many people would feel that such a move would be a clear swap between heterosexual marriage and gay marriage--that the state is eliminating the right to heterosexual marriage and condoning the gay lifestyle in one fell swoop. This might be too much for some people to handle.
So, what might be the simplest--and best--solution is to allow gay marriage. We can extend civil rights to a sizable minority of the US population without having to redefine what is a sacred institution for many Americans. Sure, it won't pass without protest, but it's the simplest solution to a difficult problem. It's a band aid that we must simply rip off. After it's over, it'll hurt a lot less. I promise.
--------------
Now, let's consider the following passage from Chris Ford's blog post found on Brazen Careerist's website in which he refers to sensitivity toward religious leaders who would oppose marrying gays and lesbians:
"Now, I realize that these [religious] figures can refuse or "turn down" the opportunity BUT this can create a backlash and lead to unfavorable PR for that person and their church and that is basically unfair. Unfair because we go to these places of worship expecting them to abide by their teachings. The other point would be that, obviously, some churches can choose to do the ceremony while others stand aside. This is the perfect timing for this article because government offices are feeling what churches are sure to feel in the near future in CA if they refuse to wed couples of the same sex..."
In all fairness to Chris, he does support civil unions and all the ancillary rights and privileges associated with them. However, he does oppose gay marriage because he believes it puts religious leaders who refuse to marry gays and lesbians in a bad position.
My response: So what?
It's not that I'm insensitive to people's beliefs. I certainly don't think the state has any right to obligate someone to marry a couple in his or her church, synagogue, or mosque. But to say that we ought to deny people basic civil rights because of the negative PR that some religious denominations might get is ludicrous.
Let me tell you, religious leaders face scrutiny every day from all angles. Ask an Evangelical Christian how often she has to defend her faith. Ask a Muslim leader how often he has to defend the Koran or the treatment of women in the Islamic world in the face of harsh critics. To think we ought to deny gays and lesbians their civil rights because religious leaders can't handle a healthy theological debate is an odd stance to take.
As for Chris's fear that religious organizations will eventually feel the same pressure the state is feeling now, I will admit that I fear it, too. When the state starts forcing religious organizations to marry gays and lesbians, I'll come out against that right away. However, in the meantime I'll treat gay marriage itself as a separate issue.
Consider the following passage from a post on "the little cog":
"No state or government entity should issue “marriage” licenses at all. Instead, marriages for none, civil unions for all. It creates a system of equal protection under the law."
I truly appreciate this perspective. First of all, it is perhaps more accurate to describe marriage as a religious institution than a legal one. If we made this simple distinction, we could go a long way in pacifying many people who would object to gay marriage being lumped together with their own marriage, which they may see as a sacred religious institution.
If it's the symbolic state sponsorship of gay marriage that bothers people, then doing away with state-recognized marriage altogether could preclude any outrage over the state's legitimizing of "the gay lifestyle". Marriage would instead be limited to private life, whether conceived through religious ceremony or not.
There is a problem with this, though, which has a lot to do with the endowment effect. (The endowment effect is the tendency for people to value something greater once they feel they have secured a right to it.) Many people--whether religious or not--would feel a great sense of aversion to the loss of marriage. Add to the situation the fact that marriage has been an important state-supported institution in America (for heterosexual white couples) for as long as the country has existed, and you can get a feel for the type of backlash that even such a benign proposal would receive. Many people would feel that such a move would be a clear swap between heterosexual marriage and gay marriage--that the state is eliminating the right to heterosexual marriage and condoning the gay lifestyle in one fell swoop. This might be too much for some people to handle.
So, what might be the simplest--and best--solution is to allow gay marriage. We can extend civil rights to a sizable minority of the US population without having to redefine what is a sacred institution for many Americans. Sure, it won't pass without protest, but it's the simplest solution to a difficult problem. It's a band aid that we must simply rip off. After it's over, it'll hurt a lot less. I promise.
--------------
Now, let's consider the following passage from Chris Ford's blog post found on Brazen Careerist's website in which he refers to sensitivity toward religious leaders who would oppose marrying gays and lesbians:
"Now, I realize that these [religious] figures can refuse or "turn down" the opportunity BUT this can create a backlash and lead to unfavorable PR for that person and their church and that is basically unfair. Unfair because we go to these places of worship expecting them to abide by their teachings. The other point would be that, obviously, some churches can choose to do the ceremony while others stand aside. This is the perfect timing for this article because government offices are feeling what churches are sure to feel in the near future in CA if they refuse to wed couples of the same sex..."
In all fairness to Chris, he does support civil unions and all the ancillary rights and privileges associated with them. However, he does oppose gay marriage because he believes it puts religious leaders who refuse to marry gays and lesbians in a bad position.
My response: So what?
It's not that I'm insensitive to people's beliefs. I certainly don't think the state has any right to obligate someone to marry a couple in his or her church, synagogue, or mosque. But to say that we ought to deny people basic civil rights because of the negative PR that some religious denominations might get is ludicrous.
Let me tell you, religious leaders face scrutiny every day from all angles. Ask an Evangelical Christian how often she has to defend her faith. Ask a Muslim leader how often he has to defend the Koran or the treatment of women in the Islamic world in the face of harsh critics. To think we ought to deny gays and lesbians their civil rights because religious leaders can't handle a healthy theological debate is an odd stance to take.
As for Chris's fear that religious organizations will eventually feel the same pressure the state is feeling now, I will admit that I fear it, too. When the state starts forcing religious organizations to marry gays and lesbians, I'll come out against that right away. However, in the meantime I'll treat gay marriage itself as a separate issue.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
¡Change!
¡Sí, se puede! Yes we can!
Congratulations to American voters. We did it! Not only do we get a voice of reason in the oval office to help navigate these troubling geo-political times (knock on wood), but I also get to enjoy using this domain name for another four years!
On a more serious note, though, I was encouraged by the post-election rhetoric. McCain was very gracious in defeat and Obama was very inspiring in victory.
----------
Going forward, this blog will not simply become a ridiculously premature 2012 campaign mouthpiece for Obama. It will be a place where I raise different political topics for discussion. I will freely give my own opinion, regardless of which party it supports.
"Why even call the blog 'Obama in 2012'?" you might ask. Well, first of all, it's a sweet domain. I had to jump on it when given the chance. More importantly, it has everything to do with wishful thinking. I'm optimistic that he will be a good--if not great--president. (Knock on wood, once again.) So, the same way I anticipated an Obama presidency, I also anticipate a successful Obama presidency. Although my support of Obama in 2012 is no foregone conclusion, I must admit that he is an engaging figure that has me feeling good about where our country is going. (I will explain this in future posts.) So, call me naive, but I have the "audacity of hope" that seems to infect a large percentage of Americans, even in the face of some very serious challenges. Even if you don't agree with Obama on all of the issues, you must admit that the ability of a president to inspire people does count for something.
Anyway, I look forward to future posts when I have some real presidential actions on which to comment.
Congratulations to American voters. We did it! Not only do we get a voice of reason in the oval office to help navigate these troubling geo-political times (knock on wood), but I also get to enjoy using this domain name for another four years!
On a more serious note, though, I was encouraged by the post-election rhetoric. McCain was very gracious in defeat and Obama was very inspiring in victory.
----------
Going forward, this blog will not simply become a ridiculously premature 2012 campaign mouthpiece for Obama. It will be a place where I raise different political topics for discussion. I will freely give my own opinion, regardless of which party it supports.
"Why even call the blog 'Obama in 2012'?" you might ask. Well, first of all, it's a sweet domain. I had to jump on it when given the chance. More importantly, it has everything to do with wishful thinking. I'm optimistic that he will be a good--if not great--president. (Knock on wood, once again.) So, the same way I anticipated an Obama presidency, I also anticipate a successful Obama presidency. Although my support of Obama in 2012 is no foregone conclusion, I must admit that he is an engaging figure that has me feeling good about where our country is going. (I will explain this in future posts.) So, call me naive, but I have the "audacity of hope" that seems to infect a large percentage of Americans, even in the face of some very serious challenges. Even if you don't agree with Obama on all of the issues, you must admit that the ability of a president to inspire people does count for something.
Anyway, I look forward to future posts when I have some real presidential actions on which to comment.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
What does Palin know?
Biden and Palin both make their stances on Roe v. Wade very clear, but when asked about other Supreme Court decisions, only Biden could reference a specific case.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Similarly, when Katie Couric asked Palin which media sources have shaped her worldview, Palin couldn't offer a single publication as an example. I guess Palin is such a maverick that she won't even answer questions during an interview in which she participates voluntarily. Instead, she gets defensive and implies that anyone who asks that question assumes that Alaska is some remote corner of the world where news seldom reaches.
She probably got so defensive and evasive when presented with such a clear question because the only media sources that came to mind were either 1) from Alaska or 2) liberally minded publications like the New York Times that her conservative base dislikes. (I don't imply that Palin actually reads the Times, but rather that it--and similar newspapers--would come to mind.) This demonstrates not only Palin's very narrow worldview, but also her own psychological complex about her own state. Politicians are asked questions like this all the time. How would you go about asking such a question without being condescending to Alaskans? As a Wisconsinite I am faced with the perception that I'm from a cultural backwater all the time (some people I know will tell you how easy it is to get away with articulating such a perception), but I don't get bent out of shape when people ask me what I read. It's not like someone is asking me if I can read, but rather curious about what I read, which is actually a flattering gesture.
So, if Palin doesn't know about Supreme Court decisions, media sources, or even her own running mate's political career, what does she know about? I have yet to see one substantive thing she offers to the Republican ticket. John McCain says she probably knows more about energy than anyone in America. When has she shown this? I would like to see some of this expertise in the VP debates, but I can't say that I'm optimistic.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Similarly, when Katie Couric asked Palin which media sources have shaped her worldview, Palin couldn't offer a single publication as an example. I guess Palin is such a maverick that she won't even answer questions during an interview in which she participates voluntarily. Instead, she gets defensive and implies that anyone who asks that question assumes that Alaska is some remote corner of the world where news seldom reaches.
She probably got so defensive and evasive when presented with such a clear question because the only media sources that came to mind were either 1) from Alaska or 2) liberally minded publications like the New York Times that her conservative base dislikes. (I don't imply that Palin actually reads the Times, but rather that it--and similar newspapers--would come to mind.) This demonstrates not only Palin's very narrow worldview, but also her own psychological complex about her own state. Politicians are asked questions like this all the time. How would you go about asking such a question without being condescending to Alaskans? As a Wisconsinite I am faced with the perception that I'm from a cultural backwater all the time (some people I know will tell you how easy it is to get away with articulating such a perception), but I don't get bent out of shape when people ask me what I read. It's not like someone is asking me if I can read, but rather curious about what I read, which is actually a flattering gesture.
So, if Palin doesn't know about Supreme Court decisions, media sources, or even her own running mate's political career, what does she know about? I have yet to see one substantive thing she offers to the Republican ticket. John McCain says she probably knows more about energy than anyone in America. When has she shown this? I would like to see some of this expertise in the VP debates, but I can't say that I'm optimistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
