Okay, so He's not That Bad, Really...

Alright, so I've gone back and read my previous posts about Barack Obama...

They may have been a little harsh.

I'm not actually that much against the guy. Other than his obviously over-eager position on health-care, I'm not really offended by any of his proposed policies of which I'm aware. I'm a little uneasy with the immediate timetable for withdrawl in Iraq, but then again, I can't really say I'm head-up about staying in, either.

The things I love about the man most, however are his speeches. He's easily the best orator I've seen in my lifetime.

And his base platform is dead-on. We need a change in politics; we need somebody to come in and fix the mess left by the previous adminstration. Seriously, if the giant mess that is the political scene these days were any different, or even if somebody besides McCain were running against him, I may very well have been on here proclaiming his virtues. I know I would have if any of the other Republican nominees had beaten McCain out (except perhaps Giuliani).

What really infuriates me is the way that the right demonizes the guy. Calling him a socialist is obviously a stretch, calling him unpatriotic is borderline stupid, and calling him a muslim is infantile (not that I have anything against Muslims). Saying that Barack Obama is a covert fundamentalist Muslim terrorist is exactly the kind of Rush Limbaugh-esqe, McCarthyist witch-hunting that is not just innane and irrational, but detrimental to democracy.

Seriously, people. Whatever happened to rational thought? I mean, I'm personally going to vote for McCain, but that doesn't mean that I can't see a lot of good in Obama, does it? Just because I support McCain doesn't mean I have to come up with vast, insane logic why Obama is the devil does it? Whatever happened to the polite disagreement?

It's this kind of no-holds-barred political warmongering that has so polluted our collective system that a progressive candidate like Barack evokes such wild rhetoric from me as the undigested beef analogy (see "Barack Obama is a n00b").

Cue the inevitable comments about how I'm a wishy-washy, fence-riding flip-flopper. Sigh.

China and the Trenchcoat Mafia

I'm not going to be boycotting the Olympics this year.

Don't get me wrong, I know and respect several people who are going to boycott the games, and their reasons are entirely logical. Let's be honest, when it comes to human rights, China is the bull in the...well...the china shop. Regardless of what you think about China or the Chineese, it's kind of hard to ignore the abuses that its government have managed NOT to disguise, even just in the past few months leading up to the games. Arbitrarily evicting whole populaces to make way for the actual physical plant for the games caps up years of known brutal crackdowns.

However, there is no event in the world that is as symbolic of world unity then the Olympics. As Morgan Freeman says in the commercials, the games are chance for us to forget our differences and come together as humans.

So, therein lies a Catch-22. There are many people who are boycotting a symbol of human unity...in the name of human rights. If you want to watch the Olympics and support international unity, then you're tacitly empowering those who abuse people. But, on the other side of the coin, if you want to make a stand against those abuses, you're turning your nose at the world.

I, for one, am not going to boycott the games. China pollutes the environment and represses her citezens out of a driving desire to become modern, to join the first-world nations in our affluence. Like a high-school kid wasting his money on designer jeans, China is just trying to fit in. It seems to me then, that boycotting the games because they host it can only do one of two things:
A.) China, seeing that it is still not accepted as a legitimate world power, redoubles its efforts, churning out more pollution and repressing more citizens in order to finally gain what it seeks.
B.) China, seeing that it is still not accepted as a legitimate world power, becomes, to continue our high-school analogy, the angry kid in a trench coat. China pulls the global equivilent of a high-school shooting, and, must I remind you, nobody's more representative of "the in-crowd" in global politics than the U.S.

At some point or another, we're going to have to admit that China is going to be a major player in the world, and treat it with respect. The U.S. has always dealt with countries that violate human rights, and the reason is simple: we have to. If the U.S. refused to deal with any nations that repressed their citizenry, it would cripple our markets and open up a host of hostile enemies.

So, if you want to boycott China, go ahead, and all the more power to you. But don't come at me like I'm hugging Hitler if I watch, and don't come spewing out the horrible, horrible facts about how bad China is.

I know. But I'm going to go ahead and support world unity here. Plus, it's fun to watch the Kenyans embarass the rest of the runners on the track.

The Power of the State v.s. the Power of Prayer

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/faith.healer.deaths.ap/index.html

Since I'm going to be writing about religious topics in the Reveille next semester, it seems logical that I should start doing it here one of these days.

Apparently a family in Oregon has had two children die from curable diseases, because they are firm believers in the power of prayer. The most recent one is an older child of 16 years, who, in theory, was old enough to make the decision for himself. The case is so tragic because the boy died from complications of a urinary tract infection that a simple catheter could have resolved.

Apparently this same extended family had a child of 15 months, the recent casualties' cousin, die from bronchial pneumonia. This case is being brought before a judge, because a child barely over a year old cannot decide for themselves wether or not to seek treatment.

The reason that the two children died from preventable diseases is that their parents are members of the Followers of Christ Church, which advocates using prayer for "faith-healing", a practice that some fundamentalist Christians endorse.

This brings up two main conundrums. The first, and more theological one, regards the practice itself. Now, as a Christian, I'm definately not ready to say that prayer doesn't work or even say that God can't heal you of illness. But it seems to me that refusing medical treatment is a bit foolhardy.

It can be argued, and I have been told before, that, if we really believe that God can heal us, why is it foolhardy? If you seek medical attention instead of relying on God, isn't that a sign that you don't fully trust him?

In response, I would argue that God provides means of healing more subtle than a beam of light and a miraculous, inexplicable miracle. Isn't it possible that God has provided mankind with the ingenuity to develop a practical solution? It's the old story of the man sitting on the roof of his flooded house, refusing the aid of a boat and a helicopter, saying that God will save him, only to die and have God ask him why he didn't use the boat and helicopter he sent him. Refusing practical aid seems not only mule-headed, but also remarkably like throwing yourself from the roof of the temple as a test of God's faithfulness.

The second, more practical issue rasied by this debacle is wether or not the mother and father should be prosecuted. A very valid argument can be made that, if the parents are brought to court, the state would effectively be limiting their religious freedom, i.e. restricting their right to believe in faith-healing. The problem, however, is that they aren't the ones who died because of those religious principles. Instead, a 15 month-old infant, who did not have the time in life to determine wether he believed in faith-healing, died. This is where the parents are guilty; when it comes to religious matters, a 15 month-old child should receive medical attention, regardless of his parents religious views.

Barack Obama's Fairy Godmother

I recently read an article describing a chance meeting between Barack Obama and an old guy after a speaking event. The man was something like 95 years old, and Barack at least feigned awe and respect for the mans longevity. For some reason, the man felt the need to hand the candidate his walking stick, saying that he has used the stick for several decades. And what does Barack do? He waves the stick in the air, saying that "he's going to use a stick like this to whip Congress into passing universal health care."

That's right folks, Barack Obama's going to pass universal health care. And he's going to do it by whuppin' Congress with a big stick.

In my humble opinion, Barack Obama is going to need a much more magical stick than that to even address healthcare at all, and he's going to need nothing short of God's own shillelagh to pass universal health care.

Let's take a look at his odds. First keep in mind that Bill Clinton ran on a similar platform, that he was going to "fix healthcare". We all know how far he got with that plan; his feeble attempt got swatted down like a five year old shooting against Yao Ming. Now, hate the guy or love him, the man is the Stephen Tyler of politcs. Even if he has the charm, Barack Obama doesn't have half the political skill that Clinton did, and he certainly doesn't have the experience.

I forgot to mention that Bill Clinton wasn't trying to pull this off in the current quagmire we're mired in now. Obama is, by his own fervent admission, inherinting an unstable nation. The U.S. is currently engaged in a costly, bloody conflict abroad, is breaking all records for defecits, and is on the verge of a full-fledged economic depression. I had the very enjoyable experience of attending the Bonnaroo music festival this year, and nowhere have I seen a greater mass of people with so many pressing issues to be angry about. In the words of the Pearl Jam lead singer, "there's a lot to be angry about these days, my friends..."

My point in all of this is, Barack has WAY too much on his plate to be able to pass something as controversial as universal health care. Even if he had the time and energy to fight the Republicans, the the simple, blunt truth is obvious. With our nation trillions of dollars in the red, the only way you could fund health care is to pull out of Iraq immediately, and raise the taxes significantly. Regardless of your personal take on politcal theory, nothing dispels a good speech (even one of Obama's) or a ruins good public policy strategy in the public's eyes like a tax hike, especially in these hard economic times.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal health care... in theory. I'm also for world peace, an end to hunger, and unicorns that crap happiness. I simply do not believe that universal health care can be pulled off in a nation as large and diverse as the United States, especially not now.

As good as universal health care sounds, especially when it flows like honey from Obama's mouth, it just isn't feasible at the current time. This is just another empty political promise, a sunshine and rainbows hook designed to draw in naive voters. I would be mad about the claim, but it's a well-established tradition in the modern election, and these days every candidate, including McCain is guilty of it. Also, the alternative is even scarier...maybe he actually believes it himself!

One more thing: SCREW KANYE!

Barack Obama is a NooB

Since Barack is officially the Democratic nominee now, the party can stop beating itself up and let the Republicans do it for them.

Now I'm not a Republican, but I do think that, recently, the conservative party has been handing the Democrats their own lunch. After the first term of Bush, the best the Dems could muster was John Kerry, who had all the charisma of a high-school librarian. Even with a majority in Congress, the Dems have been able to accomplish a net good-for that matter, net anything of zero. Bush hasn't even had to veto a whole lot to keep them in the kennel.

The party is hoping to get a fresh start with Barack Obama, the very junior senator from Illinois. The Democrats are hoping that Obama's starry-eyed idealism and high piss/vinegar content are the "fresh new thing" that they need to jumpstart their flagging political success.

It's like when Coke decided they were going to go for the "fresh new thing".

Don't get me wrong, Obama is probably the single best orator I have seem in my lifetime. His rhetoric is sweeping and inspiring, and he is brimming with confidence and charisma.

For me, however, his words ring somewhat hollow. I'll admit, his talk of change is tantalizing, especially while we sit mired in what seems like an eternity of frustratingly stagnant politics. But when the words fade away and I actually listen to what he's saying, the spell wears thin.

When it actually comes to his stance on issues, it can be hard to delve through the mountains of beautiful prose. From a purely practical standpoint, if you'd like to hear an Obama speech, record him saying "Change" in that grandiloquent voice of his once...and repeat it incessantly.

There's something fundamentally disturbing about the very philosophy that has caused the Democrats to put him forth into the arena. I'm always wary of candidates who run as "outsiders". If you'll recall, Bush ran as an "outsider" during his first election (how a Yale-educated governor and son of a former President managed to pull that off boggles my mind), and we all know how HE worked out.

In almost any other profession, running as "an outsider" would be absurd. Would you want an "outsider" surgeon doing your back surgery? Would you want an "outsider" accountant doing your taxes? How about an "outsider" pilot flying your plane?

The reason most professions don't have "outsiders" is simple; in order to be really good at something, you have to have experience in that profession. Yet a politician like Barack Obama can point to his tiny tenure as a Senator and claim it's a GOOD thing.

Why is this? The reason is simple; people don't understand what politics is all about, especially when it comes to the office of the President. The common conception of a President is someone who knows what the best thing is for the country, then gets it done. Unfortunately, many people forget that those are only the beginning and and the end of the political process. The interim, and, in fact, the bulk of the process is the actual politics of it all, which is one of the most arcane arts in the world. A President doesn't just get elected, then begin assigning public policy. In order to be effective, a President has to have mastered the game of politics, has to know how to convince, cajole, and when necessary, coerce a slew of legislators and other beaureaucrats into following their programs. Wether for good or for ill, in order to be an effective leader on any government level, you have to know how to work the process, and you also have to have connections.

How difficult is politics to understand? It's an entirely seperate curriculum at Universities, and even people with PhD's in Political Science don't have any idea what the hell is going on half the time.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of an "outsider" candidate. Trust me, nobody is more sick of the current state of affairs in Washingon right now, and nobody is a bigger believer that our political system needs an overhaul.

However, the method of change that Barack represents is the wrong laxative for our democratic constipation. As I have said before and will say again, the reason that nothing is getting done in Washington anymore is because Democrats and Republicans long ago declared all-out, winner-takes all war on each other, and have retreated far back into the extremes of their respective ideologies.

How do you remedy this gridlock? The only solution is by finding somebody (or multiple somebodies) who are willing to resurrect the long-lost art of compromise. Elect people who are willing to walk across the no-mans land and work with their opposing party to genuinly, non-partisanly address the pressing issues facing our great nation. For years, there's been one figure that, above all others has displayed these qualities. I'll give you some hints: he's old, bald, refers to our capitol as "Warshington", and he's definately not an "outsider".

I can tell you one way NOT to remedy it: elect a man whose (short) voting record is lock-step with the dictates of his party. Elect a man who, from an ideological standpoint, is fairly far to the left on the political spectrum. Elect a man who has not been in the game long enough to make connections or to fully master the complex, weaving dance of flattery and force that is politics. If you're looking to pile more undigested beef into our nation's political bowels, than elect Barack Obama.

If anybody asks why, it's because he talks pretty.

John McCain Live

I recently had the pleasure of attending a town hall meeting in the Baton Rouge RiverCenter featuring Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president. Senator McCain was introduced by a train of incremantally more prestigous local officials, from Mayor Kip Holden to Ex-Governor Buddy Romer, to Governer Jindal. Governor Jindal's mere appearence on the stage caused an eruption of applause and good ole-fashined hollerin'. It was almost scary how religious the crowd's fervor for the man is.

Religion, by the way, was not by any means a taboo topic at this event. Mayor Holden came out strong by lauding the Senator in religious terms; McCain himself said of Washington D.C., and I quote: "It's hard doing the Lord's work in the city of Satan, my friends." It seems likely that he was playing to the crowd; the senator enjoyed an obviously overwhelmingly conservative audience. Questions that were posed were less actual interrrogations and more set-ups for his talking points. The first lady who got to speak was chosen because either she A.)was so much of a plant she gets energy by photosynthesis or B.)was waving her arms like she was on fire.

That being said, I was impressed by his responses. McCain obviously brings a great deal of experience and has a coherent, rational, consistent political philosophy. A few times, he brought up his own controversial topics, as if to prove he could. This event only increased my support for McCain as a candidate.

However, one thing concerns me. McCain simply does not have the charisma of his opponent, Barack Obama. If Obama has one thing going for him, the man oozes charisma like mayonaise from a McChicken Sandwhich. This could become a serious liability when the election draws near and the official debates start. I can only hope that McCain can summon all of his rhetorical prowess so that he doesn't repeat the infamous Nixon/Kennedy debacle and steer his old, bald campaign into an iceberg

However, there is a ray of hope for the McCain team. McCain announced at the meeting that he has invited (challenged) Barack Obama to a series of 10 or so similar Town Hall-style meetings.

The catch? They'll be doing it together (competitively).

I will admit, I've been frustrated by the formal debates recently. The past few formal debates have been nothing but oppurtunities for the candidates to dodge questions and whip out their same tired stump speeches.

Hopefully, this will be the end to that. In my opinion, a town-hall style format lessens the chance of recycled speeches making it into the "dialogue." I'm practically salivating for a chance for the two candidates to be dumped in the same rhetorical ring, peppered by questions from an audience that contains members of both sides of the political spectrum. This environment means having to think on your feet, or, more appropriately, requires a consistent, logical political philosophy and a fundamental understanding of a wide variety of issues.

If Barack has the cajones to accept this challenge, I think McCain can show that, although he doesn't have Obama's silver tongue, he is at least as qualified, if not moreso than his opponent.

Ye Olde Abortion Debate: The Narrow View

Imagine the following scenario; you're an esteemed, devout Catholic businessman, and staunch Rebublican, who is, as any good catholic should be, against abortion. You are a guest speaker for a group of other devout Catholic businessman-whose priest has just denied you communion-for reasons concerning abortion.

Having trouble? Seem too crazy a scenario to imagine? Ask one Douglas Kmiec, a veteran of Ronald Reagan's business department.

It seems that this poor fellow was denied communion because he has, to some surprise, supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election. I have a great deal of respect for Catholics who publicly support Democrats...announcing that kind of support must be similar to coming out of the closet in terms of potential persucution.

Apparently the priest, who Kmiec has graciously refused to name to prevent personal attacks, decided that supporting Barack Obama is, and I quote, "a grave moral evil," simply and, apparently solely because he is pro-choice.

I have no problem with Catholicism as a belief, but I find this reprehensible. To deny a person communion, (which, if I understand Catholic doctrine properly, is an extremely grave punishment that endagers the concerned soul's future in heaven) because the candidate he supports disagrees with the church on a single issue is absurd. Remember, Kmiec is against abortion himself.

To be fair, this incident is not a result of official papal policy per se, but it is nonetheless a textbook example of the kind of polarized, arrogant, all-out war politics that are strangling our political system. It displays a kind of all-or-nothing mentality that isn't just detrimental to democracy, but crippling. You simply can't universally condemn a candidate because of his stance on a single issue, and you definately shouldn't, through religious strong-arm tactics, try to convince others to do so as well. Choosing a politician should be about rationally balancing their opinions and qualities on a wide range of criteria. Thinking like this priest is precisely what has lead to the political no-man's land that has caused absolute inertia in our hallowed halls of government.

The upside of this debacle is that it has given Kmiec an opening to defend himself, and he has done so admirably. Here I'm referencing E.J. Dionne Jr.'s column on the Commentary page of the Tuesday Advocate. Kmiec, like me, questions the effectiveness of attempting to change the way our nation views issues such as abortion is through combative legislation; in our current climate, trying to pass a meaningful bill on either side of this issue is out of the question, and attempts for a political solution only clog up the plumbing of democracy.

Stay strong, Mr. Kmiec. Don't let the mean priest scare you.