The debates I wish we were having

So it's been almost a year since my last post, but I have to get some things off my chest. I've been putting off writing about Trump because his candidacy just makes me angry. It took a while for me to figure out what it is that makes him so infuriating. Turns out he is pretty much the polar opposite of me, so now I think I get it. This may sound odd, but it's his belief in himself that I find ingratiating. He basically believes that the solution to every problem is more of himself. I couldn’t disagree more.

Ultimately, though, I have to unload my Trump-fueled anger at our political system by doing more than blogging, facebooking, and tweeting against him. It’s going to take real change before people stop listening to that guy. How about starting with some policy proposals?

1. Tackle immigration reform with incremental changes. Why can’t Congress pass “comprehensive immigration reform,” as the current President likes to call it? Because there are people in the U.S. who are deeply distrustful of immigrants, legal or not, dark-skinned especially. The President tried executive orders because Congress was ineffective and unable to get together on this issue, but had his executive orders struck down at least partially. Therefore, I propose a compromise solution — Pres. George W. Bush proposed a “temporary worker” visa -- intended for workers from the border areas to be able to go back and forth more easily — when he was President, along with a streamlined visa system for immigrants with specialized skills. (Of course, that was before 9/11 and the “fortress America” mentality took hold, but I digress.) Why not have by-then former-Presidents GWB and Obama push Congress on a bipartisan basis to get some smaller reforms through? If GWB and Obama can agree on a way forward, then Congress should be able to, too.

2. SInce I mentioned 9/11, how about resettling refugees? There is a problem brewing in Europe over immigration, largely illegal, from Middle Eastern and African countries. There is a real humanitarian risk caused by people smugglers and desperate immigrants capsizing boats in the Mediterranean. While we’re absorbed with domestic issues, our allies in Europe have been dealing with a wave of immigration that threatens to give right-wing groups more fodder for hate. Why not help them out by resettling some of the refugees here? We’re a big country, with lots of room for immigrants of all kinds, Muslim or not, dark-skinned or not, and especially for people in need. Many European immigrants came through Ellis Island not as prosperous middle-class families but as desperate, poverty-stricken individuals. The American tradition of welcoming the world’s less fortunate and giving them opportunities to thrive is severely strained right now, but it is an important American value and should be upheld, even in difficult political times. I don’t want us to do to Muslims or Arabs or people from the Middle East and Africa what we did to Jews in the 1930s — view them as the Other, and try to keep them confined under terrible, murderous regimes. People from the Middle East and Africa need a way to escape their situations in their own countries, too, so supporting democratic reform in those countries and opposing Islamist extremism will be important as well. We are losing millions of people to a hateful ideology. There are more of them than there are of us, but we can’t view the world in those terms. We have to reach out and win hearts and minds through diplomacy, negotiation, and promoting American values. The only way to end a war is through negotiation. Total war is not what the world needs right now, nor would it be tolerated by this country. The rejection of a American values by candidate Trump is dangerous, not just in the U.S. but around the world.

3. On national security, defend our borders and transportation systems smartly but recognize that we can’t keep the world out by building walls. Like it or not, there are people out there in the world who want to do the U.S. harm. Mexico is not our biggest enemy. In fact, they could be seen as a friend in the war on terror. The southern border is generally not where the terrorists are coming from. They’re coming from inside this country, due to the “radicalizing” effects of Internet propaganda available around the world. Why not keep guns out of the hands of radicalized individuals? It’s more than public safety, it’s a national security issue. I propose legislation that would enable law enforcement to smartly take guns off the streets and out of the hands of the most dangerous elements of our society. Forget background checks and gun sales. Let’s stop the black and gray markets for guns and other dangerous weapons by enforcing new federal laws aimed at gun trafficking, terrorism, and related issues. Guns don’t kill people, people do, so let’s stop fantasizing about a 100% gun control system or, on the other side, glamorizing guns as a desirable object. We need to reduce the overall number of guns in the country for other reasons (preventing suicide, accidental deaths, and reducing the fortress mentality), but for terrorism, why not create a law enforcement agency, similar to the DEA, ATF, or FBI (three very different agencies, I know) with the sole purpose of winning hearts and minds in this country? Create a healthy image of law enforcement, not an attitude of distrust. People complain that we live in a militarized state, at least in communities that are predominantly made up of dark-skinned people, because the police have tactics and weapons that vastly exceed the requirements of the job. Why not address that perception first, as opposed to demonizing whole groups of people? Believe it or not, community policing is now the first defense against terrorism. If police know about a problem before it becomes a one-off lone-wolf attack, they can intervene and save lives. We need to do more to help law enforcement control guns and gun trafficking.

4. In the international arena, instead of hunkering down, reach out. Negotiating with Russia over Syria and Iran over nuclear weapons may turn out to be smart moves in the long run. The only way to end a war is through negotiation. Even if it’s unconditional surrender, someone has to agree to that surrender. Japan and Germany were “reduced to rubble,” literally not figuratively, in World War II. If we really want to "make America great,” we have to take the long view and not view negotiation as surrender on our side. Japan and Germany are now two of our strongest allies in the world, proof of how relationships have changed over time. We have the strongest military in the world, but we aren’t using our military force the way we should. I don’t think we should bomb Syria into oblivion or nuke Iran, as some have suggested. We are negotiating from a position of strength in some ways, and of weakness in others. We need to capitalize on our strengths — our open democratic system, our economic power, our high ideals and lack of desire to be an occupying army — and avoid making the mistake of thinking we can go back to the Cold War with a well-defined enemy. On the other hand, our military wasn’t built to take on nation-building, it was built to win wars. Our military capability is a big tool in our arsenal, but it isn’t the only tool. So, basically what we did in Iraq and are trying to do in Syria is to use the military as a wedge to crack open two of the most repressive regimes in the world, then withdrawing. We are also trying to take out known terrorists with drone strikes and CIA operations. I think there are problems with these approaches, but the best option may be to continue some of these policies and avoid the biggest power vacuums and problem areas. I’m clearly not a military strategist, but this armchair quarterback wishes there was some smart discussion going on about how best to use our military, instead of what we have now.

The lesser of two evils...

Is still evil. In preparing for the Democratic Presidential debate here in town tomorrow, I am reminded of an article from the Time magazine columnist, Joe Klein, who labeled Hillary "the lesser of two evils" remarkably early in the election cycle. His reason was the Clinton Foundation scandal and Hillary's response to it, which he decided would make Hillary a difficult candidate to elect. Republicans seem set to run devastating ads against Hillary in late fall of next year, if she is the nominee, but I'm not sure if I like the "lesser of two evils" mindset that has already taken hold in some people's minds.

I haven't made up my mind on this election cycle yet, but I'm looking forward to seeing Jim Webb on stage. I like him as a true center-left kind of guy, although he is a little more aggressive on foreign policy than I might like. He seems sensible and sane in an era of swagger and braggadocio (see Donald Trump). Whereas Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders can be described as typical liberals (especially Bernie), and they are pulling Hillary to the left, Jim Webb fits neatly to the right of Clinton in most areas, meaning he is more conservative than Hillary on many issues.

It's too bad Jim Webb isn't really trying to outgun Clinton in fundraising totals or name branding. He is an old-fashioned candidate in a fast-moving, tech-savvy, hyper-social-media-ized world. He would make a good VP candidate in the Joe Biden mold, someone who wouldn't overshadow the name on the top of the ticket but would give good foreign policy credentials to the ticket.

In my mind, he's the guy to watch tomorrow night. If he gaffes or looks uncomfortable, he's probably done as a Presidential candidate. But if he has a good performance, it could kickstart his campaign, meaning he may have a shot at VP. Still, I'm rooting for him.

Shades of green

The United States of America's God is money. Money talks in this society more than it should. I'm thinking today of 50 Shades of whatever and its "box office success." I haven't read the book or seen the movie, so I won't disparage it here. However, I must say that the proverb "nothing succeeds like success" is a very American idea.

The great thing about the USA is it isn't solely about money. It is also a democratic republic that aims at equality of opportunity and supports freedom of speech and freedom of belief. We are a text-based nation -- based on a founding set of democratic values, balanced with minority rights, embedded in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights -- as opposed to one based on common ancestry, monarchy, or ethnicity. This means we ought to be a country of critical thinkers and readers. We can also take credit for the First Amendment.

The US Supreme Court's recent decision that money is speech (Citizens United) makes a travesty of any pretension to truly representative democracy in this country. We are now essentially an oligarchy run by a few wealthy families. Pres. Obama and the Clintons may have true rags-to-riches stories, but they are not poor now by any measure. Congress is disproportionately filled with millionaires. The Bushes seem to have a sense that they are entitled to the Presidency, and the Koch brothers seem determined to give it to them. Pres. Obama's first campaign may be the last one based on small donors.

Wealth inequality has steadily worsened over the past 40 years. I blame Pres. Reagan in part for this. The federal deficit began on his watch, while the tax burden on the wealthiest was lowered during his tenure as part of a tax deal with Democrats in Congress. The GDP gains of the 1980s, 1990s, and even the past few years have yet to "trickle down" to the rest of us. Median family income has been stagnant despite the rising tide of the economy. Social Security and Medicare are unlikely to survive the retirement of the baby boomers -- a strain on the system that is only beginning to be felt. Without getting too political here, I think it's high time the extremely rich started paying something close to their fair share. I like the Buffett Rule as a standard -- no CEO should pay less proportionately in taxes than his secretary.

Come to think of it, is it truly fair that CEOs get paid 1000s of times more than their lowest-paid employees? Shouldn't it be more like 100s of times at most? As much as Bill Gates may have innovated to make Microsoft a dominant software business, did he truly deserve to make more money in a year than he could possibly spend in a few lifetimes? It's an absurdity.  Maybe we should talk to the US military and adopt their pay scales as the limit on CEO pay. After all, human lives are more valuable than computers, aren't they?

Seven Quick Takes on MLK Day 2015

1. King's marches to earn voting rights for black Americans marked a pivotal moment in US history. It required real, physical courage to march over that bridge into a waiting mob, strength of conviction to remain non-violent, and wisdom to know when and how to provoke the mob and when to turn around. King showed real, rare virtues in those marches, which is something we all should respect.

2. 50 years later, voting rights have been vindicated as an instrument of power, as well as threatened by their own success. A recent Supreme Court ruling eviscerated the voting rights act that was enacted in 1965, arguing that the act's most onerous regulations are no longer needed. We shall see whether the protections in the act still serve a purpose when the next contested election happens in the South.

3. King fought with dignity on behalf of all people, not just Americans, and not just people of color.

4. Go see Selma. It's a powerful movie (three-word review at right: King's struggle elevated) that connects on an emotional level and shows the complexity of Dr. King and the civil rights struggle.

5. I learned in college that Dr. King partially plagiarized his Ph.D. thesis. I think he also had a ministerial degree, but that's kind of beside the point. It goes to show how human he was, and his accomplishments are in some ways not diminished by this failing as a young man.

6. In 1965, Dr. King was 35 years old. He was 39 when he was killed.

7. King's legacy is an unfinished dream -- idealism and pragmatism mixed in political progress and conservative backlash. He fought for equality, not just civil rights, and he preached non-violence as a practical lever to force people in power to respond. He was a great orator, but his greatest legacy is not in his speeches. He helped to make the equality that we all know to be part of our country's promise more of a reality.

2015 -- the real year of CHANGE

After 6 years in office, change is finally coming to Washington and Nevada -- but probably not the change that Pres. Obama or Nevada leaders envisioned. The unemployment rate is going down, and the economy seems to be humming along. Obamacare's reforms are affecting, for good and bad, the insurance market. Obama's stands against the Keystone XL pipeline and in favor of climate change restrictions on the energy sector are being tested. His 2008 promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay is proceeding slowly, thanks to Republican opposition, and reducing the deficit may prove to be impossible this year.

With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, Pres. Obama said he plans to go "on offense," speaking to Senate Democrats. He wants to maintain his legacy by getting another Democrat elected President in 2016, and potentially taking the Senate back in the same election.

2016 is going to be a change election, and Presidential candidates are already starting to change things up.

Here in Nevada, Sen. Reid is up for re-election. He is lining up donors for his potential run. If he decides not to run, the Democrats will have a hard time replacing him. Gov. Sandoval will probably run if Harry Reid drops out, and all the statewide offices are currently held by Republicans. That means they are the front-runners in the Senate election based on name recognition and potential to affect the outcome through maneuvers like requiring an ID to vote in Clark County, which could suppress the Latino vote.

Immigration reform will be a hot topic here, as will the federal budget. State lawmakers will dominate the news for the first part of 2015, with their efforts to raise taxes being weighed against the no-new-taxes pledge enforced by Chuck Muth. But once the political game in Carson City ends toward the middle of 2015, it's no-holds-barred for Sen. Reid and the national Democrat vs. Republican election.

Gay marriage will be an issue, too. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on the issue this term. More thoughts to come, as this is a real year of change!

Our latest fiscal fiasco

The latest fiasco in Washington, D.C., has people asking why the President would want to increase taxes.  After all, isn't the problem wasteful government spending?  In my mind, it really isn't.

The trillions of dollars in the federal budget add up to a bunch of zeroes, but it boils down to relatively simple math.  According to this chart, 21% goes to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, 20% of the budget goes to defense and international security assistance, 20% goes to social security; 13% goes to other safety net programs like unemployment insurance, 6% goes to interest on the federal debt, and the remaining 20% goes to investments like federal and veteran retiree benefits (7%), transportation infrastructure (3%), education (2%), science and medical research (2%), international programs (1%) and other programs (4%).

90% of the anger directed at Washington's "wasteful" spending is directed at less than 10% of the budget -- things like the Department of Education, international aid, and boondoggles like the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.  People rely on unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare and Medicaid in ways we're only starting to understand, so those parts of the budget will only grow in coming years.  Also, debt payments will go up.  So, the responsible thing for the government to do is to look for savings in the areas where money can be saved, the biggest single chunk being defense spending.  Some Republicans would say defense spending is sacrosanct, but it is probably an area where significant savings can be found.  The only non-controversial spending cuts I can see in those percentages are perhaps the unnamed "other programs" -- and those are only non-controversial because I don't know what they are.  Changes to social security and Medicare scare people, mostly because people rely on them for some sense of security as they approach old age.  It's part of the deal we've made with the government -- we pay payroll taxes for most of our working lives in exchange for a share of the social security pie.  It's really a shame that social security won't be around for my generation to enjoy, because it really is a pretty good deal.  Similarly, the average person gets way more out of Medicare than they pay in through payroll taxes, so I don't think that program will make it to my generation, either.

That's why I think most of the anger over tax increases is misplaced.  Why is Pres. Obama insisting on the wealthy paying more?  Because that's where the money is, folks.  Check out the graphic "viral video" below for information on wealth distribution that ought to make people think.  If we really want to save Medicare and social security for future generations, we need more revenue as part of the equation.  The payroll tax holiday that Pres. Obama allowed to expire this year was a stimulus program that was supposed to be short-term.  Similarly, Pres. Bush's tax decreases were also supposed to be short-term, but the Republicans are insisting that they be put in place forever.  And they just happen to benefit the richest Americans more than anyone else.

Related articles

• Viral Video Shows the Extent of U.S. Wealth Inequality
• Little Public Support for Cutting Most Programs
• GAO report: US on 'unsustainable long-term fiscal path'
• The Best Bad Option
• Have seniors really paid for Medicare and Social Security?

Pres. Obama and the limitations of Presidential power

The talking heads are pretty much predicting disaster for the President in his second term. They say he can't do everything he wants to, and they're right. They say a surprise from the outside world could derail his vision of the future of the country, and they're right. Many of us like to pretend that the President has all the power in the world, but often times he doesn't. Still, I like this President's chances to accomplish his goals, even with the limitations of Presidential power. The President gave a great speech today -- one you would expect from a Constitutional scholar, but also one that calls us together as citizens and re-introduces the country to the idea that the social safety net is part of our founding principles. He used the word "we" and "we, the people" more often than the word "I," and used the word "I" frequently in the phrase "you and I," giving emphasis to the relational work of citizens in a democracy. Here is one quote from the speech that is an example of the President's humility and his view of his role as a citizen: "My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction — and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride. They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope. You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country's course." I believe this is a humble President, one who is willing to work with others, but one who firmly believes in his own principles. And while we cannot take the words the President chooses at face value, I think he deserves our support.

Obama Romney cartoons

A couple of political cartoons I found amusing:

Obama-Romney Honesty Scorecard, Part 2

Well, the results of my analysis of the Obama and Romney websites came out pretty even -- I measured 50 claims from each website, and found that both websites had more false claims than true ones.  I found that both websites were less likely to be speaking the truth when talking about the candidate himself than they were when talking about the other guy.  So, my vote remains undecided.

Here is the link to my analysis chart: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B63XO9p6FbgSOG9obHY0UGh1QVk

I hope it works.

Busy, Busy, Busy -- Quick Takes

I've been trying to keep up with work (somewhat successfully) lately, so I have had less time to blog.  I do have some thoughts on the politics of the moment, but I may save them for later.  Instead, I'll offer seven quick takes on stuff I find interesting.

1.  A friend from high school tweeted this article on a re-working of email by AOL that caught my attention.  Email has become a chore because of all the unneeded stuff, and AOL is trying to simplify it for us.  You don't have to join AOL to use the service, so I thought I'd share the article here -- it's in beta testing now but may be open to other people soon: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671036/aol-might-just-have-invented-emails-next-ui-paradigm#1

2.  Another website I find interesting is Medium.  (http://medium.com).  The ideas it contains sound interesting if a bit vague, but I like their idea that "quality begets quality."  Not sure if it will go anywhere, but I'm hoping it will.

3.  This will seem random, but Medium led me today to "The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe" that opened in Berlin in 2005 (New York Times review here http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/arts/design/09holo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).  This memorial did not exist when I studied in Berlin in 1995, but I remember there being discussions of whether and how to memorialize the Holocaust in Berlin at that time.  The problem with at least one existing memorial in Berlin, Neue Wache, or the "Memorial to the Victims of War and Tyranny," was that it tended to conflate the victims with the perpetrators -- in other words, it was impossible to tell from the memorial whether it was a place for mourning the loss of life caused by the Nazis, or the loss of life in general, including those who joined the Nazi party (link to a European site with some history of the museum here: http://www.memorialmuseums.org/eng/staettens/view/1424/Neue-Wache).  The new memorial is abstract, and its title and information center make clear that the site is a memorial for the victims of the Nazis, but I wonder if the same criticism will eventually be made of the site.  I want to experience this new memorial myself someday.

4.  1995 was the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, so there were plenty of events around Berlin during that time discussing the war and its impact on German culture.  I attended a few of them as part of an oral history project I had to do for my German language class, and I still remember one of them.  It  was held at an anti-war museum featuring a huge photo of a man with his jaw destroyed by a bomb or some violent event.  I didn't understand a lot of the German that was spoken around me at that time, but I did my best to participate in the event, and we sat in a circle, Kumbaya style, so I couldn't avoid participating a little.  Here's a link to the museum where the event was held, I think: (http://www.anti-kriegs-museum.de/english/start1.html).  It's a unique memory to me of participating in something historic but also distinctly aimed at peace.

5.  Sorry to get lost in memories of Germany -- back to today.  The Avengers is on the Blu-ray player today.  M. is sleeping beside me.  She had a bit of a rough night.  It's a great movie, though.  I don't think I'll get tired of watching it (or half-watching it while I do other things, more like).

6.  OK, so I can't resist a little politics -- as a left-leaning voter, I am disappointed that Gov. Romney seems to have gained momentum in a tight election this year.  Still, I told M. the other day, if Pres. Obama represents the status quo, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected.  His only argument would then become that the other guy would make things worse.  He may win on that argument, but usually, Presidents have to create a compelling argument about the future.  Pres. Obama's vision for the future hasn't been clearly articulated, but then neither has Gov. Romney's.  Gov. Romney is running as the "generic Republican" choice, not even bothering to explain how his budget plan works.

7.  We didn't watch the whole first debate, and only got to see 5 minutes or so of the second debate, so I'm hoping to tune in to the third debate on Monday.  Unfortunately, I have a meeting that evening, so I may miss it.

What It Takes

I have not read the book What It Takes, which chronicled a Presidential campaign way back in 1988, but I think I understand its premise -- that it takes so much to become the President of the U.S. that it makes one wonder, what kind of person signs up for being a Presidential candidate voluntarily?

After watching Mitt Romney's interview with David Gregory on Sunday, I have some idea why Mitt Romney says he is running for President, but I still don't have a sense of what drives him, nor can I take what he says at face value.  Here are some answers from the interview that address the question of why he's running:

"The reason I'm in this race is to help people.  I'm not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet, I'm in this race to help the American people, and this is a commitment on my part, on Ann's part, on our family's part because...we care very deeply about this country...those people that try and minimize the feeling and the connection we have with the American people really miss the mark very badly, and they're trying to divide Americans based on who has money and who was able to achieve success and who doesn't have as much..."

A football metaphor for Labor Day

Labor unions are the offensive linemen of America -- they do all the heavy lifting and get none of the respect.  I heard someone say on the radio yesterday, "isn't it enshrined in the Constitution that I get to sleep in on Saturday?"  He was joking, of course, but the fact is, you can thank unions for that.  And for the fact that your child doesn't have to work, and for many other benefits like health insurance that we pretty much take for granted right now.

Labor unions have been getting a bum rap for years -- historically, the organized fight for workers' rights has kept this country a democracy when more radical elements wanted to take it into socialism or even communism.  We tend to forget how the American middle class was created -- and what it takes to preserve it.  Blue collar work no longer pays what it should, but white collar work increasingly doesn't either.  And government employees -- the people whose pensions are under attack at the state level across the country -- are the people who make it possible for so much of our democracy to function.  Where would we be without public schools, universities and community colleges?  What about highways and bridges built with public money?  Infrastructure is what Pres. Obama was talking about when he said his now infamous "you didn't build that" comment -- and without people working government jobs and taking home a decent paycheck -- and with some guarantee of decent benefits -- there wouldn't be much infrastructure around the country.  So here's to the people we celebrate this Labor Day weekend -- the workers of this country, the people who built it, and the unions who fight for their rights.

Romney - "middle class" means all Americans; Obama -- only 98% of us

This excellent AP article discusses the term "middle class" and its multiple uses on the campaign trail. Who knew that "middle class" could encompass everyone, from those in poverty to those in the top 2% of earners?

Pres. Candidate Lies...But Which One?

Either Pres. Obama is lying about Mitt Romney outsourcing jobs at Bain Capital, or Mr. Romney is lying about staying on at Bain past 1999.  Or they could both be lying about different aspects of the same thing.  What's a voter to do?  Focus on the facts that are not in dispute:
1.  Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain Capital.
2.  Mr. Romney has made his business career a part of his reasoning as to why he would make a better President than Pres. Obama (see the last paragraph of the bio on his website).
3.  According to his 2010 tax return,which his website has made available online, Mitt Romney earned $21,661,344 in 2010.
4.  The median income for US households in 2010 is $49,445, according to this chart.
5.  Pres. Obama has presided over unemployment figures that started at 7.8% in January 2009 and are at 8.2% as of June 2012 (the latest figures available).
6.  Pres. Obama has made private sector job growth a measure of his success as a President (see the chart toward the middle on the right of the webpage).

My opinion on this debate is that it hurts both Mitt Romney and Pres. Obama.  Mitt Romney is having to defend his record as a private equity CEO, which is supposed to be a strength of his campaign.  Pres. Obama is trying to "Swift Boat" Mitt Romney by turning a strength into a weakness.  But in so doing, he is setting up comparisons that are not favorable to his campaign, either.  Pres. Obama's weakness is his jobs record, measured in terms of unemployment figures.  It's not clear what his strengths are in this debate.

Making money is not a sin.  If Mitt Romney made money by outsourcing jobs, which is in dispute, that's different.  But the attacks from Obama's campaign sound to me like they are stretching the truth of how much outsourcing really happened as a result of Romney's leadership, and they are starting to sound more like ad hominem attacks than a reasoned argument.  Of course, blaming the President for all the unemployment out there could also be called an ad hominem attack, since Pres. Obama's policies have little direct correlation with the unemployment numbers.  It's more a perception than a fact that Pres. Obama hasn't done enough to create jobs.  In some campaigns, perception is more important than fact, and this is one race that seems to be shaping up that way.

On Marriage Equality

Pres. Obama's endorsement of marriage equality for gays and lesbians made headlines and prompted some Christian writers to question his Christian-ness and others to defend him as a Christian politician.  Regardless of that debate, I'm not sure I agree with the President's position (link here to one line from the interview).

On the one hand, I believe that gay people should have the same rights as others in our country.  We don't demand that people who want to get married meet any kind of religious standard, thanks to the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions.  My state recognizes ceremonies done by a "licensed minister," whether that person is an Elvis impersonator, a Zen Buddhist, or an ordained member of a Christian church.  However, Nevada is one state that has a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman enshrined in the state constitution, thanks to an amendment that passed by state referendum in 2000 and 2002.  I don't remember if I voted for or against the amendment, but it's clear that times have changed in a few short years.  People who are gay shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens.

On the other hand, marriage is a sacred covenant defined in the Bible and ordained by God.  It isn't something to be trifled with.  I would prefer a compromise position that gives gay people all the rights of a civil union, rather than insisting on what gay couples would call full equality.  Calling it marriage is more than a semantic difference.  A civil union is what it should be -- not the same thing as marriage.  The legal definition of marriage should change, but the covenant relationship between a man and a woman ordained by God should not be challenged or made equal to something the Bible clearly does not condone.  One gay Catholic writer I follow has made the argument that "homosexual acts" at the time Paul was writing most of the New Testament were quite different than today's gay couples -- most of whom, according to surveys, would prefer to marry if they could.  Homosexual acts in Roman times, he says, were power displays where a superior would essentially rape another man, and sometimes involved masters overpowering slaves.  Of course a Christian writer would be opposed to those acts, he says.  However, putting Paul in that context ignores the fact that Paul's lists of sins were meant more as examples than as technical definitions -- it's the state of the heart that Paul is most concerned with.  It's just not possible to put a same-sex couple on the same footing as an opposite-sex couple before God.  It comes down to what God ordains in the Bible in Genesis, that a man and a woman should leave their father and mother and become one flesh.  Christ's coming doesn't negate the Old Testament or the Torah, it is a fulfillment of it.  Yes, much has changed as a result of Christ's coming, but that doesn't extend so far as to excuse all sin.  As Christians, we shouldn't single out gay people for attack or deny them basic rights, such as visiting one's loved one in the hospital.  We should understand that, just as our view of divorce has "evolved" over time, so has our view of homosexuality.  Divorcees should feel welcome in the church, and so should gay people.  We just can't ignore what the Bible has to say about sexual purity as a whole.

Is Super Tuesday all that super?

I love this little logo from one of the New Yorker's blogs (see link here).  It pokes fun at the idea of Super Tuesday (next Tuesday, March 6), when 10 states will have contests in the Republican Presidential nominating process.  Word is, there will be a split decision on Super Tuesday, which to me makes it not so super after all.  Would it be better if we all voted on our Presidential pick at the same time?  That would make the primary/caucus calendar mercifully short.  Nevada mostly missed out on the supercalifragilistic fun by having an early caucus that was virtually ignored by the Republican field, since Romney was the "presumptive" winner, whatever that means.  All I can say is, thank God we didn't have to watch hours and hours of negative ads, unless we really wanted to.

Fact vs. opinion

A recent article on Politico.com provides a great example of how useful it is to separate fact from opinion when reading news on the Internet. 

The journalist on Politico took the angle that Rick Santorum has been increasing attacks on the press as part of his campaign for Presidency.  The journalist put Santorum's quotes in context of the campaign, giving specific details of when Santorum said what exactly.  The quotes themselves do add up to an attack on the press or the media.  But there is also quite a bit of editorializing in the article.

For example, the journalist calls one quote "the latest in a bitter string," writes that Santorum "blasted the media," and writes that "the limelight hasn't necessarily been flattering" (an underhanded way of saying Santorum doesn't look good when you shine a bright light on him).  The journalist also calls the media treatment of him "serious" without describing it or linking to it and describes a Drudge report headline as "a major hit." 

At the end of the article, the reporter cites other reporters' frustration with the candidate's travel schedule to back up her claim that there is tension between Santorum and the press, and quotes a Time magazine columnist as saying his column moved Santorum "to tears."  I'm not sure if Santorum's campaign confirmed the columnist's claim, but it is reported as fact, so maybe they did.

There are also opinions in Santorum's quotes and quotes from his campaign spokesperson that are certainly debatable, but go without comment from the journalist.  The story of the media attacks may be true, but it doesn't need to be shaded as negatively as this journalist views it.  All the editorializing or opinion in the article, after all, confirms some of Santorum's more direct attacks.

Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Deconstructed

This article from ProPublica explains the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played in the housing market and why they are hesitating to help homeowners.  This is another indictment of the system we have created as citizens in the country.  Everyone is in favor of these entities when things are working right -- that is, when the housing market is going up, not down.  They have become controversial now because some people blame them for inflating the housing market.  The problem, in my view, is not that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are to blame for the crisis, but rather, that they have an inherent conflict in the way they operate.  Because they are private entities, they are focused on creating maximum profits.  Because the government originally created the entities to reach a policy goal of encouraging home ownership, they also have to answer to policymakers and the public about whether they are meeting that goal.  Taxpayers have backed up the entities because the bets they made have not paid out over the past few years, to the tune of some $165 billion.  However, if 7 out of 10 new loans have been made with a loan guarantee from one of the two entities, would there be many home loans made without them?  It's tempting to view these entities as evil government tentacles reaching into every aspect of the housing market, and the truth is that they have become integrated into the housing market in a very real way.  They are "too big to fail" but also the grease in the wheels of almost every home purchase in the US.  Can we do without them?  Maybe, from a pure market-driven position, but it would be pretty disruptive to just dissolve them.

SuperPAC interview about how politics really works

Think politics are about ideas and solving problems?  Think again.  This interview from NPR's Fresh Air reports on how opposition research works in this day and age.  It's literally a game to the operatives behind the scenes, the reporter says.  It's an indictment of the system and how casually our democracy is being distorted.

Guess Who's Human?

I know Pres. Obama is getting a full dose of blame for having a "thin skin" these days, but what about Romney and Gingrich?  Are they made of sterner stuff?  The fact is, they are all human beings with egos about the size of football stadia.  We Americans tend to put our Presidents on a pedestal, only to knock them off when times get rough.  Only a perfect person could live up to the expectations of a modern-day President, and we all know there are none of those out there.  Let's look at some Presidential blunders just to remind ourselves how human they all are.

First, the Republicans:

Gerald Ford getting off an airplane and stumbling

George W Bush saying the word "nucular."

And some Democrats:

Bill Clinton failing to put a medal on

And finally, President Obama dealing with a lectern that won't quite work right.