Thoughts on Politics...what else?

So I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the Virginia gubernatorial race. I don't know what to do. I personally don't like Bob McDonnell, and I disagree with at least half of his ideals. I'm not really fond of Creigh Deeds, and I'm also against a bunch of his policies. Deeds is also just a horrible candidate, lacking the poise to compete against McDonnell. I have literally cringed after some of the botched statements he's made about taxes, transportation, and a few others. But for as many bad statements as Deeds has made, McDonnell still clings to party-line talking points.

And that's why I'm stuck. I have a hard time not voting on Tuesday, because I believe in the democratic process and my own civic duty. But I also have a problem casting a vote for a candidate I don't fully believe in. The 2008 election was more clear-cut for me. I was able to cast votes for candidates I felt (strongly) were the best choice. I stand by my choices. But now, what do I do? Cast a vote for a candidate when I don't believe in either?

I definitely see Virginia as a moderate state, center-right overall, but we have had decent elected politicians who were Democrats. But when faced with a choice between a Republican and a (botched) Democratic candidate, this state is going red. I see this gubernatorial race the same way I saw the 2004 presidential race - there was a lot of dissatisfaction with Bush, but did anyone seriously believe that John Kerry was a strong candidate, or that he would be a better president? It was like choosing between the lesser of two evils, and I find myself in that place again.

A lot of pundits are talking up the Virginia gubernatorial race as a referendum on Obama's presidency and the role of the Democratic Party. I disagree. Obama's approval rating in Virginia is in the low- to mid-50's, depending on the poll, about the same margin by which he won the state last year. But yet McDonnell leads in current polls by a significant margin. I think there's a fundamental flaw in the pundits' logic. Virginians aren't evaluating Obama in this race, they're evaluating two candidates, and the Democratic one sucks. The other big races are the New Jersey governor's race and the NY-23 special election. The NJ race may well go to Corzine (Democrat), even though his approval ratings are in the 30's, thanks to a third-party candidate. No matter what happens, it will be close. NY-23 is interesting because there appears to be a fractioning of the Republican base, perhaps enough to propel a Democrat to a narrow victory in a traditionally conservative district. I think NY-23 is the most interesting of all these contests. The New Jersey race is a lot of dissatisfaction with the whole political system, such that neither Corzine or Christie is really palatable. In NY-23, Republicans have to get their message straight if they want to gain more national influence. Are they purifying themselves away from moderates, or are they going to unite before the 2010 midterms? There's the more interesting story.

My predictions: McDonnell wins Virginia by perhaps even 10 points, Corzine wins in NJ because Daggett grabs enough of the vote (10-15%) to make the race close, and Owens (D) takes NY-23 again by a slim margin, because Hoffman might take as much as 30-35% of the conservative vote. Splitting the base is never helpful, but we'll see what the Independents do.

Tangent over. So after all that positing and predicting, I still don't know what to do about my home state. What is an undecided voter to do, when neither candidate is appealing? Any Libertarians out there? Maybe I'll just write in my own name and go home. In some ways, I find it better to not make a halfhearted choice that I come to regret. But after encouraging friends to register to vote in 2008 (regardless of their voting/party preference), is that hypocritical, or the right thing to do? I'd rather not be the reason our state gets screwed up. Virginia currently ranks highly in business prosperity and education nationally, and I'd hate to see anything change that.

So I'll do some more reading and thinking this weekend, but I may find myself staying away from the polls on Tuesday. Sigh...

California is stupid

Well, I can't say it was unexpected. All the inside reports from California predicted the outcome of the state's Supreme Court case regarding Proposition 8. It was still somewhat disheartening.

I am a supporter of the rights of same-sex couples to get married, plain and simple. I can't find any non-arbitrary, non-religious justification for why people of the same sex cannot be married under our Constitution. What rationale is there? The Declaration of Independence, the proclamation of our freedoms and the written demand that they be upheld, cites certain "inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Apparently, the will of the majority decrees that only said majority can pursue happiness. Who are we, the heterosexuals in this country, to impose upon others "our" will for how they are to live their lives? The will of the majority must not come at the expense of the rights of the minority. To do so would be oppression. We live in a democratic society, to be sure, where We the People assert our will through elections; it is still the job of the government to protect those who may be exploited. Think, just over 40 years ago, it was illegal in 36 states for a black person and a white person to get married. Why?

Insert answer here...I'll wait.

Exactly. It was arbitrary. The minority was oppressed due to the will of the majority, which, thankfully, changed over time, along with the passage of civil rights legislation in the latter half of the 1960's. It seems that every generation has to have some group to oppress. Maybe it's human nature, to exploit those who are perceived as weaker, who traditionally hold less clout.

The only arguments that I have heard against same-sex marriage are religious or moral in nature. It is "an abomination" or homosexuals are "perverts" or otherwise offensive to God. So, if God made everyone in his own image, yet you find them offensive...slippery slope. Not going there. Oh, and according to Leviticus, shellfish are an abomination too.

But let's stick to the legal arguments. The United States government cannot and should not legislate morality. Religious organizations founded the Prohibitionist movements as early as the 19th century, culminating in the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth after widespread dissatisfaction with, and disregard of, Prohibition (as well as rampant crime, i.e. the Mafia). The point? When the government invades the private lives of its citizens, it fails. That does not mean, of course, that people can do whatever they want and claim government oppression when they commit a crime. When someone's actions affect others negatively, then the government can step in. So explain to me exactly how same-sex marriage negatively affects my life?

Thomas Jefferson called for a "wall of separation" between church and state. He was a Founder of this country, and one of its earliest presidents. I should think he would be rolling over in his grave if he heard the arguments being made by the fanatics on the extreme right about this issue. If you can't make a political argument without invoking God, then you shouldn't be making it.

Now, the decision handed down by the California Supreme Court does not completely prevent same-sex marriage. As court cases typically are, the issue at hand was narrow. Did the voters of California have the authority to amend the state's constitution in this case? The answer, under existing law, is yes. California has some crazy ways of governing, but unfortunately this action was legal, and I won't attempt to fight that. Maybe California needs to change the way it does business, but that's a whole other issue. Thankfully, the existing 18,000 same-sex marriages were upheld. Had they not been, that would have been an abomination.

I want to see this issue continually fought, all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary. I defy the highest court in the country to find sound justification for the prevention of same-sex marriage. What Constitutional provision demands that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman, or even allows the government to make such a decision? I think the answer should be obvious. I don't think this particular case that was decided today will proceed to appellate court, because it was so narrow in scope and the decision is pretty clear. I am sure that one day we will see this case before the Supreme Court, in one way or another.

Until then, we'll have to see what the gay rights activists do in 2009. I hear the opposing proposition will be on the ballot in the next election. And this time, tell the Mormon Church to keep its $20 million out of the ads and propaganda. If you want to keep your status as a tax-exempt church, act as a church, and not a damn political action committee.

Political Theater

Nancy Pelosi cracks me up. I watched the news conference where Pelosi attempted to refute the accusations that she knew more than she has claimed about waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques. Man, that was almost as good as watching Clinton ask for clarification on what the definition of "is" is.

Now, any of you who read my blog often know that I typically harp on the Republican Party. But more than anything, I like to think of myself as a critic of all politicians. My mind changes over time on who I ally myself with, based on who I feel has the best ideas.

Tonight, my subject is the Speaker of the House and what she may or may not have known about waterboarding.

Here's how I see it. Of course she knew we were waterboarding terrorism suspects. She was a prominent leader in the minority party at the time in question, 2002. She was briefed on these so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" after they had been used. So she knew about it, then she didn't know about it, then she knew that there was the potential to maybe be used but hadn't really but it wasn't so clear.

What? That's political drivel for "I knew about it and now I know I'm screwed."

She knew. She was told by the CIA what was going on, and she was doing what was politically popular. There was a prevailing anti-terrorist sentiment that surged through the country post-9/11. I think we are all still very anti-terrorism, but maybe now we ask more questions because other nations don't really like some of the things we may or may not be doing. Back in 2002, the definition of "terrorist" was also probably a bit wider than it is now, but that's not really the point. We know that Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were terrorists, so they got the worst. So what was the popular choice? Nail the bastards and get whatever we can out of them.

So she went along with it. If Pelosi had objected to torture, as she claims now, she would have spoken out based on principle right then and there, if she were honest. But there was no need for honesty; there were points to be scored with the public.

Fast forward a few years. The public tide is turning on Bush and Cheney. They've done some questionable stuff, and the public doesn't like it. Pelosi is now Speaker of the House, giving her a very prominent bully pulpit. Waterboarding is torture, waterboarding is wrong. This is what the public wants to hear. This is what Madam Speaker pronounces.

The political tide continues to turn, with a sweeping Democratic victory in the 2008 election. The time is right for change. I voted for that change. So now what does the public want? That's not entirely clear. Do we let it go? Do we form a Congressional truth commission? Speaker Pelosi calls for a truth commission. This would seem to be a reasonably popular choice - do everything we can to get to the bottom of any illegality, prosecute it, and let justice be done. In principal, this is the American Way. Obey the Constitution, do what is right.

This is what Speaker Pelosi calls for. The rest of Congress, however, is not so convinced. Republicans sense that there may be a witch hunt brewing, potentially smearing an already-smarting political party. Democrats (whose noses are also not fully clean in the matter) don't really want to push it, because some of their own may be at risk. They hold the power and they like it. Any political party likes to be in charge. So what are the odds of a truth commission? Probably pretty slim, given the overwhelming indecision throughout our Legislative Branch.

So where does Nancy Pelosi sit in all of this? Exactly where she wants to be - safe. She played the game in 2002 and went with the prevailing hawkish political tide. Now she speaks out forcefully against waterboarding, again, just what the public wants to hear. She speaks out so forcefully that she even promotes the idea of a truth commission, the American Way - justice for all.

Because she knows it will never happen.

She knows it keeps her safe. Those in the public who aren't sure what's going on hear what they want, and behind the scenes, the political gears continue to turn. How, if she is so enthusiastic about 100% transparency, can she have anything to hide? That's exactly the point she wants to make. She promotes something that she knows will not come to pass. Political theater at its best. She's playing all sides, likely will not face any real trouble aside from the political sniping from the Republican Party, which is mostly on point on this issue, I think.

See? I agreed with conservatives.

All well and good, and nothing major is going to happen. I just thought I'd observe that this is some interesting politics at play here. It's all about message and spin. And sometimes, just ever so often, you can play all sides until you're in the position you wanted after all.

Sore Losers, Anyone?

I continue to be fascinated by American politics. I've just read that the House has passed President Obama's proposed economic stimulus package by nearly a straight party line vote (11 Democrats voted "nay," but this thing was almost straight Red vs. Blue). I'll admit that I know only few details of the actual content of the bill, so I'll keep my commentary brief and to the point. I always think that, but it never happens. Let's see if I can pull it off this time.

The Republican Party continues to impress me with its obstructionism. I don't expect that the two major political parties to ever see eye to eye on anything but a "Flags for Orphans"-style bill, but come on. The President holds a meeting of GOP Congressional leadership, they have a discussion that not even the Republicans would complain about, and then every GOP House member votes against the bill. All I've publicly heard from the Republicans is that the stimulus plan is "wasteful" and that it should include more tax cuts.

That's it.

So here's what I have to ask of the conservative wing of the government - what stimulus package have you assembled? I haven't seen one. I also realize that the Party in control of the Congress decides the voting agenda, but I'm fairly certain that the pundits would have been talking if a reasonable proposal was being drafted by the GOP. All I've heard from the Repubs is that Obama's plan is bad, boo Democrats and their majorities. How about proposing an alternative instead of concentrating on the 2010 election? (Yes, the GOP is already running negative ads against Harry Reid in Nevada)

So, maybe things like re-sodding the National Mall and providing funding for contraceptives don't seem to fit in an economic stimulus (they were removed before the House vote), but at least Obama is proposing an economic stimulus. All the GOP can seem to do is piss and moan about how they don't like it.

Newsflash to the Republicans: If you want to re-establish yourself as a reputable political party on a national level, do something other than whine about how life isn't fair. GOP, you lost big in 2008, largely due to the association with our most recent ex-President, but also due to the pissy campaigning that many of your candidates engaged in (smear tactics and lies). To gain favor with the populous, work with the uber-popular President and compromise, propose ideas that aren't "whatever you guys don't want," and establish an identity that isn't just "whatever you aren't."

Because, GOP, you are gambling. You are just hoping, as Rush Limbaugh keeps blathering, that Obama fails. Because if he does, you will be there to say, "we didn't do it!" If Obama and the Democratic majority do make progress, though, you have no identity except "the ones that didn't do it!" It seems to me that you are gambling with the American people, though. If you have a good idea, propose it and debate it like adults, and don't just play political games when this country's economic viability is at stake.

I look forward to seeing what happens in the coming months.

God Bless America, and God Save Us

If you know me, you know that I'm heavily invested in this year's political campaigns. I've been interested in who is running and who is winning where ever since the debates for each party. I am increasingly frustrated with the nonsense I keep hearing from the McCain/Palin campaign. I make no effort to be nonpartisan in the oncoming rant, so don't think this is any sort of journalism.

I will be voting for Barack Obama and Joe Biden this November. Want to know why? Read on, my friends.

Let me start with this - John McCain and Sarah Palin lie through their teeth every single day. Even impartial reporting agencies continually debunk the statements made by both of these candidates on a daily basis. Political spin is one thing, dishonesty is another. Let's explore this thought...

Palin "said thanks, but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere." LIE. She pulled her support only after Congress pulled the funding for the specific Ketchikan project. They offered the funding to Alaska, and Palin continued to support building the bridge. Only after a public outcry did she pull the plug.

McCain and Palin have asserted that Palin never accepted earmarks. McCain was challenged on the talk show "The View" about such a matter, and when confronted with the assertion that Palin accepted earmarks, his response was, "Not as a governor, no she did not." WHAT? She has employed lobbyists for years, and has requested over $200 million in earmarks for the upcoming year. McCain focuses on how she vetoed $500 million in earmarks, which may indeed be true, but to say that, as governor, she never accepted an earmark, is categorically false.

John McCain has more flip-flops than a Florida beach in July. First he was for the decision of Roe v. Wade, now he is against it. This is documented on video in interviews with the media. He was against the Bush tax cuts, now he says he will maintain them...also on video. I could go on. What a gutless, spineless coward. If you claim to be a reformer, reform something, don't give in to the Republican machine!

That brings me to my next point. McCain and Palin are promising sweeping reforms for Washington, but they have yet to say what they will do. Barack Obama got nailed by the Republicans and the media for not being explicit with his plans, yet they have been spelled out on his website since he began his primary season campaign. He has now spoken about all the major issues in public forums, including how he plans to balance the federal budget, provide economic relief, and cut wasteful spending. McCain and Palin are full of hot air and catchy one-liners.

Pit bull, or bullshit?

McCain and Palin's response to all of this? We're going to reform Washington! How? By reforming it, because we're reformers who reform things that need to be reformed!

Seriously, who buys this tripe?

Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience? She can see Russia from Alaska. Oh yeah, and she looked at Iraq from the safety of a Kuwaiti military base. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have met with world leaders, addressed citizens of foreign countries, and consulted military leaders on the ground in Iraq. Sarah Palin? Yeah, she saw some desert somewhere...Isn't that the kind of crap that McCain hammered Obama on just a few months ago? Double standard much?

Oh wait, if we ask questions, we're sexist.

It's the same repugnant campaign that panders to those who lack information. Now I realize that not everyone has access to the Internet, to check out sites like politifact.com and factcheck.org, or to read political analysis by people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to politics.

If the American populous again votes based on "who'd they'd rather have a beer with," I'm gonna need a lot of drinks to get through the next four years. At that point, I'll probably be looking for a real job.

I just have to pray that the economy is not in the gutter by that point, even moreso than it already is.

According to John McCain, the "fundamentals of the economy are sound." The Dow Jones disagreed, tanking 501 points today, the single largest fall since 9/11.

God save us all.

Just Thinking Out Loud...

Man, I love to watch idiots argue. So news broke around lunchtime that the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage. I knew this would provide for some interesting fireworks as the day progressed.

So as I was waiting for some stuff to finish in the lab, I decided to peruse the MSNBC message board linked to the story, and hilarity ensued. I couldn't help but laugh out loud at what some of these people were saying. Mostly it was just ALL CAPS RAGING AT YOU CUZ UR A DUMB **** AND I TIHINK UR A MORON!!!!!11!!!

Yea, just like that. Now you know why I was so entertained.

So here's the thing that I don't get. No one had a legitimate reason against gay marriage, everything was one of the following:

1. God forbids it.
2. It's immoral.
3. It creeps me out.
4. I'm an idiot and feel like screaming (see above)

There were a few entertaining posts in response to #1 above, especially the following:

"I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?"

"Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?"

There were more, but those are my favorites.

I'm of the "live and let live" opinion. Gay marriage doesn't affect me, so why piss and moan about it? One astute individual said he had a problem with gay men because as soon as one hits on his son, he's going to KICK SOME ***.

Hmmm...let's think for a moment. I guess you think that your son must be attractive so as to arouse the feelings of a random gay man who happens to pass by. Wait. You think your son is attractive? You must be gay and that creeps me out. Great, now I'm no better than you...and that's not saying much.

Here's the bottom line, the way it comes down to it, for me. The courts have a responsibility to ensure that laws passed by the legislature don't infringe upon people's rights, conflict other existing laws that are constitutional, or establish any unfair or discriminatory practices. People were whining that the judge overturned the will of the people, who voted for the legislators that created and passed the bill. Well, as I recall, the Nazis took control of Germany about 60 or so years ago, did a whole bunch of stuff, and well, I guess that was alright, because they were the majority.

And now we arrive at the essence of what I'm getting at: majority rules, minority rights. That's what the Founders intended. Someone said that the Founding Fathers didn't create this country for gays to take it over. Excuse me? What? This country was founded by people who were persecuted for what they believed in and practiced, and now we turn the tides on the minority again, those who are being persecuted? Does it not say in the preamble to the Constitution that we have the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? I'm pretty sure marriage generally falls under the last category.

As I'm sure everyone can appreciate, the majority is obviously always right. I guess slavery and segregation never happened either? The Bible tells us that we can own slaves, as long as they come from a neighboring country. I guess we should all go out and buy some Mexicans (or maybe Canadians) that we can whip and mistreat. The Bible says it's OK, so we must use that as the prevailing law of the land. I think I just heard Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave.

As a final point (and I know I've been on the verge of rambling this whole time), let's just take one more look at the practical side of this issue. People are complaining that gay marriage will affect the tax structure, causing straight people to have to pay higher taxes. Now, I don't know how all that works, but let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt there. Here are a few counter-examples:

1. Smokers. They cause health insurance premiums to go up. I'm sorry, I choose not to give myself cancer, but yet when I get strep throat, I have to pay more to go to the doctor. I guess we should shoot anyone that smokes. That sounds fair.

2. Obese people. PUT THE CHEESEBURGER DOWN. Same as #1, health care costs will go up. But the reason I make this one a separate point is that it's obviously McDonald's fault. So let's burn down Mickey D's and stone the CEO's. Biblical justice!

3. Bad drivers. Auto insurance goes up when people act stupid while driving, again analogous to the health care issue I've raised. Well, that guy up there just cut someone off, so he must be a moron. Where's my rocket launcher? Burning, righteous vengeance!

Live, and let live, and stop screaming. Profanity and the inability to type make you look like a moron, and well, you probably are.

One Year Later

I find myself sitting here trying to comprehend the fact that nearly one year has passed since one of the most unbelievable tragedies I have ever witnessed. It's strange, in a way, how every Tuesday and Thursday I pass the memorial, Norris Hall, the places I saw on the news nonstop for a week, and only gradually have I been reminded of those days. Those days that seem so distant...

I feel it only appropriate to reflect upon a few memories, just because I feel the need to say something, somewhere. I don't know if I ever properly dealt with what happened. I tried to be strong for my friends, my family, for everyone else but myself. And I don't exactly know what that's done. I am still somewhat stunned, confused, angry, and saddened by what happened. It's kind of a mix, with no real prevailing emotion.

I remember the day clearly, vividly. The beautiful morning, but the horror that followed. I was glued to the TV, dumbstruck, horrified, but unable to look away. It was almost like 9/11 all over again - the confusion, the yearn to know what was going on, the hope that everyone I knew was alright. On 9/11, my dad was in Washington, D.C. On 4/16, my friends were in class.

I cried out audibly at noon when it was announced that 20 were dead. I couldn't control myself. I was sad, angry, disbelieving. The police had to have gotten it wrong; it must be an overestimate. But to no avail, reality sunk in.

The following day I was numb. I did my best to reach out to my friends and my Brothers. That night at the candlelight vigil was one of the most powerful experiences of my life, unfortunately. I did my best to hold my faltering friends up. I nearly broke down myself when the crowd starting gently singing "Amazing Grace." And then the call came out, across the Drillfield..."Let's Go!"

With every shred of my raw and breaking voice I screamed, "Hokies!" I screamed it at the night sky, to our friends in Heaven, a prayer of hope to God, and a rebuke at the Devil, who had tried to bring us down. I screamed it louder than at any football game, for this was no sport, this was the essence of my life. This was the Hokie Nation in full force, and let no one stand in the way of our existence. Never before in my life had I felt so connected to the 10,000 people with whom I huddled against the cold, sheltering the flickering light that burned inside a Pepsi cup. A treasured flame of remembrance, modestly burning against the wind that had yet to cease since the morning before.

That night I spent with friends in the dorms. We watched a movie, I think, but I couldn't tell you what it was. It just felt good to be with people I cared about. Sim and I went up to Gumby's to get some Pokey Sticks in a vain effort to keep things normal and calm. It was good to be with friends. And it has been ever since.

I don't know what it will be like this year, on April 16, 2008. Certainly it will not be a normal day, as it shouldn't. One year ago I feigned strength, but maybe this year, one whole year later, I may finally be confronted with the sadness I have felt welling inside of me. It will pass, in time, but I hope to never lose the sense of love and friendship that I felt on that campus the night of April 17, 2007. For as sad as it was, it was magic. It was beautiful. It was everything that is great about Virginia Tech.

Let us remember those who suffered, those who died on April 16, 2007. But let us also never forget the beauty of the ensuing days. Our mascot is a Hokie, but our souls burn with the fire of the phoenix. We have fallen, we have risen, and we will forever remember what has made us who we are.

God bless you, my friends. One day we will see each other again.