Friday, 14th November, 2008
Sometimes I'm Ashamed to be Associated with Certain Christians...
Priest: No communion for Obama supporters
Now let me get one thing straight first and foremost. I am not a fan of abortion, and the only time I would find it acceptable in my personal life would be if the mother's life is in danger. However, I also do not believe it is the right of the government to legislate based on a moral issue. Although the United States is predominantly Christian, one of the fundamental principles that our country was founded on is religious freedom and the right to not be judged/persecuted for our beliefs. Because of this, I cannot in good conscious support legislation regarding morality, as the definition of one's morality is largely defined by the perception of one's religious views.
I do understand the stance that some people take in saying that, by defining a fetus at any stage of development as a human life, abortion is technically murder. And yes, the government's job is first and foremost to protect its citizens. However, it really depends on your definition of when a human life begins, which is (at least at the moment) a purely subjective discussion. For me, I honestly just don't know, and because I don't know, I err on the side of personal choice. I actually have a very similar stance to how Obama feels on this subject:
"Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?
A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008
Let me also make the point that, to the best of my knowledge, there is currently no precedence in government or in the private sector for defining a life as beginning at the time of conception. You can't get health insurance for a fetus. You can't claim a fetus as a dependent on your taxes. You can't start making contributions to a government college savings plan for a fetus. So it shouldn't be that big of a surprise that, on the issue of abortion, the government doesn't consider a fetus as a human life.
But putting the issue aside, in my opinion, it is really sad that we have come to a point where some churches feel it is their right to judge people based on their personal beliefs. This church is specifically saying that you don't have a right to commune with God if you voted for someone with whom the church disagrees on one particular issue. Now I know the Catholic Church has a different perspective and a different way of practicing religion than I personally agree with, but isn't this going just a little bit too far? Here's an idea: how about if we leave the judgment calls up to God, and instead simply pray for those with whom we disagree?
Oh but wait, apparently abortion should be the single most important issue:
"During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back."
Yeah, obviously being in a huge economic crisis, where millions of Americans' livelihoods are at stake, isn't as important of an issue as abortion is. Obviously continuing a war with Iraq that has no end in sight and that puts many American and Iraqi lives in danger isn't as important of an issue as abortion is. Obviously the thousands of Americans who can't afford to pay for medical bills that are necessary for their health isn't as important of an issue as abortion is. Who cares what the other candidate would do on such minor issues, as long as he/she opposes abortion right?!
One final quotation for examination:
"'I don't understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who's a pro-abortion candidate', said Ted Kelly, 64"
Well Ted, hate to tell you, but I'm a Christian and I voted for Obama. Maybe it's because I understand the difference between church and state...
I honestly pray for that priest.
Wednesday, 5th November, 2008
President-Elect Barack Obama
As I was watching the returns come in last night, I felt like somewhat of a spirit floating inside an ethereal plane, as if I were living in a dream world that didn't actually exist. The entire night just seemed unreal to me. Although I was cautiously optimistic for an Obama win based on the polling numbers, I also knew how little polls really mean and was quite nervous that we were in for a surprise. But being able to watch Obama win the presidency, a rather convincing win at that, is an experience I will remember and cherish for the rest of my life.
For me, this election was never about race. The first time I saw Barack Obama was at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Among my initial observations I of course took notice that he was African American, much the way you would notice the color of a car that passes you on the road. But as soon as he started speaking, the whole matter of race completely left my mind. I have given no credence either for or against Barack Obama for his race; my support for him has been entirely due to respecting who he is, what he believes, and what he is fighting for. I can honestly say that when I cast my ballot for Obama, race was not a factor at all in my decision.
That to me is what made this election such an historic event. Obviously the fact that we have chosen to elect the first African American president in United States history is a powerful testament to just how great a country we live in. But even more powerful in my mind is the fact that we did it without making this election about race. I'm sure there were those for whom race was a primary motivator in voting for Obama, just like there were those for whom race was a primary motivator for voting against Obama. But I honestly believe that, for the vast majority of people, this election was not decided one way or the other on race (despite what Limbaugh might say to the contrary). We have gotten a glimpse of a future where things like race, gender, etc. just don't matter in our society, and that is the way it should be. That is why this is so historic to me, and why I am so proud to be an American citizen today.
Barack Obama will become the first president in my lifetime that I honestly respect, the first president I really believe in, and the first president I have faith in following regardless of whether I agree with him on all issues or not. Because in my eyes, he's not your typical politician. I believe in him to fight for the middle class, the hard-working citizens that have made America what it is today, and not just the wealthy and the corporations with the strongest lobbyists. I believe in him to re-establish the United States as a world leader and not just the country with the strongest military force in the world. I believe in him to always do what he thinks is in the best interest of the people of this great country. In my opinion, there is something real with Barack Obama; he is an inspirational figure, and I sincerely hope he will make a great president.
I pray for the health and safety of the President-Elect and his family. I pray that he will not fall into the same political trap that has befallen the vast majority of our government, but instead rings true on his promise to change the way Washington serves its constituents. I pray that he will not ignore Republican and conservative voices, but rather call on them consistently for their ideas and opinions to open his mind to the ideology of others. And I pray that God will give him the strength and the wisdom needed to always do what is in the best interest of the people.
May God always bless our next president, as He continues to bless all the great citizens of the United States.
Monday, 3rd November, 2008
Redistribution of Wealth
One of my relatives sent me a story that has absolutely sickened me. I have no clue as to the truthfulness of the story, but if it is indeed true, it really makes me question the values that some people have.
"I heard a story of a man who was waited on in a resturant by a student putting himself through school. The waiter student had an Obama pin on. The man ate his dinner and then when the check came, he said to the waiter student (who worked hard and did a nice job) that since the waiter student was in favor of Obama, and wealth redistribution, he was going to withhold his tip and redistribute it to the poor (a pan handler outside of the resturant). The Waiter student got really upset. The man left, gave it to the pan handler, who promptly dropped his sign that said "out of work and hungry" and went accross the street to the liquor store to by a bottle of booze."
This is getting absolutely ridiculous. If you listen to the McCain rhetoric (i.e. lies), you'd think the only people who would benefit from an Obama administration are the extremely poor and homeless! Look, no one wants to take money from the middle class and give it to poor people - that's not what Obama has been fighting for. If that's really what he wanted to do, he would have been run out of town before his campaign got started. When Obama talks about redistributing wealth, he isn't talking about taking from people making $100k a year and giving it to people making $20k a year. He's talking about taking from people making over $250k a year and giving it to people making less than $200k a year. He's talking about taking a small portion of the wealth from the rich, who can afford to pay a little extra in taxes, and using their money to pay for necessary government programs instead of expecting the other 95% of Americans, the ones who are actually suffering in this economy, to pay for it.
If your'e really interested in the facts, I urge you to go to the Obama-Biden Tax Calculator and see for yourself. You'll see that if you make between $75k and $100k and are married filing jointly with 2 dependents, you'll get an average tax cut of $1000 a year, compared to $120 a year under McCain's plan. You'll see that if you make between $150k and $200k and are married filing jointly with no dependents, you'll get an average tax cut of $500 a year, compared to no tax cut under McCain's plan. You'll see that if you make between $50k and $75k and are single with no dependents, you'll get an average tax cut of $500 a year, compared to no tax cut under McCain's plan.
This is really getting out of hand in my opinion. The people in McCain's camp want to scare everyone into believing that Obama is going to raise taxes for the middle class, even though he has disputed that time and time again and anyone with half a brain who took the time to research his tax plan would know that's simply not true. They want to scare everyone into believing that Obama is a socialist because he supports certain social programs, instead insisting that privatizing everything is clearly the answer, even though a private company cares about your well being only as far as is absolutely necessary. And the icing on the cake is that they have spent almost all of their time the past couple of weeks criticizing Obama's plans of action, while not spending any time discussing what exactly they would do to help solve the serious issues we face today.
Please, get the facts people before you start believing this nonsense.
Monday, 20th October, 2008
Obama/McCain Tax Comparison
It's time to settle all the propaganda over who would raise taxes for whom. Here is a simple overview on how Obama and McCain would change taxes for the American people, originally from Jake Tapper on Good Morning America:
Salary - $18,725
McCain cuts $65
Obama cuts $567
Salary - $37K - $66K
McCain cuts $608
Obama cuts $1,118
Salary - $66K - $110K
McCain cuts $1,487
Obama cuts $1,264
Top 1% - $602K - $2.8 million
McCain cuts $109,214
Obama would raise $121,689
Thursday, 9th October, 2008
Dirtiest Campaign in History
Fresh on the heels of Cindy McCain claiming Obama is running the "dirtiest campaign in American history", I bring you this interesting read about what's going on in the McCain campaign:
Absolutely sickening. I don't care if McCain and/or Palin are involved or not, they absolutely shouldn't allow that sort of behavior in their rallies. Do we really want someone that allows this kind of violent talk to be our next President of the United States?
Cindy McCain
I find it incredibly funny that Mrs. McCain is accusing Barack Obama of running the "dirtiest campaign in American history". Her husband has been using the past few weeks to step up personal attacks on Obama's character, trying to link him to various individuals (such as Bill Ayers), which is absolutely ludicrous. Meanwhile, Obama has been continuing to focus on the issues at hand that actually matter. I guess maybe focusing on such ridiculous concepts as the economy, health care, education, and alternative energy is considered running a dirty campaign.
It's also pretty ironic that she makes this accusation a day before continuing the McCain campaign's policy of lying and misleading the American people. She again brought up Obama voting against an emergency war-spending bill last year. What she and her husband continually fail to mention is why Obama voted against it - because it did not include a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, something that I imagine a mother of a member of the military would be extremely interested in. So somehow I don't really believe her when she talks about how upset she was about Obama voting "not to fund my son when he was serving". If I were her, I'd be much more concerned about her campaign's position that we should continue to endanger American lives (including her son's) instead of asking Iraq to start taking responsibility for their country.
But then again, the McCain campaign is clearly the one that is more respectable and dignified. Obviously. Talking about issues and responsibility is just dirty.
Friday, 3rd October, 2008
Obama Voted For Higher Taxes?
You know, I'm getting really freaking tired of these false claims that Barack Obama has voted numerous times to raise taxes for the middle class while serving in the United States Senate. I know McCain and Palin are trying to discredit Obama - I mean we've seen this all before, Republicans always try to make elections about who is going to cut taxes and who is going to raise them. But I really would have expected McCain and Palin to show a bit more class and not try to manipulate the voters. I think this just shows how far we can trust either one of them.
So for anyone who believes these untruths, I urge you to read Fact Check: Did Obama vote 94 times for higher taxes?. Just in case the article disappears or someone is too lazy to click it, I will quote the most important part:
- 23 were against proposed tax cuts.
- 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."
- 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.
- 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"
Monday, 29th September, 2008
Thank You, John McCain
John McCain finally did it. He has done something so completely unbelievable and sickening that I am forced out of blogging retirement to comment on it. I am of course referring to McCain and fellow Republicans' accusations that Barack Obama and fellow Democrats are to blame for the failure of the bailout bill today.
Now let me start by saying I have mixed opinions on the bailout bill. On the one hand, there is something unsettling about injecting $700 billion of new money (since we all know Bush has left us with the largest deficit in American history) into the economy and asking taxpayers to pay for it. In the short term, this will end up devaluing the dollar even more, as well as putting additional strain on the wallets of an already overburdened middle class. On the other hand, we are in one of the largest financial crises in our entire history, so a large part of me says that we need to do something to help curb the bleeding and bring some stability back into the markets for both the short term and long term. Ultimately, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but in my opinion to do nothing would be the worst mistake we could make right now.
However, for Republicans to blame Democrats for the failure of this bill is completely outrageous. Let's get the facts straight here. 140 Democrats voted in favor of the bill, while 95 voted against. 65 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, while 133 voted against. So that's almost 60% of House Democrats voting in favor of the bill, compared to only 33% of House Republicans. And this was after both House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner both expressed support for the bill late Sunday night after a long weekend of bipartisan work. Now I'm not going to say that Republicans are to blame for the defeat of the bill, but to blame the Democrats is just plain wrong.
In addition, for McCain to blame Obama is simply mind-boggling and disgraceful. "Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain and refused to even say if he supported the final bill. ... This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country," a McCain senior policy adviser said. Maybe I was watching a different debate, but neither one of the candidates endorsed the bill Friday night. In fact, they both said they hoped they could vote for it. And interestingly enough, McCain only agreed to the debate at the last minute because he felt considerable progress had been made on the bill. I guess maybe it wasn't enough progress after all...
So Obama is urging people to be patient and not to panic, to let lawmakers do their job and continue to work on a bill, so that the markets don't crash as a result of public panic. Meanwhile, McCain is pointing fingers at Obama and blaming him for the failure of the bill. It reminds me of that line from An American President: "We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it." Right now, the only thing I see McCain doing throughout his entire campaign is throwing blame around. That is not what leadership is.
But honestly I don't know why this should surprise me. The McCain camp has stooped to all sorts of political lows with their outrageous claims and utter lies all throughout this campaign. I especially loved when one of his campaign correspondents told CNN after the debate Friday night that Obama plans to raise taxes for the majority of Americans, which unless the majority of Americans make more than $250k a year is a blatant lie. Or when McCain himself claimed that Obama voted to raise taxes for people making $42k a year twice this year. In fact, he voted for Senate budget priorities through 2013 that assume the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 will expire during that time, which they will unless altered by further legislation. In other words, McCain's claims are extremely misleading and dishonest.
So really this shouldn't come as any surprise. Time and time again we have seen McCain throw blame around, claim Obama doesn't know anything, and then try to back it all up with lies and deceit. I honestly respected John McCain before this year, but he has shown himself to be just another politician who only cares about getting elected. Frankly, I'm tired of that attitude, and thankfully I know there are millions of other Americans that are as well. I'd love to see him put aside all the bullshit partisanship for just a moment and have a real debate with Obama, one that talks about the issues but does so in a respectful and constructive manner. But then again, I wouldn't expect McCain to know how to carry on such a debate.
Oh and by the way, what the heck does the height of North Koreans vs. South Koreans have to do with anything?!
Friday, 6th April, 2007
What would Jesus really do?
I ran across a powerful article on CNN today that really struck me. As Easter has always been a time of reflection for me, I think this article does a good job of bringing to light some of the issues that we as Christians should be thinking about, not just this weekend but all weekends. Whether you agree with him or not, it is still a good read.
Wednesday, 4th April, 2007
Bush is Budget-Challenged
President Bush warned Congress yesterday that if he does not receive an "acceptable" Iraq war funding bill by mid-April, U.S. military equipment and training will be threatened. Obviously he is basing this threat off of his own opinion of what is and is not "acceptable", which is why I use the term lightly. However, this warning is rather interesting when you take a broader perspective. I believe that this is a prime example of President Bush's disconnection with the middle class of America.
We all know that the Bush family is wealthy, and that our current president grew up in a privileged environment where committing to and sticking with a budget was probably less than important. As such, I believe it is difficult for him to fathom the idea of knowing what you can and cannot afford to spend, which is the source of the current disconnect between him and Congress on what is an acceptable plan. By proposing a bill that actually defines boundaries on war spending and further military action in Iraq, Congress is forcing President Bush to think like a "middle class citizen", where you can't always get everything you want and you actually have to worry about what you can afford to spend.
Of course I don't know why I should be surprised by this. After all, the Bush administration has never been overly concerned with balancing the federal budget or paying down the nation debt, unlike his predecessor. Ironically, by continuing to put the United States further and further into debt, President Bush is in fact placing the security of our nation at risk, the very thing that he wants to spend money to protect. In 2004 (the last data point currently available), an estimated 44% of our federal debt was held by people outside of the United States, with the majority of that percentage held by the central banks of other countries. As we continue to spend more than we can afford, these outside investors will continue to perceive their investments as a higher and higher risk, thus putting the stability and health of our entire economy in jeopardy.
Of course the argument is that we should cut back on spending for non-essential government programs instead (you know, like health care, retirement savings, education, etc.). If you think of the government as a corporation, then there are two logical responses to a budget deficit - cutting back on costs and increasing revenue. Obviously cutting funding for certain domestic programs would be one way to cut costs, but even corporations know that you can only cut so much and still remain effective. So what choice is there? Maybe if some of President Bush's glorious tax cuts were rolled back, the government would have more money available. But somehow I don't think that would be "acceptable" to him either.
I can't help but wonder if this attitude of "spend whatever you want to on something" is part of the reason so many Americans are faced with enormous amounts of debt. I know a lot of the blame falls on corporate America - after all, the vast majority of companies wouldn't succeed if people just bought what they needed or what they could actually afford. But I also wonder whether some people take the attitude that if it's alright for the government to spend more than they can afford, then it's okay for them to as well. Maybe it's time for the government to start setting the standard, showing some financial responsibility, and using affordability as a factor in making decisions on what to spend money on. And in process, maybe both Congress and President Bush can understand what it's like to be a middle class citizen in the United States.