Political Activism

Now before I get started I want to say one thing. I’ve tried my best to stay relatively objective while writing this blog. I’ve tried to approach topics with an open mind as well as not reveal my personal feelings, religious beliefs, and political leanings. However this is an issue that’s been on my mind a lot recently and I can’t adequately address my thoughts without revealing these things about me.

So I was thinking about political activism, specifically the how, why, and to what point it serves. I can’t accept the fact that I’m supposed to stay out of the political system, however I can’t not argue for my own viewpoints. However as a Christian I believe that ultimately, my point of view will lose every political battle. Thus it becomes a question of the worthiness of fighting a futile battle. After all, Jesus never told his followers to define marriage or to stop the killing of unborn babies. Instead He said to go and preach the good news. That, I believe, should be a Christian’s primary objective. Being politically active, fighting for your political viewpoints, and even just expressing your political ideals, will not change the world and will only serve to take away from the primary objective of every Christian.

However, if one takes this viewpoint, it only serves to empower those whose view you disagree with. Can one sit by and do nothing and forfeit the political battle? As an American citizen isn’t it my duty to participate in the political process? By extension, shouldn’t I be active? In addition, how can any responsible individual not fight for what he believes to be true? In America, the arena for this fight is the political sphere. Even if I know that ultimately I will lose the fight, is my fight worth fighting, a cause worth fighting for?

The conclusion I’ve come to is that while political activism is good, it shouldn’t distract from the act of loving, caring, and witnessing to people. As long as your political fight doesn’t distract from the primary objective, it’s important to keep fighting for what you believe.

Green Lantern Sparks Safety changes in Ohio

Many people consider comics to be a complete waste of time but apparently the Ohio Department of Transportation feels differently. “Taking a cue from the comic book superhero who uses green light to protect the people of Earth, the Ohio Department of Transportation  is hoping a Green Lantern will protect its snowplows from a dangerous spike in crashes this season,” said an ODOT news release. The report said there have already been 63 crashes involving snowplows in the first month of winter, which is more than the 57 crashes that occurred during the entire 2009-2010 winter season. Apparently the solution that the department came up with is to put green LED “lanterns” to illuminate the snowplows so that they are easy to see. Currently snowplows use only yellow flashing lights, commonly shared by other non-emergency vehicles such as tow trucks and mail delivery vehicles. Research indicates that green lights have a better visibility in snowy, wintery conditions.

What Do You Think: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Welcome to another edition of What Do You Think. Basically the way this works is that I’ll talk about something that’s been on my mind, throw out a bunch of questions, and you think about it and tell me what you think about the topic and the questions. Ready?

On Saturday the Senate voted to repeal the military’s controversial Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Thanks to this historic legislation gays will be able to openly serve in the military. Obama has said that he will sign it as early as Wednesday. I realize that many people on both sides of the aisle blindly support or oppose this legislation without actually thinking about it. I personally oppose it. I do think that gays should be allowed to serve in the military but the reason I oppose the legislations is that I think the impact it could have on troop morale is astronomical. The first question I thought of is what do they do for the showers? Obviously the gay members can’t shower with the straight members for the same reason that the males can’t shower with the females. But the gay military members can’t shower with the females because of fears of a straight person pretending they’re gay. So what about setting aside separate units for gay soldiers? To me this sounds like the best answer but something tells me that gays will not be satisfied with this solution. So what do you think? Should gays be allowed to serve in the military? What could it do to troop morale? Should this decision have waited till we are not in the middle of a war? Best case scenario how does the introduction of gays into the military occur? Worst case scenario? What do you think about a separate unit? Are people right in comparing it to allowing African-Americans to serve in the military? If not, how is it different?

I look forward to hearing from you guys in the comments.

Random Times Call for Very Random News

Well it’s been a while so I’ll not bore you with some  clever (in my mind anyway) introduction and we’ll just jump straight into recent random news.

• For those of you who haven’t heard, there is a new application for Firefox that intends to make the web a safer place. The app blocks all mention of Justin Bieber from the web. The developer of the app has reported on his Twitter that he has received death threats from outraged fans who have been blocked from access to Justin Bieber because their parents have installed the add on.
• The Canadian government has recently attempted to scale back their health care program. The weird part of this? It’s almost the exact opposite of talks in the United States.
• On June 10th the Pittsburgh Penguins were looking for 250 students to help with an important task and there was only one major requirement: How to flush a toilet Construction is near completion on the Penguins’ new arena, the Consol Energy Center and the Penguins needed to test the plumbing in the building. The Penguins called the event the “Student Flush,” a spinoff of their popular ticketing program known as “Student Rush.” (Wow Hockey, Canada, and Justin Bieber. I guess this article is not looking good for Canadians and their interests)
• Police in India have recently arrested an alleged spy from Pakistan. The strange part? The spy is a pigeon. The pigeon had a ring around its foot and a Pakistani telephone number and address stamped on its body in red ink. Cop Ramdas Jagjit Singh Chahal said he suspected the pigeon had landed on Indian soil from Pakistan with a message, but no note has been found. Cops believe the pigeon may have been on a “special mission of spying” and officials have banned anyone from visiting the bird. It has been medically examined and is being kept in an air-conditioned room under police guard. Senior officers have asked to be kept updated on the situation three times a day, according to reports in India.
• Some scientists have suggested using a nuclear missile to stop the BP oil spill. While the plan would theoretically work, it’s only being considered as a last resort.
• And finally, in a piece of news that’s as disturbing as it is weird, the Times of London recently reported on several designers who are promoting the man-heel or meel. Styles range from stilettos to other less feminine styles.

What Do You Think: Obama the Speech Soldier

Welcome back to What Do You Think! Basically the way this works is that I will write about something I read recently and give a couple thoughts but no real conclusion. The point is to get you guys (my 4 faithful readers) the chance to think and voice your opinion.

So lately President Obama has been going on the offensive. He’s been calling out and attacking specific members of the Republican Party. He’s been bashing Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Experts say that this will unite the Democrats against a common enemy while Republicans say that all the name calling is just a sign of weakness.

Here’s my theory: Obama cannot be successful unless he’s attacking something or someone. Think about it: During the campaign he was most comfortable when he was attacking McCain, Bush, Republicans, and the government in general. After the election we had a period of relative calm. Then all of a sudden Obama was going after automakers for being irresponsible. Next came the health care industry. Finally Obama began attacking Goldman Sachs and Wall Street in general. Now it’s the Republicans again.  Here’s the thing, it’s not that Obama has to go after these people, it’s that he doesn’t really know what to do if he’s not attacking.

So what do you think? Is Obama only comfortable attacking people? Is this something a president should do or is it a sign of weakness? Do you think maybe he’s been too passive? Is there someone he should attack that he hasn’t? Is there some issue he should address instead of attacking corporations and his political enemies?

I’m Not An Anarchist!

So for those of you who don’t spend your time following the little details of the political world, let me sum something up for you, politics is an annoying business. Practically no one makes a decision based on what is good for the country.

What brought on this rant? Well I recently read a story about the GOP opposing the Democrats’ financial reform bill. Basically the Dems are accusing the GOP to using talking points from a memo by a man named Frank Luntz. Luntz was Newt Gingrich’s main pollster and he still gets involved in many key debates. Basically Luntz attempts to come up with the best arguments against key bills. For the financial reform bill, Luntz recommends tying it to the bailouts because the American people are opposed to the bailouts. Now the Democrats are blowing away this argument because “Frank Luntz wrote it so it’s not valid.”

So here’s my problem with this story: I don’t see anything wrong here other than the parties themselves.  Why on earth is an argument not valid just because it comes from Luntz? An argument is an argument no matter who it comes from! If you want to say it’s not valid than give me a better reason than who wrote it! That’s like saying that the sky is not blue because Hitler said it was blue and Hitler is evil! Give me a GOOD reason, don’t just counter with an idea that a 3 year-old would come up with! (and my apologies to all the 3 year-olds out there for suggesting that you would come up with a refutation this stupid!)

As for the GOP, their reaction is even worse! Rather than sit down and logically and rationally defend their point, they go on to say that Luntz copied them! The GOP claims that they’ve been making a similar point since 2008 and therefore Frank Luntz doesn’t matter. While their attempt to show that they are capable of original talk is good, their defense displays yet another weakness. You know if an argument that you’ve been making for 2 years isn’t working, it’s probably time to MOVE ON! You’ve been making this argument for 2 years and no one’s convinced? Did it ever occur to you to try a new tactic? Maybe attack this bill for a different reason? Do you even remember why you’re opposed to it in the first place? I know there are people who can say the same thing over and over again but they don’t normally repeat themselves for 2 YEARS!

In the end it illustrates once again that most of the time, Congress doesn’t act for the good of the people, but for the good of themselves and their party.

What Do You Think?-Same Sex Marriage.

I’m debuting a new feature here on the Random Blog. Rather than give my opinion on a current topic, I’ll ask your opinion of the topic. I’m calling this segment the What do you think? section.

Today I read an article about the two different branches of the Tea Party movement. There’s the Palin branch and the Paul branch. These groups are named because of their response to the question of who best embodies the ideas and ideals of the Tea Party movement.  Basically the most noticeable difference between the two is this: The Sarah Palin supporters  are not only angry about the economic direction of the United States, but the social direction as well. The Ron Paul supporters feel that the government should not meddle in social affairs at all.

There was one point in the article that drew my attention and that’s the question that I pose to my readers. In a poll done of the Tea Party protesters at a recent protest in Washington, the protesters (can someone give me a different word?) were asked to rank what issues they felt most angry about. Out of a list of 22 issues, the issue that drew the least anger was same-sex marriage with 24% of respondents saying that they were not at all upset about the issue. The interesting part is that 55% of Palin supporters were very angry about the issue.

So here’s my question: What is your stance on same-sex marriage? In today’s society what does marriage mean? Besides the rights that come with marriage why would a same-sex couple want the right to marry anyway? Besides for being morally right or good, why is it so important that couples marry? Outside of the church is marriage even relevant anymore? Should the government just dissolve the line between civil unions and marriage?

I realize that that’s a lot more than one question, but those are questions I’ve been thinking about lately. Please leave your answers/comments below. I don’t want to see this turn into a shouting match so try to be respectful of anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. But I would like to see discussion about this as well.

My thoughts on the Healthcare Bill

Well, the healthcare bill passed the House on Sunday. It was a narrow vote, 219-212. However rather than rehash what happened (as thousand of other websites will do) here are a couple thoughts I came away with:

• With a vote this narrow (for you non-math people, it’s 7 representatives) I feel that something must be done. I wish that there was a rule stating that if a bill passes with a margin of less than 10 representatives, it should be put before the people as a final vote. With a bill this controversial, it would be a great way for people to practically support or oppose this bill.
• One way that the media was able to diminish the effect of the tea party protesters was to make them a separate political party. Once a group becomes a traditional party instead of a group of concerned citizens, they lose their effectiveness.
• Congratulations to the 34 Democrats who opposed the bill. They are: John Adler (N.J. 3), Jason Altmire (Pa. 4), Michael Arcuri (N.Y. 24), John Barrow (Ga. 12), Marion Berry (Ark. 1), Dan Boren (Okla. 2), Rick Boucher (Va. 9), Bobby Bright (Ala. 2), Ben Chandler (Ky. 6), Travis Childers (Miss. 1), Lincoln Davis (Tenn. 4), Artur Davis (Ala. 7), Chet Edwards (Tex. 17), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Tim Holden (Pa. 17), Larry Kissell (N.C. 8), Frank Kratovil Jr. (Md. 1), Daniel Lipinski (Ill. 3), Stephen F. Lynch (Mass. 9), Jim Marshall (Ga. 8), Jim Matheson (Utah 2), Mike McIntyre (N.C. 7), Michael E. McMahon (N.Y. 13), Charlie Melancon (La. 3), Walt Minnick (Idaho 1), Glenn Nye (Va. 2), Collin C. Peterson (Minn. 7), Mike Ross (Ark. 4), Heath Shuler (N.C. 11), Ike Skelton (Mo. 4), Zack Space (Ohio 18), John Tanner (Tenn. 8), Gene Taylor (Miss. 4), Harry Teague (N.M. 2). So if any of these people are your representative go thank them for their opposition to the bill.
• At this point there’s no point arguing about the pros and cons of the bill. Learn what’s in it, and move on. Just recognize the mistakes and learn from it next time.

The Health Care Bill Summary

Well if there’s one thing the health care bill was good for is that it reawakened my ability to blog. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed the House on Sunday and will be sent to President Obama to be signed into law. The bill is the Senate version of the Health care bill and is about 2,400 pages long. Now that we’ve passed it and can see what’s in it, let’s take a look at some of the major parts of the bill:

— The bill will provide “Quality Health Insurance Coverage for All Americans” by prohibiting preexisting health condition exclusions from insurance coverage.

–Prohibits a health plan from rescinding coverage of an enrollee except in the case of fraud.

–Health insurance exchanges: requires states to establish an American Health Benefit Exchange for purchase of qualified health insurance plans. Creates a related entity to assist with small business health coverage.

–Directs states to establish one or more reinsurance entities for reinsurance programs to assist in health care coverage.

–Requires individuals to maintain minimal health care coverage beginning in 2014. Imposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage with exceptions for low-income individuals, members of Indian tribes, people who object on religious grounds.

–Requires employers of 50 workers who don’t offer coverage to pay a fee up to $750 per worker.

–Beginning in 2010, small employers can elect a tax credit for 50% of their employee health care coverage expenses. Small employers are generally defined as businesses with no more than 25 employees.

–On abortion, permits states to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an exchange in the state. It prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion services and requires separate accounts for payments for such services.

–The bill seeks to extend Medicaid coverage, beginning in 2014, to certain low-income individuals under age 65. States can expand Medicaid eligibility to these people as early as April 1, 2010.

–Sets new standards for Medicare payment to hospitals and doctors by linking “payment to quality outcomes under the Medicare Program.”

–Maintains Children’s Health Insurance Program funding for two years through fiscal year 2015.

–Medicaid Prescription Drug Coverage: seeks to close a gap in seniors’ prescription drug coverage known as the donut hole.

–Expands funding for Community Health Centers.

–Expands doctors and health care services, particularly in rural and underserved areas: increases loans made by schools to nursing students. Expands various health care professional training programs.

–To curb fraud and potential conflicts of interest, bill would require drug, device, biological and medical supply manufacturers to report “transfers of value” made to a medical professionals. Requires disclosure of physician ownership or investment interest in a manufacturer and new disclosure requirements for nursing homes.

–Implements the “Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009” that gives drug makers 12 years of protection, or exclusivity, to sell biologic medicines before facing the threat of cheaper, off-brand alternatives.

Tax increases:

–New excise tax on high premium insurance plans raises $149.1 billion over 10 years. This tax would be 40% of premiums paid on plans costing more than $23,000 for family plans and $8,500 for individual plans.

–New Medicare tax on wealthy: increases after December 31, 2012, the Medicare hospital insurance tax rate by 0.9 percentage points for individual taxpayers earning over $200,000, or married joint filers making more than $250,000.

–Imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices beginning in 2011.

–Imposes an annual fee on certain makers of branded prescription drug beginning in 2010.

–Raises medical tax deduction threshold from 7.5% to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning after 2012.

–Imposes a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning after July 1, 2010.

–Major provisions in the bill would not take effect until January 1, 2014.

I realize that’s a long summary, but if you’re curious about what’s in this bill, there you go!

GOP fundraisers are Fear-Mongering?

It’s funny that right after I wrote about stopping the attitude of fear in our country, leaked slides from an RNC fundraising presentation given to groups in Florida! Talk about timely eh?

For those of you who don’t know, the 72 page Powerpoint presentation was left in a hotel room where it was found and given to a reporter.The document presents the RNC’s fundraising pitch in simple terms. “What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate…?” one slide asks. “Save the country from trending toward Socialism!” Other parts of the presentation encourage fundraisers to appeal to the “ego” of big money donors and play to the “fear” among smaller donors. One page, titled “The Evil Empire,” depicts the president as the Joker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as Scooby Doo.

Right now the GOP is in damage control with everyone fighting to get as far away from these papers as possible. However right now there are a couple conclusions we can draw:

1. Looks like the GOP isn’t the party of no after all huh Obama? It’s the party of fear! Just kidding! In all seriousness this shows a real shift in strategy. Whether it works or not remains to be seen.

2. For all there talk of calming the extreme right, it looks like the GOP has realized that this year catering to the Tea Party movement is the only way they’ll win.

3. At the same time the GOP doesn’t want to lose the big business base it’s always had, so it’s attempting to be all things to all people.

4. Since this election is really the Republicans’ to lose rather than the Democrats to win, this could be huge. If all the moderate voters who were/are willing to vote Republican decide that they’d rather have the Democrats than a party that would stoop to such a low level.

Now of course is there a good reason for such tactics? Of course! If they hadn’t been discovered it may have been very effective. Have both parties tried similar tactics? Of course! However, I believe that “they do it too” is no excuse. Conduct yourself the way you think the other party should act, not the way they do act.