"To all those who name the name of Christ who plan to willfully disobey Him by voting for Obama, take warning... No, this election is not about race. It's not about the economy. It's about obeying God... Obey Him in the voting booth and out of it. If not, do us all a favor and quit calling yourself a Christian."
-- radio host and commentator Janet Porter (as quoted on Slate.com)
I don't know what to say. Have we really reached this point in our country?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
What Do I Think About Proposition 8?
I've had a few people ask me, and a few more people email me, with regard to what I think about Proposition 8 in California. This is something that people want to know about me because I am:
Yes, yes, I know that the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such a separation. The First Amendment merely (among other things) prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion and restricting the exercise of religion. But two rather important framers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, made it very clear that they thought that a wall should exist, and that the Establishment Clause did that. The whole issue of the state defining marriage is one that is fraught with concerns regarding religion and state, which, unfortunately, have not been able to remain adequately separated for much of our history.
Civil unions for everyone
I think Proposition 8 shouldn't even have to be an issue. The fact that it is says more about our common practices regarding marriage the business transaction and marriage the religious issue. In my mind, the state shouldn't be involved in marriage -- whether performing it or defining it. Instead, the state should be performing civil unions. A civil union is, in my opinion, a business transaction. The state should perform them for people who want certain legal protections that right now are automatically assumed with what we accept as marriage.
Marriage, I think, should be a matter for religions. Religions can define it how they want, and marry whomever meets their specific requirements without fear of reprisals or tax exempt statuses. So if a liberal branch of the Episcopalian church wants to define marriage one way, and Pentecostals want to define it another, that works out. Because just as there are different definitions of what a baptism, a confirmation or a Eucharist should be (and who should participate in these rites), there is room for different religious definitions of marriage.
But for the marriage to have legal force, it would have to be backed by a civil union. Which should be a completely separate transaction presided over the state for the purpose of benefits (taxes and health) and next of kin and other legal protections and statuses. That means that, if we were operating under a civil union type law, after my temple marriage as a member of the LDS faith, my husband and I would have had to go to a state official and had a civil union performed if we wanted the legal benefits.
If we made the move to separate the spiritual from the political in the way we look at marriage, by adding a civil union requirement, there would be no need to "protect" the current "definition" of marriage, and religions would have nothing to fear legally from refusing to perform marriages for anyone who doesn't meet the requirements set forth by the organization.
Tags: Proposition 8, temple marriage, LDS, separation church and state,
gay marriage, civil union, marriage
- LDS
- Progressive/Liberal
Yes, yes, I know that the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such a separation. The First Amendment merely (among other things) prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion and restricting the exercise of religion. But two rather important framers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, made it very clear that they thought that a wall should exist, and that the Establishment Clause did that. The whole issue of the state defining marriage is one that is fraught with concerns regarding religion and state, which, unfortunately, have not been able to remain adequately separated for much of our history.
Civil unions for everyone
I think Proposition 8 shouldn't even have to be an issue. The fact that it is says more about our common practices regarding marriage the business transaction and marriage the religious issue. In my mind, the state shouldn't be involved in marriage -- whether performing it or defining it. Instead, the state should be performing civil unions. A civil union is, in my opinion, a business transaction. The state should perform them for people who want certain legal protections that right now are automatically assumed with what we accept as marriage.
Marriage, I think, should be a matter for religions. Religions can define it how they want, and marry whomever meets their specific requirements without fear of reprisals or tax exempt statuses. So if a liberal branch of the Episcopalian church wants to define marriage one way, and Pentecostals want to define it another, that works out. Because just as there are different definitions of what a baptism, a confirmation or a Eucharist should be (and who should participate in these rites), there is room for different religious definitions of marriage.
But for the marriage to have legal force, it would have to be backed by a civil union. Which should be a completely separate transaction presided over the state for the purpose of benefits (taxes and health) and next of kin and other legal protections and statuses. That means that, if we were operating under a civil union type law, after my temple marriage as a member of the LDS faith, my husband and I would have had to go to a state official and had a civil union performed if we wanted the legal benefits.
If we made the move to separate the spiritual from the political in the way we look at marriage, by adding a civil union requirement, there would be no need to "protect" the current "definition" of marriage, and religions would have nothing to fear legally from refusing to perform marriages for anyone who doesn't meet the requirements set forth by the organization.
Tags: Proposition 8, temple marriage, LDS, separation church and state,
gay marriage, civil union, marriage
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Know Your State Voting Laws
There's a lot of static out there about voting laws this year. That's why it is important to know your state voting laws and procedures. Over at FindLaw, there is a handy page that has links to all of the states' voting laws. This is very important. The day you show up to vote is not the time to be figuring all of this out. Do it NOW. Double check, even if you have voted before. There are issues with lists being purged, etc., and you need to make sure everything is in order.
Early voting
Also, if you live in an early voting state, head to the polls before election day. It will help ease the lines, and help ensure that everyone who wants to vote (and is properly registered) gets a chance. I'm planning on going tomorrow.
This year is supposed to see high voter turnout. So, do what you can to make sure that your vote counts.
Tags: early voting, voting, voting laws, voter registration,
vote
Early voting
Also, if you live in an early voting state, head to the polls before election day. It will help ease the lines, and help ensure that everyone who wants to vote (and is properly registered) gets a chance. I'm planning on going tomorrow.
This year is supposed to see high voter turnout. So, do what you can to make sure that your vote counts.
Tags: early voting, voting, voting laws, voter registration,
vote
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Eloquence, Obama and Me
In the last couple of days, I've had about three people compliment me on the "eloquence" of my blog posts relating to this year's election. I have been rather flattered by these compliments. Last night, though, John McCain employed an old GOP-candidate trick: Take something complimentary and turn it into something to be sneered at.
McCain made several references to Obama's "eloquence." And Obama does have an eloquent way of speaking: Using illustrative words to express ideas. I like it. But McCain was using a subtle tactic that has been employed quite frequently in recent years when discussing liberals. He took a complimentary term and made it something undesirable.
For some reason, in recent years, characteristics that used to be aspired to have been turned around and belittled:
What bothers me even more is that there are plenty of conservatives that are educated, eloquent and elite. But they would never want to present themselves as such. Because it makes them appear "out of touch" with the "common" person. Indeed, the whole point of the tactic is to draw notice from the fact that many of the candidates from the conservative side are just what they deride in liberal side.
But why don't we like these characteristics any more? Respected figures in American history, from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson to Abrahama Lincoln to FDR were educated, well-spoken and achieved prestige in various fields. Would we not vote for Washington or Jefferson because they were "elites" who expressed themselves with "eloquence"? (Now Jefferson would be lambasted for his Deist views as not being Christian enough, so maybe he's a bad example.)
At any rate, I am sad to see yet another complimentary characteristic turned around and made into something derogatory.
McCain made several references to Obama's "eloquence." And Obama does have an eloquent way of speaking: Using illustrative words to express ideas. I like it. But McCain was using a subtle tactic that has been employed quite frequently in recent years when discussing liberals. He took a complimentary term and made it something undesirable.
For some reason, in recent years, characteristics that used to be aspired to have been turned around and belittled:
- Education (derided as "intellectualism")
- Desire to reach the pinnacle of excellence (sneered at as "elitism")
What bothers me even more is that there are plenty of conservatives that are educated, eloquent and elite. But they would never want to present themselves as such. Because it makes them appear "out of touch" with the "common" person. Indeed, the whole point of the tactic is to draw notice from the fact that many of the candidates from the conservative side are just what they deride in liberal side.
But why don't we like these characteristics any more? Respected figures in American history, from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson to Abrahama Lincoln to FDR were educated, well-spoken and achieved prestige in various fields. Would we not vote for Washington or Jefferson because they were "elites" who expressed themselves with "eloquence"? (Now Jefferson would be lambasted for his Deist views as not being Christian enough, so maybe he's a bad example.)
At any rate, I am sad to see yet another complimentary characteristic turned around and made into something derogatory.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Blog Action Day: Poverty in America
Sometimes, with so much focus on poverty abroad, we forget that poverty is present here in the United States. And things are likely going to get a little bit worse before they get better. Penn State has a project on poverty in America, and it reports the following:
Perhaps the biggest disconnect between the recently released statistics on poverty and current economic conditions is the recent rise in unemployment and the stagnation in family incomes. Over the years of 2000-2006, median family income did not change appreciably. In 2006, median family income was two percent below 2000. During the same period, earnings for men declined 3 percent while women experienced a 2.3 percent decline in their incomes. According to the Center for American Progress, even with the reported increase of 1.7 percent in median household income from 2006 to 2007, incomes are still .6 percent below the level of 2000.In such times as these, it is important for those of us who have been a bit more fortunate to help others. Fighting poverty may be one of the biggest moral imperatives of our time. Why is it, in what has been called the wealthiest nation in history, do we still have poverty? Why is it that we have millions of children who cannot get adequate health care? Why is it, when so many people throw food out, can we not feed our people?
Poverty in Utah
Poverty can even be seen here in Utah. 1 in 10 Utahns lives in poverty. Additionally, Utah is ranked #5 in terms of highest rates of food insecurity. (You can read more about hunger and poverty in Utah and the U.S. uPlej.) These numbers are probably startling to many who live in this state. Often we think about poverty and hunger as issues that afflict people in the "mission field." However, it is right here in our backyard. And it is important to address this problem.
What you can do to help fight poverty
You can any number of things to help fight poverty. Raising awareness is just one thing you can do. But you can also donate to food pantries, soup kitchens, educational outreach programs and efforts to help build affordable housing. One of the great things about helping out is that you do not have to give large amounts of money. If you have time and skills, you can employ these in the fight against poverty.
More Blog Action Day posts on poverty
Taxgirl shares a story about the power one person can have in the fight against poverty.
Deborah Ng points out that reading can be a weapon in the fight against poverty.
ProBlogger reflects on poverty.
Pundit Mom points out that, yes, poverty still exists. Maybe even next door or down the street.
Vered at MomGrind explores the idea of a society in which no one was rich -- but poverty was gone.
Freelance Parent offers some insight into poverty.
MOMocrats shares some statistics on poverty around the world.
My posts on poverty for Blog Action Day:
Fight Homelessness
Mircofinancing
Education and fighting poverty
Help others help themselves
Habitat for Humanity
Your home business and fighting poverty
Investing in emerging markets
Friday, October 10, 2008
Couldn't Resist This: John McCain 2000
"I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
-- John McCain, 2000
One of the biggest disappoints I've experienced in watching politics has been the re-making of John McCain. He used to be an honorable man who eschewed negative politics and who fought for change in Washington. I loved John McCain 2000. I voted for him in the Republican primary back then. I think this country could have been much better if not for the negative tactics and lies employed against him by the Bush 2000 campaign. One of the reasons I dislike the Bush Administration so much is because through sneaky and underhanded means, Bush and his cronies deprived us of a much better leader.
Since then, we've both changed. McCain has embraced the negative approach once used against him, and he has adjusted his stance on a number of issues (from tax cuts for the top 1% to hiring lobbyists to run his campaign, to agreeing with Bush on a lot of things -- or at least saying he does). Even noted conservative George Will thinks that the McCain campaign has derailed and is taking a bad turn with all the "Obama is a bad person" stuff. And George Will and I agree on very, very little.
I've migrated in my politics to something left of center as a progressive and a bit of a populist.
So McCain just doesn't work for me anymore.
-- John McCain, 2000
One of the biggest disappoints I've experienced in watching politics has been the re-making of John McCain. He used to be an honorable man who eschewed negative politics and who fought for change in Washington. I loved John McCain 2000. I voted for him in the Republican primary back then. I think this country could have been much better if not for the negative tactics and lies employed against him by the Bush 2000 campaign. One of the reasons I dislike the Bush Administration so much is because through sneaky and underhanded means, Bush and his cronies deprived us of a much better leader.
Since then, we've both changed. McCain has embraced the negative approach once used against him, and he has adjusted his stance on a number of issues (from tax cuts for the top 1% to hiring lobbyists to run his campaign, to agreeing with Bush on a lot of things -- or at least saying he does). Even noted conservative George Will thinks that the McCain campaign has derailed and is taking a bad turn with all the "Obama is a bad person" stuff. And George Will and I agree on very, very little.
I've migrated in my politics to something left of center as a progressive and a bit of a populist.
So McCain just doesn't work for me anymore.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Political Discourse in America
Political discourse in America is reaching new lows for my lifetime. The smears, lies and almost lynch mob mentality out there is starting to become annoying.
Seriously, can we please actually talk about the issues? And can we do it without personally attacking the other person?
While it is true that overzealous bloggers and cheerleaders on both sides get a little heated about issues and resort to name calling, it is quite another thing when the candidates themselves resort to it.
And I will tell you right now that I see a big difference between these two things:
Obama: "I disagree with Senator McCain..." and then calling him out on a policy vote or decisions.
Sarah Palin talking about "terrorist buddies."
One is a discussion of the issues and the other is an emotional, fear-mongering lie that has nothing to do with policy issues. Additionally, it is worth pointing out that the Obama campaign has been quick to condemn personal attacks (notably on Palin's family). The McCain campaign? Not so much. That campaign encourages such remarks and has no problem when someone in the crowd, whipped to a mob-like frenzy, yells something like "Kill him!"
This negativity, emphasis on lies and fear-mongering does the entire country a disservice. Rather than contradict Obama's claims and policy proposals with reasoned argument, many times zingers, one-liners and outright falsehoods are used. There are plenty of things that Obama says that are debatable, in terms of policy and where he stands on the issues. So, for heaven's sake, craft an actual reasoned argument. Instead of using rumor-mongering and making stuff up, try some facts. There are plenty of facts to support arguments against Obama's policy proposals.
I encourage you to read two excellent observations on the state of political discourse in America:
David over at My Two Dollars (who received a threat against his wife for his views).
Erin Kotecki Vest at Queen of Spain (who writes an excellent piece on going too far in rabble rousing).
Pundit Mom has posted some scary videos of the hate and lies that pass as political speech now.
Seriously, can we please actually talk about the issues? And can we do it without personally attacking the other person?
While it is true that overzealous bloggers and cheerleaders on both sides get a little heated about issues and resort to name calling, it is quite another thing when the candidates themselves resort to it.
And I will tell you right now that I see a big difference between these two things:
Obama: "I disagree with Senator McCain..." and then calling him out on a policy vote or decisions.
Sarah Palin talking about "terrorist buddies."
One is a discussion of the issues and the other is an emotional, fear-mongering lie that has nothing to do with policy issues. Additionally, it is worth pointing out that the Obama campaign has been quick to condemn personal attacks (notably on Palin's family). The McCain campaign? Not so much. That campaign encourages such remarks and has no problem when someone in the crowd, whipped to a mob-like frenzy, yells something like "Kill him!"
This negativity, emphasis on lies and fear-mongering does the entire country a disservice. Rather than contradict Obama's claims and policy proposals with reasoned argument, many times zingers, one-liners and outright falsehoods are used. There are plenty of things that Obama says that are debatable, in terms of policy and where he stands on the issues. So, for heaven's sake, craft an actual reasoned argument. Instead of using rumor-mongering and making stuff up, try some facts. There are plenty of facts to support arguments against Obama's policy proposals.
I encourage you to read two excellent observations on the state of political discourse in America:
David over at My Two Dollars (who received a threat against his wife for his views).
Erin Kotecki Vest at Queen of Spain (who writes an excellent piece on going too far in rabble rousing).
Pundit Mom has posted some scary videos of the hate and lies that pass as political speech now.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Shameless Self-Promotion: Presidential Debate
By now, you know that I'm kind of an Obama cheerleader. So, naturally, I agreed with most of what Obama said last night. And I think Obama won. As one would expect, though, there are plenty of John McCain supporters who think McCain won.
I've written about the presidential debate on my blogs, and -- as is my nature -- I am going to share them with you.
Tags: presidential debate, John McCain, Barack Obama, Fed rate cut,
economy, mortgages, energy
I've written about the presidential debate on my blogs, and -- as is my nature -- I am going to share them with you.
- Why I like Obama on energy.
- I actually like something from John McCain: his plan for the housing crisis. Watch out, though. It's sort of a back-handed compliment...
- Why I prefer Obama on health care. You know, health care is a big one for me.
Tags: presidential debate, John McCain, Barack Obama, Fed rate cut,
economy, mortgages, energy
Friday, October 3, 2008
Biden v. Palin: Who Won?
Obviously, there has been talk about who won the VP candidate debate last night. Here are two opposing views:
Sarah Palin won the debate.
Joe Biden won the debate.
Personally, I think Joe Biden did better.
Yes, Sarah Palin had more flash and showed more style. And yes she had many more clever one-liners, personal attacks and zingers.
Unfortunately, when I watch a debate, I like details, answers to questions and statements that can be backed up by information and facts. Joe Biden's responses had waaaaaay more substance. He was certainly more boring (no flirty winks and folksy phrases from him), but he gave a lot more actual insight into his positions, and defended his statements with facts, rather than pulling out catchphrases like "maverick" (McCain's maverick days were over in 2006 when he started pandering the GOP "base"), "God bless America," "hockey mom" and "middle class people like me."
Palin didn't crumble, and she did remain mostly confident (except for the brief 10-15 seconds toward the end when she paused, visibly struggling to gather her talking points to make a response to a particularly well-articulated onslaught of facts from Biden). So in that way, she exceed the extremely low expectations that the McCain campaign and the media did their best to propagate.
Yes, both were scripted, and both had particular talking points. It's the way political debate is conducted now. But at least Biden's script had more concrete information, rather than a bunch of partriotic sounding platitudes.
Tags: Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, vice president debate, Sarah Palin debate,
Joe Biden debate, Election 2008
Sarah Palin won the debate.
Joe Biden won the debate.
Personally, I think Joe Biden did better.
Yes, Sarah Palin had more flash and showed more style. And yes she had many more clever one-liners, personal attacks and zingers.
Unfortunately, when I watch a debate, I like details, answers to questions and statements that can be backed up by information and facts. Joe Biden's responses had waaaaaay more substance. He was certainly more boring (no flirty winks and folksy phrases from him), but he gave a lot more actual insight into his positions, and defended his statements with facts, rather than pulling out catchphrases like "maverick" (McCain's maverick days were over in 2006 when he started pandering the GOP "base"), "God bless America," "hockey mom" and "middle class people like me."
Palin didn't crumble, and she did remain mostly confident (except for the brief 10-15 seconds toward the end when she paused, visibly struggling to gather her talking points to make a response to a particularly well-articulated onslaught of facts from Biden). So in that way, she exceed the extremely low expectations that the McCain campaign and the media did their best to propagate.
Yes, both were scripted, and both had particular talking points. It's the way political debate is conducted now. But at least Biden's script had more concrete information, rather than a bunch of partriotic sounding platitudes.
Tags: Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, vice president debate, Sarah Palin debate,
Joe Biden debate, Election 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Financial Crisis: Who's Fault Is It, Anyway?
Doesn't matter.
Because just about everyone is to blame.
Republicans opened the door through debt-based credit derivatives and deregulation. Democrats further contributed by turning a blind eye to Fannie and Freddie and insisting that even those who couldn't really afford mortgages be allowed to get them. The Bush Administration touted consumer spending as a means to boost the economy, and encouraged reckless consumer behaviors with billions in "stimulus"money, all while fueling the national debt through a disastrous war and tax cuts for people who don't really need them.
And, of course, greedy banks and mortgage lenders went along, doing their best to bilk whoever came through door for whatever they could get -- before passing the risk on to equally greedy investment banks and hedge fund managers. Consumers came along for the ride, abandoning reasonable financial practices and using credit to fuel materialism -- as well as making poor decisions by buying homes they couldn't afford with "creative" mortgage financing.
Nearly everyone shares some of the blame. This is not the time to bicker over who is most at fault. It doesn't matter. The past is past. It's time to move forward and fix the problem. REALLY fix the problem. With practical solutions (that's right, follow the link for just one alternative -- and better IMO -- solution) that don't involve throwing a large, arbitrary amount of money at the problem.
This is something that requires measured thought. And a change in how our society now views debt, money and the economy. There's no reason to rush into a bailout plan right now. Instead, a little more analysis is needed.
Tags: stock market, Wall Street bailout, financial crisis, spending,
economy, investments, Bush Adminstration
Because just about everyone is to blame.
Republicans opened the door through debt-based credit derivatives and deregulation. Democrats further contributed by turning a blind eye to Fannie and Freddie and insisting that even those who couldn't really afford mortgages be allowed to get them. The Bush Administration touted consumer spending as a means to boost the economy, and encouraged reckless consumer behaviors with billions in "stimulus"money, all while fueling the national debt through a disastrous war and tax cuts for people who don't really need them.
And, of course, greedy banks and mortgage lenders went along, doing their best to bilk whoever came through door for whatever they could get -- before passing the risk on to equally greedy investment banks and hedge fund managers. Consumers came along for the ride, abandoning reasonable financial practices and using credit to fuel materialism -- as well as making poor decisions by buying homes they couldn't afford with "creative" mortgage financing.
Nearly everyone shares some of the blame. This is not the time to bicker over who is most at fault. It doesn't matter. The past is past. It's time to move forward and fix the problem. REALLY fix the problem. With practical solutions (that's right, follow the link for just one alternative -- and better IMO -- solution) that don't involve throwing a large, arbitrary amount of money at the problem.
This is something that requires measured thought. And a change in how our society now views debt, money and the economy. There's no reason to rush into a bailout plan right now. Instead, a little more analysis is needed.
Tags: stock market, Wall Street bailout, financial crisis, spending,
economy, investments, Bush Adminstration
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)