In support of gay marriage

Bravo to Theodore B. Olson for his superb article on gay marriage! (“The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,” Newsweek, January 9, 2010) His writing is not only first class and compassionate, but it resonates exactly with what I've always thought: that marriage is a civil right and should be available to all loving couples, homosexual and heterosexual. His article is not only an excellent essay about the issue of gay marriage, but it is a message of love to humanity.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957

Glenn Beck interviews Sarah Palin

  

I don't know how to begin to express my consternation at the attitudes of both Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and the sheer mediocrity of Sarah Palin during their interview on Jan. 13, 2010. Both of them mentioned not being able to trust anyone when referring to the federal government and elected officials. It took me a while into the interview to realize what I was observing in both of them behind that distrust. The answer that came to me was "paranoia." Paranoia is not a healthy posture with which to form opinions or make decisions, and I find them both to be paranoid and unable to trust people in general (except for their immediate families). I observed it particularly in Glenn Beck: [On anyone in government] "We're talking about...trust...how do you restore trust and honor...how do you...how do we even know anymore?" [On trusting Sarah Palin] "When someone says, 'Who's out there?', I answer one of two ways, 'I'm waiting for George Washington to appear'...and then it's usually followed by your name...and I say, 'but...I don't know...I can't give my trust out to anybody...every time you do, (snaps his fingers) they burn you.' " I have observed this in him before as well, for example when he was interviewed by Katie Couric: "If you don't fear your own government..." That paranoia extends to their specific focus, (federal) elected government officials, but it is symptomatic of their paranoia in general (and those of their followers).

In addition, while Sarah Palin is a pleasant woman and clearly a loving wife and mother, she is one of the most mediocre and uninformed citizens I have ever seen in the public eye. The fact that she does not recognize her own mediocrity is in itself extremely disquieting. (She should have known immediately that she was not qualified to be John McCain's running mate and politely and humbly declined his offer. When she accepted, she put herself in the position where her mediocrity would be apparent, and it was and still is.) The fact that she (still) has as many supporters as she does is not an exemplary commentary on that segment of American society.

Link to the interview segment: (Approximately 1/4 of the way into the interview)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne7Fnnj8LMw

Related article: "Palin Is Ready? Please." by Fareed Zakaria for Newsweek, November 15, 2009

http://www.newsweek.com/id/161204/page/1

The Myth of "Big Government"

I’d like to speak to the use of the phrase “big government.” It is a phrase that has been misused, overused, and too general. It is used primarily by Republicans in accusing Democrats of spending capital at the federal level; this is not a phrase that Democrats usually aim at Republicans. It is also a phrase that is aimed primarily at domestic initiatives, which Democrats tend to advocate more often. However, Republicans don’t see the huge amounts of money in defense spending or attempts to outlaw abortion—also at the federal level—as “big government.” The irony is that an issue is only considered “big government” if it is both at the federal level and the opposite political party’s issue. Though Democrats tend not use this phrase as often to criticize Republicans, there is nevertheless an implication by both parties of excessive interference in public life by the federal government. 

Capital spent on domestic public issues (health care, education, transportation, poverty) tend to be viewed and referred to by Republicans as “big government,” while national defense initiatives or outlawing abortion at the federal level tend to be viewed and referred to by Republicans as simply necessary and moral, regardless of the cost. The general Republican support of the war in Iraq, for example, was not considered by Republicans as “big government” but was at the federal level and the cost has been enormous. The issue of criminalizing abortion at the federal level is a Republican issue as well, but is not considered “big government” by the same party; it is also egregiously inconsistent and deplorable that while murder is condemned in any situation by society, the murder of abortion doctors to save unborn babies has been slow to be condemned by Republicans. Curiously, laws for reforming healthcare, transportation, education, the arts, poverty, etc. at the federal level are domestic issues that tend to be labeled by Republicans as “big government” but probably cost less, collectively, than any single war in history. 

Let me clarify my understanding of the role of the federal government, beyond the definitions of the three branches. The job of the federal government is to assist the public with large, national issues that the states would be inadequate to handle.  The federal government is bigger than state governments and that is its purpose: to handle issues that are both too large to be handled by the state governments, and to insure that all states abide by larger issues, such as the laws in the Constitution and its Amendments. Not every issue that is contentious and sensitive should be handled by the states, such as gay marriage.  Like health care, marriage is a human right of public equality, and laws should be enacted and protected for them at the federal level, not the state level. In addition, since initiatives at the federal level, regardless of the issue, are of larger scope than the state level, they are going to cost all taxpayers money, not just taxpayers of individual states. This should be understood and accepted. The cost will also likely be more at the federal level. But this should also be accepted. However, the concern should not simply be that the federal government is spending more money, but rather for what purpose the money is being spent. Of course, debates will and should always arise as to what and how any money is spent, whether at the state or the federal level. But the focus of the use of capital on either level should be on the specifics of the benefit to the general public, not on just whether government is big or small. That is too narrow a focus and ignores the functions of both levels of government. “Big government” is also a “catch phrase” which is a phrase designed to capture the attention of the individual or group immediately and often negatively; a phrase designed to inflame rather than illuminate.

So since the function of the federal government is to handle the larger issues of a nation, derisively labeling issues proposed by and laws enacted by the federal government as “big” is a misunderstanding, over-simplistic, and ignoring/denying the purpose of the federal government. 

Assessment of President Obama's first year and reaction to his first State of the Union address

I felt strongly from the moment I saw Barack Obama give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention that he would make a wonderful president. I was thrilled when he decided to run and I was thrilled when he won, and by such a hearty margin.

I have also been extremely impressed with the job he has done in his first year. He has taken the job seriously and actively and, as he put it last night, acted on what he thought was necessary and not on what was popular. He is a brilliant man and he chose a cabinet that reflects that brilliance. He and his administration have worked consistently through the year to implement legislation that would respond to the needs of the country. Just a brief visit to the White House website is evidence of this. The site is thorough, detailed, transparent, and visually appealing. And although the recent loss of Ted Kennedy's senate seat to Republican, Scott Brown, plus other errors have been less than impressive, the overall effort by the current administration is impressive in the extreme compared with the eight years of folly and relative lethargy of the George W. Bush administration. We now have a president who knows what to do with the job and acts with that knowledge. And even though public sentiment at the moment reflects otherwise, I think that President Obama and his administration are doing a superb job considering the daunting tasks awaiting them when they took office due to the damage that was done to the country by the previous administration.

I was equally impressed with the president's first State of the Union address on January 27th, 2010. Not only is Barack Obama a highly skilled orator in general, but he is superb at communicating his points and ideas clearly, concisely, and emotionally both to a large scale audience and in a warmly personal style. He delivered his speech last night in this fashion too and it was reminiscent of more of the style of some of his best campaign speeches. I thought he was very fair in stating his accomplishments while admitting his errors. I also thought that he was welcoming and encouraging with both the political parties to continue to put aside their political differences in order to more effectively deliver helpful solutions to the American public.

I have thought many times that the country has a "Golden Opportunity" in Barack Obama and I still do. I only hope that we as a nation grow to recognize this.

"Claimed Responsibility"

I have thought for a long time that any news source (television, newspaper, or magazine) should stop using the phrase "claimed responsibility" to report a terrorist group identifying themselves as the cause of a terroristic, or other criminal, act. I'm concerned that the phrase gives the perpetrators a sense of notoriety, or at least that the responsibility is something to be "claimed" (like a prize) rather than something for which one should be ashamed of and be held accountable. I think the phrase instead should be that said group is "suspected" (like any crime suspect), or that "no one has as yet been charged."

"Claimed responsibility" is a standard phrase used by much of the excellent news media. But when I hear it, it just sounds like sloppy, thoughtless, irresponsible, and potentially damaging journalism. I feel like it potentially only encourages perpetrators to be the first in line for fame in being identified with a crime or act of terrorism. And, particularly in a climate of increasing terrorism, encouraging perpetrators is the last thing that any of us want.

Martha Coakley

I am extremely disappointed that Martha Coakley did not try harder to maintain her double-digit lead in Massachusetts and win a decisive victory for Ted Kennedy's senate seat. This was a huge error in judgment and calculation on her part, and a large loss of momentum for the health care initiative. I am a Democrat, but I am dismayed that Coakley was so complacent and overconfident at a time when the momentum for health care was not only the best it's been in history, but that the possibility of passage of health care reform has had such a long, arduous struggle. But this needs to be a lesson like the hare and the tortoise. Coakley was the hare, and the tortoise Scott passed her by to victory while she was napping. I only hope that health care reform has not suffered an irreparable blow again this time.

Response to article in Newsweek

I agree completely with David Rothkopf's assessment of natural disasters like the Haitian earthquake as having been calamities that could have been greatly minimized. (Averting Disaster: Newsweek, 1/25/10, p. 28) While I think it's marvelous that the world community is responding with love and compassion in the form of monetary aid and hands-on assistance, we are not as good as a species at prevention in advance. This fact crosses many issues, not just impending natural disasters. It includes an enormous list such as preventable disease, crime, drugs, health, etc. But it is noteworthy to be reminded that one huge lesson that can be learned from the earthquake in Haiti is not only that citizens of the world still respond with immediate empathetic action to their fellow human being in times of great tragedy and suffering, but that for a fraction of the cost of that response, these kinds of horrific situations could be lessened substantially with well-planned advance preventative measures. I hope that we as a global community take advantage of that lesson.

Link to the article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/231132