unastronaut*

AP Chairman Dean Singleton makes the ultimate faux pas of late, confusing a political candidate with a known enemy of the United States. Much the same as when former Attorney General John Ashcroft made a similar slip, Singleton immediately seemed to understand his mistake. It was nothing more than a slip of the tongue, with absolutely nothing else to read into it, but there is much more offered to this country in this short clip. Barack Obama’s reaction to an arguably offensive slip was so graceful it truly gives one believe that a sea-change is imminent.

I am coming to a good comfort level with all three candidates. After I said to myself in 2000, “I’ll vote for McCain for sure if he runs for President again”; after I’ve been an avid reader of anything associated with the Clintons – positive or negative – my entire adult life; after I’ve witnessed a truly historic figure rise to prominence in the way that Dr. King took the helm of the SCLC at the age of 26, I just want my country to move in a new direction. To once again be the leaders of the free world, where progress is born. I want this nation to be a true beacon of prosperity for the future, not simply what those stuck in the twentieth century would like to emulate. Is America truly in the 21st century?

I don’t know about you, but to me the election coverage seems more like a highly sophisticated episode of Jerry Springer by the day. After wading through the bitter debate over the insignificant phrases of candidates for over an hour, I was simply looking for anything else to read. End Politics as Usual talked about something I saw on the Colbert Report the other day called DonorsChoose.org. This website allows teachers to post the needs of their classroom and the specifics of the project the supplies will be used for, and donors can pick and fund the projects. It’s a great example of how the internet and technology can benefit public education.

Stephen Colbert posed the challenge to his Nation to donate in the name of whichever Democrat they prefer. I guess John McCain is just left out of this contest, but it’s still interesting to see the results. At the time of this posting, these are the totals:

Colbert will have Michelle Obama as his guest on the Colbert Report tonight, April 15, 2008. Hillary Clinton will be his guest on Thursday, April 17th. It should be an exciting week for his show and the Democrats. I sometimes have a knee-jerk reaction with Michelle Obama as if she might end up saying something seeped in a culture many Americans don’t understand. It’s really the same with Cindy McCain, who is constantly showing just how much of a princess she’s been all her life. As far as spouses go, Michelle Obama has overcome more in her life. The role of the First Lady is often to facilitate humanitarian and charitable work, which makes me wonder about each of the three spouses. Bill Clinton’s involvement in Kiva has been of particular interest to me.

It’s got to be near impossible to be a terrible First Lady (or First Husband), but this season I give the edge to former President Clinton, who has been there through it all, helped the economy, and works for some great humanitarian groups. The beauty of Kiva is that they don’t donate, they facilitate microcredit loans. It’s the same idea as that “give a man a fish / teach a man to fish” quote. This is a great PBS film detailing the history and effectiveness of microfinance. The pioneer of this concept, Muhammad Yunus won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on this project. Here’s what the Norwegian Nobel Committee said about him:

Muhammad Yunus has shown himself to be a leader who has managed to translate visions into practical action for the benefit of millions of people, not only in Bangladesh, but also in many other countries. Loans to poor people without any financial security had appeared to be an impossible idea. From modest beginnings three decades ago, Yunus has, first and foremost through Grameen Bank, developed micro-credit into an ever more important instrument in the struggle against poverty.

Just a few thoughts about the positive things these people are doing every day, when not getting attacked for their word choice.

Just a small non-issue because I found it funny. According to the LA Times blog, Cindy McCain’s family recipes on her husband’s campaign website were plagiarized from the Food Network website and Rachel Ray. This is pathetic, but again not a major issue or a reason to vote. Personally it’s hard to see Cindy McCain on TV without getting this overwhelming feeling of privilege. She’s actually a teacher, which is very respectable. The problem is that she doesn’t feel the same hard times as most teachers. Most teachers don’t get labeled an heiress by any newspaper article. The more absurd notion of this whole plagiarism fiasco is that she’s actually a cook, with her own recipes. As the heiress to the Budweiser empire in Arizona, she’s probably never tasted Ramen noodles or eaten dog biscuits for sustenance. Just a guess.

I also wanted to make one comment about a video I saw on MSNBC of Michelle Obama speaking before some crowd, emphasizing that she herself worked hard for everything. She also sees herself as a testament to the value of investment in public education. I couldn’t agree more. I constantly hear one rebuttal when I begin to make an argument for funding education and paying teachers more: simply throwing money at the problem doesn’t work. The problem is, we’ve never tried. We’ve tried throwing money at the problem of needing a strong democratic ally in the Middle East, but not at better preparing our children for the future. Does that make any sense?

One of the biggest gripes I have with the climate of modern politics is that the moment you reveal one position on one issue, you are labeled. You can either be a flag waving, gun toting, Bible thumping, English-only speaking conservative or a soy burger eating, latte drinking, secular, high society liberal. It seems like nobody ever recognizes that everyone as wildly differing views, and don’t fit so nicely in those categories we’re given.

John Adams, one of my political heroes, essentially lost his second term for not being partisan enough. He refused to line up before the issue was at hand. I believe in much the same. I also believe it is possible to get America and Congress specifically to where very few things remain on the docket. It may sound idealistic or even absurd, but I believe that is what the Founding Fathers intended by the phrase ‘to form a more perfect Union’ in the Preamble to the Constitution. I wanted to write out just what my positions are on specific issues. This is based on the organization of issues at glassbooth.org with some variations.

______________________________________

On Abortion and Birth Control

• I support a woman’s right to choose because they are always the most informed on the situation and the realities of a child being brought into the world and their own health concerns. I would also urge the federal government to leave this issue to the states, this is an example of the power of federalism.

• I support emergency contraception because it is simple, early, safer and to be blunt the earth has a population problem. The United States doesn’t feel that problem, but it exists.

• I support abstinence and sex education, with an emphasis on sexually-transmitted diseases. Children tend to do the opposite of what you tell them. Don’t just tell them not to, tell them why not and how to be safe if they disobey. It’s called mitigation, much more effective than the all-or-nothing policy of abstinence-only education.

On Civil Liberties

• I support extending habeas corpus to Guantanamo Bay detainees, knowing the crimes of the accused will not harm national security.

• I oppose waterboarding and any form of physical or psychological torture, first on the grounds that the counter-terrorism community believes it is ineffective in retrieving actionable intelligence. Especially in a ticking-time-bomb scenario, we need something that produces results. Torture simply undermines democracy.

On Crime and Punishment

• I support the death penalty as a matter of federal concern, again I believe individual states should decide.

• I support a drastic rethinking of the drug war, marijuana scheduling and decriminalization. Non-violent drug offenders should not end up in prison, rehab maybe.

• I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing, instead I support the implementation of Initiative, Referendum and Recall in every state so that judges may be recalled if they do something against the interests of the public. The criticisms of this system are the same as when it began here in Arizona in 1912. That should tell you something, and as a resident, it works. Propositions brought up by the people allow us to offer legislation, which is especially useful in areas where politicians may fear backlash for proposing or voting for divisive legislation.

On Education

• I support the elimination of the Department of Education thereby eliminating the No Child Left Behind Act, electing to trust the states to use their own existing education departments to compete with each other.

• I oppose funding schools based on property tax in the area, this is de facto segregation an serves to create socio-economically segregated schools. With all funding coming from the state level, all schools within a district should receive the same amount per pupil and districts with more schools should be given bonuses. This would discourage branching-off to favor one or a smaller group of schools. There is a school within 5 miles of University of Phoenix Stadium where the Arizona Cardinals play that doesn’t have maps in its social studies classrooms.

• I strongly support across-the-board raises for schoolteachers, progressively based on level (elementary, middle, secondary). There is absolutely no reason teachers shouldn’t be able to afford to live in whatever neighborhood they are teaching in, on their own salary. Teachers across this country are many of the ones facing losing their homes due to predatory lending and yes, false optimism on the teacher’s part.

• I oppose standardized tests at the national level. States should be free to do as they please in this regard, but I ask this question: are the tests in the poor schools the same as the ones in the wealthy schools? It’s interesting we put them on the same scale, but not in the same building.

• I oppose vouchers for education. The biggest problem with vouchers is the disparity in cost between your average private school and the amount these vouchers would grant. In Arizona, private schools’ tuition averages about $6,000-9,000 per year. Schools are only paid on average just shy of $4000 per student, per year. Anyone with another few grand can easier afford to send their children to nice schools, but poor families who have no way to pay or transport their children are out of luck.

• I oppose merit-based pay. There is no fair way of brokering this system. Teachers who inherit stronger students (affluent areas with less crime, strong feeder schools) are at an advantage. This would only serve to discourage any teacher from looking to work in areas in highest need of teachers.

• I support a period of mandatory public service for youth. When you feel like you own the house, you take better care. It’s the same with a nation, everyone should take part in building it and making it better.

On Environment and Energy

• I support taking action to reduce the impact of Americans on the environment. Preliminary debate should be aimed at collecting the issues which establish consensus, such as gaining energy independence. Not only would renewable energy sources stabilize our economy and create jobs, but also reduce fossil fuel dependence (if not emissions).

• I support pushing for international consensus points on the issue of environmental friendliness. Begin with broad and basic examples, and work with the international community on a truly global problem.

• I support a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, where businesses may purchase carbon credits to offset emissions. It would really do nothing but push money in different directions, but it would reward those who are best on the environment. In my eyes these are well aligned incentives.

• I support the pursuit of nuclear energy. We’ve got to get past stigma and phobias to realize, cleaner is better than dirty and dependent. We should always be working toward the best, most efficient and cleanest energy sources available. The problem is becoming complacent.

• I strongly support a drastic effort to improve public transit, not only within urban centers but also interstate. There is no reason we cannot have bullet trains and an alternative to the airlines, one that doesn’t take days to reach a destination or confine us on a small bus with odd people.

• I support increased fuel standards for automobiles in the United States. If only to make sure the domestic auto companies can compete, because in reality we’re getting killed in the auto market. It isn’t really even wise to buy an American car if you truly want to make the best purchase for your own self-interest.

On Gay Rights

• I support civil unions for gay couples. I wouldn’t oppose gay marriage in any way, I just know this issue is the kind of thing that will require baby steps to overcome the hypocrisy in any “separate but equal” government stance.

• I support extending spousal benefits to same-sex couples, to strengthen those families. They are, in fact, families. They shouldn’t worry about custody or inheritance if one dies simply because they aren’t a traditional couple.
  

On Gun Control

• I support background checks for the purchase of firearms. This is just a matter of conscience. Our government keeps better tabs on people buying fertilizer than guns. I don’t think it should go any further, but making sure people aren’t violent criminals isn’t too much to ask.

• I oppose a ban on assault rifles. “When guns are outlawed, outlaws will brandish cologne.” Did I get that right? No, that was Dave Barry, but I do think that if we outlaw assault rifles then the only people who will have them will be true violent criminals.

On Health Care

• I support a universal system of health care. I believe that modern technology and government transparency will make this system work. The exact same people will be doing the diagnosis, treatment and surgical procedures so I don’t understand why people think the service would crumble. The truth is, you can go to Canada, you can ask a Canadian. They will tell you, their system works and people are happier and healthier. This would have collateral effects far beyond just health care.

• I believe the government involvement in health care would help to bring costs down, because the pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t be able to swarm such a large group at once.

On Immigration

• I support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants existing this country. The process of deportation would be lengthy and expensive.

• I support deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony. With some exceptions, such as known gang members with a history of deportation and re-entry.

• I oppose a physical fence along the US-Mexico border. Barriers don’t keep people out, they keep you in. Whether you realize it or not, this kind of thing will make us no safer but will speak volumes to the rest of the world and future generations. A border fence would only bolster the human smuggling trade and send business into a dangerous criminal cartel.

• I oppose making English the official language in the United States. This is frivolous and sort-of xenophobic, and would only create problems getting care or court services. We should instead be mandating all American school children learn two or even three languages throughout their school years, beginning in elementary school.

On Iraq and Foreign Policy

• I support beginning withdrawal of troops from the war in Iraq and a shift in focus to Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden.

• I support the President urging China to cease selling weapons to those committing genocide in Sudan and urge Hu Jintao to meet with the Dalai Lama.
  

• I support a lifelong commitment to the health and mental well-being of anyone who enlists in the military.

• I support a foreign policy of tackling all issues diplomatically. I’m tired of presidents who think 4,000 dead American servicemen is better than even trying to a conversation with an adversary.

• I support multi-lateralism in every major global action, through the United Nations or NATO.

• I support using foreign aid to combat poverty and disease, and to provide business opportunity through microcredit loans.

• I support ending the trade embargo with Cuba and beginning a new era of relations with our neighbor ninety miles from Florida.

On Medical Marijuana and Drug Policy

• I support doctors making marijuana available for medical use. Many medical professionals would put their years of education and professional reputation on the line for something that millions of Americans believe should be legal for medical purposes.
  

• I oppose federal raids on sick or dying patients prescribed medical marijuana, and their health care providers. This is cowardice and going after the lowest man on the totem pole.
  

• I oppose the wasteful War on Drugs. The money only creates a giant bureaucracy and a court and prison system flooded with non-violent drug offenders, costing the taxpayers billions.

• I support the rescheduling of marijuana, from Schedule I to Schedule III on the federal drug scheduling system. Compare for yourself.

Schedule I

• The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
• The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
• There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Examples: Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, MDMA (Ecstasy), methaqualone (Quaalude)

Schedule III

• The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
• The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
• Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Examples: Anabolic steroids, ketamine (Special K), synthetic THC (Marinol)

On Social Security

• I support privatizing social security. While simply stopping the highway robbery of the social security trust fund would probably right the ship, privatizing is more American. To be honest, nearly everything needs competition. Everything that isn’t a matter of true government concern. I think the government is more responsible for promoting a healthy population than for giving them peanuts by garnishing their grandchildren’s paychecks during retirement, but that’s me.

• I oppose raising the earnings cap on social security. The more you make, the less you need social security for retirement.

On Taxes and Budget

• I support the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service in favor of a Fair Tax system, which generates the same revenues by taxing consumption rather than income. The dumbest thing America does is tax the one thing it needs every able-bodied American to do, work. We don’t tax rampant consumption aside from marginal sales taxes, which often create negative externalities which tax dollars must address. Under the Fair Tax, you can make as much money as you want with no increase in tax due to income. Read more about the Fair Tax.

• I support an amendment requiring Congress and the President to balance the federal budget every year.

On Trade and Economics

• I support free trade with few restrictions. Trade can be the most powerful vehicle for positive change in the world, we must always prepare for creative destruction.

• I oppose any increase in the federal minimum wage. This generally only leads to more inflation with little actual benefit in the long run. In the short run hours are usually cut, so the benefit is moot.

• I support many government subsidies for farmers, however I believe fruits and vegetables are disgustingly underrepresented(around 3% of overall subsidies). This relates to illegal immigration as well, because if we subsidized fruits and vegetables more we might be able to attract American workers to pick strawberries in California or lettuce in Arizona. Just a thought.

• I support normal trade and diplomatic relations with China. Our President should, however, continually be urging Hu Jintao to meet with the Dalai Lama and make visible strides in the area of human rights.

_____________________________________________

Let me know if there’s anything I should add to this list, and feel free to discuss my stances. You don’t need to waste your time just to attack, but reasoned debate is very welcome.

A lot of hype and excitement is surrounding this historic election, and the potential for the first woman or first black man being elected president.

What isn’t told is the potential for this storyline: America returns to rich, old white man and balks at the notion of making history. America is given two choices that say much more than any single presidency in the history of this country but chooses to return to the familiar. No matter how you try to spin this outcome, it will appear to many Americans, and the rest of the world that we haven’t changed or learned a thing.

Doing this alone would spur our economy, rejuvenate our troops looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and improve American favor around the world. I can get behind that.

His holiness the Pope is now aboard Shepherd One on his way to be greeted by President George W. Bush and later give a mass at Yankee Stadium. The scuttlebutt is aflutter with speculation, anticipation and excitement over Pope Benedict XVI’s first visit to the United States. Pundits and news anchors have given some speculation about what the Pope may address while in the States, and I myself have a few questions.

• What will he say about Tibet?

• Will he say anything about the war?

• Will he address the sex scandals?

• Will he offer anything about politics or campaign rhetoric or even specifically address the Reverend Wright issue?

• What other contemporary issues will he address, or will there simply be a one-word theme for the visit?

I know this may sound like I don’t care about his holy message, I care about the entire visit. For the purposes of this blog and my general train of thought, everything is put in a political frame. Most of all I want his visit to be safe and resonate within individuals.

Something I probably say less on this blog and more in daily conversation is that I truly do like John McCain as a theoretical presidential candidate, a senator and as a human being. In 2000 I told a lot of people if he ever ran again he’d have my vote, but I really had to rethink that as the race shaped up. I just cannot look at this election and think there’s any way he’s the best choice. Gaffes like this one exposed recently by the Army Times, are just too much for me to believe this man is capable of holding the highest office in the land. He would really be ideal as a VP choice had one of the other Republicans won the nomination.

It’s just ridiculous that he would be that confused as a military man. He wouldn’t own up to the decision to shift our focus to the person we know to be directly responsible for 9/11. As president, he should be able to make those decisions, or at the very least know who to defer to – now who is this Commander-in-Chief, guy?

Gaffes include-

• repeatedly confusing al-Qaida in Iraq with Shias and associated with Iran.

• not remembering his own stance on using tax money for contraception.

• calling medical marijuana a state’s right, later saying he supports federal raids on the seriously ill.

• trying to woo the black vote in South Philly.

• saying he’ll cut deficits like Reagan, when Reagan tripled our deficit.

• the confusion over General Petraeus’ battlefield, mentioned above.

• voting against the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, it was 1983 but that’s hardly an excuse.

• rightly speaking out against the bias toward the wealthy in the Bush tax cuts, then flip-flopping completely on the issue.

• making a tasteless joke about the daughter of one of his opponents, and another about bombing civilians.

• offering a tax plan that costs $2 trillion. $2,000,000,000,000.

• finally, I consider it a gaffe to make a decision only women should make.

As a former debater, I’d love for someone to go line-by-line with that and make sense of it all. The more I warm back up to Senator McCain, the better my overall mood for the election. I would only ask that you cite sources and explain reasoning. This is my biggest issue with Senator McCain and his approach to the presidency:

I’ve decided to only allow myself 24-hours to react to what the modern media calls “news”. This includes the syntax and semantics arguments, surrogate attacks and guilty-by-association campaigns. I’ve already over-covered the Obama “bitter” remarks, as has most of the news. We push out stories of the struggling economy, the global (a word you’d think meant ‘unamerican’) food crisis, the endless war in Iraq and actual legitimate issue debate for this kind of crap. For my own sanity and health, I’ve got to stop caring so much about what people think about what people say. Does that make sense?

Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post has a short but great piece with two videos as Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama address the same crowd on Obama’s remarks about rural America. The response was telling: people don’t care about that crap. We don’t need the candidates to run a popularity contest just because the mainstream media wants to make this election into one.

The more I look into each of the candidates, the more I realize they are all a giant leap forward from the current administration. My remaining concerns are economic, and I see no great option here. McCain’s choices for supporting cast will be a major tell, although a preliminary look tells me there are far too many Bush administration cronies in the bunch. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney had a far greater economic bearing. Then I remind myself that unless it is working to get your friends no-bid contracts, a VP really has no major role in shaping economic policy.

This earmark moratorium introduced by Jim DeMint of South Carolina would have been a great win for the taxpayer. The names of four co-sponsors names caught my eye. Jon Kyl is among the most fiscally responsible in the Senate, and someone I trust highly with my tax dollar. John McCain, Kyl’s colleague from Arizona is also a co-sponsor, as well as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The moratorium would ban any earmarks in legislation for the 2009 fiscal year.

Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.

The problem with earmarks, he said, is that “we don’t know if [the projects] are valuable or not.” CNN

In rare occasions the earmarks are for semi-worthy job-creating projects. Most are not so worthy. This moratorium failed 29-71. We really do need a sea change in Washington.

All three candidates are more for the people than the Bush administration, which is a high priority for me. The strength of this country is our freedom to disagree, not just as individuals but on a state-by-state and city-by-city basis. It’s the basic idea of federalism. Those in California and those in Oklahoma should not have the same exact laws. That’s why our federal government should always remain very small. If my loud noise bothers my neighbor, my city can pass an ordinance. We don’t need a Constitutional amendment preventing loud noises everywhere.