Reflections on the American Political System

The "Mosque" Heard 'Round the World

2010-08-17T14:06:00.000-07:00

It may be one of the trickiest issues to come along this year: the construction of an Islamic center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.

The dirt and rubble that has replaced the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan serves as a constant reminder of the day that America faced down the worst attack on homeland soil in history. For the thousands of people that lost friends and family in this tragedy, Ground Zero has become a memorial -- a place to remember the 3,000 innocent people that lost their lives to extremist Muslim terrorists on September 11.

Thus, it is easy to see why plans to construct an Islamic center two blocks from this mass grave has been received with bitterness, anger, and disappointment. However, as has become dishearteningly common, misinformation abounds, and the details of the project have been incredibly skewed. Indeed, the controversial project commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" is neither a mosque, nor is it being built at Ground Zero.

The project is the brainchild of the Cordoba Initiative, a program which seeks to build mutual understanding and respect between Muslims and the West. The Cordoba Initiative plans to tear down an old Burlington Coat Factory warehouse (that is not visible from Ground Zero) and construct a Muslim cultural center. This center will include a prayer room, but in the typical sense of the word, the center will be far from a "mosque" -- there will be no minarets, no calls to prayer echoing through Park Place.

Opposition to these plans has been both prevalent and passionate. Even the Anti-Defamation League, a notoriously liberal organization that fights to uphold personal and religious freedoms, has publicly opposed construction of Cordoba's center. Many conservatives, including Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and the moderate Joe Lieberman have spoken out against the project.

However, the fact remains that America is a free and tolerant country. Muslims have just as much of a right as anyone to build a house of worship wherever they please. On Monday, August 15, President Obama stated, "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

Indeed, as the president claims, for the government to intervene and kill the project is a clear violation of the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom. The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Preventing the construction of any house of worship prohibits the free exercise of religion. And while some may argue the converse, there is a startling number of dissenters that are ignorant of and indifferent to potential violations of the First Amendment.

Newt Gingrich recently wrote on his website, “There should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.”

What Mr. Gingrich implies with his callous statement is that America should not practice religious tolerance so long as other countries don't. While America's tolerance has long made her the beacon of hope to persecuted minorities the world over, Mr. Gingrich would apparently rather have us oppress these minorities because that's what brutal dictators in the Middle East do. Perhaps no one should ever take the high road to religious freedom if others aren't doing the same. Should the US Government deny the Holocaust because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does?

Clearly, not all that oppose the construction of the center do so in such cavalier terms -- but we all must be cognizant of objectively protecting our country's unparalleled civil liberties.

However, despite believing in the legal right of the Cordoba Initiative to build an outreach center and house of worship two blocks from Ground Zero, I do sympathize with those that lost friends and family in the smoke of September 11th. I did not lose a loved one that day, and I will never know the pain and grief that those family members and friends have come to know. I can only imagine the hurt that those ten infamous terrorists have inflicted in their lives, and because of that I believe it is insensitive for the Cordoba Initiative to choose such a place for their center. Although their intentions may be good, the public dialogue has shown that continuing to fight to put their center so close to Ground Zero has only riled up opposition and undone some of the mutual respect between the West and the Muslim community. The Cordoba Initiative should not be forced to leave on legal terms, but rather should choose to leave based on their own self-interest.

The Cordoba Initiative certainly has their work cut out for them. Too many Americans do not or can not differentiate between mainstream Islam and extremist Islamofacism. And while I support the Initiative's public outreach and their right to build wherever they want, building so close to Ground Zero only throws salt in the wounds of many survivors. For the Muslim community's own sake, the Cordoba Initiative should choose a different location for their cultural center.

And maybe their next project should be building a cultural center to foster mutual respect between the Constitution and Newt Gingrich.

It's Time to Take Back Washington, Mr. President

2010-03-23T09:41:00.001-07:00

With President Obama's huge healthcare victory on Sunday, the stage has been set for a change of momentum in Washington.

When Obama began the healthcare discussion in summer of 2009, a raucous debate ensued. Republicans countered his proposals of a public healthcare option with cries of socialism, and Sarah Palin and friends did an excellent job in propagating fears that our messianic new president was the second coming of Mao Zedong. In the third quarter of his presidency (July 20-Oct 19, 2009), Obama saw his job approval rating drop by 9% as fears of a government takeover of medicine increased. Soon, the Fox News-sponsored "tea parties" had everyone ducking for cover as they spewed false information about Obama's plans to raise taxes through the roof. In fact, congressional republicans were so delusional in their anti-tax, anti-Obama sentiment, that when he announced in his State of the Union address that he had cut taxes for 95% of working families, republican congressmen sat in silence while the democrats greeted his remarks with a standing ovation.

For a man who came into the presidency with support from across the political spectrum, this sudden change in public opinion must have been rather surprising to the White House. However, Obama never quit the healthcare debate, nor did he prematurely pass a bill, even though he watched his approval ratings sink with each day that the debate continued. And now that Obama has accomplished what was arguably one of the top priorities on his agenda, it's time for him to turn the tables back on the republican pundits.

(At this point, I'd like to interject that I am not upset with all republicans, or disappointed with the entire conservative agenda. I do, in fact, find myself supporting a substantial portion of the ideal conservative agenda. However, I simply do not approve of the actions of our congressional republicans and their draconian attempts to create a "failed presidency," as they did with Jimmy Carter.)

Despite the President's many meetings with republican leaders and the subsequent compromises introduced into the health bill (RIP, public option), the bill still did not receive a single republican vote. This is beyond me. Indeed, congressional republicans knew from the beginning that healthcare reform could pass without any GOP support, but they acted without any of the political humility that the minority party usually exhibits. Which, arguably, was done in an attempt to make the president look anti-populist or anti-compromise when he spurned their unreasonable requests (what's the old adage? Beggars can't be choosers?).

Now, America is in a pickle. Washington is effectively being run by (a) a minority party that is too petty to swallow its pride and work on effective bipartisan solutions, and (b) a president that's too nice to stop listening.

The fact that congressional republicans are unwilling to accept reasonable compromises on many key issues should be a crystal-clear indicator to the President that it's time to forgo the bipartisan approach and take back Washington for himself. The sad fact is that too much concern over bipartisanship often results in arduous, fruitless debates that make the president look weak and out of control. And because of a particularly bitter half of congress, Obama has fallen victim to this more than most presidents have. Instead, the President needs to capitalize on the momentum that he's built from the passage of the health bill to unilaterally work through the remainder of his agenda.

After all, his agenda received a sweeping mandate on November 4th, 2008, and much of it has yet to be implemented. He's got a strong majority in congress and a large base of popular support. As an objective independent myself, I'll be the first to tell you that compromise is essential. But unfortunately, it's become clear that many on the right will not be cooperating any time soon unless Ron Paul becomes House Speaker. I don't recall much bipartisan legislation going through congress in the years that the republicans held the majority, so it's obvious that they don't have a problem with the majority party taking up the reins and slamming their agenda through.

The legislative process will always be ugly, but as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "the process does not trump the product." So, Mr. President, it's time to silence the critics by working more efficiently and doing what you and your party think is right. America has given you permission.

The only sad thing here, however, in the moral of the story. As Obama has unquestionably realized, nice guys are still finishing last. Although he wants to be a bipartisan president, he's not a republican, and that's what our congressional republicans are requiring before they give him any kind of support. At least the poor guy has tried being nice, but it's brought him only criticism.

If nothing else, the healthcare debate has at least provided America with an insightful (and terrifying) expose of the republican congressmen in our government. But unfortunately, too many Americans are watching Fox News to realize it.

Separation of State from Church: How the Politics of the American Church Contradict Its Message

2009-06-15T16:39:00.000-07:00

Part I: Gay Marriage

In an effort to form an opinion on the very controversial issue of gay marriage, I have heard many diverse opinions and read from many different sources. As a Christian, the issue is a tough one, and often times I have formed an opinion only to realize it wasn't what I actually believed at all. However, through it all, I have formed my opinion on the issue. I wish to convey this opinion to the reader in an effort to convey my broader belief that the mass anti-gay sentiment in the church is only harming it.

I have two very close friends who are both devout followers of Christ, yet political opposites. In an effort to understand both schools of thought, I discussed this issue with both friends.

I recently discussed gay marriage with the conservative friend, who had much negative to say about Barack Obama's support for gay civil unions. He was very confused how Obama, a committed Christian, could disregard the word of the Lord and support a gay rights agenda. He told me how he felt: that one does not need to be a "gay hater" to oppose gay marriage, but anyone who supports it must not have a thorough understanding of God's creation. This, of course, implying that Christian gay rights advocates cannot be true Christians.

His liberal counterpart recently told me his thoughts. His belief is that there are two institutions of marriage: the state's, and God's. He believes that these two institutions really have nothing to do with each other, except the bond of love that's shared between the two participants. He told me that if the government wanted to pronounce two chickens married, he wouldn't really care. As a Christian, he knows that God only blesses a holy union between a man and a woman who not only love each other, but love God even more.

I find myself agreeing with the latter opinion. Let me explain why.

Just as my friend had said, God and the government define "marriage" in different ways. It's obvious that when God gave man the gift of marriage, he didn't do it so that a man and a woman could get tax breaks, share pension plans, or visitation rights. Likewise, when man defined marriage through the state, he did so for legal reasons, not requiring a love test, or that the couple keep God at the center of their relationship.

It is precisely because these two definitions of marriage are so different that the government has no business in crossing over into the personal/spiritual side of the issue. The government's definition of marriage is not a declaration or verification of love; rather, it is a set of benefits conferred to a set of domestic partners. Likewise, the spiritual side of marriage has little to do with bureaucracy and legal clauses. In all my blindly idealistic youth, I tend to think marriage is about more than that.

When a family friend of mine got married, the pastor that performed the ceremony told us about his definition of marriage. He told us a story about how he tried to braid his young daughter's hair for the first time. By looking at a braid, he guessed it only required two strands of hair. When he tried to do it, the "braid" quickly fell apart. It wasn't until he called his wife that he realized three strands were required. Likewise, he noted that marriage could not exist with only the two participants much like a braid could not exist with twin strands. What is required is a third component, a third strand, in order to hold everything together. In the case of Judeo-Christian marriage, this third component is Yahweh.

I believe with what my friend and pastor Ryan stated at that wedding. However, I know a lot of great people who don't believe in it. Even if they don't though, everyone in a successful marriage will agree that SOME third component is necessary in a marriage; many people believe that that "God" component is simply spirituality, humility, family, or mutual interests. While all people must keep God at the center of their marriage to make it successful, not all people tend to find God as He exists in the Bible. Kindness is the god of some, humility the god of others.

So, instead of integrating our church and state (something we're prohibited to do by the first amendment) to use the definition of marriage us Christians believe in, why not just abstain from defining God at all? Isn't that better left to the people to do, not the government?

For a nation with a divorce rate over 50%, it seems that we are not the most apt of people to dictate what love and marriage are all about. It makes the most sense, to me, to let each person figure that out individually.

If same-sex marriages were allowed, Christians would still be perfectly capable of sharing the blessed and holy union we believe in. In fact, nothing would change. If we were suddenly told that gay marriages had been performed for the past 100 years in secret, would that at all change our marriages or our society? Doubtful.

To my generation, interracial marriage is just as normal as any other type of marriage. But when interracial marriage was legalized in 1967, people were concerned that it would encourage interracial behavior. However, to my peers and me, this concern is a joke. Why would anyone have cared if others loved outside their racial lines, especially when it did no harm to anyone else? Likewise, I am offended by statements such as "gay marriage should be illegal, so as not to encourage the acceptance of homosexuality." Why should we have any fear of increasing public awareness and acceptance of the lifestyle of others, if it has no direct impact on us? It is selfish, closed-minded, and intolerant to discourage a harmless lifestyle.

I believe we do need greater public awareness and acceptance of homosexuality. While I am not gay, I know that homosexuality exists and that there is no use in simply ignoring it. Rather, we should embrace our gay brothers and sisters and love them for who they are, just like God does. While Christians may believe homosexuals are sinners, they almost must realize that we all are. And we all commit sin knowingly. None of us are morally superior, and none of us have the moral authority to discriminate and strip rights from law-abiding citizens.

The church's mass anti-gay marriage opinion concerns me. While there are certainly believers like myself who favor gay marriage, the vast majority of Christians do not. And while your stance on gay marriage does not reflect your personal actions towards gays and lesbians, it can be a mental barrier to fully communicating and understanding our brothers and sisters.

It is this fierce opposition to the gay lifestyle that is hurting, not helping, the church. If we truly believe homosexuality is a sinful choice, then why aren't we showing our gay friends the love of Christ and graciously inviting them to church? Why don't we love them and honor their choices, rather than spit on them and curse them?

Let us remember Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," and John 8:7, "let he without sin cast the first stone." If we are truly followers of Christ, we must climb down from our high horse, roll up our sleeves, and love. While intolerance not only discourages the gay population from church, it also discourages heterosexual gay-sympathizers who are similarly turned off.

I believe the first step towards growing God's kingdom is to demonstrate tolerance and acceptance towards others. And nothing says tolerance and acceptance to the gay population than granting them the overdue right to define love for themselves. But that's not all it takes. We must begin with the smallest steps, at the lowest level, and individually rebuild our relations with the gay community. Just as we separate church from state, we must also separate state from church, and demonstrate respect for everyone, regardless of how sinful we may find their actions to be. I knowingly sin and you knowingly sin, but God still loves all of us as we are. So let's strip out the intolerance and hatred, and proudly accept an already-common lifestyle in our nation. Furthermore, let us remember that we are all equal in the eyes of God, and that our laws should reflect this, before anything else.

A Letter to Senator McCain

2008-08-29T19:51:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator McCain,

To say the least, I am very surprised at your choice of running mate. Gov. Sarah Palin is a great and refreshing presence in your campaign, but she raises some serious doubts about your judgment and intentions.

You have bashed Barack Obama for his inexperience in the public forum. Sen. Obama served for a year in private industry, three years as a community organizer, the president of the Harvard Law Review, 12 years as a constitutional law professor, 11 years as a civil rights and economic development attorney, 7 years as an Illinois state senator, and 4 years as a US senator. This, of course, in addition to obtaining a law degree and penning two books.

However, Gov. Palin's political experience consists of 4 years on the city council and 6 years as mayor of Wasilla (at which time the population was around 5,000), 1 year on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and a year and a half as governor of Alaska. She also holds a bachelor's degree in... journalism? I sure hope you weren't banking your campaign on playing the experience card against Obama.

Well, it's okay, because you have 26 years in the Senate, right? You balance out her inexperience?

Well, Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, has spent 36 years in the Senate. So, the Obama/Biden ticket crushes the McCain/Palin ticket on experience.

When you're 72, with a record of medical problems, you need to choose a running mate who is qualified to take the Oval Office just in case. Joe Biden is more than qualified for the Oval Office. But I worry about the prospect of having a president with only one and a half years of large-scale political experience. Palin's 1.5 years of experience make Obama's 11 look mighty impressive. And while Obama has been a constant presence in the nation on all topics, especially his notable denouncement of the Bush administration's foreign policies, Palin has nil on foreign policy and international relations. Remember the commercial about the 3AM phone call to the president? Scary...

Furthermore, Mr. McCain, I sure hope you didn't think you could persuade Hillary's backers to your ticket just by adding a female. If you did, which it sure seems you have, your lack of faith in the competence and intellect of women frightens me. What a blow to women all over the US! Women don't care about credentials, only a set of ovaries, right Senator McCain?

Again, your judgment is seriously called into question. There were so many qualified candidates out there: Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Ridge... Candidates that would be ready to take on the presidency from Day 1. But you went with the most inexperienced and unknown of them all. To me, I see no other reason for this than you wanted a young woman on your ticket. Well, seeing as you only met Gov. Palin one time before selecting her, it's hard not to think so. I am offended by the manner in which you think women and young people vote for women and young people regardless of their message. We all know you want to win over Hillary's supporters, but you're not going to do it by picking a pro-life, inexperienced, newcomer.

If I wasn't going to vote for Obama before, there's no way I wouldn't now. I do believe that when it comes down to it, the people vote for the president, not the VP. And because of that I am confident that Obama will win the election. But your selection of running mate certainly didn't help your chances. Sure, conservatives may be raving about her, but conservatives were already voting for you. I think your choice has scared off independents that your election is hinging on.

I am disappointed, Senator McCain.

Austin Sendek

Roe v. Wade: People, not Politics

2008-07-10T23:56:00.000-07:00

No doubt that abortion is a tricky issue for all voters. Whether you're a conservative evangelical or a progressive atheist, the very idea of aborting a growing fetus isn't easy to swallow. However, there's a lot of passion amidst misunderstanding regarding this issue. As a Christian pro-choice advocate, I am very outnumbered. In discussion, I rarely have the time to communicate the entire, in-depth pro-choice argument I have come to adopt. Through this exposition, I hope to provide a thorough defense of my pro-choice political stance, and its reconciliation with my pro-life personal stance.

However, the first things that need to change, in regards to abortion, are the misnomers "pro-choice" and "pro-life." If you are "pro-choice," then one may deduce that you are "anti-life." And if you're "pro-life," you must be opposed to giving people the right to make their own decisions. In essence, neither of these are true. Pro-legal- and anti-legal-abortion advocates are in truth both pro-life and pro-choice. The simple difference between a pro-legal- or anti-legal-abortion standpoint isn't whether or not you think abortion is repulsive; it runs a lot deeper than that.

As a pro-legal-abortion citizen, it's easy to be labeled as a "baby killer" by conservatives who hate abortion. For some reason, conservatives have this idea in their head that liberals are heartless, apathetic people who think there's nothing morally wrong with aborting a baby. Too many people are quick to tell abortion horror stories or shove pictures of mangled fetuses in the faces of their pro-legal counterparts because they believe this will convince them that abortion is gross and, therefore, should be illegal. But people of a pro-legal nature already know that taking a fetus's life is poignant and unfortunate. They know the manner in which abortions are performed. I think it's fair to say that everyone, pro-legal- or anti-legal-abortion, wishes that all abortions would just stop. Especially me, as a Christian.

Problem is, they won't. Even if it's illegal.

And whether or not you believe that decides if you are pro-legal- or anti-legal-abortion.

Too many people believe that since abortion is inherently ugly, we should thoughtlessly make it illegal to solve the problem. But this is just surface-level problem solving. Nature and history both reminds us that there is always a reaction for every action. And the thought that banning abortion would result in no reaction whatsoever is ignorant and ill-conceived.

If someone wants an abortion, there's not much you can do to sway them otherwise. If a victim of rape or an otherwise unprepared mother-to-be has made that heart-wrenching decision to knowingly terminate the existence of their little baby boy or girl, of their own flesh and blood, there's not much that can turn their mind around. Not even the law. Whether abortion is legal or not, they've made up their mind. The best we can do for this confused, hurt, yet resolved mother-to-be is make sure that she is provided with a very safe and legal abortion procedure. When she's made a decision of such magnitude, having abortion be illegal will only boil down to one more hurdle to jump. Personally, I'd prefer she doesn't get a back-alley abortion, performed with a coat-hanger, because a professional procedure is unavailable.

However, not all unsuspecting mothers think of getting an abortion as a heart-wrenching decision. To them, it's just an easy pop of the pill or visit to the clinic. They never see the child, they never feel the child, and suddenly, they don't have the child. But don't be fooled: in this case, as well, illegal abortion is counter-productive. If the mother feels as though the child isn't really a child, as though it is only a dependent cluster of cells, then she must not see a moral conflict with the concept of abortion. Therefore, a law against it seems useless to her. Whether or not she feels attached to the baby, she wants it gone; she is as morally indifferent to skirting around the law to fulfill this need than she is to aborting her baby-to-be in the first place.

Consider this: John Doe has decided he is going to commit suicide. He has thought about it for months on end, and finally forced himself to accept the painful conclusion that it must be done. He's determined. It was the hardest decision he's ever had to make, and he did so knowing all that it would entail. Now, as he acts on his decision, he's informed that guns (his method of choice, for the sake of argument) are now illegal. What does he do? Can someone honestly tell me that they think Mr. Doe will now decide against his prior decision because guns are prohibited by law? Of course not. John will, instead, go get a gun on the black market and carry out his decision. Thinking that a simple law could deter someone of such an audacious decision is nothing short of ignorance.

And likewise with abortion. Banning the services of abortion clinics and their doctors would result in a reaction of unsafe, illegal underground abortion services. Abortion pills would be up for sale on the streets by those who do not know proper dosage, cannot address side-effects, cannot address one's medical situation to know when someone should or should not take the pills, and don't provide follow-up services. Dangerous abortions would be performed with crude tools like bent coat hangers. In addition, if something went wrong with the procedure or the medication, the mother would be discouraged from seeking emergency medical help if she knew she would face legal consequences afterwards. This would lead to underground abortion clinics run by concerned, law-breaking doctors. Suddenly, there is an entire illegitimate underground market for abortions, women are dying from botched abortions, children are surviving to live severely physically and mentally incapacitated, young girls are overdosing on unknown medications, and doctors have to break the law for the good of the people. Despite the horrors of the former travesties, the latter is something that should never have to happen.

Despite all these tragedies and fatalities, something else is brewing. Suddenly, John Locke's theory on the "consent of the governed," which we built our country on, doesn't quite have the same meaning. The government must always have the consent of the governed in order to function properly. However, masses of people disregard the government's authority everyday because it only means them harm. Doctors aren't abiding by the law. Mothers-to-be excuse pro-life laws as "out of touch." With such a large market now out of professional hands, a huge surge of druglords and back-alley abortion providers fills this vacuum. On this particular issue, the government no longer has the public's best interest at heart; in fact, by trying to strengthen the law, they've strongly increased illegal activities.

The pictures of mangled fetuses that anti-legal-abortion protesters trumped for years now find their way to pro-legal-abortion protesters as pictures of mangled fetuses and their mangled mothers, severely retarded children, and lists of obituaries of teenage mothers.

And all of this has happened because the conservative right wrongly believed that banning abortion would uphold the sanctity of life and be safer for our mothers and unborn babies. They thought that being pro-choice meant anti-babies, so they "stood up" for those who couldn't defend themselves. Little do they know that the pro-choice liberals hate the idea of abortion too, but realized ahead of time how much more pain, suffering, and danger would result from banning abortion outright. It's clear that the sanctity of life is much less upheld when not only are unborn babies still dying, but they're disposed of in dumpsters, and the mothers are bleeding to death in alleyways.

Many anti-abortion believers tell their horror stories about "buckets of aborted fetuses," etc., and remark on how our politics have failed us and our children. But the problem doesn't lie in the politics. The problem lies in the people. Our problem isn't that abortion is legal, but that abortion is common.

I see a picture of an aborted fetus and I cringe, and mourn for the unborn child. As a pro-choice person, I react the same as a pro-life person would. Political divides are irrelevant - we both wish this baby could have blossomed into a child. The problem is not a lack of sympathy or understanding in the political forum, the problem is that so many people feel the need to get an abortion. The problem is the misunderstandings regarding abortion. Banning abortion won't solve this problem. It will only make it more prominent and dangerous. Perhaps, instead of wasting our time and money arguing about the politics behind abortion, we should focus our energy on what is important to both sides - ways to lower the amount of abortions in the first place.

Perhaps the biggest problem with abortion is that it's so easy and clean. An unprepared mother can take a small pill, lose her developing child, and never miss a step. A farther-along mother can undergo a quick, free, and outpatient procedure to abort the child in her body. Some attempts have been made to address the great accessibility of abortion, such as implementing measures like parental notification. However, this would only discourage women from seeking safe, legal procedures, much like banning abortion would. The thing that no one seems to understand is that they're taking a life.

So why, the conservative may ask, should we keep abortion legal if we all hate it? The longer it stays legal, the more it is accepted, right? Why should the law support something it morally opposes?

We must learn from the example of Prohibition, the 1919 ban on alcohol. To many Americans, alcohol consumption was morally detestable and wrong. It seemed to be swallowing up the country and breaking all moral boundaries within the nation. In response to this growing problem, the government implemented the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol. However, the government quickly discovered the impossibilities of enforcing a law against what they considered, contrary to the public's opinion, a moral problem. When Prohibition took effect, alcohol sales simply continued as underground operations, and "speakeasy" pubs took on secret identities and locations. America's acceptance for alcohol consumption poured cash into empowered mobsters' hands, escalating street violence and illegal activities. Needless to say, there was much more lawbreaking during Prohibition than before. The only thing the government had done was convince the people to hide their alcohol, not to give it up. In 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition.

The example of Prohibition shows us that unless the public understands that they have a moral problem, trying to use the law to teach them only encourages lawbreaking. As with abortion. Unless the public believes that abortion is wrong, banning it will only increase the aforementioned illegal and dangerous activities. Democracy is founded on the belief that the ideals of the people rule; the government is not here to enforce a code of morals against the people. That's tyranny. If the majority of American people want to legalize murder, it's the job of the government to do so. Right now, many people believe abortion is okay. It would be tyranny to enforce a law against their beliefs. If we really want to fix the problem, we must change their beliefs, not our laws.

The Bible can back me up on this one. Romans 5:20 claims, "All that making laws against sin did was create more lawbreakers."

So, why should we keep abortion so clean, simple, and thoughtless? Keeping abortion legal keeps it off the streets, but where does it end?

I believe that keeping abortion legal is only a temporary solution until we correct the real problem. The real problem is that America seldom sees abortion as a moral conflict. I believe abortion kills a human being. So why shouldn't we make abortion punishable by law, like the murder of a post-natal person? Though it seems fair, we absolutely cannot implement this action. I believe abortion is murder, but so much of America, especially our teenage generation, doesn't see it that way; it's seen as an easy way out of pregnancy. Making something illegal that is not seen as wrong is counter-productive. Until we have the "consent of the governed," abortion cannot be illegal. Until America understands that abortion is wrong, a law held against the people's ideals will only make more lawbreakers. And we won't have their consent until all of America fully grasps the horrors of abortion. But we can't make America see abortion as murder as easily as we'd like to think. The failures of Prohibition show us that the law cannot and will not force them to understand that. And especially, neither will protests on Capitol Hill, arguments in Congress, or those pictures of mangled fetuses. It's hard to find any credibility in a source that's wearing a cross around their neck while yelling and cursing at misfortunate and broken women.

What we can do is provide comprehensive non-biased learning for our children so that they may better understand abortion. If we are to make a change, our next generation must thoroughly understand what abortion is, how it is performed, the anatomy of it, and the scientific and spiritual definition of "life." They must learn that abortion is not really as simple and clean as it appears. However, as an advocate of the separation of church and state, I believe this learning should not be religiously biased, but still teach all the different perspectives on abortion. But primarily, it should teach the scientific truth of abortion. This is what America struggles with. I can only pray that this learning instills a sense of moral repulsion towards abortion in our future generation. I pray that parents provide increased moral guidance and truth for their children in regards to abortion. The answer to our problems comes from understanding, not from law. I believe the government needs to fund such programs for our children. While learning about their own bodies through sexual education, children also must learn, from a neutral party, the facts of abortion. While the public education of abortion must stay strictly neutral and factual, I believe churches should reach out to their congregation to verse parents in the proper scripture to raise their child to understand the horrors of abortion. In addition, if we increase funding to counseling programs, we will be able to reach out to those who may become rapists, and thus lower the amount of rapes (and therefore unwanted pregnancies) that occur. In addition, if we step up prison sentences for rapists, we will also deter these criminals.

I am confident this will steer our public away from abortion and keep our abortion levels down for good. Personally, I believe that if our children know the truth of abortion, they will realize the inherent moral violation involved. But if it doesn't, if the next generation understands the truth yet accepts abortion anyway, then there's not much we can do. If that's so, then it's the job of the government to satisfy this overwhelming majority by keeping abortion legal and safe indefinitely. Although I dread such a day, it would be tyranny for the government to do otherwise.

I dream of a day when all Americans realize that abortion takes a human life. I dream of a time when contraceptives take a backseat to morality. I dream of a population that sees abortion as murder, and pregnancy as a gift. I see groups of mothers and fathers attending public workshops that teach them the unbiased facts of abortion to pass on to their children. I dream of a day when churches focus their efforts on reaching out to broken and misunderstood women, rather than condemning them alongside our politicians. I dream of a time when abortion isn't seen as clean and simple, but seen as the brutality it is.

Pro-legal- and anti-legal-abortion supporters dream of this day together. But the way we can reach this day is by adjusting our perspective, not our laws. The key to ending abortion is through promoting understanding that the government must take the initiative to implement. However, for the safety of those who do not see abortion as we do, it is absolutely crucial that abortion remains a safe and legal institution. Unlike with narcotics, where keeping them illegal, despite the moral misconceptions about them by some, will help lower their acceptance in society, abortion must stay legal for the safety of the mothers. Until, God willing, we become an abortion-free country, abortion remain legal in the interim. To me, that's a no-brainer.

We cannot change our laws and expect the people to follow in change. The people must change first, and the law will follow suit.

When I see that picture of a mangled fetus, I think, there's something with our people, not our politics.

Let's change that together. Instead of arguing over the politics of abortion, let's lift each other up, foster mutual understanding, and bring the morality back to America together, without endangering or tampering with the freedoms of those who disagree.

The un-Patriot Act

2008-07-08T21:41:00.000-07:00

You'll have to excuse me for rambling about the Patriot Act again... but I just can't seem to hold it in.

How can people even consider the "Patriot Act" as constitutional? The Patriot Act has been the single greatest violation of our Constitution since its conception. At no other time has the government had the unchecked authority to, without any probable cause, read peoples' emails, spy on them, tap their phone lines, get into their personal records, and check their finances? Moreover, the government has thrown out Habeus Corpus, and is detaining men in Guantanamo Bay without a warrant, without a trial, and holding them indefinitely. That's a breach of the most basic freedoms all of those in American custody should have. Those are our unalienable rights. Think about what would happen if YOU were arrested on suspicion of terrorism. We've grown up taking comfort in the fact that our judicial system always considers you innocent until proven guilty, must have a warrant for arrest, must have probable cause to tip them off, and MUST guarantee you quick trial. We've always been assured that if we've been arrested for something we didn't do, we will have the chance to prove our innocence in court.

Not anymore.

The most basic, unalienable individual liberties you've known all your life can rightly be thrown away by the government at their discretion. Imagine that. And the advocates of "small government," Republicans, are backing this?! Not only does that transcend "small government," that flirts with a totalitarian police state.

"Patriot" Act?! Are you kidding me? Throwing out the Constitution is patriotism? Since when?!

Big Government Interference, Thanks to the... Republicans?

2008-07-05T16:07:00.001-07:00

"The government that governs least, governs best."

Sound familiar? It's a credo that Republicans have championed since the '30s. The GOP has long criticized the liberal platform's social programs, economic regulation, and tax increases for the wealthy as "big government" interference in our lives. Therefore, the Democrats must be in the wrong if they want to increase government presence in a country founded on the ideals of limited government. Common conservative complaints are that the government "shouldn't be able to tell me what to do", "shouldn't be taking my hard-earned money", or "shouldn't be rewarding lazy people with money for not working." Therefore, the conservative agenda wants to peel back economic restrictions, tax rates, and social programs.

Simply put, the most fundamental ideal of the modern day Republican party is to limit the power of the government and bolster individual liberties. Although Republicans trump this concept, it's a concept that all Americans believe in. As a country born out of tyrannical mistreatment from its mother country, Americans have an intimate commitment to liberty.

As much as FOX News would love for you to believe that all liberals are totalitarian communists, Democrats and Republicans alike both believe that the government who governs least, governs best. This may seem counter to the Democratic platform, but the discrepancies between the two parties merely lie in the question of how the government should go about preserving individual liberty. Democrats believe liberty is best preserved when powerful corporations don't monopolize markets and hurt consumers, money doesn't run Washington, the poor can afford to eat, corporations actually pay their fair share of taxes, and those making less money pay less taxes. While this does take effort by the government to ensure for the people, it is effort to maximize liberty, not effort to run our lives. Republicans, on the other hand, believe individual liberties are maximized when laws, restrictions, and all taxes, especially the wealthy's, are minimized.

We all agree that individual liberties are the most important thing that we have in America. However, it's the Republicans that take credit for this idea, and blast "big government" liberals. So why do they contradict their credo so many times?

I'm more liberal than I am conservative, and I agree that the government that governs least, governs best. All of the following statements, that I believe in, are backed by the Democratic party, not the liberty-trumping Republican party:

As much as I hate abortion, I believe that if you want to get one, the government should offer you a safe and legal alternative to a back-alley abortion.
I believe that if you want to share the legal benefits of marriage because you're in love, the government should not be able to tell you that you can't because your love is not really love.
I believe that if you're arrested the government should not be able to detain you without telling you why or having probable cause. They should not be able to detain you without guaranteeing you a speedy and fair trial. They should not be able to hold you indefinitely. They should not ever lift habeas corpus, unless in times of invasion (are we being invaded? or doing the invading?).
(Side Note: All four of those "shouldn't's" I just listed are declared illegal in the Constitution. And all four of them are currently being violated without repercussions by the Bush Administration at the prison system in Guantanamo Bay)
I believe that the government should not be able to search you, harm you, or otherwise humiliate you as security measures because of your skin color (see: post-9/11 security measures)
I believe we need to secure our borders, but I believe if you want to move to America, the government should not be able to tell you that you can't because too many others of your same race want to come too. I believe the naturalization process should be relatively simple if you've approached the system legally and have become a functioning, contributing member of society during your wait for citizenship.
I believe that the government should NOT have the unchecked authority to read anyone's emails, tap phone lines, access private records, or spy on them without strong, undeniably reasonable cause. Currently, they can, thanks to the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.
And, mostly, I believe the power of the government should never override the will of the people. Only 30% of the American population approve of President Bush's actions. That means that 70% of America, over 210 million people, aren't having their voices heard in our government. America was founded with a democracy so that there would be no divisions between the people and the government. Tyranny occurs when the will of the majority is opposed. Right now, the will of the majority faces opposition in the government.

I believe that the government that governs least, governs best. I believe that if we are to continue our founding fathers' promises and dreams of liberty in our country, we do have to enhance personal freedoms and diminish the influence of the government in our lives and personal choices. I believe government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people," as Abraham Lincoln said. The liberty of the individual should be great, and that the government must commit to protecting that freedom. The government should be dedicated to preserving individual liberty, because that's the will of not only the majority, but of the entire nation.

Conservative propaganda tells us that the Democrats are trying to uphold a failed, idealistic, even repulsive code of morality upon America with their support of gay rights, "pro-terrorist," and pro-choice stances. However, this is simply a code of liberty. It's the Republicans that are trying to uphold a dangerous code of "morality" by mistreating and/or neglecting prisoners, gays, women, immigrants, and the voice of the people. They are doing this because they believe doing so is in America's best interest. Since America was founded, restricting individual freedoms has never been in America's best interest. In fact, it's been quite the opposite. Isn't it that the government who governs least, governs best?

Thankfully, the presidential election is right around the corner. We, the people, have the chance to restore our natural liberties that have been violated, as well as our voices in our government. John McCain, being a Republican, has promised more of the same. However, Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, stands to diminish the presence of the government in our lives and bring back our unalienable freedoms.

Obama will close Guantanamo, restore Habeus Corpus, close corporate tax loopholes, uphold our pro-choice stance, throw out the Patriot Act, and bring back the civil liberties that the fear-mongering of the Bush administration has stifled. While it's easy to say that personal liberties should be rightly suppressed in times of war or terrorism, I just think about the unjust violation of my unalienable rights I would face if I were arrested on suspicion of terrorism. No warrant, and no trial... In the United States of America, the beacon of freedom and democracy in the world?

I think Barack Obama said it best when he said, on July 4th, 2008 in Montana that "it's right that we restore Habeus Corpus and close Guantanamo. We [would] send a message to the world that we stand for something here. Even when we're threatened. Even when it's hard."

If that doesn't give you a reason to vote for Barack Obama, I don't know what will.

Splash Up vs. Trickle Down: The Reconciliation of Regulation and the Free Market

2008-06-18T17:40:00.000-07:00

There's no doubt that the free market has been the source of America's economic success. Competition between producers creates quality goods at low prices, and keeps America's trademark economic freedom alive. However, there are instances when the free market fails and the government must step in.

The two economic extremes are simple: pure capitalism, in which everything is privatized, and pure socialism, in which everything is public. History shows us that neither one of these options maximize economic output or stability. The Gilded Age of America, between 1870-1910, is a perfect example of the disasters of pure capitalism. When the Industrial and Mechanization Revolutions took off after the Civil War, the government maintained its staunch laissez-faire policy and let business run rampant. Most industries boomed because of it, including railroads and oil. However, most of these industries were run by only a handful of proprietors, while the consumers at their monopolistic mercy sank below the poverty level in record numbers. In addition, the lack of regulations on industries such as food products made for low-quality, even dangerous goods. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle brought this to the public's attention with detailed accounts on how meat-packing plants often used rancid meat and factory rats in their products in order to maximize their profits. That's just the downfall of unbridled capitalism: companies will do anything to increase their profits. It's all fine and dandy when you have Apple and Microsoft competing to make the cheaper computer, but when health or well-being is involved, capitalism turns dangerous. In a true free market society, every company is in it for the money. In that case, what's going to keep the pizza place from using week-old meats to save the money from throwing it out? Who's going to make sure that your contractor doesn't cut corners to save money and end up building a house that's about to cave in? And, most recently, what's going to keep insurance companies from dumping customers because they got sick and drained the company's profit?

The polar opposite of capitalism, socialism, addresses these problems, but in doing so, shuns the free market. Sure, healthcare is available to everyone, and only premium ingredients are used in pizzas, but everything is owned by the government. No one can set up a neighboring pizza place to counter the other's high prices. In addition, for the man working in the pizza place, he will receive no extra money if he increases sales in his shop, leading him to remain indifferent to expanding his business and providing better goods. This is why socialism yields low-quality goods, and therefore, slouching economies. When something, anything, is completely in the hands of the government, not only does it kill the individual motivation to expand production, but it makes corruption very easy to occur.

Our two modern day parties are at a stalemate as to whether we should inject more capitalism or more socialism into our economy. Typically, Republicans favor loosening up business regulations to increase our economic freedom. In addition, Republicans favor a system of economics referred to as "trickle down," otherwise known as "Reaganomics." Trickle down economics refers to the belief that cutting taxes for the highest earners, and corporations, will result in more motivation to get rich, and more profit for large companies to use to expand their services and create more jobs. In essence, the Republican answer to poverty is to provide more motivation for poor people to work by letting corporations create more jobs, and by letting them keep their money when they get rich. From an economic standpoint, this makes sense. More jobs means a higher demand for workers. A higher demand for workers will create in a higher equilibrium wage for employees. This will get more people working and increase the standard of living.

In today's modern economic forum, Republicans are quick to label Democrats as neo-communists bent on destroying the free market. Democrats typically favor more government regulations on businesses, which many times runs counter to the free market. However, regulations on large corporations, monopolies, and oligopolies can keep an economy from running consumers into the ground. In addition, Democrats favor "splash up" economics, which consists of focusing their efforts on the poor to help solve poverty than the rich. Splash up economics, popular during the Clinton administration, increase taxes as income increases. This leaves the lower and middle class with small tax bills, but hits the rich with larger dues. This encourages the development of the middle class, and focuses the economy more on economic equality than economic freedom.

My economic beliefs stem from the idea that the free market should be the basis of our economy, with socialism injected in certain parts. I believe, since the idea of capitalism is competition, that the government should help to enforce competition and therefore lower prices for consumers.

Trickle down economics doesn't enforce competition. It only lets corporations keep their money to expand, and therefore control more of the market. However, Reaganomics does something important: providing jobs. But when it comes to competition, trickle down squelches it.

Splash up economics helps to enforce competition. By keeping big corporations from monopolizing or controlling markets, it strengthens the influence of the "little man," (small companies) in undermining corporations and driving down prices. In addition, when the poor have more money in their pockets, they can begin to work their way out of poverty by finding jobs or, more importantly, providing goods or services. If the lower class all began to say, work as contractors, it would greatly drive down the labor costs of construction. However, splash up economics limits corporate profits, therefore slowing growth.

A mix of these two stances would address each other's problems. Reaganomics, in moderation, would reenforce economic freedom, letting big companies keep more of their profits and therefore expand and provide more jobs. Splash up economics, in moderation, would empower the poor to work these new jobs, and let some challenge their prices by selling their own goods or services. Competition is still enforced, and job growth increases.

To further the spirit of competition, tax cuts for small businesses would leave them with more money to grow and compete with their larger counterparts. Taxing the big corporations more, but still not a LOT, would keep their power in check, keep them subjects to competition, but also allow them to continue to add jobs.

As for regulations, any industry that could involve health or well-being, which is most of them, should face strict safety regulations to make sure they provide consumers with safe, quality goods. Disease scares in produce and lead-tainted imports are all too common. However, once these goods are produced safely, their retail markets should face close to no regulation.

For example: there should be regulations on where one can cut trees, how many they can cut, and safety procedures they must follow. However, when these boards make it to the lumberyard, the lumberyard should be able to compete freely without interference with the lumberyard across town. Putting a price floor or ceiling on lumber, for example, is unnecessary and hurts competition. Regulation should only be used at the manufacturing stage to ensure that the drive for profit doesn't translate into dangerous goods.

Healthcare involves health and well-being, and thus should be under strict regulation. Healthcare has been one of the downfalls of the free market in America. When continuing to insure a sick person is seen as a financial drain, instead of a civic duty, something must change. While there is little economic incentive to insure the sick, I believe healthcare providers should receive government incentives, should as tax cuts or subsidies, for insuring those whose lives would otherwise be seen as a budget expense. I believe that one's well-being should never be an economic decision, as pure capitalism would have it be.

In addition, when there's no community cohesion, such as in pure capitalism, the country cannot respond to a threat that requires unity and cooperation. For example, if the people decide that America needs to cut carbon emissions to address global warming, they can. They can voice their opinions to the government, who would then use money (since that's the incentive) to motivate companies to reduce emissions. For example, if the government offers money to corporations that cut their carbon emissions, they will, because they want the money. That, in itself, is the ideal vision of a reconciliation between a money-driven economy and the will of the people as a whole.

If we can use a capitalism-based economy and correctly inject socialist aspects in certain areas, we will create the strongest economy the world has seen, that still provides safe, quality goods at low prices and uses the power of our corporations to carry out the will of the people to an incredible extent.