...To Fly Like Daedalus...

See Clearly & Seek Earnestly

2008-07-06T12:26:00.001-07:00

My prose is adapted from a sermon based on Matthew 6:25-34 delivered by Mark Booker, at the Church of the Resurrection, on 6/29/08. Audio here.

Is Christianity like a release form that we sign merely for our security, and then tuck away into the recesses of our mind as a policy against harm? Do we only pull it out when anxiety strikes? We are all anxious people -- it's a part of humanity. But Jesus said, on the Sermon of the Mount, to not be anxious. It's so much a part of us, though, that we often have to wonder how it's possible to change that. This is a call from Jesus to live differently than we do in other ways, for he calls us out of this anxious, stressful life into a life of peace.

Anxiety is a state of mind that arises from a perceived, or even an actual, need that we may not be able to get. Food, drinks, and clothing were not remotely guaranteed for people in Biblical times, which is why Christ spoke about those. But what is that most worries us? Is it whether or not to have a Diet Coke or a regular Coke? Is it whether or not we should drive to the movies instead of taking our cars? We live in an era of affluence, but we still have these little tics of uncertainty for things over which we have no control. This leads us to fear, which drives us to seek a frenzied solution -- an event which can then consume our lives. Or, we can simply become paralyzed by this fear. In either situation, our needs become our masters and our gods. And the Lord becomes relegated to a means to an end. We become a black hole of needs, living out of fear, and we can thus be neither the salt nor the light that we ought to be to the world.

Jesus says, though, that this uneasiness of mind is both futile (v. 27) and wasteful (25). We miss out on this life if we're constantly worried about it. Moreover, it shows that we forget that our sovereign God is in absolute control over all things (30), even the little sparrow that has fallen from its nest and the gorgeous lilies sprouting from the fields. Failing to trust Him and being anxious about things betrays a denial of that which we profess to be true. We aren't cosmic orphans, but are God's adopted children! Those who do not profess to be followers of Jesus may have every need to be anxious because they do not know God and have to fend for themselves. They do not have a heavenly father on whom to rely!

So, even knowing all of this, why are we always anxious? Unbelief, plain and simple. We compartmentalize, obscure, forget, and relegate God. But He's not willing to be any of those! Jesus wants to demolish our idols and make us his. He exposes our unbelief in this passage form Matthew and gives us a simple, time-tested remedy: Faith. We can't just exhort ourselves to have more faith, though, but we have to see God clearly and seek him earnestly. Jesus reveals God and directs our pursuits in this passage. We constantly forget God, failing to see him.

We look at God as if he's a campfire, nice and toasty, when, in reality, he is the Sun. Jesus reveals that God provides for his creation. Exhibit A: the sparrows and the lilies. God is not stingy! He clothes the flowers more magnificently than Solomon ever dressed! Moreover, God values us highly. Jesus rhetorically asked if we weren't more valuable than the grass which is thrown into the over. We're not expendable, and he will ever provide for us! We know the value of things by what we pay for them. We thus know our value to God because of the price that he paid for us -- that of his son. Nothing can or should stop our anxiety more than this fact!

Jesus also reveals that God knows our needs (33). Jesus is redirecting our pursuits to the God that he is revealing in Scripture. Only he can satisfy our deepest needs. We know that our needs will be met when we seek after his words. But seeking him and seeing him are intricately related. As we seek him, we will find him. C.S. Lewis writes that if we aim for heaven, we will get the earth thrown in, but if we only reach for the earth, we'll get neither. We have to seek God and he will fill our needs. But we can't seek him merely for that fact: that's idolatry. Seeking something is giving it your full attention. Many of us set God as our highest affection, but we are distracted early in the pursuit and then fall away.

When we have our eyes set continually on God, though, we will be so invigorated, so passionate, so seeking as never before. The peace of God will guard our hearts and our minds, and we will seek him in reckless abandon, thoroughly put off from all of the anxiety and hurt that so easily entangled us previously.

Towards a more Healthy Nation?

2008-05-29T10:54:00.000-07:00

The Obama Campaign today released a statement from the candidate's doctor briefly detailing the health of the front runner for the the Democratic nomination for president. Here is a link to the New York Times' article explaining this, which also contains a download to the physician's letter.

Dr. David L Scheiner, of Hyde Park Associates in Medicine, said that Obama has had regular check ups, no major health problems and intermittent issues with smoking. He has "quit this practice on several occasions," Scheiner wrote, "and is currently using Nicorette gum with success." On his ability to run for President, he wrote, "Senator Barack Obama is in overall good physical and mental health needed to maintain the resiliency required in the office of President."

All of this is unspectacular. Obama is in good health. Great. He can maintain the office. Great. There are no serious problems. Great. So why did he have to release this information?

Some say that presidential candidates ought to release serious medical issues prior to their run. Woodrow Wilson suffered a large stroke in 1919, but had never released information that he had experienced several strokes before that, according to historian Robert Gilbert, in a LiveScience piece. This lack of disclosure was a "disenfranchisement of the American people," according to philosopher Robert Streiffer, as quoted in the same article.

I agree that disclosure ought to be made to the electorate if a candidate has a history of medical issues. John McCain, who survived a bout with melanoma, released a portion of his medical records for this very purpose -- to show that he is now free of cancer and in a healthy enough state to run the nation. That's understandable.

But now, we get a single page saying that Obama is in good health, and not even background evidence showing this. I wonder if, in this whole, crazy, highly-politicized environment in which we now find ourselves, this is even necessary. He had no significant health issues in the past, so we know he is not going to pull a Wilson on us.

Don't get me wrong. This is not a critique on Obama -- in our political environment, he had to release his data just because McCain did. He cannot possibly be one-upped by the Republican. I'm questioning the necessity of public officials releasing their medical condition if they are indeed in good health.

It's too bad that the public trust isn't trusting enough in this case.

Emil: From Another Place

2008-05-25T14:08:00.000-07:00

This was a project that James Neuendorf and I did for the photojournalism section of the World Journalism Institute. We interviewed Emil, a sketch artist in Central Park. I hope you enjoy it.

Click here to view it.

Why Microfinancing

2008-05-21T11:28:00.000-07:00

The issue of microfinancing is one on which I think many people can agree. So many political campaigns are driven by the idea of eradicating poverty - but the majority of them merely drone with the same ideas of redistributing wealth, funneling money into a bureaucratic system, and giving to people on welfare rolls who have no incentive to do any better.

But microfinancing is different. It allows individuals to help out other people who are in need, and it has a proven track record in doing this. Starting with Mohammed Yunus’ work in Bangladesh, and continuing today with organizations such as Microfinancing Partners in Africa, Jamii Bora, Opportunity International, and Kiva.org, thousands of lives have been transformed through the donation of millions of dollars.

And it’s easy to become a part of it! I could go right now to Kiva.org and select an entrepreneur whose story resonates with me. A small loan of $25 gives them the opportunity to open a store, establish a restaurant, or purchase supplies for their farms. Sr. Toni has shown this to us.

I think it’s a great way for Christians to help spread what so many term “the social gospel.” We are so wealthy, so privileged, and we should be using our blessings to help others. I wholeheartedly believe that this is not to be done through the government, but through our giving to churches, worthy organizations, and needy individuals. By helping people in this way, we can be partners in, for instance, helping to lift a Kenyan women out of poverty. A small loan can help her buy more potatoes, which, when this turns a profit, can help her buy more potatoes and eventually a small table to make a shop.

Current Interest: Microfinancing (It's not Charity. It's Credit)

2008-05-20T23:12:00.000-07:00

The idea of microfinancing -- where a small loan is given to an aspiring entrepreneur to help jump start their rise from poverty -- is highly intriguing to me. I'd love to continue learning about it, and I'd like to share some of my initial thoughts in what is sure to be a continuing theme.

Coming up, I'll be exploring trends which allow a person like me to give directly to an entrepreneur of my choosing. I'll also look at it, hopefully, as an investment with a Christian perspective.

I had the privilege to attend a screening for a short documentary on a woman who works with a microfinancing organization in Kenya. Here are some of my thoughts on that:

When Sister Toni Temporiti needed a long break from the doldrums of her work in America, she took a much-needed and refreshing sabbatical in Africa.

Little did she know that she would soon become a part of a global trend that has large influence through small actions.

She and her fellow travelers traveled by bus down the Western coast of Africa, from Cairo, Egypt, to Cape Town, South Africa. At night, they pitched tents on the vast African plains and started a fire for food and warmth. As they supped around their campsite, women from local villages would congregate with them. There, she heard their stories of destitute life, of joyful families, and of lofty dreams. For some, this was to find a way to use their strong, entrepreneurial work ethic.

“I would listen to the women’s stories about their children and what they dreamt about,” Temporiti said in a documentary film about her work. “Through reflection I realize that it was in the women – the African women – around the campfire that I met my grandmother.”

Temporiti’s grandmother took a small loan to open a grocery store after her husband died, leaving her with ten children. Through her grandmother’s strength, she said she saw her family stay together. She saw the same strength in the Kenyan women.

But she saw that they were joyful – and needy. When she returned to St. Louis, she realized that she could help them for less than the cost of the sandwich she was eating. That is, all they needed was a small business loan.

Temporiti knew that a small loan, combined with the fortitude and hard work of the African women, could help to support them. It would allow them to rise out of their destitute poverty and live comfortably.

A woman can take a small loan, for example, to buy a few potatoes. As seen on the microfinancing documentary “Invest in Us,” she sells her product, makes a profit and repays her loan. She is then free to borrow more money, buy more potatoes at wholesale prices and continue the cycle. Eventually, she can move her place of business from a burlap sack on the dirty street to a table under a canopy. She has thus moved from destitution to being a prosperous entrepreneur with a shop front.

After seeing the value of microfinancing, Temporiti began a partnership with Ingrid Munro, who founded Jamii Bora, a microfinancing organization started in Kenya to help finance local entrepreneurs living desperately in the slums of Nairobi. Munro started with 50 Kenyan women, she said in a documentary film, “Invest in Us.” Jamii Bora, which means “Good Family” in Swahili, offers health and life insurance, as well as social support, in addition to the cash loans.

As one Kenyan in the film, working her way out of poverty, said, “Today, I am a life.”

When Temporiti saw the value in this, she formed Microfinancing Partners in Africa (MPA), a non-profit corporation in America. MPA exists, as their website says, to “provide grants for the strengthening and expansion of microfinancing programs that empower Africa’s poorest of the poor to lift themselves out of poverty with dignity through access to financial services and to education.”

After this company was founded, Temporiti went on a trip to Africa to see the results of her endeavor. She said at a screening for the documentary on May 18, “I came back so hopeful and so energized.”

Her excitement came from seeing “people whose lives were changed by credit,” she said, “not charity.”

That's Right...Fight Amongst Yourselves

2008-05-20T07:10:00.000-07:00

::edit:: Well, so far I was wrong with KY. Clinton more than won by the odds I predicted. I also recognize that my math was slightly off. Perhaps the Democratic delegate allocation is more complicated than I thought...We'll see how the rest of the night goes soon...

Today could be make-or-break day for Hilary Clinton. She is clearly behind in the delegate race, due to the sharp swing of super delegates to Barack Obama over the past couple of weeks. In fact, she’s gone from up about 20 a couple of weeks ago, to now being down 25.

But she is currently flying high in Kentucky, whose primary election is today. Her Real Clear Politics average puts her up 29 points, with other recent polls ranging from +25 to +36% above Obama.

Kentucky is a 51-delegate state, and it is a closed primary. Sorry those of you trying to participate in Rush Limbaugh’s Operation: Chaos, but you can’t swing this one even more in Clinton’s favor. I predict that Clinton will win with 26.4% of the vote, giving her approximately 37 of the delegates from the state, to Obama’s 14.

On the other hand, Oregon is also having its primary vote today, and Clinton is kind of floundering there. Over the past 10 days, Oregon's Real Clear Politics average puts Obama up +12%, with a spread from +5 to +20% above Clinton.

Oregon, likewise, is a closed primary, with 52 delegates up for grabs. Obama will definitely win this primary, and I predict it will be by 9.4%. This gives him 32 delegates, to Clinton’s 21.

At the end of the day, this gives Clinton a net gain of 58 delegates and Obama a gain of 46. Even if my percentages are a few points off, these numbers won’t change by more than 4 or 5 in either direction, I’m sure.

This puts Obama at 1656 pledged delegates, and Clinton at 1501.

Apparently, Obama is ready to announce that he has the majority of pledged delegates. And Clinton is claiming that she is winning in the popular vote.

They will continue to fight. She won’t back down, even in the face of ever-increasing odds.

So, as John McCain said, “That’s right. Fight amongst yourselves.”

I'm good with that.

Brightening Manhattan Nights

2008-05-17T14:35:00.000-07:00

Shining from the seventy-second floor of the Empire State Building and rising to the tip of the towering spire, hundreds of lights illuminate the top tier of New York’s most famous office building.

From May 16 to 18, these lights will, for the first time in history, light the building in two different color schemes for the final subway series between the New York Mets and the New York Yankees in their current stadiums. Each team’s colors will occupy two sides of the building – blue/white/blue for the Yankees and blue/orange/blue for the Mets. On May 19, all four sides will be lit for the winner of the series.

This is, of course, a matter of personal pride for every New Yorker, as each has a team that he supports wholeheartedly. To see the display of a favorite team’s colors on the Empire State Building will be a perfect extra dose to an already-euphoric delight in victory.

The lighting personnel normally light one color scheme on any given night. White is the standard color, but there are myriad other palettes, which range from solid green for St. Patrick’s Day, to lavender/pink/white for the release of the latest Mariah Carey album. The current lighting system is not the original one, however, and the history of this system is quite fascinating.

The first functional light on the Empire State Building, according to its website, was a searchlight beacon put in place in November 1932, to announce the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt as the new President. Lights on the building have been used for special events and holidays ever since. In 1956, the building placed four spotlights on a revolving circuit; each light was five feet in diameter and weighted one ton. Since they could be seen up to 300 miles away by air, they were a grand welcome to America for many immigrants and a symbol of hope for the post-war nation.

When the building added full floodlights in 1964, the top 30 floors of the Empire State Building were fully bathed in light, making the building a full-fledged national landmark at the beginning of the World’s Fair in New York. Color was added to the lights in 1976, and the building was lit in red, white and blue for the bicentennial anniversary of America.

In 1977, the color schemes were updated with the introduction of plastic gels that could fit over the floodlights that illumine the uppermost portion of the building. Finally, the system was updated in 1984 to allow for the illumination of the mooring mast, as well as the ring on the uppermost portion of the building spine. Potential innovations for the future include the use of LED lights instead of the floodlights, as reported by the New York Times last year.

The lighting system of the Empire State Building instills patriotism, spurs remembrance, and encourages celebration. It literally brightens up the nights in Manhattan, emanating a dazzling glow from the crown jewel in the city’s skyline

Oh, to write like Gay Talese

2008-05-17T14:34:00.000-07:00

When it comes to the form of literary journalism that uses vivid description and gorgeous prose, few are more accomplished than Gay Talese. His writing captures the most minute little details while engaging the reader with a brilliant story rife with emotions. This literary style, pioneered by Talese as a reporter for The New York Times, is arguably found at its height in his 1966 Esquire article, entitled “Frank Sinatra Has a Cold.”

The essay begins in media res, or in the middle of things (edit: Thanks, Molly). This is a typical element of this so-called school of New Journalism that helps to set the tone of the piece that the reader is about to enjoy. For this particular essay, he sets the tone of Sinatra’s attitude and idiosyncrasies by detailing an event that happened in a smoky barroom over a game of billiards. Sinatra becomes angered with a man for no apparent reason and picks a fight, thus displaying his temper. Talese also shows Sinatra’s worry over a cold that would affect his voice in an upcoming concert – which later causes his temper to come out strongly again.

Talese’s literary style, wit, and beautiful language are wonderful examples for writers. He tells a story—literally painting with words on a canvas of the story, with brush strokes of rhythm and color. As a writer, I am captivated by it and found myself reading incessantly. I can only hope to match it someday.

Human Nature, The Rwandan Genocide, and Philip Gourevitch

2008-05-17T14:31:00.000-07:00

This essay is based on Gourevitch's book about stories from Rwanda, called, We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will be Killed with our Families.

Human nature is an interesting thing. We have insatiable lusts for various vices, such as violence. These vices, moreover, are things that we know we should not sate; rather, we should disdain them. Philip Gourevitch, in his journalistic memoir of the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda, speaks frequently about this idea of human nature.

In Plato’s Republic, Gourevitch points out, Leonitus is strongly averse to a pile of stinking, rotting corpses on the side of the road, yet he gives into the desire to view these bodies and feasts on death through his eyes. We see the same thing in Augustine’s Confessions: Alypius, Augustine’s young friend, struggles with blood lust. He attempts to avert his gaze in the Coliseum during a contest, but he peeks through his fingers and thus satiates his desire to see violence and blood. He cannot restrain his innate human desires.

Gourevitch mentions exactly this as he discusses the genocide committed by the Hutu against the Tutsi. As a journalist, he is drawn, in a rather macabre fashion, to this story – it is in his human nature. In his travels all over the country of Rwanda, he is continually reminded of this.
He also reminds us of the fact that this type of genocide is by no means constrained to any particular global region. Indeed, Germany was once considered a bastion for order and poise before the Nazi party. We must never think we are above this, and we, as journalists, must be constantly aware of our natural impulses and tame them for our writing.

Finding Security in Cynthia Ozick's "The Shawl"

2008-05-17T14:30:00.000-07:00

Throughout Cynthia Ozick’s short story, “The Shawl,” I see the titular object as a symbolic element that acts as a shelter for those who possess it. The young infant Magda is carried to a Nazi Concentration camp in a prisoners’ march, but within the shawl, she is “a squirrel in a nest, safe, no one could reach her…” Even when the entire world around the shawl is literally headed toward bleak death, she safely rests in a pocket of comfort and safety. In the barracks of the concentration camp, the shawl continues to act as her sanctuary, hiding her amidst the muck and the mire of her atrocious surroundings. She can even use the shawl as a form of sustenance when her mother’s milk has run dry. The folds of this fortress shield young Magda from the brutality surrounding her.

And yet, as much protection as the shawl can afford to offer, it is not quite enough. She is still attacked by bedbugs. She must still suffer in the squalor of the barracks. And, when the shawl is stolen from her, Magda runs out of the barracks to her doom.

Every child has a security blanket. I wonder what I still try to cling to in order to maintain my own security. It could be family, or even friends. These things can be safe and healthy, but I need to make sure that I am not so tied to them that I rely entirely on them for my safety.

Thoughts on William Faulkner's "The Bear"

2008-05-17T14:27:00.000-07:00

William Faulkner’s famed short story, “The Bear,” details the coming of age of a young hunter who must learn his way through the expansive woods and grapple with the qualities and values necessary for this chosen life. In his attempts to track and kill Old Ben, a bear that has lived in the woods for years, he learns the value of humility and patience in his attempts to get the perfect shot.

While these are valuable lessons for anyone – especially journalists – to learn, I was struck by an event that happened several times throughout the story. In the boy’s first hunting expedition, he is sitting on his tree platform, and he can feel the eyes of the bear on him, even though he never heard the bear come near. Later, one of the hunting dogs, Lion, started emptily at the boy, though the narrator tells us, “He knew it was not looking at him and never had been.” The role of these piercing gazes, where the boy perceives no clear sense of origin or meaning, chilled me.

I think that looking deeply at something requires meaning and purpose. As a journalist, I would never want a subject of a story of an interviewee to feel as if I am gazing past them or not paying them any attention. I want to be purposeful and direct in my methods and intentional in my relationships, even with someone who I am quickly interviewing for a story.

A Chance for Clinton?

2008-04-27T12:29:00.000-07:00

Jonathan V. Last, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, made an interesting observation, and crafted a helpful analogy today about the race, er, fight for the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

Hillary Clinton has, with the inclusion of the Florida and Michigan votes, more votes in the national popular vote than Barack Obama does. Moreover, including those two states, she has the most votes ever won by anyone in a primary race.

Many have said that Obama is bringing in the youth vote, through his popular Barack-star and other campaigns. He is lauded as invigorating the nation to get out and vote for a charismatic figure. But then, why is he not winning the popular vote? He may be bringing out younger voters in droves, but that needs to be compared to the number of voters total -- and Clinton is, so far, winning on that count. By 121,783 votes, to be precise (.4% of the total).

Last's analogy was regarding the superdelegates for the Democratic Party. They are not jurors who watch evidence being presented to them and casting their vote to the lawyer who persuades them the most. Instead, they are like the College of Cardinals who go into conclave to select the Pope.

While their choice will be based on their opinions of the candidates, there are no rules or codes that dictate who their choice absolutely must be. They could go into conclave, as Last puts it, and decide to give the nomination to Obama because of the inspiration and invigoration which he brings to the party.

But they could also give the nomination to Clinton. Remember how she's winning the popular vote, and how she has the most votes ever in a primary? This is a fact which the supers cannot and will not let go unnoticed. If she continues in this vein, with a strong showing in the popular vote, then those who choose the president will not be able to look solely at the number of pledged delegates from the states.

That would be disenfranchising voters from Michigan and Florida, wouldn't it? Their votes can't count by party rules in the pledged totals, but they can still be reflected in the superdelegates' choices.

A few more scandals from Obama, a strong showing in a debate from Clinton, and a maintaining of the trend of votes in the last few primaries. These are the hopes that Clinton still has. And, honestly, I'm hoping for her.

Thoughts from an Italian Barber

2008-04-25T06:21:00.000-07:00

On Friday, April 25, a verdict was handed down by a New York City judge in a case that has been controversial and the cause of unrest for 17 months. In November, 2006, Sean Bell, on the night before his marriage, was shot and killed by three police officers after he resisted their efforts to stop his driving away from the nightclub in which he was celebrating his bachelor party.

Around 9:15 this morning, Justice Cooperman, presiding over a bench case, or one without a jury, handed down verdicts of not guilty on all charges on Officers Gescard Ignora, Michael Oliver, and Marc Cooper.

The shooting in November '06 sparked much outrage in the African-American community and was deemed another in a series of cops showing racial bias in their actions.

When the verdict was read, I was sitting in a small barbershop across the street from my Manhattan apartment. The barbershop is owned by several Italian immigrants. As I was sitting patiently under the shears of Emmanuel, I was "privileged" to hear his take on the case.

"The blacks don't do anything for this country," he said. Then he went on to list several offenses of theirs, such as stocking the rolls of welfare too highly, not finding jobs when they are on welfare, complaining about jobs when they have "95% of city jobs," having children like rabbits, and so on.

I had several different strains of thought coming from this, so I'd like to share a couple in closing.

1) Yes, welfare is bad. It pays people to stay home. It needs to be reformed. I can go into this another time.

2) I defended the African-American population. He said they did "nothing" and asked me to name one thing. So I listed the accomplishment of George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, Harlem Jazz, and a litany of solid contributions to our nation. After hearing these, we were content to agree that Al Sharpton is not a good element in our society.

Other thoughts, things I'd like to explore in the future, are the attitudes of immigrants when they see a population demanding welfare, yet not working for it. I'm also curious to see how the post-decision attitude is toward the Bell case. Cops are currently placed around the city to handle any "unrest."

The events of this morning caused a flurry of thoughts in my mind. While they won't have the disastrous effects of dozens of bullets flying pell-mell through Queens, I hope that they help to broaden my horizons from my little Midtown bubble.

To Death with Earmarks

2007-12-09T23:38:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, during the Republican Presidential Debate (videos can be found on youtube), the candidates began debating government spending, its ever-growing debt, and the need for reform. While each had different policies and means of going about this, they all tended to agree on one thing: massive reductions on--or completely cutting out--earmark spending.

Our Congress spends billions of dollars in earmarks every year. We only need to look at several examples included in recently passed bills to see the frivolous spending that lawmakers want to charge to taxpayers. For instance, according to a wasteful spending watch group “Citizens Against Government Waste” (CAGW), one lawmaker wanted to spend $1.19 billion on out-of-date F-22 fighter jets, when less-costly alternatives are available. Another lawmaker wanted to spend $1 million to help search for extraterrestrials.

Through these and other pork barrel projects, the CAGW found $29 billion in earmarks in 2006. This potentially irresponsible spending happens because lawmakers seem to think that they have unlimited jurisdiction over taxpayers’ pocketbooks. We the people are not an endless stream of revenue for the government. We the people are not merely an ATM from whom the government can repeatedly withdraw.

One of the biggest problems with earmarking is that office holders squeeze their projects into larger budgets where they do not fit, such as the Defense Bill or the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) Bill. As important as studying the behavior of marine mammals may be to some taxpayers, it has nothing to do with national defense. Thus, it does not belong in the Defense Appropriation Bill. Additionally, allocating money for a railroad between two rural Alaskan towns to a House Defense bill has nothing to do with national defense. That state or local government should be responsible for allocating funds for this project.

Democratic Representative Rahm Emanuel said that American people “deserve earmark reform that puts an end to special interest earmarking and provides solutions to prevent the practice of earmark abuse.” We the people are not a pork mine. Indeed, we the people ought to be the watchdogs of government spending, ensuring that they do not carelessly fritter away our hard-earned dollars. Until there is a basic reform in Congressional spending, they will continue to delve more deeply into our gold mine and stake larger claims to our money. We must stand against that.

2007-11-25T06:15:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the negative campaigning currently happening in American politics, especially from Rudy Giuliani and many of the Democratic candidates against Hillary Clinton. The trend is that those who are running for an elected office do not promote themselves or their policies, but rather focus on why they are are better than the other candidates. The result: shallow, issue-less politics, leading to negativity and cynicism toward the political system.

In September, I bookmarked an article from the New York Times for no real reason. It talked about Ronald Reagan and a bit about statesmanship. Little did I know how perfectly it would mesh with my previous post (as well as several papers I've written in the last few weeks).

The article (which I just now realized is from a book that I simply must pick up) is written by Kiron Skinner of Carnegie Mellon, Serhiy Kudelia of Johns Hopkins, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita of New York University, and Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State. It is called "Politics at the Water's Edge" and focuses on this same trend of negativity that I've been writing on.

They look at Reagan's 1980 run against Jimmy Carter and see that could have used negative campaigning and slurred Carter's name. Instead, "Mr. Reagan's masterstroke was to present himself as a man of peace." He wanted the people of America to see that he really desired the disarmament of the Soviet Union, along with peace with the nation. But he would not do this if it led to humility and surrender--this is what made him the brilliant statesman we see him as today.

He changed the debate (while seeking office) from how to coexist with the Soviet Union to how to defeat them peacefully. And he did this through positive campaigning, focused on domestic issues, not on negative slandering of his candidates. The authors put it best when they say:

A politician following Mr. Reagan’s model for campaigning would engage in almost a positive method of negative campaigning. There is no need to slur the opponent’s character or good intentions, nor even the opponent’s competence to manage affairs as conventionally understood. Rather, the candidate highlights the inadequacy of the rival’s understanding of what the real problems are.

It is my hope that, eventually, campagining won't be so negative. I hope that we get to see what the candidates think about isues. Not only what they think about themselves. Slandering others will never win my vote. Showing that your plan is more adequate is so much more important.

What Would You Do For A Klondike Bar?

2007-11-18T20:33:00.000-08:00

A story released this week showed the respect--or lack thereof--for elections among college students. 66% of NYU students surveyed said that they'd relinquish their right to vote in 2008 if they received a full year's tuition. 20% said they'd give it up for an iPod touch.

For me, the most disappointing is that 50% said that they would give up their vote for life for a mere $1,000,000. This shows a sheer disregard for the right to vote that took years of fighting, years of legislating to receive. It shows a lack of knowledge of the fundamentals of this democratic republic.

Sure, one individual vote might not make a statical difference. But it's the principle behind the issue that really bugs me.

Voting is the one voice that a citizen has. It enables him to choose Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, and dozens of state and local officials. It is the way we can make a difference in our nation. Selling it is like, well, in the Little Mermaid, when Ariel sells her voice to Ursula. She can dance around and look pretty...but her person is taken away.

How to Negate the Negative -or- Bringing Positive Campaigns Back

2007-11-09T06:47:00.001-08:00

It is incredibly interesting to me how almost all of politics in the President '08 cycle is done through the negative campaigning style. The Republican candidates -- especially Rudy Giuliani -- focus on why they are better candidates than Hillary (assuming that she will win without a single primary over yet). And they spend very little time actually talking about their policies or stances on issues.

In fact, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post, says Giuliani is turning "the Republican primary into a choice of which candidate is best able to keep Clinton out of the White House."

The problem with this is that it leads to cynicism and negativity in the voters, especially whey they see such rampant trivialization of issues that matter to them. Mitt Romney's campaign decried this position, refuting the idea of staking an entire campaign on electibility. Kevin Madden, Romney's spokesman, says that this is entirely unneeded "when Republican voters are yearning for ideas."

Much of this epidemic in modern politics is a result of "media politics" that has developed over the past century. Instead of journalists reporting what campaigns were doing in a time when political parties did most of the campaign work, journalists now try to make their voices heard with sensational news, politicans design newsworth "spin," and citizens just want to know the basics without all the trivilization. John Zuller writes a whole book of media politics theory that details all of this.

Romney's campaign actually has the right idea, at least in theory. The goal for candidates ought to be to persuade voters that they have the best stance on an issue, and they should do this through persuading the people with pertinent ideas. Not slamming other candidates.

SCHIP happens

2007-10-19T08:11:00.000-07:00

Rich Lowry, of RealClearPolitics, makes an interesting point about SCHIP and the new direction which liberals (and conservatives) are taking health care. He writes,

Few things are as destructive of good public policy as outraged
invocations of the "children.

And invoking the children is exactly what the Democrats pushing for SCHIP are
doing. They want to extend coverage to more and more children, farther from the boundary line of up to 200% above the Poverty Line. Now, helping children is of course a social good, but socialized medicine is not. Lower income families need a safety net to catch them in emergency or dire medical situations. They don't need a net that it drawing closer to them, threatening to entangle them in socialized health care.

SCHIP is no longer about "the poor kids."

The Federal Government is already giving $3 for every $1 that the states provide toward health care, which is encouraging the states to extend this aid to more people, further from the poverty line. Doing this, Lowry shows, is crowding out more children and families to accept helath care. Indeed, for every 100 children who take aid from SCHIP, 50 children are not being covered in with private insurance. He calls this the first step toward national health care coverage for children. Who knows, maybe it will soon extend to adults as well.

Helping children receive adequate health care is a clear necessity, but thinning the pool of those with private health care -- drawing us closer to socialized medicine -- is not the right place to do it. Rather, the government should focus on reaching kids who cannot afford health care and pouring the extra money ($35 billion over 5 years) into children who legitimately cannot afford care. Let those who can afford it get the better coverage from a private insurer.

It's time to stop using Federal funds as a means for political growth. Even worse, they should stop using children as an excuse for writing poor public policy.

An Ongoing Aristorcracy?

2007-10-05T10:46:00.000-07:00

Two major institutions posted editorials and opninons on this topic today, so I felt that I would chime in with my two cents. Both The Economist and Peggy Noonan of the Opinion Jounal (WSJ) feel that the continuing trend in the White House of Bush...Clinton...Bush... and the addition of perhaps another Clinton is not acceptable.

If Hillary is elected, that's 24 years of two families in the executive branch of this nation's leadership. 28 years if she is re-elected.

In The Economist article, Ready to Run the Movie Again?, the author describes the Bush/Clinton continuum as a dynasty that Americans are complacently accept. They claim that we should not be, and I wholeheartedly agree. It shows--especially to foreign nations--that we are fine with the power of politics being held in a few hands. As the author says, "One of the virtues of the American political system is that it is supposed to produce shake-ups whenever a new president takes over. Mrs Clinton will bring back the same cast of characters that everybody wearied of in the 1990s..."

One of the reasons that America becmae a democratic republic was so that aristocracy in the government would be muted. We should not have only a few families controlling government; rather, we should let those with natural talents and virtue win the vote from the people (as Thomas Jefferson called them: the natural aristoi).

And as Peggy Noonan says, the Bush and Clinton families are turning into machines that are tapped into all kinds of wealth and governmental elite positions. The country needs change. Having the same people in government with the same rotating sets of ideas and goals will not bring this change.

Barack Obama, an '08 hopeful, says the Bushes and the Clintons "continuing the 20-year hold on the White House of the same two families is not my idea of change." Someone needs to bring fresh ideas, fresh policies, and fresh rhetoric to the table. It could be Obama. It could be Thompson. Or Giuliani, Romney, or Kucinich. I don't know yet what I want.

But I do know what I don't want.

2007-09-21T05:59:00.000-07:00

Joel Belz, founder of World Magazine, wrote an interesting commentary in the 9/22 issue of said magazine. Entitled "Dysfunctional Hill," he makes the point that we see the Iraqi parliament "paralyzed by partisan ideology and strife."

But how different is the American government?

Sure, we are not radical in our religious ideas or murderous in our zeal for following them. However, Belz points out that our legislative process has been as productive as theirs in producing good, solid law. Or rather, as unproductive. In fact, Iraq's passing 11 out of 18 standards seems to me a far better score than Congress' 18% approval rating, according to last weeks' Gallup poll. Belz wants to know which government is really dysfunctional: the Iraqi or the American.

I want to understand why the American government is in such dire straits. As a citizen, I must agree with what the elections gave us, but somehow we the people voted officials into office that now only 18% of us approve.

Part of the problem must be with the clear partisan divide in both Houses of Congress. It seems that each side is merely battling the other in political maneuvers instead of really trying to strengthen this nation. I love America. Truly. But I hate the divided political nature of it, but I guess that's the natural progression of a democracy.

This feeling is quite similar to that which George Washington expressed in his Farewell Address:

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to
you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real
independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of
your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize.

Unity of government is dear to us. It is the main pillar of our independence. For this nation to continue to prosper, we must put aside at least some of our paralysis by partisan ideology. How to do this is another story, but for now, we must at least recognize that there is a problem.

Happy Constitution Day!

2007-09-17T17:52:00.000-07:00

220 years ago today, the Constitution of the United States of America, was signed. And I didn't hear a single person mention anything about it--even in a politics class on the Constitution...

...Until Ron Paul sent me an e-mail telling me how every day is Constitution Day for him.

[David, this isn't a blog post for the week, unless it really would merit 4 points ; ) ]

What, are we Children Again?

2007-09-06T22:35:00.000-07:00

When I was a young child, my parents would--rightly so--take me to the doctor. I would kick and scream all the way, dreading the poking, prodding, and pricking the doctors would do. Most people hate shots, but what scared me even more was that tool they put in my ear to see the canal. It cause some sort of pressure, and I just sat there, whimpering.

Of course, I can handle it today when I take myself to the doctor. But now, according to Amy Lorentzen of the Washington Post, presidential candidate John Edwards wants to mandate that every American go to his doctor. He says his plan will "cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care," but this really makes me wonder:

Since when have we, as Americans, ever wanted to be forced to do anything? Universal health coverage is one thing, but Edwards just took this to a whole new level.

Sure, going to the doctor is good. Going regularly is even better. A once a year checkup is natural and healthy. Early signs of disease may be found, but even if they aren't, you still have a great feeling about yourself.

But Edwards wants to force us to go. Oh, I would go, no doubt. But there is something in me that detests the idea that I am going to be forced to go to the doctor again, like I've gone back to preschool again.

In fact, Edwards said, about his plan, "The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death." This is to be a warning flag to me. As a president, he wants to control the care I receive for every single second of my life.

What will he try to control next? I'll let the coming months, prior to the election, answer that ominous question.

I do not relish the idea of government mandating my health care. I'd rather have choices and not be forced to do anything.

Having the ear-gazer stuck in my ear without my inviting it while I was young was enough. I don't need the government to stick it back in there when I can go to the doctor on my own.