Homeland Security

The first undeniable role of the federal government is to protect its citizens from harm. After all, what is a government if it’s not seeking to guard its citizens? But while many lawmakers are eager to stress homeland security as part of their agendas, they often overlook the versatility of vulnerability.

The prevention of an attack on our country is certainly grounds to mobilize a coordinated military presence, but we are also susceptible to attacks on the weak points in our public health and education systems.

Consider heart disease. It has killed more Americans over the last 5 years than every military campaign in US history combined. The same can be said for cancer and strokes, and relatively, we take these epidemics lightly.

If consistent clinical and preventative medical treatment was guaranteed to every American, if we’re more aware of what chemicals are in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink, would we not be safer? The same concern over safety can be argued for the merits our education system, which despite being an issue that George W. Bush emphasized during his presidential campaign, ended up being dwarfed by an interest in increasing military spending.

And as the world becomes smaller, an education system that is only universally funded through high school is at risk of getting overtaken in the tide of globalization. If a master’s degree from a school in India is interchangeable from a master’s degree in the United States, but only 26% of Americans have a bachelor’s degree or higher, then the remaining 74% of Americans are going to be inevitably locked out of entire sectors of employment.

By viewing education and health care through the lens of homeland security, it becomes clearer that wars are being fought outside of the traditional military battlefield. And if the United States wishes to remain a world leader, there must be a collective realization among legislators and their constituents that any country turning out unhealthy, undereducated citizens will never be able to sustain a high level of innovation.

The Lynchpin of Racism

Whether he admits it or not, Barack Obama has already brought change

When President-elect Barack Obama gets sworn in next Tuesday, one day after Martin Luther King Day, will the world be a different place?

After raising more money than anyone in history, and beating John McCain in what amounts to a modern day landslide, this is a reasonable question to ask. But the color of Mr. Obama’s skin has been an ingrown hair on the face of the political world ever since he declared his candidacy for the Oval Office. The issue never exactly revealed itself, but instead remained below the surface while Americans argued around the issue instead of addressing it directly.

Moderate critics of Barry-O have preferred to cite his lack of political management experience, which is a reasonable argument, considering the dearth of legislative issues that Barry-O actually weighed in on while in the US Senate. But the extremists, as Peter Beinart argued in a piece for Time magazine, have preferred to tap dance around the race issue in favor of questioning Mr. Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship and whether he was actually born in Hawaii.

Meanwhile, Obama supporters have preferred to cling to the broad concept of “change”, which historically is a fantastic way to decapitate regimes. But identifying what sort of change an ivy league-educated, millionaire attorney with no executive experience is capable of bringing, is still difficult to quantify.

That’s not to say that our 44th President will do a worse job than #43. In many ways, the tenure of George W. Bush has been unprecedented in terms of failed opportunity, cronyism, and indifference to the views of the American public. And whether he deserves it or not, George W. Bush’s legacy will be based on the historical crises that occurred under his watch;  the worst terrorist attack on American soil in US history (9/11), the worst financial collapse in 75 years, the destruction of a major US city (New Orleans), and two separate wars that have lasted six and eight years, respectively. Additionally, six of Mr. Bush’s eight years in office were accompanied by GOP control of the legislative branch.

So it’s safe to say that even a comatose Barack Obama will likely outshine the departing Bush administration. But the promise of change carries more responsibility than merely doing better than the previous guy. Mr. Obama has assured supporters that his ascention to the oval office is the first step to restoring the average american’s faith in the political system. But by surrounding himself with ex-Clinton administration employees, where are these new  ideas supposed to come from?

The answer this question may end up only being skin deep. US Presidents, like most world leaders, live mostly ceremonial lives. They can pressure people to adhere to an agenda, but there are simply too many tasks and issues for a commander in chief to properly micromanage. Instead, it’s the broad brushstrokes that shape how 300 million people live their lives, and one undeniable brushstroke is that Americans can look at their President for the first time, and not see a white man staring back at them. The democrats and republicans may attempt to look beyond this fact, but skin color is absolutely the political issue of the 2008 presidential election. The majority of people in this country are not white males, and the sight of one white man after another ascend to the presidency is bound to demoralize substantial portions of this country.

So even though we refuse to directly talk about it, race belongs in any conversation about Barack Obama’s presidency. Every day after Mr. Obama takes office will become a day that African Americans can look to the highest levels of leadership and see the spot where a glass ceiling once rested. That’s not to say that skin color will define Barry-O’s legacy, but it’s naive to say that we never noticed it in the first place.

Laws for Sale

Since it’s no secret that American companies are clamoring for a life preserver to buoy them from the whirlpool of economic recession, there is a need for policymakers to expand their thought process beyond the concept of billion dollar loans and extensive borrowing.

While it is important to consider the consequences of an industrial collapse, the idea of floating loans now will result in an exponentially greater financial setback down the road. Neither on a macro or microeconomic level have we as Americans grasped the idea of spending within our means, so if we’re transferring the balance on our massive federal debt, it’s unreasonable to assume that the next generation will have learned to do anything except attempt to pass the debt onto their children and grandchildren.

If automakers are in need of over $25 billion in loans, the financial markets require a $700 billion cash injection, and countless other groups are lining up on the Capitol steps with their hats in hand, it’s apparent that more drastic measures should be considered.

One such concept to consider is the open sale of nonviolent, borderline ethical laws by private citizens. What if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet pooled together $30 billion of their own money in exchange for fewer restrictions on stem cell research? Or maybe a team of casino owners could team up to write a $25 billion check that allows for relaxed gambling laws nationwide. Certainly there could be a number that Coors, Anheuser Busch, and Miller Brewing Company would be willing to pay in order to drop the minimum drinking age to 20, and maybe an even greater number to lower it to 19.

Whether you agree or not on the aforementioned issues, tough economic times can lead to a reconsideration of our morals. After all, how many people would be willing to ban abortion if they were offered $1000 in cash on the spot? How many people would be willing to allow abortions if they were offered the same amount of cash? Remember that many of our laws are already for sale with lobbying groups as the salesmen, so why not consider the same idea on a different scale?

Barack Obama is a US Citizen

Barry-O versus the volcano...of ignorance!

Watch out USA, because despite the “facts” and “information”, Barack Obama is actually a Muslim Kenyan Jew who was really born in Indonesia.

I talk to a lot of people who refer to Obama as “Osama Obama”, and make the claim that the Illinois Senator needs to provide proof that he is actually a US citizen. These calls would be a lot more humorous if I knew that these woefully ignorant individuals weren’t dragging themselves out of their caves every November in order to vote. Note: those I refer to come from people outside of Georgia’s 10th district.

You see, it’s not the Democrats, the Republicans, or even the candidate that deserves blame for being able to win over the mush of pork scraps and trimmings that calls itself a constituency. Disparaging a political party for accepting votes from ill-informed beings would be like blaming someone for finding free money on the ground. Instead, the blame rests on the shoulders of the voters.

Any number of people could open an actual newspaper, be it the Washington Post or the Washington Times, and see no reference towards the allegations that Barack Hussein Obama is not a US citizen. Even the AM radio folks, who love a good argument, keep these allegations at arms length, asking only for the truth. So it’s impossibly difficult to tell me that the media moves and steps in such unison as to suppress a goldmine of a story such as the possibility of an impostor making it this close to the presidency. Breaking information like that would be a career piece. Not just a career “I just got my own office” piece, but a Bob Woodward “every word that leaves my mouth turns into a best-selling book” career. Considering the decline of the print news industry, it would be impossible to keep an aspiring journalist from breaking rank on this.

It’s worth an admission that there is a sliver of truth to these allegations, simply because I wasn’t there to see little Barry Obama bursting out of his mother’s womb onto Hawaiian soil, but Factcheck.org, the same group to dispel allegations against John McCain’s lack of US citizenship, released photos of Barry-O’s birth certificate, as well as his birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.

There is also a sliver of truth to the Kenyan citizenship allegations. Because Obama’s dad was Kenyan, Obama had dual citizenship as an American (because that’s where he was born) and citizenship of the UK, because Britain had control of Kenya. This changed after Kenya recieved its independence from the UK, but because Kenyan law dictates that people over the age of 21 cannot hold dual citizenship in Kenya and any other country. Obama would have had to swear his allegiance to Kenya, and renounce his citizenship to the US, which he possibly could have done, but you’d need some hard evidence, such as witnesses for that. Here’s a good link to explain all of this.

But seeing as web surfers could have viewed Obama’s birth certificate on his campaign website at any point, I’m inclined to suspect that there will consistently be people who will remain skeptical of Obama’s citizenship no matter what. And compounding their skepticism is a complete lack of evidence on their part. There isn’t a single person who has come forward with any evidence of any kind, other than the “fact” that the Obama campaign hasn’t bent over backwards to appease their concerns.

It stinks that people are devoting so much of their lives towards the spread of misinformation. Imagine if all the skeptics on both sides focused their energy on helping out at soup kitchens, building a house with Habitat for Humanity, or even spending more time with their kids. Wouldn’t that improve America far more than what they’re doing now?

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli. Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents)

Hot Gay Sex

Does this honestly affect you negatively in any way?

When considering a political candidate, I am often compelled to assess his or her stance on gay marriage. Regardless of whether one views homosexuality as a choice or something you’re born with, there is a simple fact that a politician (in this example being a male) either would like to have sex with a man or he would not like to have sex with a man. So he’s being asked to view this issue without a full comprehension of both sides.

In general, there seems to be three mainstream ways of looking at gay rights. One, homosexuality is a choice made by confused and misled individuals, whose demand for equal rights is the by-product of a mental ailment, so efforts should be made to help reform their choices.

The second argument is that homosexuality is a characteristic that has endured so much persecution over the course of time, that no one in their right mind would ever make that choice, so we have to accommodate them.

The third argument is that homosexuality may have its place in society, but allowing homosexuals to marry is infringing on the beliefs of other groups of people who hold the idea of “marriage” to a standard of high spiritual significance. By this viewpoint, awarding the middle ground to one side is a sign of denying rights to the other.

So if the word “marriage” is the problem, why not call gay marriages something else? “Civil union” is a term being tossed around, and if the term awards the same rights to a gay couple as “marriage” does to a straight couple, then it’s a step in the right direction. If we toss out the term “marriage” altogether, and “civil union” becomes the federal definition of awarding spousal benefits to any couple, gay or straight, then we can at least pry the door open wide enough to let every consenting couple through.

But the problem with designating “marriage” as a religious term is that no one religion can stake a claim to it. Islamists, Christians, Catholics, Unitarians, Jews, and Pagans have “married” couples in their respective congregations, but there is a vastly different viewpoint on allowing gays to marry, as well as the general definition of marriage across these different spiritual beliefs. In other words, the Pagans can’t just claim their definition of marriage should be the one final definition.

This boils down to a number of groups who fear their own beliefs will be tread on by people whose lifestyles are illegitimate when placed into a room with their own. But if every couple is civilly unionized under the eyes of the federal government, then we can at least localize the quibbling to what goes on inside your homes and places of worship.

So whenever I hear a politician make a reference to the “morality” of homosexuality, or prophetizing the collapse of the “institution of marriage”, I fear that person is unqualified to make a level-headed decision when it comes to domestic policy. There are plenty of decisions to be made that fall outside of one’s upbringing. And enforcing a mindset on the way things should be, without factoring in the different paths that Americans sometimes walk, is indicative of a shepherd who cannot lead his flock.

Disgraceful Politics

It’s disgraceful to every American when a person is persecuted for their beliefs. Rog Coverely, the manager of a central Florida GOP headquarters fell victim to a terrorist attack by unidentified assailants, who fired gunshots at Mr. Coverely’s home on October 22nd.

There’s no easy way to tell if Mr. Coverely was shot at directly because of the John McCain signs on his lawn, but it would be short sighted and closed-minded if that possibility was ruled out. It is also impossible to rule out, however, that Mr. Coverely could be a total douche.

But even if Rog Coverely is on the off-chance a thoroughly unlikeable human being, I can’t help but feel ashamed that I live in a country with citizens that support a candidate so much, that they’re willing to break the law and terrorize others for expressing their own views. I spent the last two presidential elections voting in a state that committed rampant voter fraud and voter intimidation to benefit the Republican Party. But that campaign is over, and taking an opportunity to shit on a Republican’s head, simply because it’s more socially acceptable now than before, is subverting someone else’s constitutional right, which is outright treasonous.

Barack Obama may be viewed as a savior to many, but if his supporters are committing acts of terrorism, Mr. Obama’s legacy is tainted in many of the same ways that George W. Bush’s legacy is tainted. Think about Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign in 1972. People don’t remember the Nixon campaign dismantling George McGovern to the point that McGovern didn’t win his own state; people just remember that whole Watergate thing.

So every time a man’s home is fired upon, or a woman makes up a story that face was sliced because of her political beliefs, I am reminded of the frustration and anger I felt when the same tactics were used in reverse roles from four years earlier. It’s not right, and it certainly isn’t democratic.

McCain Obama Debate

The second McCain-Obama presidential debate provided a relaxed style and tone from the first debate. Fortunately for both sides, the Town Hall debate format provides a relatively even battlefield as both candidates are reasonable men with decent personalities. Still, both John McCain and Barack Obama were sometimes visibly attempting to squeeze prepared, triangular answers in order to fit circular questions.

The walking around portion of the debate hurt McCain, who mostly ambled robotically towards potential voters, as his slumped posture, creaky knees, and rigid arms magnified Obama’s smooth demeanor.

McCain continued to push earmark reform, but also played more compassionate note than the first debate. He criticized Obama for wanting to hunt down Bin Laden and stressed a more diplomatic approach. He got reprimanded on this moments later by Obama, who had his choice of McCain quotes to draw upon that mirrored the Illinois senator’s remarks. McCain took a stronger stance against Russia, saying “maybe”, when asked if Russia is an evil empire under Vladimir Putin.

Obama relentlessly pushed for middle class financial relief, a note that he hammered on in the first debate. He also announced that he’s open to invading Pakistan, should it be deemed necessary. McCain attacked him on this remark, but pulled back before viewers could remember McCain’s normally tough foreign policy stance.

One Obama slipup came during a question about US policy towards Israel. Obama awkwardly emphasized keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon through diplomacy, which was clearly a practiced response that fit the question worse than a square peg through a cylinder. McCain’s answer was more on point by addressing that Israel is under attack, and reminded Americans about the need to prevent another holocaust.

In true legislative fashion. neither candidate showed much regard to speaker time. At several points, McCain and Obama had to be reminded by Tom Brokaw that they had previously agreed to no follow-up remarks, something that was contested by both sides during the debate.

But in general, the second debate was more or less a stalemate, with the edge going to Obama for the town hall format making McCain look significantly older than he did in the standard podium debate format. The Arizona senator’s goal was to look more compassionate, which was a success, but he swung and missed on several jokes, and in general looked like a man in his early to mid seventies.

X-Ray Specs

Transport safety officials at Melbourne’s airport will now be able to see you naked if you happen to be taking a domestic flight over the next six weeks.

The new “X-ray backscatter” body scanner will be used to do a full body scan of every traveler as they pass through security, presumably in order to check for weapons, explosives, and prosthetic penises.

“It does see through clothing, but it’s not a photographic image, it’s a low-energy X-ray that reflects off the skin,” said Cheryl Johnson, general manager of the Office of Transport Security.

“It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities. It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine, though.”

Ms Johnson addressed privacy concerns by insisting that there are still practices in place to protect a traveler’s privacy.

“The faces are automatically blurred and … it’s only a chalk-style outline, it’s not as invasive as some of the other equipment that we’ve got,” she said.

Ms Johnson was also quick to point out that the security officer being paid to watch naked people walk by is located away from the screening line, so there’s no chance for the guard to compare the image to the person walking through security. Additionally, because the images are not saved, travelers can rest assured that outlines of their pasty, lopsided junk will be burned into the back of only one person’s head.

But if a traveler’s face is blurred onscreen, and the image is deleted almost immediately, then how will security officials be able to quickly identify a suspect? Furthermore, since a security guard is stationed away from the screening line, they will have to be able to identify a suspicious object, relay their findings to a centrally located guard, who then has to receive a basic size/shape description from the original guard, all within a matter of seconds. It doesn’t sound easily done, especially when compounding the problem with human error and dozens of agitated airline passengers.

One easy solution that this writer has been doing for years, is to travel completely naked without any baggage, consenting to searches even when not asked. If anyone has a problem with it, then they’re letting the terrorists win.

Sarah Palin

Thoughts from the Sarah Palin nomination:
It’s hard to pinpoint the thought process behind the Sarah Palin VP nomination. Sure, she’s a straight-up right-winger whose policies overlap with those of the old Republican guard. But she also has a vagina, which according to the recent boost in McCain’s polling numbers, is something the American public likes on its candidates.

But if Sarah Palin is such a good candidate, then why did the McCain campaign keep such a tight lid on its interest in her prior to the RNC Convention? Up until a few days before the convention, it seemed logical for either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee to be the nominee. And if McCain wanted a woman on the ballot, why wasn’t Condoleeza Rice mentioned as more of a possibility?

The basic conjecture that I’m leaning towards is that McCain had someone else in mind, and switched to Palin at the last minute.

Phelps is Pretty Gold

Greatest Olympian ever? Greatest Athlete Ever? Sorry Phelpsie, but I’m not drinking that Kool-Aid.

Look, what Michael Phelps has done for the United States and for Mikes everywhere is tremendously honorable. And the fact that he aced 8 separate events after all of the hype and media build-up goes to show his ability to perform in the clutch. But what Phelps has in terms of work ethic, muscle recovery, and freak athleticism, he lacks in long term historical significance.

The most commonly heard complement to Phelps’ physical talents is that he’s about 20 years ahead of his time. But by that logic, it’s seems inevitable that someone else is going to come along with a shorter muscle recovery time, longer arms, and giant flippery feet.

You see, while hard work and athleticism are the virtues desired in an Olympian, these attributes are the easiest to eclipse. After a short time, memories begin to filter out the numbers, but leave behind the stories, those moments that manage to break through the glass cage in which these athletes perform, and force the viewer to address real issues. It’s why people remember not Jessie Owens’ racing times, but how he showed up Adolf Hitler in front of his all-Aryan superteam. And it’s why photos of Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising their fists to the sky in Mexico City in 1968 resonate, while photos of Valeri Borzov, the 1972 200m gold medalist, fails to maintain a ring.

When people look back twenty or thirty years on his Olympic performance, they will clearly see Phelps standing on the top of the medal podium eight separate times. But after downloading the “Best of Michael Phelps: 2004-2012″ onto their futurePods, viewer will casually file it away ahead of Mark Spitz, and behind the next great swimmer. Meanwhile, online sales of Jessie Owens, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, and the 1992 Dream Team videos will continue to hang around the top 5.

Meanwhile, where is Michael Phelps’ statement? The man is articulate, and he attends an accredited university. The world is at his feet, or at least on its knees in front of him. You’re telling me he doesn’t have anything insightful to say about anything? The 14 gold medals around his neck would buoy him from any statement short of calling for the destruction of the Chinese government or advocating children being beaten in the streets. He’s bound to make more in corporate sponsorships by keeping his mouth shut, but it’s not like the guy will have to work a real job at any point in his life. Even at his worst, he can pull a Mark Spitz, and milk his gold medals for decades before the well runs dry. But turning down a chance to make a meaningful statement when he has a captive audience in front of him? That’s only going to hinder his greatness. Because greatness requires the courage to do and say the right things regardless of the present-day consequences.

Instead, Michael Phelps is leaving Beijing early in a private jet, content to land gently into an Olympic-sized swimming pool filled with hundred-dollar bills and Wheaties boxes with his face on them. It’s a fate enviable by most people, but not by the truly greatest of Olympians.