***I'm not Catholic, but I'm re-posting it because it lines up with a lot of what I think about how a Christian person can look at multiple moral issues when choosing how to vote. Happy thinking, kids.***
By NICHOLAS P. CAFARDI, Religion News Service
Published: September 30, 2008
Editor's note: Nicholas P. Cafardi is the second high profile Catholic legal scholar who is staunchly anti-abortion yet says he supports Barack Obama. Douglas Kmiec, Ronald Reagan’s constitutional lawyer as head of the office of legal counsel for the Department of Justice, publicly argued a similar case for Obama several weeks ago.
Commentary
I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?
As one of the inaugural members of the U.S. bishops' National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse, and as a canon lawyer, I answer with a resounding yes.
Despite what some Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the church calls "intrinsically evil acts" does not begin and end with abortion. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.
Last November, the U.S. bishops released "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war.
Obama's support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close.
Let's suppose Roe v. Wade were overturned. What would happen? The matter would simply be kicked back to the states -- where it was before 1973. Overturning Roe would not abolish abortion. It would just mean that abortion would be legal in some states and illegal in others. The number of abortions would remain unchanged as long as people could travel.
McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionist" judges who would presumably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But is that sufficient reason for a Catholic to vote Republican? To answer that question, let's look at the rest of the church's list of intrinsically evil acts.
Both McCain and Obama get failing marks on embryonic stem-cell research, which Catholic teaching opposes. The last time the issue was up for a vote in the Senate, both men voted to ease existing restrictions.
But what about an unjust war? In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that "reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist." McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it.
What about torture? "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," according to Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq. Obama opposes the use of torture in all cases; McCain, himself a victim of torture, voted to allow the CIA to use so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- a euphemism for torture.
How, some may ask, can I compare these evils with abortion? The right to abortion is guaranteed by the federal judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution. And while the president appoints federal judges, the connection between a president's appointments and the decisions rendered by his appointees is tenuous at best. After all, in 1992, five Republican-appointed justices voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet on other intrinsic evils -- an unjust war, torture, ignoring the poor -- I can address those evils directly by changing the president.
There's another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that "we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." He favors a "comprehensive approach where ... we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children." And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.
Obama worked all of that into his party's platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.
What's more, as recent data show, abortion rates drop when the social safety net is strengthened. If Obama's economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain's, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions? Not at all.
Every faithful Catholic agrees that abortion is an unspeakable evil that must be minimized, if not eliminated. I can help to achieve that without endorsing Republicans' immoral baggage. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the only way to end abortion, and a vote for Obama is not somehow un-Catholic.
The U.S. bishops have urged a "different kind of political engagement," one that is "shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences."
I have informed my conscience. I have weighed the facts. I have used my prudential judgment. And I conclude that it is a proper moral choice for this Catholic to support Barack Obama's candidacy.
Cafardi is a civil and canon lawyer, and a professor and former dean at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. His most recent book, Before Dallas, examines the bishops' failures in handling the clergy sex abuse crisis.
martes, 30 de septiembre de 2008
domingo, 28 de septiembre de 2008
the debate
I know I said I wouldn't blog about politics. Sorry. Things are just too crazy not to say anything, not to at least put something out there in the world. Too much is at stake.
INITIAL IMPRESSIONS
(In the first place, I was blown away by McCain's weird turn from "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," to "Oh-Crap-things-are-REALLY-bad-let's-postpone-the-debate-until-I-figure-out-how-to-keep-this-economy-thing-from-snuffing-out-my-chances." It didn't come off as sincere, but as a stunt, much like choosing that pretty woman no one had ever heard of and touting her foreign policy experience when she got her passport six months ago).
This was a debate in which McCain needed to blow his opponent away. Foreign policy is his ground, although because of the current financial crisis, the economy also took center stage.
He did not blow his opponent away. I won't go so far as to say it was a complete slam-dunk for Obama, but I think he was better. Well-spoken, intelligent, clear about his ideas and plans. His first statement out of the gate, I was very pleased. I know more about his plans now than I did before, and I was in agreement with most of what he said, especially on the following issues:
--his criticisms of our attack on Iraq (and how Afghanistan is where we need to be since, you know, that's where Bin Laden, our actual enemy, is)... and his proposed timeline to reduce forces in Iraq so we can do what's needed in Afghanistan and Pakistan
--reversing tax cuts for the very wealthy and corporations and giving relief to the middle class
--his view that the economic meltdown currently in effect is in direct opposition to the GOP view that if we don't restrict the wealthy, the fundage will trickle down to the rest of us paupers, and everyone will live happily ever after (my words, not his, of course, so here's his):
"Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.
It hasn't worked. And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That's why I'm running for president, and that's what I hope we're going to be talking about tonight."
(later in the debate)"Here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase."
--a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage, more $$ toward education (I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "I look forward to the day when our schools have all the money they need to educate our kids and the military has to hold bake sales to fight a war." Interesting take on our priorities).
--reducing our dependence on foreign oil while developing clean energy alternatives
--willingness to meet with other world leaders to work through disagreement
Not to mention that he handled his opponent's dishonesty well, with a classy, calm, "That's not true, John." I have to say, if I was face-to-face with someone who was misleading people about me on one of the largest stages in the country, I might have been harsher.
McCain said a lot less specifically about his own ideas, instead putting on this very strange emotional show, right out of the gate with his completely unrelated comment about Senator Kennedy, and reminding us all of how long he's been around with all sorts of anecdotes.
Here's what McCain told us about his ideas:
1. On the economy: We have to get spending in Washington DC under control. He'll "veto every single spending bill that comes across desk." He wants to cut taxes to businesses so they'll remain in the US and create jobs. He proposed a spending freeze in the wake of the financial crisis:
"How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."
2. The war in Iraq: "And I want to tell you that now that we will succeed and our troops will come home, and not in defeat, that we will see a stable ally in the region and a fledgling democracy. The consequences of defeat would have been increased Iranian influence. It would have been increase in sectarian violence. It would have been a wider war, which the United States of America might have had to come back. So there was a lot at stake there. And thanks to this great general, David Petraeus, and the troops who serve under him, they have succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq, and we will come home. And we will come home as we have when we have won other wars and not in defeat."
3. Iran: "I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people - a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world's economic power. We could impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect."
4. Both opponents basically agreed on Russia.
In addition, McCain came across as angry and disrespectful of his opponent. cheapening his arguments with snide comments delivered in a contemptuous tone. Even when McCain was sort of muddling up Obama's words in attempts to be misleading (go to politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/fact-check/, even I was surprised at how many verdicts were either false or misleading), Obama maintained his composure and continued to look at him. Obama did grin several times while McCain was speaking, but this was during moments when his own positions were being grossly mischaracterized, and he had to respond in some way to indicate that what was being said was false. To not respond in this case would have seemed like tacit agreement.
Much has been made of Obama calling McCain by the wrong first name a couple of times, which is puzzling to me, but at least he was calling his opponent by first name, looking at him. McCain didn't engage Obama at all. I can't imagine McCain in a room with a person he really didn't disagree with.
(Like Ahmadinejad. Whose name McCain couldn't say correctly, if we want to get down to thinking our President's competitiveness in a debate is based on correct name usage).
"YOU'RE RIGHT" = CONCESSION?
Much has also been made of Obama saying "You're right," to John McCain. The statement from the McCain camp had it counted: at least five times. They treated it as if he'd conceded the debate.
Ahem: "There was one man who was presidential tonight, that man was John McCain. There was another who was political, that was Barack Obama. John McCain won this debate and controlled the dialogue throughout, whether it was the economy, taxes, spending, Iraq or Iran. There was a leadership gap, a judgment gap, and a boldness gap on display tonight, a fact Barack Obama acknowledged when he said John McCain was right at least five times. Tonight's debate showed John McCain in command of the issues and presenting a clear agenda for America's future." –Jill Hazelbaker, McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director
Um?
Clear agenda? Really? How many times did John McCain say "working class," while we're counting phrases? Zero.
Anyway, back to my point. (I do have one). I'm not sure what debate everyone else was watching, but each time Obama said, "You're right," it wasn't conceding a point they disagreed on -- he was starting out from a place of agreement to move toward distinguishing exactly what they don't agree on. This is a basic communication skill, and it saddens me to see so many people thinking on a level that says, "If a person says I'm right, it doesn't matter what comes after those two words, they're conceding the point."
Here's where he said, "you're right," for the record (you can see the transcript here):
1. "Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street...
And there are folks out there who've been struggling before this crisis took place. And that's why it's so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the -- a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound."
2. "Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.
And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.
But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.
Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important."
3. "Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.
And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.
It's not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that's a problem."
4. "But John is right we have to make cuts. We right now give $15 billion every year as subsidies to private insurers under the Medicare system. Doesn't work any better through the private insurers. They just skim off $15 billion. That was a give away and part of the reason is because lobbyists are able to shape how Medicare works."
5. "But let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.
They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.
And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.
You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is of judgment, of whether or not -- of whether or not -- if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment."
6. "Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.
Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.
And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.
Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.
And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.
And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan."
7. "So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.
Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we're going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon.
But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States."
SOME THOUGHTS ON BINARY THINKING
The debate highlighted a key difference between McCain and Obama, in my mind: the difference between the binary (either-or, yes-no, good-bad) thinking that has reigned this past eight years, and a realistic way of looking at the world, one that incorporates gray. McCain's discussion of the issues revealed an old man heavily out of touch with what the 21st century will require of the United States and its leaders.
Binary: Bad guys don't do what we want because they're bad guys? We won't meet. They continue? We'll go to war with them.
(I found the whole exchange about meeting without preconditions being "dangerous" very strange. I think it would be more dangerous not to talk to those who could turn against us. By the way, if, like me, you were curious about the he-said/he-said argument about whether Kissinger was okay with high-level meetings without preconditions, Obama was right. I saw the words straight out of Kissingers lips at the end of the incredible Katie Couric/Sarah Palin interview you can see here. And the interviews with Couric highlight exactly why people are concerned about McCain's running mate... speaking of binary thinking. Oh. My. God. I can see her past as a beauty queen coming out as she struggles to answer highly relevant questions by talking out of her arse. Both segments of the interview are highly worth watching).
Gray: we don't like what they're doing, so we're going to carefully talk about it. We'll make every effort at diplomacy. We'll try to find areas of agreement so we can move from there to address areas where we disagree. Both countries usually want economic prosperity, so we'll start there. War is a last, last, last, last, last resort.
This is getting long, so I'll give it a rest, but I have to recommend this post which addresses the binary thinking tendencies of White Evangelical America (here's a quote that I thought was brilliant):
"Let’s start with the observation that evangelicals tend toward a binary mind (as historians Mark Noll, George Marsden, and others have delineated in detail). Some things are appropriately thought of in binary terms, to be sure: “Jesus is Lord,” “Ye must be born again,” and so on. But the world of politics is the world of assessing a situation and making the best of it with what, and whom, you have to work with. Binary thinking rarely helps get anything done, because politics rarely presents an actual choice between Good and Evil. More specifically, political campaigns never present a choice between Jesus and Satan." --Prof. John Stackhouse
INITIAL IMPRESSIONS
(In the first place, I was blown away by McCain's weird turn from "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," to "Oh-Crap-things-are-REALLY-bad-let's-postpone-the-debate-until-I-figure-out-how-to-keep-this-economy-thing-from-snuffing-out-my-chances." It didn't come off as sincere, but as a stunt, much like choosing that pretty woman no one had ever heard of and touting her foreign policy experience when she got her passport six months ago).
This was a debate in which McCain needed to blow his opponent away. Foreign policy is his ground, although because of the current financial crisis, the economy also took center stage.
He did not blow his opponent away. I won't go so far as to say it was a complete slam-dunk for Obama, but I think he was better. Well-spoken, intelligent, clear about his ideas and plans. His first statement out of the gate, I was very pleased. I know more about his plans now than I did before, and I was in agreement with most of what he said, especially on the following issues:
--his criticisms of our attack on Iraq (and how Afghanistan is where we need to be since, you know, that's where Bin Laden, our actual enemy, is)... and his proposed timeline to reduce forces in Iraq so we can do what's needed in Afghanistan and Pakistan
--reversing tax cuts for the very wealthy and corporations and giving relief to the middle class
--his view that the economic meltdown currently in effect is in direct opposition to the GOP view that if we don't restrict the wealthy, the fundage will trickle down to the rest of us paupers, and everyone will live happily ever after (my words, not his, of course, so here's his):
"Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.
It hasn't worked. And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That's why I'm running for president, and that's what I hope we're going to be talking about tonight."
(later in the debate)"Here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase."
--a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage, more $$ toward education (I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "I look forward to the day when our schools have all the money they need to educate our kids and the military has to hold bake sales to fight a war." Interesting take on our priorities).
--reducing our dependence on foreign oil while developing clean energy alternatives
--willingness to meet with other world leaders to work through disagreement
Not to mention that he handled his opponent's dishonesty well, with a classy, calm, "That's not true, John." I have to say, if I was face-to-face with someone who was misleading people about me on one of the largest stages in the country, I might have been harsher.
McCain said a lot less specifically about his own ideas, instead putting on this very strange emotional show, right out of the gate with his completely unrelated comment about Senator Kennedy, and reminding us all of how long he's been around with all sorts of anecdotes.
Here's what McCain told us about his ideas:
1. On the economy: We have to get spending in Washington DC under control. He'll "veto every single spending bill that comes across desk." He wants to cut taxes to businesses so they'll remain in the US and create jobs. He proposed a spending freeze in the wake of the financial crisis:
"How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."
2. The war in Iraq: "And I want to tell you that now that we will succeed and our troops will come home, and not in defeat, that we will see a stable ally in the region and a fledgling democracy. The consequences of defeat would have been increased Iranian influence. It would have been increase in sectarian violence. It would have been a wider war, which the United States of America might have had to come back. So there was a lot at stake there. And thanks to this great general, David Petraeus, and the troops who serve under him, they have succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq, and we will come home. And we will come home as we have when we have won other wars and not in defeat."
3. Iran: "I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people - a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world's economic power. We could impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect."
4. Both opponents basically agreed on Russia.
In addition, McCain came across as angry and disrespectful of his opponent. cheapening his arguments with snide comments delivered in a contemptuous tone. Even when McCain was sort of muddling up Obama's words in attempts to be misleading (go to politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/fact-check/, even I was surprised at how many verdicts were either false or misleading), Obama maintained his composure and continued to look at him. Obama did grin several times while McCain was speaking, but this was during moments when his own positions were being grossly mischaracterized, and he had to respond in some way to indicate that what was being said was false. To not respond in this case would have seemed like tacit agreement.
Much has been made of Obama calling McCain by the wrong first name a couple of times, which is puzzling to me, but at least he was calling his opponent by first name, looking at him. McCain didn't engage Obama at all. I can't imagine McCain in a room with a person he really didn't disagree with.
(Like Ahmadinejad. Whose name McCain couldn't say correctly, if we want to get down to thinking our President's competitiveness in a debate is based on correct name usage).
"YOU'RE RIGHT" = CONCESSION?
Much has also been made of Obama saying "You're right," to John McCain. The statement from the McCain camp had it counted: at least five times. They treated it as if he'd conceded the debate.
Ahem: "There was one man who was presidential tonight, that man was John McCain. There was another who was political, that was Barack Obama. John McCain won this debate and controlled the dialogue throughout, whether it was the economy, taxes, spending, Iraq or Iran. There was a leadership gap, a judgment gap, and a boldness gap on display tonight, a fact Barack Obama acknowledged when he said John McCain was right at least five times. Tonight's debate showed John McCain in command of the issues and presenting a clear agenda for America's future." –Jill Hazelbaker, McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director
Um?
Clear agenda? Really? How many times did John McCain say "working class," while we're counting phrases? Zero.
Anyway, back to my point. (I do have one). I'm not sure what debate everyone else was watching, but each time Obama said, "You're right," it wasn't conceding a point they disagreed on -- he was starting out from a place of agreement to move toward distinguishing exactly what they don't agree on. This is a basic communication skill, and it saddens me to see so many people thinking on a level that says, "If a person says I'm right, it doesn't matter what comes after those two words, they're conceding the point."
Here's where he said, "you're right," for the record (you can see the transcript here):
1. "Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street...
And there are folks out there who've been struggling before this crisis took place. And that's why it's so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the -- a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound."
2. "Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.
And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.
But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.
Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important."
3. "Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.
And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.
It's not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that's a problem."
4. "But John is right we have to make cuts. We right now give $15 billion every year as subsidies to private insurers under the Medicare system. Doesn't work any better through the private insurers. They just skim off $15 billion. That was a give away and part of the reason is because lobbyists are able to shape how Medicare works."
5. "But let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.
They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.
And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.
You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is of judgment, of whether or not -- of whether or not -- if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment."
6. "Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.
Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.
And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.
Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.
And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.
And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan."
7. "So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.
Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we're going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon.
But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States."
SOME THOUGHTS ON BINARY THINKING
The debate highlighted a key difference between McCain and Obama, in my mind: the difference between the binary (either-or, yes-no, good-bad) thinking that has reigned this past eight years, and a realistic way of looking at the world, one that incorporates gray. McCain's discussion of the issues revealed an old man heavily out of touch with what the 21st century will require of the United States and its leaders.
Binary: Bad guys don't do what we want because they're bad guys? We won't meet. They continue? We'll go to war with them.
(I found the whole exchange about meeting without preconditions being "dangerous" very strange. I think it would be more dangerous not to talk to those who could turn against us. By the way, if, like me, you were curious about the he-said/he-said argument about whether Kissinger was okay with high-level meetings without preconditions, Obama was right. I saw the words straight out of Kissingers lips at the end of the incredible Katie Couric/Sarah Palin interview you can see here. And the interviews with Couric highlight exactly why people are concerned about McCain's running mate... speaking of binary thinking. Oh. My. God. I can see her past as a beauty queen coming out as she struggles to answer highly relevant questions by talking out of her arse. Both segments of the interview are highly worth watching).
Gray: we don't like what they're doing, so we're going to carefully talk about it. We'll make every effort at diplomacy. We'll try to find areas of agreement so we can move from there to address areas where we disagree. Both countries usually want economic prosperity, so we'll start there. War is a last, last, last, last, last resort.
This is getting long, so I'll give it a rest, but I have to recommend this post which addresses the binary thinking tendencies of White Evangelical America (here's a quote that I thought was brilliant):
"Let’s start with the observation that evangelicals tend toward a binary mind (as historians Mark Noll, George Marsden, and others have delineated in detail). Some things are appropriately thought of in binary terms, to be sure: “Jesus is Lord,” “Ye must be born again,” and so on. But the world of politics is the world of assessing a situation and making the best of it with what, and whom, you have to work with. Binary thinking rarely helps get anything done, because politics rarely presents an actual choice between Good and Evil. More specifically, political campaigns never present a choice between Jesus and Satan." --Prof. John Stackhouse
jueves, 18 de septiembre de 2008
the seahawks game!
Justin and I went to our first NFL FOOTBALL GAME TOGETHER on Sunday. It was amazing, and I have to tell you, my voice still hasn't returned to normal -- it's been hoarse and squeaky since Sunday.
To be part of five false starts was the the best feeling. Qwest Field keeps track of its false start count as compared to other stadiums. We were at 72 false starts by the end of our game... the next closest stadium was at 59. Watching the games on TV does nothing to convey the true volume in that place. The fans are insane.
We won't talk about the fact that one of the Seahawks new wide receivers (who I'd just drafted for my fantasy football team after Nate Burleson busted his knee) tore his MCL in the first play of the game.
It was a total blast. The dude in the row in front of us was in love with giving high fives. The woman next to me stubbornly sat in her seat for the final field goal of the game (San Francisco's), though her pouty husband was yelling at her, "I said, LET'S GO!" She sat there, resolute. I leaned over and said, "I'd have stayed too." Boy did her husband feel embarrassed when SF missed their field goal and the tied game went into overtime! It took him five minutes to work up the courage to make his way back to his seat. He'll never hear the end of it, I'm sure.
My favorite defensive trio. Check out Julian Peterson's arms!!
This is what you might describe as a very happy man in a Tatupu jersey.
To be part of five false starts was the the best feeling. Qwest Field keeps track of its false start count as compared to other stadiums. We were at 72 false starts by the end of our game... the next closest stadium was at 59. Watching the games on TV does nothing to convey the true volume in that place. The fans are insane.
We won't talk about the fact that one of the Seahawks new wide receivers (who I'd just drafted for my fantasy football team after Nate Burleson busted his knee) tore his MCL in the first play of the game.
It was a total blast. The dude in the row in front of us was in love with giving high fives. The woman next to me stubbornly sat in her seat for the final field goal of the game (San Francisco's), though her pouty husband was yelling at her, "I said, LET'S GO!" She sat there, resolute. I leaned over and said, "I'd have stayed too." Boy did her husband feel embarrassed when SF missed their field goal and the tied game went into overtime! It took him five minutes to work up the courage to make his way back to his seat. He'll never hear the end of it, I'm sure.
My favorite defensive trio. Check out Julian Peterson's arms!!
This is what you might describe as a very happy man in a Tatupu jersey.
miércoles, 3 de septiembre de 2008
how (and why) little miss republican became a democrat… (or at least more democrat than republican)
So I don't blog on politics too often... but this is an election year and it's on a lot of hearts and minds, so here I am, tossing in my two cents. In a year where I feel absolutely nauseous and anxious at the thought of who could end up in the White House, I need an outlet. Badly. (I'm driving Justin crazy, I think. Then again, he just registered to vote this year, so I guess I should let him tiptoe into this whole mess).
In my last year of high school, my senior soc class did a debate between folks who were for Bob Dole and folks who were for Bill Clinton (this was 1996). I probably don't have to tell you, I was one of the main debaters for Bob Dole, presenting what I thought to be the Republican view of things. In my 16-year-old mind, this basically came down to taking a pro-life stance. What else went into being a Republican, I didn't know, but I did know that was how a Christian should vote.
Four years later, at the age of 20, I voted for Bush. An openly Christian man in the White House -- I couldn't have been more pleased.
Then we began an war against Iraq for reasons we later found were known falsehoods (in an admittedly low estimate by the Iraq Body Count project, there have been 89,795 to 94,694 documented civilian/non-combatant deaths from March 2003 to June 2008 -- other estimates place the count closer to at least 150,000. To give a bit of perspective, this would be a loss of life equivalent to roughly fifty 9/11's.). In addition to pursuing a war unjustly, we had no effective plans to rebuild the country post-dancing-in-the-streets, making Iraq a hotbed for discontent and terrorism where it wasn't before. (It wasn't perfect before, granted, but there weren't 100 bodies arriving at the morgue each day. And yes, Saddam was a big bad guy, but if that was the reason we went to war, why didn't we act immediately when he was gassing Kurds?).
We're still slugging it out in the desert. Victory seems as intangible as it is improbable at this point. (As of today, we have lost 4,152 men and women in the Iraq war). And in the meantime we've quietly surrendered our civil liberties for "national security" while turning a blind eye to gross human rights abuses that should shame us. We have not been made more secure. Just more scared. Still, we cling to our illusions that because a threat level is given a certain color, we're more safe.
In 2004, I voted for Kerry. This was more a choice for a lesser evil than anything, but I cried in my Cheerios the morning after Bush was re-elected. I hadn't thought it possible. I wrote here on WEW -- "Congratulations, America. Four more years of the same." And I believe I've been proven mostly right, though I wish I'd been wrong. I'm nervous that the same thing could happen with McCain and Palin in the White House (people's proclamations of how amazing she is stun me. She and her daughter seem to be a walking contradiction of her idea that sex education should be taken out of schools).
I still remember a comment by a fellow intern at a church I was working for at the time: "I don't know how a person can be a Christian and vote for Kerry." I was amazed at how deeply political conservatism had allied itself with faith, though perhaps I shouldn't have been.
There are a lot of reasons for someone to vote Democrat, as well as a lot of reasons to vote Republican (though "because I'm a Christian and that's how Christians vote" is a poor reason, if you ask me). All I know is how my own personal convictions line up.
(I have to admit that I haven't found a single candidate that lines up with my views 100%. For instance, there was only one candidate on the list when this whole campaign season started who was against the death penalty. You've probably never heard of him, and I can't remember his name. Although I'm a consistent pro-lifer (i.e. in principle, I'm against abortion and the death penalty) -- I also see that there are other issues intrinsic to valuing human life that should inform my vote).
So here's how I see it -- I'm throwing it out there. And if I'm thought of as a liberal idealist, well, that's fine with me. Here's why I'll be voting Democrat come the election (in no particular order):
1. We need a plan to get out of Iraq. I'm not saying it's something to be done tomorrow -- but we need a plan to extricate ourselves from this mess of poor planning and stubbornness. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to leave on our terms, but staying on in hopes of a victory that eluded us a long time ago is foolish.
2. I believe we have a responsibity to those in our country who are less fortunate. I think it's popular to assume that if someone is in dire straits, it is because they got themselves there, and if they'd just take responsibility for themselves, they'd be able to make a better life. I think a deeper look reveals a much more uncomfortable reality: often people are in dire straits because they were born into them -- and it's hard to get out. This doesn't mean people aren't responsible for themselves -- but personal responsibility and personal ability are different things.
It is easy to label poor people as lazy and looking for a handout. I have to admit, I struggled not to do this sometimes when I worked for the plasma center. I remember one man who kept calling to find out if he was eligible to donate because he needed to know whether or not to accept a job offer. If he could donate, he would reject the job and continue to live on the combo of his welfare check and his donation money.
There are undoubtedly people out there like this -- people we think of as "using the system." We like thinking of this when we think of welfare, because it simplifies things for us and keeps us in a comfy state of judgement over them. But there are far more who are genuinely fighting to make ends meet, people who can't provide for their families and whose children grow up falling behind and falling through the cracks. And yet we have people who want to give less, not more, help to these struggling families.
I also think about the kids I watched while their parents were donating. One little girl slept in a tiny chair at night while her sisters shared a cot in the family's tiny trailer. At four, she already had severe social and behavioral problems -- she was an absolute nightmare to care for. Her mom, trying to feed three kids and keep a home despite her husband's alcoholism, didn't seem to take much notice. The little girl's hand-me-downs were always holey and falling off her skinny body, and she always came in with matted hair and a dirty face.
More than once in that playroom, I thought to myself: these kids don't even have a chance.
I think of Wal-mart employees, who work like crazy even off-the-clock to keep their jobs, who don't make enough to afford health care, and who are encouraged, even instructed, by their managers to sign up for state aid. (BTW -- If you haven't seen Walmart: the High Cost of Low Price -- I highly encourage you to. It's eye-opening, for sure).
I don't like that welfare is necessary in my country. I far prefer the idea that those who work hard can make a life for themselves, that if a person tries real hard, they can rise above their circumstances. It's true that some people do -- but most don't -- and those folks working for $7.22 an hour often build the empires of those who rise to prominence and wealth. Those can't make it need to be cared for -- and if that means taxes for me, and higher taxes for the top 2-3 percent of our country's earners (the kind of people who think $5 million a year is rich, and who can't count the number of houses they own), so be it.
(Our economy needs lots of help. I agree with Obama's stance that the middle classes need tax relief, and that Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy should be reversed. Having dealt with the IRS for about ten hours this past year, I also like his plans to simplify tax returns).
3. I believe that health care should be available to and affordable for every American. Health insurance and health care costs are going through the roof (they've risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years), and more and more people are having to choose between paying for health insurance or paying for food. I work a decent job, but since I work for a small business, health care is not available to me. If Justin's job didn't have benefits, I'd be out of luck. And I know what it is to be injured without insurance (the day of my bad wreck in 2002, we found out that my dad's policy had dropped me after changing the maximum age for students). It is ridiculous to me that we can spend billions -- monthly -- on a war overseas, but we can't figure out a way to provide health care for our citizens. There's nothing sinister in keeping healthcare affordable and making it available to those who can't pay.
4. Justin and I are set to be teachers, so putting money into education is important to us. 'Nuff said.
5. I don't trust environmental policy to people who are reluctant to admit that global warming exists, who have dismissed the research as yet another cog in the liberal media machine. I also don't trust environmental policy to people who are elected in large part by big oil, and who want even more offshore drilling rather than throwing concerted efforts at developing alternative energy sources.
I want to have kids someday. I'd like them to be able to enjoy a planet that's better and cleaner than it is now.
6. While I understand that people, especially people of faith, are passionate about issues such as abortion, I think it is important to remember that having a pro-life president for the last eight years has not resulted in an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Nor has it prevented gay marriage, another big issue for many conservative Christians. I understand that these are moral issues with implications for how a person votes. What's important to me is that people can concede that they are not the only moral issues for a thinking Christian with a conscience.
I think our country would be a better place, and one more open to Jesus' message, if Christians decided to take their moral stand more on loving their neighbors and feeding Christ's sheep than on trying to force the rest of the country to adopt their values via legislation.
Anyway, that's where I'm at. Or at least, mostly where I'm at. I'm often far braver when it comes to sharing other ways I don't fit into the Christian community -- I just finally felt it was important to share my thoughts on this.
In my last year of high school, my senior soc class did a debate between folks who were for Bob Dole and folks who were for Bill Clinton (this was 1996). I probably don't have to tell you, I was one of the main debaters for Bob Dole, presenting what I thought to be the Republican view of things. In my 16-year-old mind, this basically came down to taking a pro-life stance. What else went into being a Republican, I didn't know, but I did know that was how a Christian should vote.
Four years later, at the age of 20, I voted for Bush. An openly Christian man in the White House -- I couldn't have been more pleased.
Then we began an war against Iraq for reasons we later found were known falsehoods (in an admittedly low estimate by the Iraq Body Count project, there have been 89,795 to 94,694 documented civilian/non-combatant deaths from March 2003 to June 2008 -- other estimates place the count closer to at least 150,000. To give a bit of perspective, this would be a loss of life equivalent to roughly fifty 9/11's.). In addition to pursuing a war unjustly, we had no effective plans to rebuild the country post-dancing-in-the-streets, making Iraq a hotbed for discontent and terrorism where it wasn't before. (It wasn't perfect before, granted, but there weren't 100 bodies arriving at the morgue each day. And yes, Saddam was a big bad guy, but if that was the reason we went to war, why didn't we act immediately when he was gassing Kurds?).
We're still slugging it out in the desert. Victory seems as intangible as it is improbable at this point. (As of today, we have lost 4,152 men and women in the Iraq war). And in the meantime we've quietly surrendered our civil liberties for "national security" while turning a blind eye to gross human rights abuses that should shame us. We have not been made more secure. Just more scared. Still, we cling to our illusions that because a threat level is given a certain color, we're more safe.
In 2004, I voted for Kerry. This was more a choice for a lesser evil than anything, but I cried in my Cheerios the morning after Bush was re-elected. I hadn't thought it possible. I wrote here on WEW -- "Congratulations, America. Four more years of the same." And I believe I've been proven mostly right, though I wish I'd been wrong. I'm nervous that the same thing could happen with McCain and Palin in the White House (people's proclamations of how amazing she is stun me. She and her daughter seem to be a walking contradiction of her idea that sex education should be taken out of schools).
I still remember a comment by a fellow intern at a church I was working for at the time: "I don't know how a person can be a Christian and vote for Kerry." I was amazed at how deeply political conservatism had allied itself with faith, though perhaps I shouldn't have been.
There are a lot of reasons for someone to vote Democrat, as well as a lot of reasons to vote Republican (though "because I'm a Christian and that's how Christians vote" is a poor reason, if you ask me). All I know is how my own personal convictions line up.
(I have to admit that I haven't found a single candidate that lines up with my views 100%. For instance, there was only one candidate on the list when this whole campaign season started who was against the death penalty. You've probably never heard of him, and I can't remember his name. Although I'm a consistent pro-lifer (i.e. in principle, I'm against abortion and the death penalty) -- I also see that there are other issues intrinsic to valuing human life that should inform my vote).
So here's how I see it -- I'm throwing it out there. And if I'm thought of as a liberal idealist, well, that's fine with me. Here's why I'll be voting Democrat come the election (in no particular order):
1. We need a plan to get out of Iraq. I'm not saying it's something to be done tomorrow -- but we need a plan to extricate ourselves from this mess of poor planning and stubbornness. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to leave on our terms, but staying on in hopes of a victory that eluded us a long time ago is foolish.
2. I believe we have a responsibity to those in our country who are less fortunate. I think it's popular to assume that if someone is in dire straits, it is because they got themselves there, and if they'd just take responsibility for themselves, they'd be able to make a better life. I think a deeper look reveals a much more uncomfortable reality: often people are in dire straits because they were born into them -- and it's hard to get out. This doesn't mean people aren't responsible for themselves -- but personal responsibility and personal ability are different things.
It is easy to label poor people as lazy and looking for a handout. I have to admit, I struggled not to do this sometimes when I worked for the plasma center. I remember one man who kept calling to find out if he was eligible to donate because he needed to know whether or not to accept a job offer. If he could donate, he would reject the job and continue to live on the combo of his welfare check and his donation money.
There are undoubtedly people out there like this -- people we think of as "using the system." We like thinking of this when we think of welfare, because it simplifies things for us and keeps us in a comfy state of judgement over them. But there are far more who are genuinely fighting to make ends meet, people who can't provide for their families and whose children grow up falling behind and falling through the cracks. And yet we have people who want to give less, not more, help to these struggling families.
I also think about the kids I watched while their parents were donating. One little girl slept in a tiny chair at night while her sisters shared a cot in the family's tiny trailer. At four, she already had severe social and behavioral problems -- she was an absolute nightmare to care for. Her mom, trying to feed three kids and keep a home despite her husband's alcoholism, didn't seem to take much notice. The little girl's hand-me-downs were always holey and falling off her skinny body, and she always came in with matted hair and a dirty face.
More than once in that playroom, I thought to myself: these kids don't even have a chance.
I think of Wal-mart employees, who work like crazy even off-the-clock to keep their jobs, who don't make enough to afford health care, and who are encouraged, even instructed, by their managers to sign up for state aid. (BTW -- If you haven't seen Walmart: the High Cost of Low Price -- I highly encourage you to. It's eye-opening, for sure).
I don't like that welfare is necessary in my country. I far prefer the idea that those who work hard can make a life for themselves, that if a person tries real hard, they can rise above their circumstances. It's true that some people do -- but most don't -- and those folks working for $7.22 an hour often build the empires of those who rise to prominence and wealth. Those can't make it need to be cared for -- and if that means taxes for me, and higher taxes for the top 2-3 percent of our country's earners (the kind of people who think $5 million a year is rich, and who can't count the number of houses they own), so be it.
(Our economy needs lots of help. I agree with Obama's stance that the middle classes need tax relief, and that Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy should be reversed. Having dealt with the IRS for about ten hours this past year, I also like his plans to simplify tax returns).
3. I believe that health care should be available to and affordable for every American. Health insurance and health care costs are going through the roof (they've risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years), and more and more people are having to choose between paying for health insurance or paying for food. I work a decent job, but since I work for a small business, health care is not available to me. If Justin's job didn't have benefits, I'd be out of luck. And I know what it is to be injured without insurance (the day of my bad wreck in 2002, we found out that my dad's policy had dropped me after changing the maximum age for students). It is ridiculous to me that we can spend billions -- monthly -- on a war overseas, but we can't figure out a way to provide health care for our citizens. There's nothing sinister in keeping healthcare affordable and making it available to those who can't pay.
4. Justin and I are set to be teachers, so putting money into education is important to us. 'Nuff said.
5. I don't trust environmental policy to people who are reluctant to admit that global warming exists, who have dismissed the research as yet another cog in the liberal media machine. I also don't trust environmental policy to people who are elected in large part by big oil, and who want even more offshore drilling rather than throwing concerted efforts at developing alternative energy sources.
I want to have kids someday. I'd like them to be able to enjoy a planet that's better and cleaner than it is now.
6. While I understand that people, especially people of faith, are passionate about issues such as abortion, I think it is important to remember that having a pro-life president for the last eight years has not resulted in an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Nor has it prevented gay marriage, another big issue for many conservative Christians. I understand that these are moral issues with implications for how a person votes. What's important to me is that people can concede that they are not the only moral issues for a thinking Christian with a conscience.
I think our country would be a better place, and one more open to Jesus' message, if Christians decided to take their moral stand more on loving their neighbors and feeding Christ's sheep than on trying to force the rest of the country to adopt their values via legislation.
Anyway, that's where I'm at. Or at least, mostly where I'm at. I'm often far braver when it comes to sharing other ways I don't fit into the Christian community -- I just finally felt it was important to share my thoughts on this.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)