Jamesland

'Amnesty' El Parte Dos

2007-05-30T20:19:00.000-04:00

So if the forum on The Politico would work, this is what I was going to write in response to the many who called me out earlier:

Allow me to defend myself ...though I'm sure I will not change hearts or minds:

Bruce
Frykman: May. 30, 2007 - 10:33 AM EST
JPBarnett: May. 30, 2007 - 9:28 AM EST
If they speak the Spanish, they must be illegals! Let's send 'em back to Spain." Idiots.
What? All of Latin America, with the exception of Brazil speak Spanish, most of the Carribean, Spain, the Philipines etc all speak Spanish...its a lovely language and a fine culture but then so is Chinese, so should we let the Chinese flood across our borders by the tens of millions as well?
Sorry about this one. This was sarcasm. I realize it doesn't always play well in written text. I was merely referencing a suggestion by a previous poster who said that Mexicans were created by
Spaniard who raped their native tribes, so we should send them all back to Spain. It was a throwaway point anyway...

What we've got here is a complex situation. 12-25 million people are in this country illegally, most from Central and South America. Roughly, 98% of these people look and sound different from white-bread Americans. I will continue to assert that if these people spoke English and had lily-white skin, this wouldn't be a tenth of the problem people make it out to be now. I know I'm not going to win that argument, but I will assert that as truth for the record. With that out of the way...

Many of you have thrown out portions of truth. Without question, there are people here reaping benefits they are not paying for. It is a problem. Part of the proposed immigration reform act will deal with this. Another poster summarized better than I can:
Equalizer: May. 30, 2007 - 6:42 PM EST
Just keep the good ones and return the rest. Anyway the change of status program it is only a temporary 6 months to 1 year, if they do not qualify for more, they wont be citizens at all; I do not think all who qualify for Zamnesty visa will want to pay $5,000 + $1,500 fees to become citizens, can you imagine to wait 13 years to
be Zegal (Legal),

That's the sum of it. Everyone who is here will "touchback" home. Those that can afford the costs and want to brave what is a very difficult system will have every opportunity to earn citizenship, the same way that any other non US-citizen may.

Many of you talked about fining employers. I agree. Let's hold corporations, and even Mom and Pop-type stores accountable, if need be, for hiring people without proper identification. Also, let's crack down on people that are making forgeries
of documents like SSN's and Green Cards and what not. While it does not excuse the illegality of lying to an employer, it would be much harder to do so if someone else was not complicit in forging these kinds of documents.

Many people also talked about how this bill is a pathetic attempt at reform. And you know what? Maybe you're right. The bill is certainly far from perfect. But think about the way legislating works. In the Senate, 100 people get together and have to agree on a way to approach a given situation. Each member of that body has a different idea of what is right wrong. Hell, most people on this forum have different ideas about what is right and wrong. Now also keep in mind that there is another legislative body to deal with, and a President that you must also get to agree before anything can be done at all (a simplification, true). Therefore, neither
this bill, nor any other will be everything for everybody! Good legislation is all about the careful art of compromise. Certain barriers exist on both sides of the issue. In the end, you end up with a bill that has enough support to pass, even if it is not the 'perfect' bill that some may have imagined.

I hate to sound like a civics teacher, but that's the way it is! When was the last time the US Government ever passed an act with unanimous approval, not just of those legislating and executing the laws, but also of the laiety? I can tell you; it never happened!

To me, what this comes down to is an honest attempt by leaders on both sides of the issue coming together in a way Washington hasn't seen in years to accomplish something. I will never tell you that you can't disagree with their final product, but let's give credit where it is due. Sens. Kennedy, Kyl, Graham, Feinstein, Lott, as well as Secretary Chertoff and WH Chief of Staff Josh Bolten deserve credit for coming together on a difficult compromise. They have also tried their damndest to convince members of their respective caucuses (to varying levels of success) that it is a workable compromise. You may disagree, but what they have done was not an easy task.

One last note (for now):

Anti Rep/Dem American: May. 30, 2007 - 3:10 PM EST

I know that is a hard concept for you America haters to understand but there are still some people that care about this country.

Don't you EVER try to tell me how I feel about my country! You and I may disagree about how things should be run here, and that's fine. I am happy to debate about any of it. You may not change my mind, and may not ever change yours, but we can debate civilly all day long. At the end of the day, you and I will both be countrymen. I love this country with all my heart, and I hope that with that love in mind and soul, I will be able to do, think, and say what I think is best. That's the greatest part of this country. Don't you ever ever ever forget it!

'Amnesty'

2007-05-30T09:45:00.000-04:00

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4224.html

I will reiterate what I wrote on the comment board for this story found on Politico.com:

I am so tired of hearing the political fear mongering of the word 'amnesty.' First of all, the immigration reform bill in its current form offers no such thing. There is a path to citizenship, but to call that a 'blanket amnesty' is not even mistaken, but merely ignorant. Second, what opponents of 'amnesty' forget is that we have depending on what sources you listen to between 12-25 MILLION illegal immigrants in this country. If we do not do something to allow them to earn their way towards citizenship, as this bill provides for, the only other option is deportation. Would one of you geniuses on the right like to explain to me how you plan on rounding up 12-25 MILLION people!?
What this all boils down to is xenophobia at best, and out and out racism at worst. You people that get so worked up about Hispanics (because they're not all Mexicans. They come from Guatemala, Honduras, Cost Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, etc.)do so because you get unduly irritated because you can't understand them! I will grant to you that a certain working knowledge of English is essential to assimilation into the United States, but assimilation does not happen overnight. Second and third generation immigrants by and large speak both languages, something the ignorant right will never even attempt. Hell, most of you cannot even figure out the difference between an illegal immigrant and one that came here legally! "If they speak the Spanish, they must be illegals! Let's send 'em back to Spain." Idiots.

If we really want to talk about a people that hate the members of the host nation, how about we talk about our American forefathers who massacred millions of Native Americans in their conquest of this nation. I am not seriously suggesting that we do not belong here, but if the hypocrites on the right are going to characterize Hispanic immigrants this way, it is about time they look in the mirror.
Stop wasting your time bitching about the "illegals who stole your job," and go find a new one. Racists.

'In God We Trust'

2007-04-26T09:48:00.000-04:00

***So, I work in the Indiana House of Representatives. For the record, my views are my own, and while they may be shaped by those I work for and around, they reflect only the thoughts of this lonely mind and are in no way representative of any Representative or staffer thereof.***

I'm sorry, I don't really like to single people out, but sometimes I am simple incapable of letting people spread misinformation in a way that is hurtful.

Perhaps you have heard about the controversy surrounding the new-ish Indiana license plates (picture left). They are very patriotic-looking and display the motto "In God We Trust.' Of course anytime there is a connection between the words 'God" and a government, be it local, state, or federal, there is a backlash from the secular elements of society followed by a counter-backlash by social conservatives.

What has happened here is slightly different. The ACLU, on behalf of an Indiana man, has sued. The grounds, however, are not religious. The suit charges, correctly, that drivers wishing to purchase this plate may do so as any they do the standard Indiana plate. Unlike other 'vanity' license plates, such as ones available for the Colts, the Environment, Riley Hospital, or Breast Cancer, the 'God' plate has no administration fees. Therefore, people are being allowed to express their advocacy for this more or less on the State's dime. Other groups must pay a $15 fee to do the same.

The argument here is not about God. The argument is about having to pay for what should be free speech. If one group is allowed to express itself freely, all groups should be permitted to do likewise. The alternative is that all groups should have to pay. It is not fair for one group to be given an opportunity to express itself in a manner that is clearly unavailable to other groups.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/LOCAL/704230439

http://evansville.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2407370802&ref=nf

Not Red & Blue, but Red, White & Blue - and GREEN

2007-04-15T16:08:00.000-04:00

I found this article in the New York Times Magazine. It is by The World Is Flat author Thomas Freidman. Here's the link (it's also in the title):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green.t.html

Global Climate Change is real. No one will convince me otherwise. Even if you disagree, the article is worth reading. It examines how the US can overcome a slip in our perceived international standing by embracing things Green. We can lead the way, and Freidman argues, even coerce China, India, and Brazil - the leaders in the post-developing world - to do likewise.

All in all, a well reasoned argument with a proposed solution. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it is better than anything that anyone else is trying right now.

Update

2007-04-04T23:44:00.000-04:00

***So I work in the Indiana House of Representatives। For the record, my views are my own, and while they may be shaped by those I work for and around, they reflect only the thoughts of this lonely mind and are in no way representative of any Representative or staffer thereof.***

I thought you all should know that the Amendment was defeated! Five brave legislators took a stand against codifying hate into the Indiana Constitution. At the risk of exposing these brave lawmakers, I want to single each of them out for congratulations:

Maybe think about sending them an e-mail or a letter to let them know that you support the stand they took last night in the House Rules and Legislative Procedures committee. I know I have thanked them as I've seen them.

Hate Politics

2007-03-27T21:16:00.000-04:00

***So I work in the Indiana House of Representatives. For the record, my views are my own, and while they may be shaped by those I work for and around, they reflect only the thoughts of this lonely mind and are in no way representative of any Representative or staffer thereof.***

With that out of the way...

I get to see some pretty cool things on a day-to-day basis. The legislative process can be boring or exciting, heated or dispassionate. Sometimes a group comes in and makes some noise, sometimes the only people there are the Legislative Assistants and the Interns. I am the latter.

Today, Advance America came to the Statehouse. Their agenda was two-fold: abolishing property taxes and supporting Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 7, the proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would effectively ban gay marriage.

I will come out and say that I am against this amendment, completely and wholeheartedly. That said, I appreciate reasoned debate and the right to express your opinion. What I have no tolerance for is ignorance and hatred. Today's rally exhibited both.

This is how marriage should work: the Church (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Satanist, whatever) can ordain people to get married as they see fit. Marriage is a religious and social construct that ought not be regulated and licensed by the government, be it federal, state or local. If government wants to continue to recognize 'marriage,' they should allow equal-opportunity civil-unions to any group of people that seek it out.

The insistence that "God said being gay is a sin" is a religious statement, not a political one. Church and state are rightly separated in this nation. If you believe being gay is wrong, don't do it. Feel free to share your opinion. But do not force that opinion on others because of your religious dogma(s).

My main problem with those that oppose SJR 7 is that they do so blind of their bigotry. I respect religious people. They are mostly good people. However, their pious attitude smacks of hypocrisy. Christians forget that Christ himself hung around with prostitutes and other outcasts of society. He did not hate them; he accepted them. If you can't draw the parallel there, I can't help you.

But the thing that really pisses me off is watching these supporters of hate legislation bring in their 2-5 kids along with them. Children deserve to be able to grow up without adults shoving their prejudices down the kids' throats. It is a sick thing to see. It hurts me inside to know that those kids will end up hating people later in life because they really don't know any better. It's not fair. It really is akin to child abuse. That's what they say when children are exposed to many other destructive behaviors; this one should be no different.

Class of 2008, part 1

2005-07-05T05:32:00.000-05:00

I saw a report on Fox "News" the other night about Hillary Clinton's proposed run for the White House in 2008. It got me thinking about the aspirations of the many that will likely run for the vacant presidency. While Wikipedia has a good article here, I thought I would run down the major canidates both with brief description and commentary.

DEMOCRATS

Sen. Russ Feingold (WI) - The popular lawmaker from Wisconsin is currently serving his 3rd term in the U.S. Senate. He is considered somewhat independent, though he has a history (like most congressmen) of voting with his party. One of his most significant acts as a Senator was co-sponsoring the campaign finance reform bill bearing his name (McCain-Feingold). He is liked for his "common sense" approach to lawmaking and is often praised as a "reformer."
Sen. Joe Biden (DE) - Biden will be up for re-election to serve his 7th term as the senior Senator from Delaware in the 2006 "mid-term" elections. Biden is the first Democrat to officially declare his candidacy. He has a been an opponent of President Bush's unilateral war in Iraq and will be an integral part of this summer's debate over the nomination to fill the vacancy left in the Supreme Court by Justice O'Connor as a member of the Senate Judiciary committee. Seen by many as a longshot.
Gov. Bill Richardson (NM) - Richardson is the Chairman of the Democratic Governors’ Association, as well as a former U.S. Representative, U.N. ambassador, and Secretary of Energy. He has overseen dynamic growth in the economy of New Mexico, a state with a balanced budget and (get this) a budget reserve. Has reportedly said he will seek the nomination. Washington outsiders always make attractive picks to voters. It's the whole you have to campaign against Washington to get into Washington phenomenon.
Sen. John Kerry (MA) - The 2004 Democratic nominee may very well be the 2008 version as well. As advantages he has national recognition and a large bank. His biggest negative, of course, is the fact that he already lost once. Now, I haven't become a Kerry hater since he lost. Admittedly, I was never his biggest fan, but in the words of a South Park, what do you do when the race is between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich? All kidding aside, Kerry would have been a good choice in '04, but I think there are some great choices in '08.
Former Sen. John Edwards (NC) - The '04 veep nominee had presidential aspirations of his own last election cycle. 2008 may provide him with with another chance. However, Edwards has the same negative as Sen. Kerry in that he has lost once (twice, if you include losing the primary). He also has the additional shortcoming of losing the public's eye. He is now the leader of One America, a political action committee dedicated to softening the effects of poverty. To me this PAC seems more like a desperate way to keep Edwards in the limelight.
Gov. Mark Warner (VA) - Warner is the Chairman of the National Governors' Associaton. His stock has ascended in large part to the grassroots community. The internet can do wonderful things for lesser-known candidates, much like it did for Howard Dean in 2004. As governor, Warner has steered the State of Virginia through a huge budget deficit without resorting to massive cuts in important programs like education (are you hearing this, Gov. Daniels???). As the NGA's chair, Warner has had the opportunity to bolster his national standing. It was here he introduced a plan to refom America's high schools. These types of undertakings are monumental. They are both of high importance and difficulty. While many look to merely cry out against th system, Warner has introduced a way to change it. I'm not endorsing his plan or his candidacy, but measures like these should not go unnoticed. Warner also shares Gov. Richardson's "outsider" advantage.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY) - Of course, no discussion of 2008 would be complete without mentioning former President Bill Clinton's other half. I certainly would not discount the possibility that she may well be the first woman ever elected as President of the United States of America. With that said, she would have a long road ahead of her. First, she needs to secure her re-election to her seat in the Senate. Though she will no doubt face a big name opponent brought in specifically to beat her (maybe Gov. Pataki or former NYC Mayor Giuliani???), she will, by all estimations, retain her seat. Another problem Sen. Clinton has is the media. Though usually potential candidates want the media watching, Clinton has the media not only watching but analyzing every move looking to see how she is posturing for the bid in '08. While the attention may not be totally undeserved, it does make "everyday" business harder to conduct. Third, she had a problem of being polarizing. True, the current President is about as polarizing as they come, but what George W. Bush is to Democrats, Hillary (and to only a slightly lesser extent, Bill) Clinton is to Republicans. Where there was an ABB (Anybody but Bush) campaign in '04, we may see an ABC (anybody but Clinton) campaign in '08. With all of these things holding her back, Mrs. Clinton does have things going for her. Her high profile does work for her too, remember. The fact that she is a woman could lead many to vote for her for that reason. Though some have called it posturing, she has seemed to soften on some issues like Defense, while working bipartisanly on others like Healthcare. Certainly, Sen. Clinton will be a player in the next election.
Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) - The junior senator from Indiana is serving his second term. Defending his seat in 2004, Bayh defeated his opponent by twenty-five percentage points. More astoundingly, he tallied more votes as a Democrat than President Bush did as a Republican in my triple-cherry red State of Indiana. There are two knocks on Bayh: he's not particularly well-known outside of his constiuency, and he's not liberal enough to escape the Democratic primary. The first, I think, is easy to overcome. Many had not heard of Clinton or Bush before they declared their candidacies and they were both two-term Presidents. The second, however, may be a problem. Primaries are very difficult to maneuver. Some may even say they are harder than the general election. After all, it's easy to argue with someone who has oppositional politics, but it is much more difficult to debate people that are essentially on your own team. I wish I had advice for the Indiana Senator here, but I think we'll just have to wait and see. What Bayh does have is what ESPN's Bill Simmons calls TUP (Tremendous Upside Potential). He's not a liberal, for one. This is a plus in a general election. Though some states (e.g. New York, California, Massachusetts, etc.) will vote for liberals regardless, many American voters feel disconnected from those on the far-left. He is what George Bush promised to be, a uniter. If Bayh can pull near-80% approval ratings as a Democrat in a traditionally Republican state, it is very hard to say he is anything resembling a divider. He's a Democrat who is strong on Defense and is socially moderate to conservative. Though Bayh has yet to declare his candidacy, he has formed a PAC, All America, that will allow him to create a larger national presence and support nationwide travel to accomodate such. What the heck, I'll come out and say it: Bayh in '08!

The second half of this post will focus on Republicans. I hope to get this out in the next week to week and a half. You all have my permission to stay on me to get this done.

For the People at Home Especially

2005-03-21T16:30:00.000-05:00

Keep an eye out on the Opinions page of the Journal & Courier. In Friday's paper was a letter (3rd letter down) regarding Sen. Evan Bayh. Since Bayh is one of my favorites, I took it upon myself to defend him. Here's a copy of my letter, which by phone today I was told will be printed.

Senator Evan Bayh is one of the great politicians in Indiana. He, along with Republican Richard Lugar, forms perhaps the classiest and most professional tandem of U.S. Senators from any state in the Union.

The reason the Founding Fathers gave senators a six-year term is so that they don’t become overly pressured to bend to the will of a self-centered populace. Remember, after all, the Senate is a national institution that deliberates over matters of national, not state, importance. Mr. Johansen (3/18), please recall it is natural for a senator to become “out of touch.”

Speaking of recall, let’s talk about that. The recall is a state device; therefore, it can only be used on the state, not national, level. Further, the State of Indiana doesn’t employ the recall; it’s not in our state constitution

Senator Bayh does not deserve this. Yes, he voted against Secretary Rice and Attorney General Gonzales, a tow-the-line-and-deny-any-responsibility administration lackey and an opponent of human rights, respectively. Drilling in ANWR is a decision that will set a dangerous precedent. Our National Parks system was created to preserve American beauty, and drilling will lead to the destruction of that beauty. Social Security does have looming problems, but even a growing number of Republicans dislike the Bush plan. Judges support gay marriage because they realize its inevitability. These same “activist” judges have brought us integrated schools and the concept of rights being read when you are arrested.

I personally can't wait for a Bayh presidency.

So there's that. You gotta love Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

State of the Union: Volume 2 (Sigh), Part 1

2005-02-03T19:24:00.000-05:00

Well, there's nothing I could do to stop it, and so there it was: George W. Bush giving his first State of the Union address of his unfortunate second go-round in the White House. However, I am a citizen of these United States, and perhaps now more than ever, I feel it is my duty to watch this address and let all of you know what I think about it. (Please hold all applause 'til the conclusion of this post.)

For a complete transcript of the speech click here.

The President says the State of the Union is "Confident and strong." Well, good. That makes one of us anyway. After getting that one out of the way he peppered in some legislative proposals including:

A call for responsible spending, including a promise to halve the national debt by 2009. Now, I'm sure this "responsible spending" includes paying for the War on Terror, right??? Because I'm sure we will be able to afford the $3.8 trillion it would take to pay off half of the national debt while financing a war...
Further pursuit of alternative energy sources including the use hydrogen in cars, and ethanol as a renewable energy source. I can't complain about either of these proposals too much. Although I would venture a guess that good ol' Dubya was merely giving them lip service. I could be wrong. I hope I am.
The call for the creation of a "bipartisan" panel to review the tax code. The idea is to simplify the tax code while keeping it "fair." We shall see...
A comprehensive immigration reform that allows for guest workers for jobs "Americans won't take" to help people who are merely trying to "help their families 'make it,' " while not committing to amnesty for said immigrants. I find immigration to be a difficult issue. I see it as impossible to close the borders, both from a practical standpoint and an ideological one (seeing as how our country was born on immigration to a large extent).
A reiteration of 43's support for a Constitutional amendment in "defense" of marriage. I assume by this he means he wants to alter our great Constitution, the "living" document, so that it includes a section that lets the whole world know that the United States of America has no tolerance for homosexuality. Ugh. I may not be as passionate about this as others, but this is silliness. Homosexuals are people too. But, hey, wait! I've got an idea! Let's change the Constitution to discriminate against them! We could make them count as 3/5's of a person in the next census. That's never been done before, right?
A very cautious statement on stem cell research. He wants to protect embryos, yet push the boundaries of modern medicine. Sounds kind of like having your cake and eating it too. I won't even get into the embryo debate. That's an argument that can be discussed better at feministe or one of the myriad feminist links from there.
A new initiative headed by First Lady Laura Bush to reach out to men in the inner-city. This sounds similar to a program headed by Nancy Reagan - "Just Say No."
A call to renew AIDS legislation known as the Ryan White Act. I have no idea about this. I'm sure AIDS victims need the help though.
A push for competent lawyers in capital punishment cases, complete with DNA evidence whenever possible. Well, that's good. If we're killing our criminals, at least we're affording them the very best legal advice the criminal justice system has to offer. This is exactly what we need...not! How about we abolish the death penalty instead of using our tax dollars to pay to make sure we don't have to use it.

And that was all. There were no other legislative proposals. Wait; there was something about Social Security, I think. I'm not sure. It wasn't real clear. Seriously though, this comprised a good 1/3 of the President's speech. He wants persons under 55 to be able to take 4% from the current 12% paid in payroll taxes and divert it into "voluntary personal retirement accounts" that can be invested in the stock market or wherever else. He claims the current system will be paying out more than it's taking in by 2018, and by 2042 it will be completely bankrupt. This, of course, was met by hearty boos from the Democratic congressmen in attendance. I'll be honest; I don't completely understand the complexities of this issue. But to me, it seems like it should be simple. You get out what you put in. If 12% of every paycheck you earn is paid to Social Security, keep that money in an account with your name on it, so that when it comes time for you to retire your money is there waiting for you. I don't know, maybe I'm missing the point.

Now, what kind of speech would it be without a large section devoted to the Bush Doctrine? Certainly not one you will hear our 43rd President give, that's for sure. Not surprisingly, much of what was said in Wednesday's address was much of the same rhetoric we've been hearing for weeks, if not months. We're still a target for terrorists. (Hmm...wonder whose fault this is???) Insurgents in Iraq are scared of democracy. (No, they're just scared of George W. Bush the warmonger.) We have no timetable for Iraq. (Mr. Bush, rational people call this "lack of an exit strategy." I don't know, maybe try that one on for size, eh?)

Don't fret faithful reader, there were also juicy new tidbits of foreign policy to be had. No one left this speech hungry.

On North Korea: We are in close contact with them as well as a - guess what - coalition of Asian nations discussing there nuclear capacity. This small mention seems far removed from three years ago when North Korea was a member of the "Axis of Evil."
On Iran: A message to the Iranian people - "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." This sounds very much like a preamble to the kind of ultimatum issued to Saddam and his loyalists pre-Gulf War II.
On Egypt: A challenge to step up and be a model for democracy in the Middle East
On Syria: Mentioned the passage of the Syrian Accountability Act, a bill aimed to curb that nation's capability to harbor terrorists.
On Israeli/Palestinian conflict: Asked for $350 million to aid in promoting peaceful negotiations between Ariel Sharon and new Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas leading to what he termed "the goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace." This seems like a new, dare I say, positive step. The creation of a Palestinian state has almost never been a goal of American leaders. Rather our intentions have always been focused on the protection of Israel, or as I like to call it, America-MidEast.

The one thing I've left out is the touching moment at the end where the mother of a Marine killed in combat gave her son's ID tags to an Iraqi woman who had voted this past Sunday. Now, I'm not a particularly emotional guy, but I'll admit I had a tear well up in my eye when I saw that. Then it hit me, as great a moment as that was, I'd bet anything that it was set up. I almost guarantee it was suggested by someone on the president's staff or even the President himself. I could be wrong, but if I'm not, I am very disappointed that this administration would play on America's emotional heartstrings like that.

Overall, it was a very good speech. Obviously, I didn't agree with a lot of it , but I do recognize the quality of what was said. So kudos to Bush for delivering a good speech. I've made clear, I think, how I feel, and I would be more than happy to hear from the rest of you.

(This post is also available here at Twinkies & Coke.)

Hands Down

2005-01-24T03:12:00.000-05:00

How do you put into words the feelings of immense happiness and elation? I don't know. Well, maybe I just did.

Today was a truly fantastic day. I feel complete in a way I've perhaps felt before but never quite this clearly. I fel as though I could take the world and give it a big bear hug. There is a small part of me that would like nothing more than to re-live this day over and over again. Of course, my head tells me that there's still more to come. I believe I will sit back and enjoy the ride. Of course, it's not as though I really have a choice.

So there's that. This may not mean much to most. Oh well.

...And I made you guys think I was going to stop posting...HA!

Post-Election Thoughts

2004-11-04T17:06:00.000-05:00

It took me a couple of days to gather my thoughts for this one.

This was my first election. Let me just say, there has never been a better time for a young person to get involved. That said, I feel let down by the system. I did more than just vote. I worked with (and against) the candidates in order to get the people I thought were best suited into office. I worked the polls. I showed up at 5 o'clock in the morning. When we opened at 6am, we already had a line. That line remained until 7:30 pm when everyone that was in line at the official closing time of 6pm finally got to vote. I went to the Vanderburg County Democrats "Victory" party in downtown Evansville. By the end of November 2nd, I hadn't just partaken in the process; I was part of the process.

Here in conservative, red-state Indiana I knew that only a few Democrats would win. I may be optimistic, but I know this state swings heavily towards the right. That said, I would like to extend my congratulations to a few Indiana Democrats who shined Tuesday night:

I have personally met each of them except Sen. Bayh. They are all very kind men. Both Reps. Hoy and Avery told me I could get in touch with them in a couple of years to work in the Indiana Statehouse as an intern. Yay for me, already making political connections!

With all that said, Tuesday night and into Wednesday was very disappointing. I wasn't expecting huge things. The races I had really high hopes for were a Kerry presidency, Gov. Joe Kernan to get re-elected, and for challenger Jon Jennings to defeat incumbent US Representative John Hostettler. When neither of those things happened, I was crushed. Jennings actually gave his concession speech 5 feet in front of me at the "Victory" party. That kinda sucked. He choked up at one point, and, to be honest, I almost did too. You see last week the University of Evansville College Democrats held a rally. It was an "Ass Kicking Good Time." That name was contributed by yours truly and made its way all over campus. A bunch of great candiates came out including Jennings, Avery, Hoy, and VanHaaften.

Seeing the results came in made me lose faith in the entire American public. I actrually would have traded state victories in every race for a Kerry victory. When it became apparent that that wasn't the case, I started playing the "Four years ago" game. I dare all Americans to look me in the eye (or in this case the comments below) to truthfully tell me that they are better off now than they were before Dubya took office. I don't think anyone whose name isn't Ken Lay or is working for Halliburton (or really any big business type) can make that claim. I know I'm not the only person who felt/feels this way.

Even with all the depression, I am trying to remain optimistic. Senator Kerry said it best, "Now is time for healing." As much as I am not looking forward to it, we have to deal with this administration for four more years. I say let's make the best of it. We can hold them accountable for every action they take. We have Congressional elections in just two short years. In four more years, let's vote for Hillary, Edwards, Bayh or whoever else may pop up between now and then. (On the possibility of a Bayh presidency, somebody keep reminding me, and I'll make a post on that one. I've got some ideas...)

Now is definitely not a time to roll over. We always talk about change. We embrace "good for the country" ideas. But let's face it, unless you or I are president or at the very least in Congress, ideals like that are lots of talk with no results. We need to start embracing small, local charities and things of that nature. By widely helping on the small-scale, we can make a huge difference on the large-scale. Let's stop talking and actually go do something!

Please everyone leave some sort of reply. I would love to hear everyone's ideas. We all took the last couple of days differently, and I for one would love to hear how everyone coped (or didn't cope).

I thought he was dead

2004-10-15T18:31:00.000-05:00

That was my Dad's reaction when I told him I was going to hear former US Senator from IN, Birch Bayh, speak today in downtown Evansville.

I did go, and it was really, really cool. He was in town to promote the re-election of Govenor Joe Kernan. He did his little schpiel as did a few others like the Mayor, and city-council people.The really cool part was afterwards.

I went with my Political Science professor. He told Bayh afterwards there was a group of students. The Senator was excited and came over and told us to sit down. He ended up talking to us for about a half hour.

Sen. Bayh was very active in the civil rights movements of the 60s and 70s. He told us about him writing the ERA, reforming the Indiana public school system, and helping block the approval of two Nixon Supreme Court appointees. He also let us ask questions.

Q: Does your son (Sen. Evan Bayh) consult you for help with his re-election campaign?
A: Is he running again? (Very telling. Shows The Junior Bayh should have no worries defeating Republican challenger Marvin Scott.)

Q: Is it likely that if Bush is re-elected, he will appoint judges to overturn Roe v. Wade?
A: No, it's not likely. It's certain. If there is only one issue in this election I would say it's making sure he doesn't get the opportunity, besides being a bad President, to foul up the judiciary, which is supposed to be our last line of defense against the government.

Wow! What an indictment of this President. It's one thing when Kerry or Edwards flings harsh words like this. Or even if a partisan like myself said it, it wouldn't be so bad. But when a respected 3-term Senator and former Presidential candidate offer harsh criticisms like this, I think it is very telling. I think a man like this knows a thing or two about Washington. He was there for Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and part of Reagan.

Anyway, y'all already knew I wasn't voting for Bush. But now I feel very good about it with a old Washington vet on my side.

More Poetry

2004-09-20T22:00:00.000-05:00

My god, I'm turning into a poet! Molly, if I end up wearing berets and moving to France, I will see to it that your blood is spilt upon the earth! Ok, not really.

So here it goes, another attempt at poetry...

Twilight settles in after
a long day's night.
In the midst of battle,
a soldier is wounded, down.

He searches to find the one
who did him harm.
As he looks, he finds he
was hit with an empty shell.

His assailant came and left;
Finished the task.
The soldier, stunned, asks, "Why?"
Hearing no one, he looks 'round...

As the soldier rights himself,
the war keeps on.
He returns to the field.
Through faux pain, he starts to yell:

"My cup runs over, Lord! I can
not continue!"
And God replied saying,
"Child, this was just the start.

"As you continue on your quest,
your enemy will
once again confront you.
You are to learn a lesson."

The soldier remained, thinking of
what he had heard.
He reasoned, "Sleeping with
the enemy is an art."

With this wisdom he departed,
to continue
on his way. There will be
other fights that must be won.

Wow, now I've gone to metaphor. I think I've lost all normalcy that I ever held on to.

Random Poetry

2004-09-17T01:22:00.000-05:00

I hope you guys like this. Neh, even if you don't it may be therapeutic for me, and that's what it's all about, right?

The moon is hidden
The night is dark
And all I hear is the wind

My eyes see clearly
My heart is stunned
What a strange way to begin

Growing interest
It disappears,
Vapid like your empty gaze

This is not over
I retain hope
My flame will remain ablaze

I dunno. Maybe tonight wasn't the best night. You decide...

2004-03-26T01:18:00.000-05:00

As promised, my take on Larry Flynt:

I thought to understand his case, it was important to try to understand the man. Interestingly enough, he spent a portion of his childhood right here in Indiana. By the age of 10 or 12 he was basically on his own. He spent about 6 years in the military, including a year in the Army before they discovered he was too young (16). He then opened up several strip clubs before eventually starting Hustler.

Getting to the case, the basic question in Hustler v. Falwell was this: Are celebrities entitled to collect damages when they are made fun of.

Of course if you're even reading this post, you probably already know that the Court ruled in favor of Flynt and Hustler.

So here's my take:

By protecting a publisher's right to satire, the Court properly guaranteed 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech. While many of us may be offended by parodies of the nature of that found in a porno magazine, those parodies certainly have the right to exist. The idea that a celebrity has equal rights to protection from slander is also somewhat, for lack of a better expression, fucked up. Celebrities by their nature have to understand that they have given up their rights to "normal" life. They live under public scrutiny, and nothing is going to change that. Besides without publicly scrutinized celebrities, who would we have to make parodies of anyway?

Maybe you were looking for something more indepth, but I finished that paper like five weeks ago, and now I'm struggling to remember some of it. Sadly, I don't care enough to go back and look up what I wrote.

That's my take on the King of Porn's most important legal battle.

2004-01-20T23:46:00.000-05:00

What the hell, I'll be a little political.

Watched the President's State of the Union address tonight. Interesting, to say the least. Overall, I thought it to be bland and mostly inoffensive. As expected there were ups and downs. I will touch on a few of each.

We'll go negative 1st, saving the "best" for last. Dubya called for renewal of both his taxcuts and the Patriot act. While I may not be a pro economist, I'm pretty sure his cuts are going only to him, and those like him (greedy, rich bastards). At the same time, I'm not sure how you can give taxcuts to a lower class that receives most, if not all, of their tax money back when tax checks come out each year. On this, I need to become more learned. The Patriot Act, however, I am more sure on. I will applaud 43 on his intentions. While some may disagree, I don't believe he's an evil man aiming to strip American's of their Constitutional rights. At the same time, it's time to realize that, as my father once told me, "Good intentions pave the road to Hell." (Thanks, Dad) It's time to, if not completely reject then majorly re-haul, the Patriot Act. No doubt we need to protect our homeland and keep a lookout for terrorists, but we can't do that at the expense of our own personal freedoms. One other thing I am severely conflicted on is this "sanctity of marriage" business. Being raised in a Christian household, I am still ingrained that homosexuality is morally wrong, though I really am trying to keep an open mind. That said I can understand the stance of man & woman, man & woman, man & woman. At the same time, however, I see no reason from a legal perspective for us, the heterosexual majority, to condemn those different from us. I learned in my basic government class that our government works on a "majority rules, minority rights" basis. Of all I learned, this is perhaps what stuck with me the most.

Not withstanding my last 298 words, I was, on the whole, pleased with this speech. I think a reformed prisoner relief system would be beneficial not only to those it helps directly, but also to the economy as a whole as it would open up an entire new sector of workers for employers, giving opportunity to those who need it most. This move would get good face, therefore encouraging consumers to consume in said company, spurring the economy as a whole. I especially liked Bush's proposed expansion of federal Pell grants, as this would apply to me. The idea of rewarding students for their academic success and not only their determined "need" may truly encourage young people to strive for achievement.

I know there was more. There are ideas Bush through out that sound good. I require more background info 1st. Specifically on immigration, healthcare, monies for faith-based organizations, I would like more info.

This was a long post. And, to be honest, it would have been longer if I would not have waited for so long to start my post after the speech. If you read this far, you get a gold star.

If only I could make myself write like this for that English paper due on Thursday.