ALIENS???

I agree with the amendment that says that foreigners CAN run for president. I would say that in addition to the 20 year stipulation, they would have to pass some sort of test or...obstacle course of some sort to prove their allegiance to America. I'm not sure exactly what this test would entail, but I think that it would "cover all of the bases" so to speak, so that any skeptics could rest at ease. We live in a new era, and so it's time that we make some new rules. The Framers of the constitution had good intentions, and the clause they made about foreign rulers makes sense for the time period. I mean, they had just gotten away from tyrants, so they would definitely would want to make sure that no one tried to make America their..."latest addition" to their pre-existing country. However, in today's world, things are different and people are not looking to "steal" a country as established as America. Er- I suppose that it's possible that people would want to do that, but it's highly unlikely THEREFORE, that old and decrepit rule needs to be updated.

Well pardon meeee

If I had the power to pardon people in jail...I don't think that I would exercise that power, unless they were blatantly in need of a lesser sentencing. I feel that the legal system has good people in it, and trust their decisions to put people in jail. However, there are times when sentencing can seem unfair. For example, the guy who inadvertently killed bald eagles by trying to poison coyotes. It sounds like he has/had been in jail for quite a few years. I don't think that the punishment matches the crime. It sounds like he just made a stupid mistake, so he should have to make it up to the eagles because he's certainly not helping anyone by taking up tax dollars in jail. Some sort of eagle community service is in order I think. For bigger issues, like people on death row, I think that I would pardon them. I don't really believe in the death penalty, but who am I to say who lives and die? Wouldn't I have to pardon ALL people on death row if I were to pardon one of them for that reason? If I were a governor, I would try to implement some way of giving people the same effect of the death penalty...but without the death. That sounds really weird but I just don't think that anyone on Earth can say who lives and who dies. As President I would try to do the same thing, or at least bring some sort of committee together to purpose an idea like that to me.

My friend Sarah, perhaps you've heard of her

Well good ole Sarah Palin came to town a week before the election and low and behold, I forgot to mention that! Well, it was actually totally awesome, and I don't mean that because of her outstanding speech. Actually, by the time that Sarah actually starting reeling away, I had sort of tuned out...it was really cold and it had started raining, to which she reminisced- "It reminds me of home!". cute.
However, the whole ambiance of the rally was so invigorating, and totally awesome. It was the first time that I had been to something like that, something where all sorts of people came together to support such an important and larger than life cause. Sure, I've been to concerts where there are tons of people, supporting the same bands...but it's a totally different experience to go to a political rally...which totally makes me feel like a giant nerd for saying that. Most memorable moment: the totally fat, totally clad in plaid, totally hickish, and totally Sarah "dude" holding a sign which read, "Drill Baby, Drill!", naturally evoking a sort of "Git R Done" mentality.
Least favorite moment(s): I just hated all the hooplah that happened before Sarah came. There should have been a lesser amount of people to announce her arrival because by the time she actually spoke, it's like I said, it was cold and rainy, and I was tuned out. By that time, I had waited in line and been corralled into the gates with the masses for several hours.
I don't mean to complain, I thought that overall, it was a totally awesome experience, and certainly a once in a lifetime one. I'm sure it's something my grandkids will ask me about...I only wish I had paid more attention to what Sarah said...

M.I.P. Most Important Pal

Okay, so at first when I was thinking about who Obama's most important helper is going to be, I was thinking maybe like...the head of Homeland Security or something like that. However, the more I thought about it, the more I think that it should actually be the Speaker of the House, and here's why. Joe Biden shouldn't be his most important go to guy because I feel that he would just agree with whatever Obama wants to do. Example: in order to be in Obama's campaigne, Biden totally bashed on McCain, despite their being such good "friends". I don't necessarily trust Joe to stick to his guns. God forbid, but if something bad should happen to both the President and the VP, the Speaker of the House is the next person in line to run the country. This person has to be up to snuff with all the happenings in America and elsewhere, but is also separated enough from the President that I would assume that they would be less inclined to agree with whatever President Obama has to say. And the Speaker has to preside over all sort of important meetings in Congress, which is "where the magic happens" as far as law making goes. There are a lot of important people that Obama is going to have to surround himself to pull us out of this crisis, but I think that Speaker of the House, Nancy, will prove to be most important.

Election Night

I have to say that I was pretty sure who was going to win this Presidential race, so I wasn't all that stoked to watch the race...plus I had homework to do. I find it so odd that the popular vote can be so utterly close, and yet have the electoral votes be such a landslide. I know we've talked about this, but it's still so weird. I kind of just ignored the popular vote tally because it was sort of a false hope. The morning after, my dad said something along the lines of, "We lost", and that he was worried about the nation. I said that that's probably what half the nation was saying when Bush was elected, so it's their turn, I guess. Change worries people, and since that's what Obama embodies, he's intimidating. I know that I have a hard time with change sometimes....but I'm also aware that change is necessary for progress, and this nation could certainly use some of that. Besides, if he is a truly horrific president (this is JUST an IF situation), the government will correct itself and find someone who it thinks will correct the situation. It'll be really interesting to see what will happen in the first few months of the new year.

ps- what was the deal with the thrown out votes? I heard somewhere that the votes from soldiers in Iraq were late in getting to the polls, so they were discounted? Is this true/possible?

I vote forrrrrrrr

LOWERING THE VOTING AGE! Or at the very least there should be some sort of compromise. I will be 18 a mere 2 days after the election, so to me, it seems ridiculous that I'm missing out on the election. There's talk about the age being lowered to 16, but that would sort of undermine the fact that most states recognized 18 year olds as adults...therefore they would technically be allowing "children" to be voting on the ruler of the county. Why don't we meet somewhere in the middle? What about if the person is 18 by the date of the new president's inauguration? That seems fair since nothing could feasibly change about that person in a 2 month span.
I can see why some people would want the age to be 16...it's like learning a language. The earlier you are exposed to a new language, the better chance you have of actyally learning that language...it's just the way that your brain absorbs the information. Therefore, it would make sense that the earlier you are exposed to politics and the process in becoming president, the better informed you would be later in life/in voting.
Maybe a good solution would be in introduce government classes to students in middle school and possibly even earlier. That way, the age could be lowered and the young voters would be recognized as "good" voters.

However, I think that this is highly unlikely, and therefore think that if you are 18 by the time of inauguration, you should be allowed to vote.

Electoral College

The biggest example that supports the decision to change the electoral college is the election of 2000.
"In most years the system provokes little controversy: The winner of the popular vote usually wins the Electoral College vote too. But in 2000, George W. Bush won the presidency after losing the popular election by more than 500,000 votes. How? He garnered 271 electoral votes — one more than the 270 votes needed for a simple majority."

Now, I don't want to get into whether or not I believe that Bush is a good president or anything like that, but I have to say- I don't believe that he should have won the presidency this way. By the electors getting to cast their votes, which apparently have infinitely more power than the vote of the individual, completely silences the 500,000 people that didn't vote for Bush. What on Earth is supposed to entice the average American to vote if they feel that it's a moot point? It doesn't add up that there are commercials and other various modes of advertising pressuring us to "Vote or Die" (thanks, Paris!)and then have those votes cast aside by the electors.

Yes, the College provides us with a clear winner, and allows there to be a fair distribution of power between the states and feds, however, who do we think makes up the states's votes? THE PEOPLE DO. So why have them vote and have their voices "heard" if the Big Wigs of the states are actually those that count? Why don't we just shorten the process, save the candidates money on advertising and just have the electors vote on who they think would represent the individual state's needs/beliefs? That way, it's not directly up to the people anyway. The problem with that being that it would be like "allowing a blind man to preside over a “trial of colors.” " like George Mason said.

Also- with the California/Wyoming comparison, wouldn't it work the opposite way too? Essentially, the votes are divided such that the states with fewer people (Wyoming)have more influence with their votes (their electors do) than densely populated states (California). This is supposed to be proportional and prevent candidates from spending all of their time campaigning in the larger states. This is said to "give the little guy a voice", meaning that the people should want to vote since they carry so much weight. Wouldn't this also sort of discourage the larger states from voting, since their vote counts less? and maybe someone would vote for their candidate for them? food for thought

Welllllll special interests

I think that the public has the right to know which lobbyists are stalking congress and about what. I don't think that they should be treated as individuals (right to privacy) because they aren't. Any sort of collaborative group has the power to change/do things, so it's important for Americans to be aware of what's going on. In the hand out it says that interest groups are not given a constitutional role to make or influence policy, but I don't believe that's true. If that group hires a lobbyist, then they most certainly can influence policy by pushing their group's ideals on those who make them.
There's a question in the handout that says, "should a local 4H group have the same voice and access to national policy makers as the National Dairy Association?" The answer to this is yes. If 4H group members feel that community bonding is more important than dairy related issues, why should only one of the two groups be able to present their views to people who have the power to change laws/policies?

Homo vs Holy Matrimony...

I held on to my belief that gays should be allowed to marry throughout the entire process. I felt that each time the opposing view was presented, I was pushed the other way. It's not like I've never thought about this issue, so I had a lot of ideas and stances in my head as I prepared to answer these questions, and I remained undeterred.
One of the arguments included this: "Yet such marriages are even more important for the proper socialization and overall well-being of children..." So this is saying that if a gay couple raises a child, the child is automatically at a disadvantage? I feel that this is such a hollow defense- there's no real backing to it. It can say that some form of ambiguous research was conducted, but who can really judge whether or not a person is up to par socially? I mean, if you are a well developed child with a functioning brain and body and you happen to be mean or annoying, does that make you less "acceptable"? And who's to say what causes this? Serial killers come from families too, and I'm more than willing to bet over 90% of them come from heterosexual couples. I don't believe that there is any study that could conclude that having two moms or two dads could actually have a negative effect on the well-being of a child. There's always the chance that kids at school could be narrow-minded, and maybe the child of the gay couple would be made fun of, but kids are cruel, they make fun of anything that's out of the ordinary, and it's certainly unfair and small minded to blame that on a non traditional couple that loves their child as much as any other parent would.

Another point was that, “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage...” I think that this statement should be reworded to say "...a family headed by two parents..." Having two parents is always going to be better than one. It's an extra set of eyes to watch an infant, an extra pair of hands in the kitchen, an extra pair of legs to play hide and go seek with, and most importantly, another heart to give to a child. It doesn't matter who you are, if you grow up in a house with adults that love and nurture you to the best of their abilities, you will grow up to be a normal, well adjusted person. There are a few exceptions to the rule, but that usually lies in the hand of the kid. What if you don't know your biological parents like to estimated 50 million orphans in the world? Do you mean to tell me that it would be better to let these millions of kids live in an over-filled orphanage with (likely) not enough funding or supervision, than to let a loving gay couple rescue them? You can't be serious.

And I understand the religious part of this too...I'm Catholic and I know that my religion completely goes against what I'm saying, but I truly feel that in our ever changing world, we need not be ignorant! We have to embrace change...that's the ultimatum, there's no other choice. I may not want to necessarily want to see a gay couple making out, but I wouldn't want to see a hetero couple making either...so I guess it's pretty even.

Finally, "many consider marriage to be the bedrock of our society and to allow gay marriage is to allow that bedrock to crumble?" This, to me, is the most ridiculous argument yet. What about the approximated 55% of ALL marriages that fail? They don't say whether that's just gay or hetero couples does it? It's ALL marriages, but if 5 gay marriages fail, suddenly it justifies why NO gay couple should wed. If hetero couples are allowed to make a mistake like marrying the wrong person (some have remarried upwards of 3 times), why can't gay couples?

Who am i going to "vote" for...

Despite the fact that I'm torn between the two candidates, I think that I would vote for John McCain. I know that he's old, but I feel that he has the most experience with war-type scenarios, and the war in Iraq is one of, if not, the, biggest issue our country is dealing with. I keep hearing about how Obama has set some sort of time limit on the war, and that once x date happens, we're pulling out. I also hear him talking about how all we need to do is defeat Al-Qaeda. Okay, duh, yes that's what we need to do, that's what we've been trying to do for the past 8 years. I think that John McCain has what it takes to make informed decisions about the war and how to end it properly. Of course I want the war to end as soon as possible, but I'm afraid that Obama will give in to all the negative press that the war gets, and pull the Americans out too soon. This would make all the lives lost in vain, which is not something a mother of a 19 year-old dead son would want to hear.
As far as the economy goes, I'm not really sure that either candidate would know how to effectively fix the dilemma, so I'm not really concerned with choosing a candidate based off of that issue alone.
I like what Obama has to say about "cutting emissions" and other energy saving/gung-ho green solutions, as ambiguous as they may seem. Energy and environment are issues that are very important to me too, but I think that the war is higher on the list of priorities, therefore needs a man better qualified in deciding what the country should do.

Presidential Debate round 2

This was an interesting style of debate, with the candidates talking directly to the people asking the questions. On one hand, it added a deeply personal touch by having the candidates look the people in the eyes and tell them how they are going to fix the economy/ every other problem America faces right now. On the other hand, it was an opportunity for the candidates to bash each other in front of their potential supporters. I felt like it was a lot of, "well he said he was going to do this, and that sucks, but luckily there's still ME, who will fix EVERYTHING!!" (insert cheesy smile).
I didn't watch the whole debate because I didn't feel that it was necessary to understand what was going on. I'm starting to get tired of the campaign trail, so I'm very much looking forward to Novemember.

VP debaters

The biggest difference between the two for me was the way they spoke. Biden looked at the "discussion director" (I can't think of her actual title)and Palin looked directly into the camera. It felt like the difference between watching a conversation and being a part of one.
I also felt, in the very beginning, that Biden was sort of avoiding the issues on hand and acted as a huge flaming cheerleader for Obama...I guess that's what they are supposed to do at this sort of thing, but it was just..eh.
Sarah Palin: ALASKA, ALASKA, ALASKA!!! Wow- I've never heard one person turn absolutely every questions asked into an answer involving "the great energy producing state!" I really took notice of often she referred to the amazing and wonderful state of Alaska.

Overall, I liked Sarah better, I feel like she spoke very well and to the right audience. I liked the way she stuck to her guns on the gay marriage issue because I got the impression that Biden was actually FOR gay marriage...but after Palin said upfront that she didn't, but supported their rights, Biden said he agreed. He smelled a little fishy, while I knew that Palin said how she felt, not what other people may have wanted to hear.

Faith in Sarah has been restored after Tina Fey ruined her, at least for me.

Political Ads

"The Vets for Freedom ad, called "Skipped," says that Sen. Barack Obama voted against emergency funds for U.S troops, and an ad, named "One Heartbeat Away," from the nation's largest union of registered nurses, criticizes Sarah Palin." (www.usatoday.com)
These ads have a lot of emotion tied to them- the purpose of each one is designed to cut to the core of the average joe. The one with Obama was made by someone that is well aware that spreading the fact that he voted against the funds for troops, is going to severely piss a large amount of people off, making them (hopefully) vote for McCain. The ad featuring Palin has the same idea in mind. It seems like most ads are designed to make the opposing candidate look so bad that the people have to vote for the other, instead of highlighting their own good traits. Interesting...

Political humor

There is a ridiculous amount of people who are taking jabs at the presidential race this year. Here's an entire site dedicated to poking fun at the candidates and their running mates.


This photo of Sarah Palin is obviously a fake, but this is the kind of thing that people are going to remember. It's so over the top that it makes it seem like it may be part in truth...if that makes any sense. If I were to vote, I know that this is something that I would have in the back of my mind- this juvenileb picture that makes HER seem juvenile.

I would vote for...

Obama purely based off of his environmental plan. I like that he's on the cases of larger corporations that have a tenancy to be big polluters. His Cap and Trade program sounds like it could really work if implemented correctly. I feel that the way he plans on auctioning off the rights to emit a certain amount of gasses is smart because the money earned from these auctions will be used in order to support the advancement of technology. This is in addition to the large sum he's said that he would set aside for further improvements on environmental development.
I like that he has specific targets for the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions instead of ambiguous promises of eventual progress.

Upbeat

According to the typology survey, i am "upbeat" with my political views. After reading what that means, I'm not all that shocked because it's true, I'm not really gun ho about any one issue/policy etc. It associated me with voters that agree with George Bush, and I don't know if I necessarily would agree or disagree with though. I hate my views on politics to be quite honest- it's one of the few things that I am forever indecisive about. I cannot take a stand on anything- I don't understand it. I want to say that I just don't care, but I don't want to say that either. My typology result tells me that I'm optimistic about my financial standing and that I have no ill feelings towards immigrants. These are true statements, so can there just be political stance called "content"? That would be great. Or maybe "content and looking", since I am aware that there are things that need to be talked about such as the environment and the war.
Also I just read the profile for other "upbeats" and I find that quite interesting. They are financially sound, typically white suburbians, Catholic, young and well educated. I'd say yeah, I fit that description pretty well- I'm just wondering if every type of American has a different view. That would make sense, but is it possible to sort of lump them all together like this just did for me?

The biggest issue...

I'm not really passionate about any subject to be honest, but that may be because I don't know a whole lot about any one thing. If I had to pick, I would think that the most important issue for us to tackle first is... well actually I think that it may be a tie between the war and what the next step is and the absurd prices of EVERYthing right now...

watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJcQMve0e8w

watch the whole thing for the Barak Roll- it's pretty good

alright...on to the RNC

Near the beginning of the 3 minutes of pure cheering that kick started McCain's speech, is it my imagination, or did the camera guy show a man with a sign that said "McCain votes against VETS"? It was a fleeting moment, so it came off like an accident, or I could even be wrong...that just stuck out to me.
I also really thought it was interesting/cool the way that he addressed those who are new/unsure to/of voting. I liked that he thanked us for the opportunity to "win our trust".
He sucked up to Obama and his supporters pretty well, I must say, but he's pretty confident that it's he that will win the election. Between the commercial to Obama and helping out with the hurricanes, and the butt kissing that went on again in his speech, McCain is doing his darnedest to appeal to everyone. His family values and election of a female VP really have people talking about him, which is exactly what he wants.

ps- what was the deal with that crazy lady and the flag? I couldn't make out what she said- what a bunch of crazies. It was really irratating that everytime that McCain attempted to make a point, the crowd chanted obnoxiously. blegh

just a thought

I just wanted to quickly comment on how smart I think that it is that McCain chose a cool chick to be his VP. All of the support rallied by Hilary's intent to win has a lot of pent up energy. Any Clinton supporters were ready to see her win and she stand by her every move. Now that she's out, they're going to have a hard time suddenly switching to support the very man that beat out their best bet. So- with that in mind, McCain has now opened up a whole new door of supporters for himself. It seems that a lot of the reasoning behind a Hilary fan is merely because she is a woman- she would have been able to speak on behalf of half the nation's population for the first time. Now that that's not going to happen, they may see the Alaskan governor as their new shining light. Even if I'm wrong about that though- McCain is still brilliant because now everyone is talking about his radical choice, and not the "amazing" (I didn't hear it, hence the " ") speech.

DNC night two

I wish that it didn't take so long for the main speaker i.e. Obama to show up. It's 9:30 and I need to get to bed soon- I cannot and will not stay up until 11 just to watch him. However, I have Tivo'd it in hopes of possibly having time to catch some of it in the morning.

I thought that it was...interesting to say the least that Stevie Wonder performed before any of the speeches were made. This whole thing is just like a huge party to butter up the crowd in order to win votes. As I write that, I realize that that is exactly the point of this convention, but I don't really like it. For instance, I hated the way that Al Gore began his speech talking about himself. He talked about how differently he would have run the country had he won the presidency. To me that just says that he needs to get over it- he lost 8 years ago, it's time to move on, Gore. I just hate the way it was so easy for him to promise that the nation would be in better shape had he won. Sure, he and Bush have different views, that's normal, but at the same time, sometimes you can't help what happens. I'm sure that an economic crisis was never on the agenda for Bush, and it's completely possible that we'd be in the same situation with Gore. I feel like a lot of times people are just so unfair towards Bush. Gore just really made himself out to be the hero that lost...I can't stand that.

I'll try my best to make time in the am to see what Barack has to say...but so far I haven't really liked what I've heard. It's been all the same speeches from everyone- Kerry, Gore, etc, with a different and more annoying tactic each time. I hate showboats and empty promises, which is exactly what these conventions are brimming with. Blegh.

Democratic National Convention

Okay, first of all I hate the name "Democratic National Convention", I feel like National should be the first word, but that's just me. I tuned in when good ole' Bill showed up to support his pal Barack. Honestly the whole speech was nauseating, I felt like Bill was just repeating himself by saying how he was voting for Barack, and everyone else should too. Just showing up made the crowd in Denver go crazy, which was annoying in itself because they wouldn't shut up, but Clinton worked the crowd so hard, it was ridiculous to watch. I feel like the crowd was a mix of actual spectators and sheer giddyness from being on TV, which is likely why they wouldn't shut up. The guy who introduced Clinton was really playing him up, which was strange to me since all I've ever heard growing up is how deceiving and promiscuous he was/is. Tying in with what we talked about in class today with how all we seem to hear about are the bad things the "other guy" did, it was the opposite tonight at the Democratic Convention. So it seems to me that whatever is said is what people want to be true. To the democrats who support Bill's support of Barack, Bill was the golden president, whereas growing up in a pretty republican house, he was the devil's advocate. Politics seem to be about what people want to hear, which makes sense because that's what wins votes. When John Kerry was speaking about President Bush, I really felt that a lot of what he said was unfair. I feel like Bush is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Going back to the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK got extremley lucky with his 50/50 decision...and is seen as an American Hero. Bush, however, got the short end of the stick, but that's another argument.

The things that I honestly notice most were the was I hated how showboaty the democrats seem to be, and how many times the camera focused in on Barack's wife standing and clapping. How long can you stand and clap for? I felt bad for the woman. Anyway, I kind of hated watching the convention...I especially hated when Kerry had the audacity to call John McCain his friend and then go on to call him a hypocrit to the entire nation. I feel that that democrats (at least the ones on TV tonight) are very one sided in their thoughts, a little two faced, and extremely showboaty.
two thumbs DOWN