Concerning Abortion

I read the post titled "My Personal Commentary: U.S. Government" on the Political Awareness blog concerning the topic of abortion. I agree with the statement that abortion is not a subject to be taken lightly, because issues should never be taken lightly when human life is involved. I also agree that certain regulations and limitations should be enforced as far as abortion is concerned, because I was raised in a more conservative home and taught to respect the sanctity of an unborn baby's life. That having been said, I think the argument about abortion being permissable for the first two trimesters is wrong, because drawing a line about when exactly a fetus can be counted as an actual life seems stupid to me. It does not seem rational to say that at one month a baby's life is insignificant, but all of a sudden becomes significant a few months later. I do, however, see the reasoning behind abortion in certain cases, such as rape, where a woman was an innocent victim with no say in the matter, or in cases where the woman's health is at risk. Lastly, I think the argument made in the post about Obama winning due to his support of gay marriage and abortion is a weak one. There were many other factors that contributed to Obama's election that were just as, if not more, important than gay marriage and abortion. Obviously, abortion is a very controversial topic and will most likely continue to be a debated issue for a long time.

"60 Minutes" with Obama

I watched the “60 Minutes” interview of president-elect Obama that was aired on 11/16/08. It was his first interview since winning the election. In it, Obama outlined the major issues facing our nation presently and his plans for dealing with them. Obviously, the economic situation was the main focus of his discussion. Obama advocated government spending for the present as a way to stimulate the economy. For instance, he expressed the need to provide financial assistance to the failing American auto industries; however, he made it clear that the government should not simply write a blank check. Rather, the situation should be assessed more deeply to ensure that enough is given without adversely affecting the economy in other ways. When asked if the current drop in oil prices lessens the need to focus on energy solutions, Obama firmly stated that we should focus on it more now than ever. Aside from the economy, the president-elect stated other plans including: shutting down Guantanamo Bay, doing away with torture tactics, reducing the number of troops in Iraq, and putting a national security team in place to effect a smooth transition.

I felt that Obama did well in his interview, and I pretty much agreed with his proposed policies. I liked that he insisted that solving the energy problem is more important than ever, and should not simply be put on the back burner until it becomes an issue again. Having recently taken an environmental science course, this energy problem is something that I have studied extensively, and I wholeheartedly agree that this is an issue of major importance. Perhaps the only area that I am unsure of that the president-elect touched on is his plan to spend now to boost the economy, regardless of the increased debt it would cause. National debt is and has been a problem for our country for awhile, so I am not sure that this is something that should be taken lightly. That being said, I am not condemning this plan of action, because if it does work as he said, then the benefit would outweigh the negatives. Overall, I felt that the outline that Obama gave for the immediate future was a sound and reasonable plan, which gives me hope for the future.

Commentary on "Hypocrisy"

I read the article entitled “Hypocrisy” on The American Dream blog. This editorial focused on political ignorance and its negative effects upon American society.

I wholly agree that the level of ignorance among the general population is embarrassingly high and that this is an issue that should be corrected. Obviously, citizens who are politically ignorant are less likely to promote a more educated and well-rounded candidate. The primary argument is that our education system should be corrected to solve this problem. On this point, it seemed as if the author was suggesting that formal education is not necessary. While I agree that uneducated people can still play a positive role politically, it is much less likely to happen than if they are educated. For this reason I believe that public education is still a necessity, but the system simply needs some improvements.

I think one of the most important ways to do this is to place a greater focus on government/political education. Currently, students might take a basic course or two in this subject, but it is not enough to make them truly informed and aware of governmental policies and procedures.

Finally, I agree with the opinion that Obama’s presidency will be good education-wise. His policies promoting more funding for teachers and schools, and providing more assistance financially for those seeking higher education will most likely do a good job of increasing political awareness and participation.

Dealing With Iran

I was watching the first presidential debate between Obama and McCain and one part in particular that caught my interest was the policy towards Iran. Both candidates agree that Iran poses a potential threat as it continues to develop its nuclear technology. Additionally Iran has been sending IED’s and special interest groups, such as the Republican Guard, into Iraq. The candidates differ about how to deal with the problem.

McCain seeks a very interventionist policy, and proposed to create a “League of Democracies,” which would place severe sanctions on Iran. Should it continue to pursue its nuclear program, the next step would be military action. Basically, McCain believes that Iran poses so much of a threat that it requires strict and immediate action to handle. His final point was that direct diplomacy without pre-conditions should be opposed. According to McCain, sitting at the table to talk with Iran would only validate its position.

Obama favored a plan focused on diplomacy, and opposed military action unless all other options had been pursued. The Democratic candidate proposed direct talks with Iran without pre-conditions. He stated that Bush’s refusal to hold talks without pre-conditions with North Korea worsened the situation. It had the effect of spurring the growth of the North Korean nuclear development. Obama also criticized McCain’s “League of Democracies” plan, saying that the help of more nations than just democracies would be needed to deal with Iran.

I personally side more with Obama’s views on the issue. I am a firm believer in turning to military action as a very last resort, only when all other options are exhausted. Furthermore, I do not agree with McCain’s opinion that initiating talks without pre-conditions validates Iran’s stance. I do not believe that simply being willing to talk with people validates their opinions. If this were true we would never resolve anything because we would be unwilling to work out our differences.

Sarah Palin from a Conservative Perspective

I read an article titled “The Sarah Palin Paradigm: Real Change” by Chris Adamo, off of the Free Republic blog. In this editorial, the author points out why Sarah Palin would be an ideal vice-president, and then goes on to criticize the policies of the Obama administration and the Democratic party in general. Adamo’s intended audience is voters who are already more conservative-minded, because his outright criticisms of the Left are obviously not designed to persuade Democratic voters to accept his stance. I think that his one-sided viewpoint hurts his credibility, because it makes him too narrow-minded to fairly consider all aspects of the issue on both sides. The way Adamo sees it, the Democratic party is completely flawed and corrupt, while he views Palin through rose-colored glasses.

At the beginning of the editorial, the author points out that Palin’s actions throughout her political career that she is more in tune with the beliefs and attitudes of the founding fathers and the “people in the heartland.” As evidence of this claim, Adamo points to her track record as governor of Alaska, her convention speech, her handling of the liberal media, and her performance in the vice-presidential debate.

Conversely, the rest of the article is devoted to attacking all the flaws with Obama and the Democrats. According to the author, Obama’s political history makes his ability to enforce policies that affect any real change questionable. He furthermore points to Obama’s ties with Muslim-American advocates, his association with Bill Ayers, his ties to Fannie Mae, and his sympathetic stance toward Iranian president Ahmadinejad as proof of his inadequacy.

Reevaluating Candidates' Campaign Approaches

I found an interesting editorial in the Dallas Morning News entitled “Editorial: Substance, Not Sound Bites, Needed in Race.” The basic argument of the author is that the presidential candidates should focus on more key issues during their campaigns rather than the ones they have been hitting on so far, and that they should not speak in generalities when doing so. Specifically, the author states restructuring of the financial system, problems with social welfare programs, foreign policy, and immigration reform as the subjects the candidates should be focusing on. The intended audience is obviously the voter demographic. The author’s credibility is questionable for several reasons. For one, he does not back up his “facts” with any credible sources. Additionally, the author claims that the candidates have only lightly touched on these issues in the past, and have not detailed them specifically, and yet he says nothing about what the candidates have actually said about them up to this point. Thus, the author never defines what exactly the delegates should change about their campaign strategies. This is a major flaw in the author’s logical approach, considering that this is the basic foundation of the entire argument. However, despite these flaws, I agree with the author’s overall message. After all, the editorial does do a good job in detailing the potentially disastrous ramification of ignoring these vital issues. The economy clearly seems to be in a state of decline, and the cost of maintaining social welfare programs will only add to the national debt. Our immigration system is broken, and looming threats such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan demand a reevaluation of foreign policy. For these reasons and more, I side with the author’s stance.

Dealing with the US economy

After looking around I found a very interesting article that piqued my interest. It is from the New York Times and concerns the presidential candidates’ stance on economic policy. According to the article, Senator Barack Obama will air a commercial today (Sept. 17) in which he announces his plans for dealing with the US economy if elected. Obama states that the nation’s economy is in a crisis that demands restitution. His plans for dealing with this issue include such actions as a tax break for the middle-class, a crack down on Wall Street culture and lobbyists, development of energy at home to reduce the reliance on foreign oil, and finally an end to the war in Iraq. Senator John McCain initially had an opposing opinion on the issue; stating on Monday that the economy was “strong.” However, on Tuesday he quickly realigned his views on the subject; declaring the economy to be in a “total crisis.” He now favors increased regulation of the economy. I think this article is worth reading due to its relevance to our current economic state, which affects us all. As the article states, economic conditions have worsened over the past year, so this is an issue that should play an important part in the upcoming election.

Link to article: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/the-early-word-fixing-the-economy/