June 26, 2009
Deconstructing Obama or: Business as Usual - Part I
I’ve been working on this (hopefully) comprehensive post for weeks. It will be posted in several parts.
For starters, let me get this off my chest; I voted for John McCain because I didn’t think he was as bad as Obama. This is an odd thing for me to do, because I’m not above leaving a position blank on my ballot because I don’t like any of the candidates. In this instance I felt that the potential threat to the America I know and love was so great that I had to vote for McCain, because to do otherwise would be to tacitly approve of Obama, which I did not.
Perhaps it’s odd to people who know me, who would undoubtedly call me an ‘idealogue’, that I had to think about voting for, (ostensibly), ‘my’ candidate. I don’t see politics through that prism, however, and align myself with Republicans because I believe it’s the party that comes closest to protecting what I think America is all about. Because the genesis of my loyalty wells from that spring, as opposed to a blind adherence to all things Republican, each election consists of many choices for me; it’s not as simple as ticking off all the candidates with an “R” next to their name. There have been a few times where I’ve declined to vote for the Republican or Republican endorsed candidate because I’m not particularly enamored with them, and in the last election I voted for Brian Sonntag, a Democrat, who has actually been working hard to try and make my state more fiscally responsible; I believe in rewarding that.
To take that thought further, there are many things that George W Bush did as President that I strongly disapproved of; moreover, I was vocal in my disapproval. I was so vocal, in fact that a connected woman in a local conservative group I belong to was going to Washington DC two years ago and after hearing me rail about my frustrations, approached me and asked me to write a letter that she would try to hand deliver to the President while she was in meetings in DC. Unfortunately, her tentative meeting with the President fell through, and the letter was never delivered. My disappointment with President Bush came despite the fact that Mr. Man and I both donated quite a bit to his re-election campaign.
So what roused my ire? President Bush’s lack of adherence to the principles of the Republican party and by extension, the principles America was founded on. I strenuously objected to the prescription drug programme that he pushed and eventually signed in to law. I believe in self-sufficiency, and the government is one of the most inefficient and cumbersome agencies on this planet, and therefore not an enabler for self-sufficiency. Also twisted in the whole drug programme were political concerns; many industries that were unionized (for example the auto industry), yet struggling to succeed in America (due to onerous taxes, regulation or poor trade agreements), were being further crippled by the generous compensation and health packages for retirees. With the government shouldering some of the responsibility for that compensation through the prescription drug programme, the pressure on industry was slightly lessened. Furthermore, the AARP is a powerful lobby group that tends to support Democrat candidates, and in the past the Democrats have used seniors as a cudgel to batter Republicans with. Despite the fact that there aren’t scores of destitute seniors and most retirees have a quite good standard of living, the potential for damage to the Republican brand by seeming to turn a blind eye to seniors was palpable. These considerations, not principle, were what I felt motivated President Bush and the (then) Republican Congress to pass that bill. To me, this seems like a poor reason to create a new government bureaucracy that forces taxpayers to fund services for strangers and pick up the administration tab to boot.
The other cause celebre that President Bush championed that I was vehemently opposed to was his proposal to handle the illegal immigrants in our country. I think people should obey the law. Saying it is okay for people to lie, steal and commit illegal acts because they are poor is wrong.
Mexico has problems, most of them brought on by the Mexican government and citizens. The citizens refuse to demand accountability, fairness, investigations into corruption, and allow their politicians to explore a level of deception and selfishness that is incredible. The population is satisfied with promises of bread and circuses, satisfied when their elected officials claim the conditions in Mexico are not the government’s fault but more often than not, the result of American decisions.
Mexicans should be enjoying a better standard of living, yet refuse to demand it. Mexico has incredible oil reserves, NAFTA opened the door for all sorts of American industry to move there (which it did), and they receive massive revenue from tourism. Yet because of the corrupt government, this revenue seems to go into politician’s pockets more than infrastructure, and Mexicans, instead of changing their condition, illegally cross into America. The Mexican government sees a boon in this, in that it has to support even less infrastructure and citizens and as a result publishes comic books that give tips on how to enter America illegally; aliens then come to America and demand rights they never required from their own government. Interestingly, Mexico imprisons and brutally treats any illegal alien it finds in its country, but in the past several years, more and people have managed to come from elsewhere in South America and make it to America through our porous border with Mexico. There is even some evidence that Adnan el-Shukrijuma, wanted by the FBI, trained in nuclear technology and an al-Qaeda operative, entered the United States through this path and used the illegal document trade to obtain a new identity.
On a more basic level of ‘fairness’ why should illegal behaviour be rewarded? People flee oppressive regimes, yet the United States sometimes takes years to legitimize their status as defectors, and we regularly turn away Cubans who brave the sea to come to America yet face brutality if they return. There is no evidence or poll that supported Bush’s notion that these were jobs ‘Americans won’t do’; illegal aliens make up only 4.9% of the entire labour force, their presence has pushed down wages for unskilled workers and illegal aliens receive one and a half times the amount in benefits from the government as they pay in taxes ($16 billion to $26 billion). These statistics are real, culled from the CBO, Centre for Immigration Studies, Pew Hispanic Centre and other places. Why should illegal aliens get jobs ahead of legal immigrants, who have been made redundant by the recession and face deportation back to their country of origin? Legal immigrants need medical certificates, proof of employment (or a waiver for school), undergo checks and often have to wait for years just to enter the country, whereas the proposed ‘immigration reform’ would have levied a small fine, not required medical checkups, (despite growing incidence of parasitic disease in California which has been linked to the burgeoning immigrant population), had only the most rudimentary of background checks and granted benefits and opened our borders to the extended family of illegal immigrants.
Again, the reason was partly political. Democrats and the press have done an admirable job of painting the GOP anti-minority, despite the fact that Republicans were the first to welcome blacks to their voting ranks, (Condoleezza Rice’s father, like many other blacks in the south, was barred from voting by Democrats who refused to register them ), nominated the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court (Miguel Estrada) and President Bush appointed two black Secretary of States and the first Hispanic Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales).
Yet because the GOP opposes affirmative action, it is seen as ‘anti-minority’ and has now bought into the media’s theory that the party cannot survive without the Hispanic vote and that is most effectively obtained by ‘bribing’ the community with very favourable immigration laws. I reject this rationale and don’t think it justifies compromising our principles even if a shred of it turned out to be true. Leaders should not be so easily bent by political motives, and I was disappointed that President Bush (and John McCain among others), supported the bill, and that some even began to intimate that those of us in the party who opposed it were racists. Luckily the American public made their voices heard, and I was one of them; I called the White House, my Representative, my Senators, emailed a letter to the President and hand wrote a letter to the Vice-President (his correspondence secretary sent me a reply). As it turned out, despite being a co-sponsor on the immigration bill, John McCain did not garner the majority of the Hispanic vote last November.
Despite the few disagreements I had with President Bush’s policies, he appears to be a man with convictions. He believes people should be free and oppression is wrong; as someone whose father lived under the yoke of communism, I applaud that. He loves America, and values the service of our men and women in uniform, and he and Laura have spent a lot of time at Walter Reed. He has a genuine compassion for people, and while some of his decisions were influenced to a degree by political concerns, he was also by suffering people, channeling more government funds to AIDS relief in Africa than any other President. Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war at various times, he didn’t abandon that effort in order to further his political image. He used government funds for stem cell research, which had never been done before, but stopped short of approving further embryonic stem cell research because he questioned the morality of it. He was fairly frugal with taxpayer money with regard to the Executive Branch; he didn’t embark on superfluous trips, throw lavish galas or endless state dinners. He was an early riser and a late worker; even during his much derided trips to Crawford, he worked every day and received his regular briefings. Early on he extended a hand of friendship to various Democrat leaders like Teddy Kennedy, inviting him over for hot dogs and a movie screening of ‘JFK’; he later worked with Kennedy on the education bill. He was never above the hardworking Joe and Jane American; he laboured on his ranch clearing brush and wasn’t an elitist; this common touch was very evident particularly in the days after September 11th. He made an effort to avoid what he thought could be construed as politically motivated attacks, and was satisfied with misdemeanor charges and a slap on the wrist for Sandy Berger, (Clinton’s former National Security Advisor), even though Berger knowingly removed classified information just prior to his testimony in front of the 9/11 commission, and Republicans were outraged there weren’t strong penalties for Berger.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade; I disagreed with the previous administration and made my voice heard, even though I am a Republican. I believe issues and conduct should be examined in light of what my principles and values are, and those are pretty simple. People should obey the law as closely as possible, (I’m talking about the big things, not speeding tickets), and live moral lives where they do not steal from or harm another person. People should not use their power and position to enrich themselves by questionable means (insider trading or pork projects to political supporters), or grant themselves privileges that are denied to others (like sweetheart mortgages), or attempt to gain control over another person’s life, which they are not entitled to (nationalised medicine). Justice should be blind and the same rules applied to everyone because to do otherwise is to invite favouritism and corruption. The same opportunities should be available to everyone, and results should come from individual effort and not some government entity trying to enforce its version of ‘equality’. We should strive to be fair and just in our dealings with other humans and other countries, champion liberty and use the Constitution as our guide when we create laws. People can make better decisions for themselves than some faceless bureaucrat 3000 miles away.
This is one of the biggest problems I have with Barack Obama; hope is not a principle and change is not a value. I don’t know what drives him, what he uses as a guide when he makes decisions. ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ are feel good words that mean nothing, that don’t show me the character of the man or what is important to him.
I respect many people who I disagree with because otherwise they are people of principle, but I cannot respect someone who doesn’t seem to have any principles at all.
Next Installment: The Democrat’s Double Standard.
Posted by hanyap at 3:41 PM | Comments (0)
June 20, 2009
Iran
Pray for the people of Iran as they fight courageously for their voice to be heard.
Posted by hanyap at 10:36 PM | Comments (0)
Father's Day
Yesterday we received sad news that the father of a dear friend of ours passed away. "Tom" was much loved by our friends' wife (also very dear to us), and their children. Life can feel unbearably sad sometimes.
I always think about my father a lot this time of year, and the sad news from our friends makes me think about it even more so. This June marks the 25th year since my father died, suddenly, just a few days after Father's Day.
It's been so long since it happened that no one close to me now knew me when he was alive. I've recently made contact with some friends from 7th grade, people who I haven't spoken with in twenty years, and they only knew me for a year because we had all transferred into a gifted program for 7th & 8th grade, so we were new to each other.
If I wasn't here as proof, if I didn't have pictures and some (albeit fading) memories, there wouldn't be much to remind me of my dad.
As much as the threads tying me to my father are stretched with every year, they are still there. Supposedly, I look like his mother. I'm sentimental and he was, too, although I am probably sentimental to a fault. I'm taller than the average woman, and that runs on his side of the family. I don't know whose side I got my green eyes from, or my nose. I have many great traits from my mom and her family to be sure, some even from her grandmother, who I adored, but there is no doubt that I am my father's daughter too.
Both of my parents are (were in my father's case) artistic, and I picked up some great cooking skills from my mom. I picked up an odd curiosity from my dad, however (we called him Tato). I remember Tato coming home from a hunting trip and he had saved me the heart when he cleaned a deer. I was fascinated by it, and I don't know how he knew I would marvel at it, but he did. I rinsed it out and cut into it and examined the chambers, the still attached aorta. It was miraculous to me, and Tato laughed. He knew me a bit better than I knew myself. He knew I would be interested in what he was working on, (he designed cooling/fluid handling systems for power and chemical plants), so he would make copies of some of his drawings, bring them home and spread them out on the floor and try to explain things to me. I remember feeling such gratitude that he would do that, considering I was about 10 and understood very little, if anything, of what he said. He knew I liked science and loved the shuttle and space, and that was one way he could nurture my curiosity.
We didn't have a lot of money and our house was only 1400 square feet and five of us lived there, but my brother and I didn't notice that too much. Christmas always seemed magical and full to us and it was only after I was on my own for a while that I realised what an amazing feat my parents pulled off, considering the resources they had.
Of course no one is perfect, and Tato was a strict disciplinarian, and he and my mom expected a lot out of us. Still, I always think of my childhood fondly, as a very happy time, a very good time, and my brother does too. (Even if we did pick on each other sometimes).
My brother was graduating grammar school (from the same gifted programme I was in), and it was a few days before graduation. We went to a ceremony at Jersey City State College where they handed out certificates for the college courses the graduates had completed. I remember I drank too much (non-alcoholic) punch and felt weird from all the sugar.
I awoke at around 2AM to my mom calling my father's name. Paramedics were called and they tried to revive him, but it was no use. I still remember the pattern on the spread that covered him as we waited for the mortician to come and take him. We sat at the kitchen table to wait, and I sat in his chair and looked at the Father's day cards that he had propped up there. It was at that moment that what had just happened began to sink in; I had given Tato his last Father's Day card.
Just a few days before, as he was driving us to school, he mentioned the prospect of going fishing. Every summer my brother and I, Tato and my uncle (my mom gets seasick), would go fluke fishing on the Palace II, which was docked in Hoboken. I remember having a bit of a casual attitude about it, not wanting to be pinned down to a date just on the cusp of summer vacation. We would go, we always did, I thought to myself.
Perhaps what happened in 1984 is what made me so sentimental. I realised young that you can't take anything for granted, particularly as it concerns the people in life you love. Perhaps it's why when I was younger I tried hard to fill my life full of people and get togethers (often running late in the process). Maybe it's why my husband and I spend so much time together - I treasure being with my best friend and I don't know what the future holds. Maybe it's why I save receipts from trips that other people would throw away, and perhaps its why I still have the bathrobe my mom made me when I was 4; blue and yellow terrycloth with butterflies stitched on to it. For all intents and purposes it's long since lost its usefulness, not only because I've grown out of it, but because the fabric has separated and it looks shredded. I still treasure it just the same; it's in the top drawer in the dresser next to our bed.
Perhaps this seems like an odd entry for a political blog, but Father's Day is tomorrow and C&M losing "Tom" Friday brings it full circle. They spent time with him the past few weeks, and I know they treasured it. It is so easy to be caught up in life, when in truth the things we occupy ourselves with are, on the whole, trivial in the grand scheme of things. Work and grocery shopping and TiVOing your favourite programme are important in terms of providing money, diversion and sustenance, but the store will still be there in twenty minutes, or the next day or even twenty years from now, whereas our time is limited.
We all have regrets in life and none of us are perfect, though we try to plan and organise. I find the memories I treasure most come from unscripted and unguarded moments. Be open to having more of that happen in your life; you won't regret it.
I may not remember what my father's voice sounded like, but I will never forget him shaving with the bathroom door open as I watched a shuttle launch on TV. I jotted down notes on one of his pads of graph paper and relayed to him what was going on during the launch countdown. When I was overcome with excitement and tears of joy as the shuttle took to the sky, he didn't think I was silly, he just smiled. That's a memory I wouldn't trade for all the money in the world.
Happy Father's Day everyone.
Posted by hanyap at 12:02 PM | Comments (3)
May 29, 2009
Why Sotomayor's Appointment is Disgraceful (Updated 5 June)
The news outlets can barely contain their glee at the nomination of an unprincipled ideologue to the Supreme Court. Her life story is 'amazing', 'inspiring', (insert glowing adjective here).
While her story is certainly one of triumph over adversity, on a macro level, it is also the story of America. I have friends who have had a family member die suddenly while they were young (myself included), leaving the family in shambles; friends who had parents battle addictions to alcohol; other friends who had one of their parents leave whilst they were young, causing hardship. Every single one of these people have grown up and become successful (everything from marketing managers to engineers), and they are decent, fair-minded people to boot. So while I will say Sotomayor faced difficult times, I'm also saying that doesn't suddenly make her SCOTUS material, any more than the hardship my friends have experienced does. There are thousands of judges and lawyers in the United States who have as impressive, or even more impressive, legal and educational credentials; that is more germane than her 'personal story'.
We're not trying to appoint someone who is a social worker or a care-giver; we're trying to appoint a brilliant and thoughtful legal mind who is able to wade into cases that set precedent for the entire land. We need someone who is able to adjudicate cases without bias (remember, the statue of Justice is shown blindfolded for a reason), and evaluate it on its merits vis a vis the law, mainly the Constitution.
This even-handedness with regard to jurisprudence is what separates civilised countries from oppressive ones. Once law and justice are applied based on the whim of courts, there is no confidence in the legal system. It's worrisome when Sotamayor says she believes that being a Latina allows her to make better decisions, and her rulings are based on her feelings and not law.
Earlier this year, she ruled that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms did not apply to states putting restrictions on weapons, despite the 2008 SCOTUS ruling that affirmed that owning a gun is a personal right, and cannot be interfered with by the government. Her ruling is also in direct contravention to the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from restricting rights that are guaranteed by the Federal government. Unprincipled and knee-jerk rulings like this this one is probably the reason Sotomayor has a has been reversed 60% of the time.
Sotamayor was also involved in reviewing a decision concerning the promotion of firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. Due to a limited number of open captain and lieutenant positions, only the top 19 of the 59 firefighers who passed the promotion exams were to be promoted; 17 whites and 2 Hispanics. Because no blacks had scored among the top 19, the the board was cautioned to not certify the results; the firefighters who were likely to be promoted sued, claiming their civil rights had been violated. Sotomayor and her two colleagues upheld the lower court decision that the firefighter's rights hadn't been violated (I believe the case is now before the Supreme Court).
The firefighter tests for promotion are difficult; there was no purposeful engineering to exclude blacks from the top scores. Denying these firemen their promotions simply because you're not excited about the ethnic mix is appalling. There's talk about re-writing the test in order to elicit a different outcome, which is tantamount to changing the rules of the game mid-stride; how can anyone claim this is fair? Sotomayor and her colleagues think its perfectly fine to stack the deck in certain people's favour, however. Everyone is equal, except some are more equal than others it seems.
Even Sotomayor agrees that she sees being a judge differently than the Constitution defines the role; whereas she sees judges as creating policy, the Constitution is clear that the Executive branch does that, the legislature enacts new laws and the judicial branch evaluates cases based on the law. Judges, who are not elected on the Circuit Court level or the Supreme Court level, are not supposed to take it upon themselves to create and enforce new policy because they are not answerable to the people.
With her 'breadth of experience', Sotomayor should be a champion for equality, fairness and equal application of the law. Instead she has positioned herself as some great arbiter who doles out her version of justice based on factors such as race and sex. She is a bureaucrat on high, able to pass sentence and alter people's lives based not on a set of agreed upon rules of conduct (called laws), but on her personal preference and feelings of empathy. This is absolutely wrong and her appointment should be opposed strenuously.
As for her being a Latina, a minority, and the GOP would be stupid to oppose her, I say, what good are principles if you refuse to stand for them? Many in the GOP didn't think Harriet Meyers was a good pick and said so; Miguel Estrada was nominated by President Bush and the left tarred and feathered him, and his bona fides were better than Sotomayors. Where was the outrage for the Democrats during that go round? We need to stand for something or surely, soon, we will stand for nothing. Sotomayor is a bad pick not because she is a Latina, but because she doesn't believe in the rule of law, and therefore won't be able to uphold the oath she is compelled to take:
"I _______, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [Supreme Court Justice] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
UPDATE:
Surprisingly, the liberal magazine Mother Jones is critical of Sotamoyor's writing ability and points out Scalia's far superior writing skills. An excerpt:
The court's influence and lasting legacy is what it commits to paper. Sotomayor may be a force of nature in the courtroom, where she's said to shine, but it's hard to imagine her going head to head in print with, say, Antonin Scalia. The conservative justice is the master of the wicked one-liner and, while something of a smart aleck, he influences the public debate on so many issues because of his writing—whether he's in the majority or dissenting and whether he's right or wrong. Scalia's opinions are cited in leading constitutional law casebooks more than any other sitting justice. In the 2002 case Republican Party v. White, for instance, he quipped, "campaign promises are—by long democratic tradition—the least binding form of human commitment."
But it's not just his one-liners that make Scalia's writing so influential. It's also the way he frames his arguments. Take his dissent in PGA Tour v. Martin. That's the 2001 case in which the court ruled in favor of golfer Casey Martin, who suffered from a birth defect that prevented him from walking 18 holes and who wanted to use a golf cart in professional tournament play. Scalia wrote, "If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf…then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States…to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution…fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a 'fundamental' aspect of golf."
and:
Her opinion in the case {Entergy Corp v. Riverkeeper] runs 80 pages; reading it might be good punishment for law students who show up late for class. Early on, she devotes nearly an entire page to quoting EPA rules that instruct power plants on how to comply with the Clean Water Act. And it takes her 2,500 words just to sum up the basis of the case. A layperson would be hard pressed to glean from the opinion that Riverkeeper is a significant environmental opinion that puts Sotomayor squarely in the green camp. She rules against power plants and in favor of preserving aquatic life at almost any cost, yet the opinion is remarkably passionless. For all President Obama's talk about appointing a justice with a sense of empathy, the Riverkeeper opinion suggests that what he appointed is a technocrat. The most quoted paragraph of Sotomayor's majority opinion is this one:
The Agency is therefore precluded from undertaking such cost-benefit analysis because the [best technology available] standard represents Congress's conclusion that the costs imposed on industry in adopting the best cooling water intake structure technology available (i.e., the best-performing technology that can be reasonably borne by the industry) are worth the benefits in reducing adverse environmental impacts.
It's hardly one for the ages. While the Riverkeeper opinion itself is a drag to read, it makes for an interesting point for comparison because Scalia wrote the Supreme Court opinion overturning her. His entire opinion runs only 4,800 words, including the footnotes dissing Justice Stephen Breyer for perceived weaknesses in his dissent. Scalia's opinion is also laden with the technical language endemic to these sorts of regulatory cases, but it manages to be clear and concise and, more important, convincing, because there's actually some original writing tucked in among all the references to section 316(b) and other regulations.
I've periodically read Scalia's opinions- he is brilliant. At various points witty or a tad sarcastic, his decisions are always well thought out, footnoted, clear and interesting. Whether you agree with him or not, he is also something Sotomayor isn't: an originalist who looks to the Constitution and not the laws of foreign governments for guidance (as Ginsberg does), or allow emotion to influence his decisions.
Posted by hanyap at 12:34 PM | Comments (0)
May 27, 2009
Delays
I haven't forgotten this blog.
These past few weeks have been incredibly busy. I had a huge paper due Tuesday for Microbiology and a math assignment due this morning; tomorrow a Microbiology project is due (identification of two unknown bacteria), and Friday is my second major math test (only one more to go). Mr. Man and I did manage to spend about an hour and a half Sunday at a local cemetery, putting iris' on the grave of random veterans (we really like it when we come across a WWI vet's grave).
I have been writing blogs in between all this, however; I have two currently in work. People who don't write blogs may not realise it, but they can take a lot of time. Many of the blogs I write take days, in fact. I decide on a topic, ruminate on it, (to decide on the approach), research it, write, and then let it gel for at least a few hours. Later I revisit, revise, re-read, verify data and post. Most entries I post take about 5-7 hours in total to generate, and I have many I've started and never posted, either because I wasn't happy with them, or I realised that the topic felt outdated to me.
The long and the short of it is that I am worried about things, worried about the path we're on, but school (primarily), has been so pressing I've had little time for anything else.
I will return soon.
Posted by hanyap at 11:03 PM | Comments (0)
