Most people will call me crazy but with so much riding on the Michigan and Arizona republican primaries today, its hard not to feel bad for Mitt Romney. Four years ago he lost the nomination to senator John Mccain. At the start of the republican primaries he was the most well known candidate. He has had to battle against the former head of the national restaurant association-Herman Cain- who was previously accused several times of sexual harassment, the "godfather of gridlock" -former congressman Newt Gingrich- who was also guilty of ethic violations while in congress, a somewhat satirical character-congresswoman Michelle Bachmann-who along with her husband felt you could "pray the gay away", and now a virtually unknown former senator with extreme conservative views who lost his reelection campaign in Pennsylvania-Rick Santorum-who among other things feels that Satan has his sights set on America.
Mitt is charismatic, good looking and is worth more than any of the other candidates, reportedly 240 million. He has spent more than any of the other candidates on his campaign but is still not the clear front runner. He is struggling for a win in Michigan even though he was born in Detroit, grew up in its suburbs and his father was a three term Governor in the state. To make matters worst, in Michigan, registered democrats can vote in the republican primary (this makes no sense to me) and many feel they will do so and vote for Rick Santorum since they feel he has less of a chance of beating President Obama in the fall.
I'm just saying, poor Mitt.
Thoughts?
Independent Political Thoughts. Welcome to my first blog! I hope to entice my friends and family into discussions on current political issues! Enjoy the news feed with opeds, the political video bar at the bottom of the page and hopefully you will also enjoy my posts! Nadeen
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Religion and Government:Strange Bedfellows
I must preface this post with the fact that I am a Christian. I was raised Catholic and although I attend baptist church services more regularly than mass, I am currently observing lent.
The issue of religion and God playing a central role in governing our country has recently arisen thanks in part by statements made by former senator Rick Santorum. The former senator disagrees with the separation of church and state. So if religion is to be used to govern the country, which one should it be? Since Christianity is the most common religion in America should one assume that would be the religion of choice? Or should it be the practicing religion of the commander and chief? Whatever that may be. Do we expect Jews, Muslims and atheists to follow along with rules that have a christian basis and possible bias? And if the situation was reversed, would Christians be willing to do the same? How can people of one religion so blindly believe that theirs is the better one or the only one that will lead you to heaven or eternal life? Whatever that may mean to you.
This issue lead me to a conversation I had with a friend almost ten years ago that was living in Eastern Europe at the time. We were discussing whether people in society need religion in order to do the right thing. To lead a good and moral life. I believed that the fear of going to hell kept people from doing wrong, committing crimes and just plain being evil. I also believed the opposite was true. That believing in a peaceful afterlife in heaven drives people to make the right choices and live a good life. Therefore, don't we need religion to live in a structured and civilized society? Without it wouldn't there be chaos and crimes if the criminal had no fear of hell and no one (a God) to answer to? This is what I was taught by my church and by society on a whole and I never questioned it until our conversation.
He brought to light the fact that in many countries with no strong ties to any God or religion such as Japan, there is far less crime than in those that do. Japan has the largest number of atheists in the world but has the lowest murder rate while the United States has the largest number of Christians in the world and has the highest murder rate. The state of Louisiana has the highest church attendance rate but has twice the national average murder rate.
In 2008 a study was published in the Journal of Religion and Society which showed that secular societies have lower rates of violence than in those countries where most people profess a belief in God. Countries such as Britain, Norway and Germany have lower crime rates including murder rates than the United States. So why do certain people push so hard to have religion a part of our laws and government?
In the end, I do not believe that any person needs religion or to have a belief in a certain God to know right from wrong. I believe it is innate in most human beings. Religion does not equal morals. I believe religion is very divisive in our country and the world. But I also believe in religious freedom as a right in this country.
Due to all of the above, lets keep the separation of church and state.That's what the forefathers intended 236 years ago and I think it still works for today.
Thoughts?
The issue of religion and God playing a central role in governing our country has recently arisen thanks in part by statements made by former senator Rick Santorum. The former senator disagrees with the separation of church and state. So if religion is to be used to govern the country, which one should it be? Since Christianity is the most common religion in America should one assume that would be the religion of choice? Or should it be the practicing religion of the commander and chief? Whatever that may be. Do we expect Jews, Muslims and atheists to follow along with rules that have a christian basis and possible bias? And if the situation was reversed, would Christians be willing to do the same? How can people of one religion so blindly believe that theirs is the better one or the only one that will lead you to heaven or eternal life? Whatever that may mean to you.
This issue lead me to a conversation I had with a friend almost ten years ago that was living in Eastern Europe at the time. We were discussing whether people in society need religion in order to do the right thing. To lead a good and moral life. I believed that the fear of going to hell kept people from doing wrong, committing crimes and just plain being evil. I also believed the opposite was true. That believing in a peaceful afterlife in heaven drives people to make the right choices and live a good life. Therefore, don't we need religion to live in a structured and civilized society? Without it wouldn't there be chaos and crimes if the criminal had no fear of hell and no one (a God) to answer to? This is what I was taught by my church and by society on a whole and I never questioned it until our conversation.
He brought to light the fact that in many countries with no strong ties to any God or religion such as Japan, there is far less crime than in those that do. Japan has the largest number of atheists in the world but has the lowest murder rate while the United States has the largest number of Christians in the world and has the highest murder rate. The state of Louisiana has the highest church attendance rate but has twice the national average murder rate.
In 2008 a study was published in the Journal of Religion and Society which showed that secular societies have lower rates of violence than in those countries where most people profess a belief in God. Countries such as Britain, Norway and Germany have lower crime rates including murder rates than the United States. So why do certain people push so hard to have religion a part of our laws and government?
In the end, I do not believe that any person needs religion or to have a belief in a certain God to know right from wrong. I believe it is innate in most human beings. Religion does not equal morals. I believe religion is very divisive in our country and the world. But I also believe in religious freedom as a right in this country.
Due to all of the above, lets keep the separation of church and state.That's what the forefathers intended 236 years ago and I think it still works for today.
Thoughts?
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Gay Sheriff
This one is mainly for laughs. So a conservative republican sheriff in Arizona who is currently running for a congressional seat, who was also co-chair of Mitt Romney's election team in the state, has been embroiled in a hot scandal. Apparently he was has "been in the closet" so to speak, having a relationship with a Mexican man and threatening to use his power to deport him. However, the Mexican ex boyfriend is apparently in the country legally. Of course in all this scandal there is a picture of the sheriff in only his underpants that he sent to his ex boyfriend. When will people learn not to send seductive pics and texts and emails while in a secret relationship? IE Eddie Long and Anthony Weiner. I do personally think the self taken pics in the bathroom mirror are hilarious. But I digress. The sheriff was forced to hold a news conference admitting that he was gay, stepping down as co-chair of Romney's campaign, but denying any wrongdoing to his former lover. He then made it clear that he still plans to run for congress.
This raises a bigger issue in my mind. Being gay and republican. An oxymoron? Granted I know there are many issues that makes one conservative and republican besides your stance on being gay, gay rights or gay marriage. These include taxes, illegal immigration, abortion, gun control, big government etc. But it seems odd that with so many on the right feeling that you can "pray the gay away", that its a promiscuous choice vs being born gay, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that it would be hard for any openly gay person to sit across from a true conservative and feel welcome, accepted and their equal. Maybe that is why so many including the sheriff have kept their gay identity a secret.
Many have felt the same way about Blacks in the republican party. Since our history includes conservatives and republicans, especially in the south, fighting to deny us civil rights. But a lot has changed since those times and many blacks, especially those that have reached a certain level of success, agree with the republicans stance on less taxes, traditional family values and tougher laws on illegal immigration.
As a successful black woman I can see both sides. However I am certain if any party stood up to say I wasn't allowed to be married because of my race or that I was somehow inferior based on that same race, I would have a very difficult time not only joining their party but representing them in congress.
Thoughts?
This raises a bigger issue in my mind. Being gay and republican. An oxymoron? Granted I know there are many issues that makes one conservative and republican besides your stance on being gay, gay rights or gay marriage. These include taxes, illegal immigration, abortion, gun control, big government etc. But it seems odd that with so many on the right feeling that you can "pray the gay away", that its a promiscuous choice vs being born gay, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that it would be hard for any openly gay person to sit across from a true conservative and feel welcome, accepted and their equal. Maybe that is why so many including the sheriff have kept their gay identity a secret.
Many have felt the same way about Blacks in the republican party. Since our history includes conservatives and republicans, especially in the south, fighting to deny us civil rights. But a lot has changed since those times and many blacks, especially those that have reached a certain level of success, agree with the republicans stance on less taxes, traditional family values and tougher laws on illegal immigration.
As a successful black woman I can see both sides. However I am certain if any party stood up to say I wasn't allowed to be married because of my race or that I was somehow inferior based on that same race, I would have a very difficult time not only joining their party but representing them in congress.
Thoughts?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Virginia is for lovers and nutty lawmakers.
Governor McDowell of Virginia has rescinded his support of a new bill that would force every woman undergoing an abortion in the state of Virginia to undergo a trans vaginal ultrasound. Many have argued this is an invasive procedure and not necessary. Most women know it is not comfortable but it is really not about comfort is it? Especially since we all know an abortion is far worst. Its about lawmakers in this state trying to bully and scare women out of not having an abortion. That somehow if they have to undergo procedures and be forced to see the fetus on ultrasound it will decrease the number of abortions that are performed. I understand that the republicans and conservative that are the current ruling party in Virginia are pro-life but last I checked, abortion is still legal. No matter what their personal feelings are on the matter, I do not think state lawmakers should be able to make up their own rules.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Affirmative Action
Oh boy! The Supreme Court has agreed to revisit this polarizing subject in the fall. The last time the high court looked at the issue was in 2003 and they decided race can be used as one of the factors in admissions for the purpose of achieving diversity but cautioned against quotas. The case has been brought by a white student at the University of Texas who claims she did not get admitted because she was white.
So many thoughts come to mind I am not sure where to start! How about with Clarence Thomas and others that must realize they have achieved part of their success due to affirmative action but would now turn their backs on others behind them. I personally can not help thinking of my experience in high school when I was told by other students I got into UVA because I was black. I was then told the same thing in college when I got into medical school. No I did not have the highest scores either time and there may have been white students who did have higher scores that did not get into my schools but did I think it was unfair? Initially I did.
Until I attended an affirmative action rally in college and minored in Sociology taking such classes as Sociology of Inequality. At the rally they mentioned a running race. That minorities often do not have all the exposure and background of other students that may put them at the starting line up. But it doesn't mean they are not as smart or as driven. They just need a shot, a chance to get to the line and prove themselves in order to make it to the finish line. And most do. Getting into a school with any help from affirmative action means nothing if you are not capable of performing against the top students across the nation. UVA for instance is known for graduating one of the highest number of black students within a 4 year period. So we do quite well. I was personally grateful for this opportunity since as a daughter of Jamaican immigrants who knew nothing about how to get into college, being 1 of 3 nonwhite students in my class and having all white teachers and guidance counselors who told me not to apply to such high ranking schools, having low self esteem and feeling like I did not belong, I worked very hard through it all on my mission to become a doctor.
In Sociology of Inequality we read books about public education by Jonathan Kozol. Specifically I remember reading about schools in urban and low income areas. Schools that had no computers, not enough books, teachers that were overwhelmed, lack of guidance counselors, classrooms that were old with structures that were falling apart. Even the most naturally gifted students would have difficulty learning and excelling in this environment. There was also the lack of guidance from parents that had no idea how to help with homework or push their children down the path of higher education including studying for SATs or filling out college applications. Does this mean that these students should be doomed to stay in their neighborhoods or should they be given an opportunity to attend top schools and later a better life based on essays or interviews and potential seen by an admissions committee? My interviewer for medical school told me that. I had the national average MCAT scores but my science GPA was below it. But she told me she saw potential in me and felt I would be a fine doctor. I still think of Dr.Champ and I am grateful.
In terms of schools using affirmative action as a way to preserve diversity at their schools, it has been argued that students learn best at schools with diversity. I do believe that everyone should know how to work and play alongside people of all races and cultures. It breeds competition and tolerance which are both great things.
In 2007 the high court voted to strike down affirmative action in public high schools and a few justices made the statement "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race". But disregarding all of my reasons above why I think we still need some type of affirmative action is prejudice. As long as there are prejudices in this country we have to have ways to level the playing field and make sure things are as fair as possible. Because studies have shown that whether it is for jobs or admissions, people are more like to say yes to someone who looks or reminds them of themselves. (this also goes back to the current voting pattern in the republican primaries for Santorum). So all things being equal, a women will be more likely to hire or accept a woman, an Asian person may unconsciously pick another Asian and so on. So since the vast majority of people in power in America are white, there is no guarantee that without these programs we will see any diversity on campuses but what we will see are fewer opportunities given to minorities. For example, I am not in the business sector but from what I was told there are quotas that make sure certain government contracts are given to minorities and small businesses.
And what about legacies? At top schools where preference is given to children and grandchildren of alumni, is this not discrimination as well?
In the end, unless you can prove to me there are no prejudices or discrimination in America, I hope the supreme court allows affirmative action in some capacity as it currently stands.
Thoughts?
So many thoughts come to mind I am not sure where to start! How about with Clarence Thomas and others that must realize they have achieved part of their success due to affirmative action but would now turn their backs on others behind them. I personally can not help thinking of my experience in high school when I was told by other students I got into UVA because I was black. I was then told the same thing in college when I got into medical school. No I did not have the highest scores either time and there may have been white students who did have higher scores that did not get into my schools but did I think it was unfair? Initially I did.
Until I attended an affirmative action rally in college and minored in Sociology taking such classes as Sociology of Inequality. At the rally they mentioned a running race. That minorities often do not have all the exposure and background of other students that may put them at the starting line up. But it doesn't mean they are not as smart or as driven. They just need a shot, a chance to get to the line and prove themselves in order to make it to the finish line. And most do. Getting into a school with any help from affirmative action means nothing if you are not capable of performing against the top students across the nation. UVA for instance is known for graduating one of the highest number of black students within a 4 year period. So we do quite well. I was personally grateful for this opportunity since as a daughter of Jamaican immigrants who knew nothing about how to get into college, being 1 of 3 nonwhite students in my class and having all white teachers and guidance counselors who told me not to apply to such high ranking schools, having low self esteem and feeling like I did not belong, I worked very hard through it all on my mission to become a doctor.
In Sociology of Inequality we read books about public education by Jonathan Kozol. Specifically I remember reading about schools in urban and low income areas. Schools that had no computers, not enough books, teachers that were overwhelmed, lack of guidance counselors, classrooms that were old with structures that were falling apart. Even the most naturally gifted students would have difficulty learning and excelling in this environment. There was also the lack of guidance from parents that had no idea how to help with homework or push their children down the path of higher education including studying for SATs or filling out college applications. Does this mean that these students should be doomed to stay in their neighborhoods or should they be given an opportunity to attend top schools and later a better life based on essays or interviews and potential seen by an admissions committee? My interviewer for medical school told me that. I had the national average MCAT scores but my science GPA was below it. But she told me she saw potential in me and felt I would be a fine doctor. I still think of Dr.Champ and I am grateful.
In terms of schools using affirmative action as a way to preserve diversity at their schools, it has been argued that students learn best at schools with diversity. I do believe that everyone should know how to work and play alongside people of all races and cultures. It breeds competition and tolerance which are both great things.
In 2007 the high court voted to strike down affirmative action in public high schools and a few justices made the statement "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race". But disregarding all of my reasons above why I think we still need some type of affirmative action is prejudice. As long as there are prejudices in this country we have to have ways to level the playing field and make sure things are as fair as possible. Because studies have shown that whether it is for jobs or admissions, people are more like to say yes to someone who looks or reminds them of themselves. (this also goes back to the current voting pattern in the republican primaries for Santorum). So all things being equal, a women will be more likely to hire or accept a woman, an Asian person may unconsciously pick another Asian and so on. So since the vast majority of people in power in America are white, there is no guarantee that without these programs we will see any diversity on campuses but what we will see are fewer opportunities given to minorities. For example, I am not in the business sector but from what I was told there are quotas that make sure certain government contracts are given to minorities and small businesses.
And what about legacies? At top schools where preference is given to children and grandchildren of alumni, is this not discrimination as well?
In the end, unless you can prove to me there are no prejudices or discrimination in America, I hope the supreme court allows affirmative action in some capacity as it currently stands.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Rick Santorum
Scary. When I was first introduced to Rick Santorum at a debate months ago, I thought to myself-he obviously wont go far. Why is he even running? How could he think anyone would vote for him in the republican primaries as a viable candidate against President Obama? At the time, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain dominated the debates as well as most of the media coverage. But one by one, candidates dropped out leaving Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich-yuk and eww, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. When it was announced that he won the Iowa Caucasus I thought-Seriously? What are Iowans thinking?! But he kept going. Winning over voters all across the country even though they know he has a slim chance vs Mitt Romney to beat the president. In a recent poll they asked republican voters why they are voting for him. They said he seemed "most like them". A "regular" guy that can relate to their social issues even if not financial ones.
So why am I so appalled? At first it was his proclamation that sex should only be between a husband and a wife. That sex should only be for reproducing. Now as a 41 year old female that has never been fortunate enough to be married I think that stance is totally impractical. Are women like me supposed to die a virgin if we never marry? And if we do get married are we to have a Duggar family of sorts with as many babies as God gives us no matter the strain on the family or the cost? Or maybe we should be married but not have sex. Because Rick Santorum is also against birth control. I find it so crazy and such a contradiction that the same people that are so vehemently opposed to abortion are also anti birth control. It makes no sense. To reduce the number of abortions we must provide free and easy access to birth control. Oh but wait, I'm sorry. We should just rely on abstinence since 2 people should not be having sex unless they are married and since he is also against gay marriage that would mean those 2 people are a husband and a wife. He recently voiced his opposition to government mandated insurance coverage for prenatal testing including amniocentesis. He feels that amnios that detect genetic fetal abnormalities such as Downs Syndrome leads to more abortions. He does have a child with Trisomy 18 and feels the doctors tried to get his family to consider abortion. I do not know of any such statistics showing amnios leading to increased abortions but I do know that they help parents make informed decisions after genetic counseling and help them prepare to take care of the needs of these special babies.
And what about his views on revoking don't ask don't tell. He feels that letting gays serve openly in the military is a "social experiment" that we can not afford in a time of war. That same description was used to oppose Blacks being able to serve in the military. He feels that women who volunteer should not be allowed to serve on the front lines because the men would be so busy trying to save the women that they would lose their focus. Really?!
Although I don't attend mass every Sunday, I was raised Catholic but I have a very hard time agreeing with Mr.Santorum's antiquated views on sex and gay rights. I am also not pro-abortion but I am pro-choice and unlike Rick Santorum feels it is important to keep it that way for a multitude of reasons. One of which includes the enormous amount of unwanted babies already born in this country. After forcing a woman to carry a child-even if you cant force them to get prenatal care, not drink or smoke or do drugs while they are pregnant, take prenatal vitamins etc-then you expect them to either raise the child even if they are not psychologically or financially capable or give the child up for adoption. Often these babies are born premature and with illnesses from poor to no prenatal care and drug use and end up in the foster care system. A burden on tax payers. If Mr.Santorum and his supporters are willing to financially be responsible for all these unwanted babies that are born then so be it-we can reverse roe v wade. Oh but I keep forgetting-there wont be any unwanted babies because no one will be having sex unless they are married.
As for the military-since I personally have not served, I am grateful for anyone who is willing to serve our country and put their lives on the line whether they are black, white, gay, straight or otherwise.
In the end, I am confident that our country would never elect Rick Santorum as our president. Women vote in larger numbers than men. I am sure most women, democrats and republicans, do not want to end up solely barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and eliminating decades of progress with women's rights under a Santorum presidency.
Thoughts?
So why am I so appalled? At first it was his proclamation that sex should only be between a husband and a wife. That sex should only be for reproducing. Now as a 41 year old female that has never been fortunate enough to be married I think that stance is totally impractical. Are women like me supposed to die a virgin if we never marry? And if we do get married are we to have a Duggar family of sorts with as many babies as God gives us no matter the strain on the family or the cost? Or maybe we should be married but not have sex. Because Rick Santorum is also against birth control. I find it so crazy and such a contradiction that the same people that are so vehemently opposed to abortion are also anti birth control. It makes no sense. To reduce the number of abortions we must provide free and easy access to birth control. Oh but wait, I'm sorry. We should just rely on abstinence since 2 people should not be having sex unless they are married and since he is also against gay marriage that would mean those 2 people are a husband and a wife. He recently voiced his opposition to government mandated insurance coverage for prenatal testing including amniocentesis. He feels that amnios that detect genetic fetal abnormalities such as Downs Syndrome leads to more abortions. He does have a child with Trisomy 18 and feels the doctors tried to get his family to consider abortion. I do not know of any such statistics showing amnios leading to increased abortions but I do know that they help parents make informed decisions after genetic counseling and help them prepare to take care of the needs of these special babies.
And what about his views on revoking don't ask don't tell. He feels that letting gays serve openly in the military is a "social experiment" that we can not afford in a time of war. That same description was used to oppose Blacks being able to serve in the military. He feels that women who volunteer should not be allowed to serve on the front lines because the men would be so busy trying to save the women that they would lose their focus. Really?!
Although I don't attend mass every Sunday, I was raised Catholic but I have a very hard time agreeing with Mr.Santorum's antiquated views on sex and gay rights. I am also not pro-abortion but I am pro-choice and unlike Rick Santorum feels it is important to keep it that way for a multitude of reasons. One of which includes the enormous amount of unwanted babies already born in this country. After forcing a woman to carry a child-even if you cant force them to get prenatal care, not drink or smoke or do drugs while they are pregnant, take prenatal vitamins etc-then you expect them to either raise the child even if they are not psychologically or financially capable or give the child up for adoption. Often these babies are born premature and with illnesses from poor to no prenatal care and drug use and end up in the foster care system. A burden on tax payers. If Mr.Santorum and his supporters are willing to financially be responsible for all these unwanted babies that are born then so be it-we can reverse roe v wade. Oh but I keep forgetting-there wont be any unwanted babies because no one will be having sex unless they are married.
As for the military-since I personally have not served, I am grateful for anyone who is willing to serve our country and put their lives on the line whether they are black, white, gay, straight or otherwise.
In the end, I am confident that our country would never elect Rick Santorum as our president. Women vote in larger numbers than men. I am sure most women, democrats and republicans, do not want to end up solely barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and eliminating decades of progress with women's rights under a Santorum presidency.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)