Well, after over two years since my last post, I have finally regained control over this blog.
Due to a ton of problems with forgetting my login, the password recovery utility refusing to work correctly for me, and the website refusing to accept my password, I have finally (and successfully) ported this log to my google account under my flagship handle.
Whether this is going to be a long-term blog has yet to be determined. However, the option is here.
I have also spun off a child blog on a big hobby of mine: fansubbing. You can find it here for now (link address subject to change) or click the link over on the right.
20070129
20041112
More Targets for the Relgious Right?
So, today, in AP news, a male contraceptive has now been tested in monkeys and has been shown to be a a birth control for men. I'd love to see their reactions to this new development, and I'll bet you that I know how it's going to go...
On another note, pharmacists have been reported to refuse to give contraception pills to their customers while also refusing to give the prescription to another pharmacist, nor do they give it back to the patient the medication is prescribed for (causing her to miss a day in her cycle), saying that it's against their religious beliefs to dispense medicine like that. I think that it's ridiculous that such a thing has happened to the healthcare of this country where even the parmacists have the power to deny what a patient needs just based on faith. There needs to be a realization that this religious way of running a country and business doesn't help others who don't share the same beliefs when the right decides to let everyone else suffer for their own beliefs.
On another note, pharmacists have been reported to refuse to give contraception pills to their customers while also refusing to give the prescription to another pharmacist, nor do they give it back to the patient the medication is prescribed for (causing her to miss a day in her cycle), saying that it's against their religious beliefs to dispense medicine like that. I think that it's ridiculous that such a thing has happened to the healthcare of this country where even the parmacists have the power to deny what a patient needs just based on faith. There needs to be a realization that this religious way of running a country and business doesn't help others who don't share the same beliefs when the right decides to let everyone else suffer for their own beliefs.
20041103
Kerry Loses the Election
As much as it pains me to say it, Bush has won re-election. Basically, it all did boil down to Ohio, but it was not as close as everyone thought the election would have been. For one (and as I correctly predicted on Monday and told several graduate students in my lab, but did not post on here), Bush would win Florida and Ohio. Is it by dirty Republican politics? Most likely not (I'll admit, I was flagrantly alarmist and and was extremely leftist towards the end of my previous post). Frankly, after I had attended the Kerry rally in Cleveland, I just realized that the democratic groundwar that was supposed to happen in Cleveland, the Democratic stronghold, just wasn't there. A signifnicantly lower number of people showed up to the rally and they just weren't energized. I estimated that maybe 20,000 went to the rally, 30,000 max, and they expected around 60,000-80,000 people there. It was an early indicator, at least to me, that Kerry wouldn't have the votes to take Ohio. I was predicting a Bush win in the Electorial College, but a popular vote win for Kerry. Alas, it wasn't so. However, I can gladly say that the democratic process in the US seems to be alive and well, despite what was reported in 2000.
However, I can't believe Bush was reelected in the way that he was. Despite his diplomatic shortcomings, despite his failure to jumpstart an economy with a $400B (if I'm not mistaken) tax cut, dispite refusal to listen to qualified people who dissent his policies (eg. environment, healthcare, research, Iraq), dispite a majority of Americans dissatisfied with his policies, America still chose to endure another four years with this current president. Why? It's religion. I, for one, think that religion has perverted the country, forcing people to choose what religion dictates. 10/11 states (from what I last heard) passed gay marriage amendment bans to their respeictive state constitutions. As the rhetorical question goes: Why? Gays don't threaten the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gays just want to live their own lives like heterosexuals do. Unfortunately, a majority believe that it is their duty and their right to ban such acts because their religion tells them to do (eg. homosexuality is a sin), and not because it violates the constitutional rights of equality. Because of such beliefs and the unification of the religious right, Bush, the epitomy of such thinking, was reelected. I can't think of any other reason why this election turned the way it did. I fear that the Constitution with its clearly secular intent will bend under the weight of the "majority" that is the fundamentalist Christian.
Unfortunately, I don't see any improvement in the years ahead. With a clear mandate of the majority in the popular vote and in the electorial college, and with majorities in the House and the Senate, Bush now has a blank check to pass legislation and to push his policies that he wishes. Nor will he veto those passed by Congress. People say that the impact on the Supreme Court will be dulled by the Democratic fillabuster, but I doubt that it would last for long. If the Democratic party cannot get back together and effectively counter or dull the evangelical movement, I predict a steady loss in the Democratic influence in both houses of Congress to the point where, in two years, the Senate will go >60 seats Republican, which would allow them to appoint the conservative judges that they so desire. The conservative base is gaining steam as the result of the war on terrorism (a facade for the 21st Century Crusades, to bluntly put it) and through the growing xenophobia that the Republicans have been spreading. It won't be long before Republicans become the default vote in the future because of the future, artificially omnipresent war on terrorism (or anti-foreigners) that will continue to be fought through various channels, whether it's through Iraq, through the invasion of other countries (eg. Iran) -- if it so happens, or just through general xenophobia. In other words, don't count on foreign policy or domestic views of those abroad to to change any time soon.
Anyway, seeing how things are going, I am quite pessimistic towards the future of the US if Bush continues on his rampage. Will Bush be less secretive or less manipulative of the truth? Will Bush finally listen to voices that should be listened to? Will he change the country for the better?
For one, a lot of potential brainpower from abroad, that has made the US so progressive and so dominant globally, is looking to other places, away from the US, because of policies and because of the image that the US projects to the rest of the world. It tells you one thing about the US. There are better places to go. The US probably won't get any better any time soon. The progressive movement will be effectively hobbled for a good while becaus of Bush and because of the unified religious base, save for California (who passed their embryonic stem cell research proposal, thank God) as we will turn into ourselves and live in the past. With such prospects in the future, I can only ask myself today: Is it worth living in the US now? Will it be worth it in the future?
However, I can't believe Bush was reelected in the way that he was. Despite his diplomatic shortcomings, despite his failure to jumpstart an economy with a $400B (if I'm not mistaken) tax cut, dispite refusal to listen to qualified people who dissent his policies (eg. environment, healthcare, research, Iraq), dispite a majority of Americans dissatisfied with his policies, America still chose to endure another four years with this current president. Why? It's religion. I, for one, think that religion has perverted the country, forcing people to choose what religion dictates. 10/11 states (from what I last heard) passed gay marriage amendment bans to their respeictive state constitutions. As the rhetorical question goes: Why? Gays don't threaten the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gays just want to live their own lives like heterosexuals do. Unfortunately, a majority believe that it is their duty and their right to ban such acts because their religion tells them to do (eg. homosexuality is a sin), and not because it violates the constitutional rights of equality. Because of such beliefs and the unification of the religious right, Bush, the epitomy of such thinking, was reelected. I can't think of any other reason why this election turned the way it did. I fear that the Constitution with its clearly secular intent will bend under the weight of the "majority" that is the fundamentalist Christian.
Unfortunately, I don't see any improvement in the years ahead. With a clear mandate of the majority in the popular vote and in the electorial college, and with majorities in the House and the Senate, Bush now has a blank check to pass legislation and to push his policies that he wishes. Nor will he veto those passed by Congress. People say that the impact on the Supreme Court will be dulled by the Democratic fillabuster, but I doubt that it would last for long. If the Democratic party cannot get back together and effectively counter or dull the evangelical movement, I predict a steady loss in the Democratic influence in both houses of Congress to the point where, in two years, the Senate will go >60 seats Republican, which would allow them to appoint the conservative judges that they so desire. The conservative base is gaining steam as the result of the war on terrorism (a facade for the 21st Century Crusades, to bluntly put it) and through the growing xenophobia that the Republicans have been spreading. It won't be long before Republicans become the default vote in the future because of the future, artificially omnipresent war on terrorism (or anti-foreigners) that will continue to be fought through various channels, whether it's through Iraq, through the invasion of other countries (eg. Iran) -- if it so happens, or just through general xenophobia. In other words, don't count on foreign policy or domestic views of those abroad to to change any time soon.
Anyway, seeing how things are going, I am quite pessimistic towards the future of the US if Bush continues on his rampage. Will Bush be less secretive or less manipulative of the truth? Will Bush finally listen to voices that should be listened to? Will he change the country for the better?
For one, a lot of potential brainpower from abroad, that has made the US so progressive and so dominant globally, is looking to other places, away from the US, because of policies and because of the image that the US projects to the rest of the world. It tells you one thing about the US. There are better places to go. The US probably won't get any better any time soon. The progressive movement will be effectively hobbled for a good while becaus of Bush and because of the unified religious base, save for California (who passed their embryonic stem cell research proposal, thank God) as we will turn into ourselves and live in the past. With such prospects in the future, I can only ask myself today: Is it worth living in the US now? Will it be worth it in the future?
20041031
Why I Am Voting for Kerry on November 2nd (unedited)
As it has been incredibly obvious ever since I started this blog, despite my attempts to be as impartial to the election campaigns and the presidential debates, I will be voting for John Kerry on November 2nd. I'll lay it out in a list format to make things less painful to slog through
Foreign Policy:
Iraq: This is _the_ most important reason why I am voting against Bush and supporting Kerry. His inabilty to quell tje insurgency and the inability to even protect the country from looting during the first week of the occupation has given way to instability, due to the non-existent infrastructure that the country possessed, and continues to posses. Hospitals were stripped of medical supplies; museums were plundered of Iraqi cultural artifacts; food storehouses were raided; violence erupted in the streets. All while American troops looked on without even bothering to intervene in restoring the order. Mind you, I'm not attacking the troops and accusing them to be the cause behind the present situation in Iraq. I am criticizing the people in the upper echelons of the army and Rumsfeld who didn't have the preservation of Iraqi infrastructure as a priority on their list of "things to do" and, instead, secured buildings and anything else related to black gold. But that probably goes too far in terms of following Kerry's stump speech.
What really bothers me about Iraq is the attitude that the President and his cabinet has taken to the conflict. They just don't seem to care to report the facts nor do they really care about Iraq. Instead, they seem to be serving for some "unknown" party that has ulterior goals that, probably, would not settle right with the American people if the truth really came out. But even in that regard, that have been unapologetic to the American public. Without public outcry from their constitutents, they have been able to pursue policy and handle business behind closed doors with impunity and without regard of the majority, however slim the majority may be. I can marginally forgive the president for pushing a bad policy on Iraq with "bad intelligence," but his inability to step up and to take blame like a true leader and to come straight with his own constituents bodes poorly if he were to take another four years, especially with his terrorism flagship of fear leading as his call to war and as his stump on the podium during the election.
North Korea and Iran: I have not followed these two countries as well as I have with Iraq. However, I have been aware of the growing potential nuclear threat that these two countries. Unfortunately, Bush's hard and uncompromising stance on "my way or the highway" doesn't give many reassurances that he won't invade their countries like he did to Iraq or Afghanistan, _despite_ the US armed forces being stretched so thin. The only way they can deter such a threat is to build nuclear arms as bargaining chips. In my opinion, Bush has adopted a strategy of "spreading 'Democracy'" at any cost and has set to go beyond sanctions for N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba. Would it involve invading these countries? Probably.
UN and other alliances: Bush does not bode well for the global coalition that is called the UN. Granted that the UN didn't have much teeth to begin with to deal with acute world crises, Bush really ripped out the heart of the organization and trampled all over it with his invasion of Iraq. In my opinion, he has completely alienated the international community by his unilateralism and, if we would ever need their assistance in a crisis, we would be paying for it dearly without our usual allies. France and Germany are half of that problem with their staunch anti-war policies.
Is Kerry any better? Yes, but only in one way. He is willing to take a hit to his reputation and ask the UN to provide assistance. Though France and Germany will refuse to assist in the efforts, and understandably so, it would at least be the right step towards taking pressure off of the American forces to be able to properly deal with Sudan. Also, his more forgiving posture will be an asset in dealing with North Korea, considering his more 'laissez faire' attitudes compared to Bush. Right now, N. Korea is in an economically unfavorable state, and it has not been mitigated by Bush's hardline stance towards the country in economic sanctions and outright anti-[North] Korean rhetoric. I'm not sure how to really approach Iran, though, as I am not as well informed on this country.
Domestic Policy:
Draft: The question right now is, "Will Bush reinstate the draft?" I believe so, but he will put it off until after he is recognized as the victor -- eg mid-November to December. Right now, the foreign policy he has conducted in the Middle East has taxed the armed forces to the extent where he has to draw on the National Guard, who are usually only called to duty to defend the country from foreign agressors or to deal with domestic emergencies. Right now, the US forces have been unable to cope with the security issues in Iraq in Fallujah and has even called on the UK to cover its back. If Bush is unwilling to appeal to change his foreign policies on Iraq, he will be forced to enstate a draft to replace the daily loss of troops to insurgent activity, eventually. Knowing Bush, I say that he'll announce thed draft (a topic so conveniently ignored in election politics) within the week that he is reelected. As for Kerry, he's more of an uncertain variable in this area, but I can say that his Iraq policy almost gauarantees a lesser chance for a draft, and the draft will occur _next year_, since he can only instate the draft when he is sworn in. Unfortunately, if he were elected, I don't think it would prevent Bush from reinstating the draft as one of his last acts in office. This is going beyond pessimistic, though.
Economic Policy: As much as I like Bush's capitalist ideals in free trade, he has been incredibly blatant in favoring the rust belt swing states that has resulted in the EU threatening to slap on 200-300% tarrifs on American goods, which I think is a big no-no, especially since he is supposed to have a clue as an MBA graduate from Harvard. Personally, I can't make much of a statement on job outsourcing, other than that a global economy is an eventual occurance. However, the method of transition is quite sudden, considering that a lot of skilled laborers, including those who may have graduated from college with bachleor's degrees are now being shortchanged in this fast-moving economic world. It's hard to believe that, now, a PhD may now be the only way to get a (decently) secure job, though even that is doubtful. The people that now seem to have the secure jobs are those in local services and those who have graduated with professional and business degrees. There really is no spot for the middle class anymore, unless they decide to open their own local businesses or startups, and that really threatens the middle class in terms of economic mobility. I have yet to see Bush address the corporate worker, the white collar cubicle worker, on why, even though he has a college degree, is losing jobs based on economics, and _not_ based on qualifications, that was the limiting factor several decades ago. I'm not saying that we should all gravitate towards the 1950s-1980s, but a society like this today should at least reward some sort of educational commitment with a secure, high-paying job. Bush's salve policy of retraining, unfortunately, doesn't work with a workforce that consists of people who have already left college for at least a decade, and to expect them to start over a new career and work their way back up again. At best, it would make a new pseudo-generation of low-skill technicians. They would find work, but they'd be plumb out of luck if they were to try to work up a corporate ladder again. The American educational system needs to evolve to train the skilled workers in the new economy in lucrative and dynamic fields. Eventually, America needs to eventually move towards an all white-collar economy, where we import all of our steel, food, and fuel. Why? Let me elaborate: 1. it'll keep production prices at a minimum [for steel]; 2. it'll allow the US to specialize in cutting-edge technologies and the development of new products and new fields of science espeically in federal funding [right now, we give farmer substudies of > $50B, if I remember correctly]; 3. it'll also force us to attempt to be more efficient [higher fuel efficiency with cars, trucks, and power generation, as well as developing new energy technologies to harness renewable resources], whether it may be in manufacturing or consumption. It may hurt in the short term, but it would pay us back so much. However, the transition has to occur smoothly. Right now, Bush's policies are far from "smooth," which doesn't bode well for a continuously dynamic transition. Unfortunately, Kerry's refusal to allow job outsourcing doesn't help things either and will probably set back the global economy for as long as he is in office.
Government Policy: The amount of government spending has gone out of control, especially with the extensive involvement in Iraq. It has siphoned over $150B with no end in sight, which is contributing greatly to the federal deficit, on top of tax cuts that Bush insists on pushing through. Even when he pushed tax cuts during the economic recession and claimed them to be an economic stimulus package, it failed to give a lasting effect on the economy, only boosting the GDP for one quarter. The government has also grown with the Dept. of Homeland Security, as well as the passage of several laws that violate civil rights, including the Patriot Act (as misnomered as it is). On top of that, the President and his Cabinet tries to sweep the shortcomings under a rug, while putting on a facade that says that "everything's all right." Something's up, and a lot of people know it, but are afraid to voice their concerns. It is as if we're starting to regress towards a "1984" world where the government is in the shadows in total control, despite Bush's crowing about individual choice. Kerry's government policy doesn't offer much of an alternative, but he has at least claimed that he will protect the rights of citizens, something that Bush has not mentioned.
Healthcare: The healthcare system is in shambles. 1/5 is without health insurance, despite having the highes per-capita income in the world. The health insurance industry, hospitals, pharmacuticals, and lawyers have run out of control gauging patients (mostly uninsured patients, at that) to earn a little extra here and there, with a monopoly on a person's life, much less the quality of it. Unfortunately, I can only see a social healthcare system at work, or at least a heavily regulated to a heavily subsidized healthcare system. The free market forces has not helped healthcare costs, and Bush's policy on "policy bulk purchases" seems to be the worst plan out of all possible plans. 1. Companies must bargan with each other to see who foots the bill for their payments, and they have to join in numbers in the first place if they are to have any effect. 2. It doesn't address the long term rise in healthcare costs. It's only a short-term solution. Kerry's healthcare plan is better, but the funding that will be required from his plan needs to be taken from somewhere else. My suggestion is to take it from the healthcare industry, whether it may be from insurance companies, hospitals, or pharmaceuticals. In my opinion, redistributing the costs from those who actually make money would work. Whatever they charge for premiums would cycle back to the policyholders to pay their deductibles. It's a rudimentary idea, though, so don't jump all over me about it.
Religion: Bush has become the most polarizing President in this nation's history, and I believe that it is all behind religion. Bush has waved the far-right banner in front of evangelicals and conservatives. The biggest problem is his inability to uphold the Constitution, which states that there should be the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, that separation becomes thinner and thinner as the weeks pass, and as the Republican majority of the federal government continue to dissolve the constitutional barrier. A NYT article a couple of months quoted a Republican senator implying that he wanted religion to take a more prevalent role in running the government. Unfortunately, this has already happened, with Bush banning stem cell research and abortion (claiming that he supports all forms of human life -- What about those Iraqis and terrorists, Mr. President?) and his advocacy of a constitutional amendment of gay marriage (claiming that they must ban gay marriage because of "activist judges." I can only challenge him with his activist Republican colleagues that wish to run the country under religion.) What it comes down to is that he has failed to convince me that he is not running under the ticket of a relgious base, as opposed to secular moral beliefs. Kerry has signaled that he will keep church and state separate, which is something I strongly support. I believe that all major political conflicts that exist in the world today are strictly caused by religious roots, and secularism _must_ prevail to prevent another major conflict, whether it may be domestic or foreign.
Judical Appointments: This part of the election has been severely overlooked. It has been signaled for at least a month or two, under the radar, that one to four US Supreme Court Justices will retire in the next four years, which will open up the whole court to an overhaul. With Bush's agneda, his record on his appeals and circuit judge appointees, and his relgious base, the US Supreme Court is in danger of being stacked with far-right justices that will swing the delicate balance of the court (which frequently rules in 5-4, split on left/right lines) towards a solid conservative side for the next 20 years. This is the second-most important reason why I do not support Bush. The conservative trend that exited in the 1950s is still very evident in the country today. The US is the most racist industrial country in the world with racial tensions aplenty. Appointing conservative judges would at best set us back to 20 years in civil rights and general social progress.
Overall, I absolutely do not support the way Bush has run this country. He has taken the politics of this country and has used it for his own devices. There are also many other policies that I do not like, including education, immigration, etc. which makes me keep swaying away from him as well, but I won't delve into those since I need to end this entry soon. Unfortunately, Kerry is not an ideal candidate for my views, but he has a much better outlook for the country, and for Asian Americans, which I am, that includes anti-discriminatory practices and equal opportunity offerings, which may include an Asian American US Supreme Court appointment (unlikely, though) if Kerry takes office. However, we have to get past November 2. My major fear about Bush ( -- fear is always the reason how we vote -- how we fear that we'll lose a little bit of money or not have our voices heard appropriately) is that how he will set back the country. In the last four years, he has set back the country and its relations with the international community by about 5-10 years at best. He has set back scientific discovery about 5 years. South Koreans and Singaporians are now starting to surge ahead of the US in stem cell research and scientific discoveries. We're losing talented immigrants to other countries like China, England, etc. because of the stricter and xenophobic immigration policies that have been put into place after the World Trade Center was destroyed. Right now, Arabs and Asian Indians are under intense scruitny for terrorist activity because of these events. Such scruitny can easily spread to other groups like Asian Americans. With a conservative government as a goal on his mind for the second term, especially with Justice appointments in the second term, a strongly conservative US Supreme Court will set back the country by at least 20 years in social progress. Bush's agression in his foreign policy and the threat of him invading other countries are very real, and can further set back our country by another 50 years (think Japan and Germany after WWII). Not only that, but it can severely weaken the US military and the economic fallout that the US will have to bear to support these troups without foreign assistance would most likely weaken the US to a second-rate power, paving way to propel China in being the next superpower. However, China would not be a threat if it became a true superpower. It is the gap in between those two events, if they were to happen, that would be the biggest global and domestic threat to the US. In my opinion, we cannot let Bush take the presidency for another four years. God help us all if he does, and if the Republican party decides to pull off another dirty election like they did in Florida (which is most likely going to happen again).
Foreign Policy:
Iraq: This is _the_ most important reason why I am voting against Bush and supporting Kerry. His inabilty to quell tje insurgency and the inability to even protect the country from looting during the first week of the occupation has given way to instability, due to the non-existent infrastructure that the country possessed, and continues to posses. Hospitals were stripped of medical supplies; museums were plundered of Iraqi cultural artifacts; food storehouses were raided; violence erupted in the streets. All while American troops looked on without even bothering to intervene in restoring the order. Mind you, I'm not attacking the troops and accusing them to be the cause behind the present situation in Iraq. I am criticizing the people in the upper echelons of the army and Rumsfeld who didn't have the preservation of Iraqi infrastructure as a priority on their list of "things to do" and, instead, secured buildings and anything else related to black gold. But that probably goes too far in terms of following Kerry's stump speech.
What really bothers me about Iraq is the attitude that the President and his cabinet has taken to the conflict. They just don't seem to care to report the facts nor do they really care about Iraq. Instead, they seem to be serving for some "unknown" party that has ulterior goals that, probably, would not settle right with the American people if the truth really came out. But even in that regard, that have been unapologetic to the American public. Without public outcry from their constitutents, they have been able to pursue policy and handle business behind closed doors with impunity and without regard of the majority, however slim the majority may be. I can marginally forgive the president for pushing a bad policy on Iraq with "bad intelligence," but his inability to step up and to take blame like a true leader and to come straight with his own constituents bodes poorly if he were to take another four years, especially with his terrorism flagship of fear leading as his call to war and as his stump on the podium during the election.
North Korea and Iran: I have not followed these two countries as well as I have with Iraq. However, I have been aware of the growing potential nuclear threat that these two countries. Unfortunately, Bush's hard and uncompromising stance on "my way or the highway" doesn't give many reassurances that he won't invade their countries like he did to Iraq or Afghanistan, _despite_ the US armed forces being stretched so thin. The only way they can deter such a threat is to build nuclear arms as bargaining chips. In my opinion, Bush has adopted a strategy of "spreading 'Democracy'" at any cost and has set to go beyond sanctions for N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba. Would it involve invading these countries? Probably.
UN and other alliances: Bush does not bode well for the global coalition that is called the UN. Granted that the UN didn't have much teeth to begin with to deal with acute world crises, Bush really ripped out the heart of the organization and trampled all over it with his invasion of Iraq. In my opinion, he has completely alienated the international community by his unilateralism and, if we would ever need their assistance in a crisis, we would be paying for it dearly without our usual allies. France and Germany are half of that problem with their staunch anti-war policies.
Is Kerry any better? Yes, but only in one way. He is willing to take a hit to his reputation and ask the UN to provide assistance. Though France and Germany will refuse to assist in the efforts, and understandably so, it would at least be the right step towards taking pressure off of the American forces to be able to properly deal with Sudan. Also, his more forgiving posture will be an asset in dealing with North Korea, considering his more 'laissez faire' attitudes compared to Bush. Right now, N. Korea is in an economically unfavorable state, and it has not been mitigated by Bush's hardline stance towards the country in economic sanctions and outright anti-[North] Korean rhetoric. I'm not sure how to really approach Iran, though, as I am not as well informed on this country.
Domestic Policy:
Draft: The question right now is, "Will Bush reinstate the draft?" I believe so, but he will put it off until after he is recognized as the victor -- eg mid-November to December. Right now, the foreign policy he has conducted in the Middle East has taxed the armed forces to the extent where he has to draw on the National Guard, who are usually only called to duty to defend the country from foreign agressors or to deal with domestic emergencies. Right now, the US forces have been unable to cope with the security issues in Iraq in Fallujah and has even called on the UK to cover its back. If Bush is unwilling to appeal to change his foreign policies on Iraq, he will be forced to enstate a draft to replace the daily loss of troops to insurgent activity, eventually. Knowing Bush, I say that he'll announce thed draft (a topic so conveniently ignored in election politics) within the week that he is reelected. As for Kerry, he's more of an uncertain variable in this area, but I can say that his Iraq policy almost gauarantees a lesser chance for a draft, and the draft will occur _next year_, since he can only instate the draft when he is sworn in. Unfortunately, if he were elected, I don't think it would prevent Bush from reinstating the draft as one of his last acts in office. This is going beyond pessimistic, though.
Economic Policy: As much as I like Bush's capitalist ideals in free trade, he has been incredibly blatant in favoring the rust belt swing states that has resulted in the EU threatening to slap on 200-300% tarrifs on American goods, which I think is a big no-no, especially since he is supposed to have a clue as an MBA graduate from Harvard. Personally, I can't make much of a statement on job outsourcing, other than that a global economy is an eventual occurance. However, the method of transition is quite sudden, considering that a lot of skilled laborers, including those who may have graduated from college with bachleor's degrees are now being shortchanged in this fast-moving economic world. It's hard to believe that, now, a PhD may now be the only way to get a (decently) secure job, though even that is doubtful. The people that now seem to have the secure jobs are those in local services and those who have graduated with professional and business degrees. There really is no spot for the middle class anymore, unless they decide to open their own local businesses or startups, and that really threatens the middle class in terms of economic mobility. I have yet to see Bush address the corporate worker, the white collar cubicle worker, on why, even though he has a college degree, is losing jobs based on economics, and _not_ based on qualifications, that was the limiting factor several decades ago. I'm not saying that we should all gravitate towards the 1950s-1980s, but a society like this today should at least reward some sort of educational commitment with a secure, high-paying job. Bush's salve policy of retraining, unfortunately, doesn't work with a workforce that consists of people who have already left college for at least a decade, and to expect them to start over a new career and work their way back up again. At best, it would make a new pseudo-generation of low-skill technicians. They would find work, but they'd be plumb out of luck if they were to try to work up a corporate ladder again. The American educational system needs to evolve to train the skilled workers in the new economy in lucrative and dynamic fields. Eventually, America needs to eventually move towards an all white-collar economy, where we import all of our steel, food, and fuel. Why? Let me elaborate: 1. it'll keep production prices at a minimum [for steel]; 2. it'll allow the US to specialize in cutting-edge technologies and the development of new products and new fields of science espeically in federal funding [right now, we give farmer substudies of > $50B, if I remember correctly]; 3. it'll also force us to attempt to be more efficient [higher fuel efficiency with cars, trucks, and power generation, as well as developing new energy technologies to harness renewable resources], whether it may be in manufacturing or consumption. It may hurt in the short term, but it would pay us back so much. However, the transition has to occur smoothly. Right now, Bush's policies are far from "smooth," which doesn't bode well for a continuously dynamic transition. Unfortunately, Kerry's refusal to allow job outsourcing doesn't help things either and will probably set back the global economy for as long as he is in office.
Government Policy: The amount of government spending has gone out of control, especially with the extensive involvement in Iraq. It has siphoned over $150B with no end in sight, which is contributing greatly to the federal deficit, on top of tax cuts that Bush insists on pushing through. Even when he pushed tax cuts during the economic recession and claimed them to be an economic stimulus package, it failed to give a lasting effect on the economy, only boosting the GDP for one quarter. The government has also grown with the Dept. of Homeland Security, as well as the passage of several laws that violate civil rights, including the Patriot Act (as misnomered as it is). On top of that, the President and his Cabinet tries to sweep the shortcomings under a rug, while putting on a facade that says that "everything's all right." Something's up, and a lot of people know it, but are afraid to voice their concerns. It is as if we're starting to regress towards a "1984" world where the government is in the shadows in total control, despite Bush's crowing about individual choice. Kerry's government policy doesn't offer much of an alternative, but he has at least claimed that he will protect the rights of citizens, something that Bush has not mentioned.
Healthcare: The healthcare system is in shambles. 1/5 is without health insurance, despite having the highes per-capita income in the world. The health insurance industry, hospitals, pharmacuticals, and lawyers have run out of control gauging patients (mostly uninsured patients, at that) to earn a little extra here and there, with a monopoly on a person's life, much less the quality of it. Unfortunately, I can only see a social healthcare system at work, or at least a heavily regulated to a heavily subsidized healthcare system. The free market forces has not helped healthcare costs, and Bush's policy on "policy bulk purchases" seems to be the worst plan out of all possible plans. 1. Companies must bargan with each other to see who foots the bill for their payments, and they have to join in numbers in the first place if they are to have any effect. 2. It doesn't address the long term rise in healthcare costs. It's only a short-term solution. Kerry's healthcare plan is better, but the funding that will be required from his plan needs to be taken from somewhere else. My suggestion is to take it from the healthcare industry, whether it may be from insurance companies, hospitals, or pharmaceuticals. In my opinion, redistributing the costs from those who actually make money would work. Whatever they charge for premiums would cycle back to the policyholders to pay their deductibles. It's a rudimentary idea, though, so don't jump all over me about it.
Religion: Bush has become the most polarizing President in this nation's history, and I believe that it is all behind religion. Bush has waved the far-right banner in front of evangelicals and conservatives. The biggest problem is his inability to uphold the Constitution, which states that there should be the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, that separation becomes thinner and thinner as the weeks pass, and as the Republican majority of the federal government continue to dissolve the constitutional barrier. A NYT article a couple of months quoted a Republican senator implying that he wanted religion to take a more prevalent role in running the government. Unfortunately, this has already happened, with Bush banning stem cell research and abortion (claiming that he supports all forms of human life -- What about those Iraqis and terrorists, Mr. President?) and his advocacy of a constitutional amendment of gay marriage (claiming that they must ban gay marriage because of "activist judges." I can only challenge him with his activist Republican colleagues that wish to run the country under religion.) What it comes down to is that he has failed to convince me that he is not running under the ticket of a relgious base, as opposed to secular moral beliefs. Kerry has signaled that he will keep church and state separate, which is something I strongly support. I believe that all major political conflicts that exist in the world today are strictly caused by religious roots, and secularism _must_ prevail to prevent another major conflict, whether it may be domestic or foreign.
Judical Appointments: This part of the election has been severely overlooked. It has been signaled for at least a month or two, under the radar, that one to four US Supreme Court Justices will retire in the next four years, which will open up the whole court to an overhaul. With Bush's agneda, his record on his appeals and circuit judge appointees, and his relgious base, the US Supreme Court is in danger of being stacked with far-right justices that will swing the delicate balance of the court (which frequently rules in 5-4, split on left/right lines) towards a solid conservative side for the next 20 years. This is the second-most important reason why I do not support Bush. The conservative trend that exited in the 1950s is still very evident in the country today. The US is the most racist industrial country in the world with racial tensions aplenty. Appointing conservative judges would at best set us back to 20 years in civil rights and general social progress.
Overall, I absolutely do not support the way Bush has run this country. He has taken the politics of this country and has used it for his own devices. There are also many other policies that I do not like, including education, immigration, etc. which makes me keep swaying away from him as well, but I won't delve into those since I need to end this entry soon. Unfortunately, Kerry is not an ideal candidate for my views, but he has a much better outlook for the country, and for Asian Americans, which I am, that includes anti-discriminatory practices and equal opportunity offerings, which may include an Asian American US Supreme Court appointment (unlikely, though) if Kerry takes office. However, we have to get past November 2. My major fear about Bush ( -- fear is always the reason how we vote -- how we fear that we'll lose a little bit of money or not have our voices heard appropriately) is that how he will set back the country. In the last four years, he has set back the country and its relations with the international community by about 5-10 years at best. He has set back scientific discovery about 5 years. South Koreans and Singaporians are now starting to surge ahead of the US in stem cell research and scientific discoveries. We're losing talented immigrants to other countries like China, England, etc. because of the stricter and xenophobic immigration policies that have been put into place after the World Trade Center was destroyed. Right now, Arabs and Asian Indians are under intense scruitny for terrorist activity because of these events. Such scruitny can easily spread to other groups like Asian Americans. With a conservative government as a goal on his mind for the second term, especially with Justice appointments in the second term, a strongly conservative US Supreme Court will set back the country by at least 20 years in social progress. Bush's agression in his foreign policy and the threat of him invading other countries are very real, and can further set back our country by another 50 years (think Japan and Germany after WWII). Not only that, but it can severely weaken the US military and the economic fallout that the US will have to bear to support these troups without foreign assistance would most likely weaken the US to a second-rate power, paving way to propel China in being the next superpower. However, China would not be a threat if it became a true superpower. It is the gap in between those two events, if they were to happen, that would be the biggest global and domestic threat to the US. In my opinion, we cannot let Bush take the presidency for another four years. God help us all if he does, and if the Republican party decides to pull off another dirty election like they did in Florida (which is most likely going to happen again).
20041027
Lunar Eclipse
Right now is the lunar eclipse that should be visible to just about everyone in the northern part of the western hemisphere. As much as the newscasts talk about the different colors that the moon can take, this lunar eplise (and my first, mind you) is very different from what the astronomers say. They've claimed that the moon takes on a copper-like hue to a dark blood red shade when the moon is totally eclpised. Unfortunately, the best color I can give it right now is a light copper. Maybe it's because of all of the ambient light around me. Anyway, back to work.
20041013
Running comments on the 3rd Presidential Debate
Running comments on the 3rd Presidential Debate
2110
Bush is still back to his fear tactics and stretching truthes on the order of a lie. He claims that he never said that he doesn't care about Osama bin Laden, but he so did. This is exactly what he did when Kerry said that Bush owned a timber company, and Bush denied it (and was later confirmed, at least according to a friend over a phone conversation). I can't believe that he can do this and pull a straight face.
2112
Kerry keeps on saying 'I have a plan', 'I have a plan.' He needs specifics.
2113
Bush, as I've noticed, has been able to make complete sentences again, though not as well as the 2nd debate.
2114
Kerry.. needs to stop getting sidetracked so much. He keeps going on tangents
2118
Bush's assistance for second careers has barely been funded, from what I can recall. ~$100M
Kerry needs to jump on Bush's spending liberalism and the consequence of higher deficits...
Pell grants are only effective for state school education. Not in private schools.
2125
Bush. Just running numbers aimlessly.
2127
Bush put a hole in his foot on tolerance with gay marriage
If he wants to protect issues from activist judges, he should pass some sort of amendment to check the judges, NOT protect certain issues. This is a key flag that he's fighting on a religious side rather working for the government.
2131
Kerry stumbling on religion.. o.O
2136
Kerry is now talking to the camera. This is a huge improvement in his addressing to the audience. Bush, on the other hand, has gone the other way and is mainly addressing the arbitrator
2143
Kerry wins on healthcare, though I don't like what he's offering at the moment. Ultimately, I think that there'll have to be some sort of regulation in the health care system in hospitals, etc.
2150
'Most' means just over 50%. What BS.
Also, tax cuts work with those who DO pay taxes, not those in poverty, or are below the taxable level.
Fiscal sanity and low taxes? How the hell is this possible?
2156
It looks like Bush doesn't even read the news stories on the ease of people of getting into the US and the complaints of the border patrol.
2158
Kerry will enforce workplace discrimation laws. This is very good and at least boosts his claim to enforce the 11275 (?) EO on anti-discrimination laws in the workplace.
2205
WOW! Kerry actually laid out a plan on the US armed forces!
2230
Kerry won, but not as resoundingly as he did in the first debate. Kerry failed to lay out a lot of his financial policies on the table for every to look. However, he did hold his ground against Bush when he was attacked.
Bush mostly went after numbers to go after Kerry's record and picking and choosing to see how it see fit, where Kerry did less. Bush, however, did change his debate demeanor quite a bit since the first debate, and it should help him a lot there. Unfortunately, he still had some very immature moments during the debate.
One objection: There were tons of nods towards minorities, but only towards Hispanics and Blacks. None towards Asian Americans, though Kerry did drop a hint.
Sorry for such a short comment column. The debate was very engrossing, but I have med school apps so, I don't have much time to say much else.
2110
Bush is still back to his fear tactics and stretching truthes on the order of a lie. He claims that he never said that he doesn't care about Osama bin Laden, but he so did. This is exactly what he did when Kerry said that Bush owned a timber company, and Bush denied it (and was later confirmed, at least according to a friend over a phone conversation). I can't believe that he can do this and pull a straight face.
2112
Kerry keeps on saying 'I have a plan', 'I have a plan.' He needs specifics.
2113
Bush, as I've noticed, has been able to make complete sentences again, though not as well as the 2nd debate.
2114
Kerry.. needs to stop getting sidetracked so much. He keeps going on tangents
2118
Bush's assistance for second careers has barely been funded, from what I can recall. ~$100M
Kerry needs to jump on Bush's spending liberalism and the consequence of higher deficits...
Pell grants are only effective for state school education. Not in private schools.
2125
Bush. Just running numbers aimlessly.
2127
Bush put a hole in his foot on tolerance with gay marriage
If he wants to protect issues from activist judges, he should pass some sort of amendment to check the judges, NOT protect certain issues. This is a key flag that he's fighting on a religious side rather working for the government.
2131
Kerry stumbling on religion.. o.O
2136
Kerry is now talking to the camera. This is a huge improvement in his addressing to the audience. Bush, on the other hand, has gone the other way and is mainly addressing the arbitrator
2143
Kerry wins on healthcare, though I don't like what he's offering at the moment. Ultimately, I think that there'll have to be some sort of regulation in the health care system in hospitals, etc.
2150
'Most' means just over 50%. What BS.
Also, tax cuts work with those who DO pay taxes, not those in poverty, or are below the taxable level.
Fiscal sanity and low taxes? How the hell is this possible?
2156
It looks like Bush doesn't even read the news stories on the ease of people of getting into the US and the complaints of the border patrol.
2158
Kerry will enforce workplace discrimation laws. This is very good and at least boosts his claim to enforce the 11275 (?) EO on anti-discrimination laws in the workplace.
2205
WOW! Kerry actually laid out a plan on the US armed forces!
2230
Kerry won, but not as resoundingly as he did in the first debate. Kerry failed to lay out a lot of his financial policies on the table for every to look. However, he did hold his ground against Bush when he was attacked.
Bush mostly went after numbers to go after Kerry's record and picking and choosing to see how it see fit, where Kerry did less. Bush, however, did change his debate demeanor quite a bit since the first debate, and it should help him a lot there. Unfortunately, he still had some very immature moments during the debate.
One objection: There were tons of nods towards minorities, but only towards Hispanics and Blacks. None towards Asian Americans, though Kerry did drop a hint.
Sorry for such a short comment column. The debate was very engrossing, but I have med school apps so, I don't have much time to say much else.
20041010
Capitol Steps and Presidential Debate
Here are my opinions on the two other events that occured last week that was worth mentioning. And they come two days late
Capitol Steps:
Featured frequently on NPR, this political satire musical group is consisted of former Capitol Hill aids to senators and representatives. They mostly poke fun at popular and political figures and happenings in the world and in the US. The Capitol Steps were at CWRU for the Alumni Weekend events, and I somehow was able to get tickets to watch them. To put it shortly, they're good. At times, they're risque and dumb, other times, they're very smart with plenty of innuendo. The whole auditorium (about 550 people) was laughing along with the troupe actors who sometimes couldn't stop laughing themselves. No target was left unsoiled. They went from Saddam Hussein, to George W Bush and George HM Bush, to John Kerry, to Martha Stewart, and the list goes on and on and on. At the end, and over the smoking dead bodies of their targets, we gave them a standing ovation for their performance. It was a $10 well spent.
Presidential Debate:
Unfortunately, the Capitol Steps caused me to miss about half of the second rount of debates for the Presidency. Basically, I missed the foreign policy portion of the debate, drove home during the second third of the debate on the economy. As the result, I could not draw up an effective running blog on the debate.
However, from the rest of the debate I was able to catch, it seemed that that Bush and Kerry were pretty even -- Bush was actually able to make complete sentences. On domestic issues, Kerry seemed to have an edge with substance on the economy, the deficit, and several morality issues, especially with stem cell research. Unfortunately, neither had an edge on health care -- both plans were bad. Bush, on the other hand, had an edge on his demeanor that he had towards the crowd that was gathered in the room, even though he seemed whiny at times. In my opinion, Kerry had to field much more difficult questions compared to Bush, and neither of the two candidates really laid out any 'plans' for the future in running the country. It seems that we're going to have to vote for two black boxes. Overall, the debate was effectively a tie. If I had to choose one winner, Kerry would have won by a slim margin based on substance.
All there is to look forward to, now, is the third round of debates on Wednesday night. The topic: domestic policy. Hopefully, we'll get more and better answers in that debate, though it would be nice if we just had Kerry and Bush go at a free-for-all for two or three hours in a cage.
Until then,
Capitol Steps:
Featured frequently on NPR, this political satire musical group is consisted of former Capitol Hill aids to senators and representatives. They mostly poke fun at popular and political figures and happenings in the world and in the US. The Capitol Steps were at CWRU for the Alumni Weekend events, and I somehow was able to get tickets to watch them. To put it shortly, they're good. At times, they're risque and dumb, other times, they're very smart with plenty of innuendo. The whole auditorium (about 550 people) was laughing along with the troupe actors who sometimes couldn't stop laughing themselves. No target was left unsoiled. They went from Saddam Hussein, to George W Bush and George HM Bush, to John Kerry, to Martha Stewart, and the list goes on and on and on. At the end, and over the smoking dead bodies of their targets, we gave them a standing ovation for their performance. It was a $10 well spent.
Presidential Debate:
Unfortunately, the Capitol Steps caused me to miss about half of the second rount of debates for the Presidency. Basically, I missed the foreign policy portion of the debate, drove home during the second third of the debate on the economy. As the result, I could not draw up an effective running blog on the debate.
However, from the rest of the debate I was able to catch, it seemed that that Bush and Kerry were pretty even -- Bush was actually able to make complete sentences. On domestic issues, Kerry seemed to have an edge with substance on the economy, the deficit, and several morality issues, especially with stem cell research. Unfortunately, neither had an edge on health care -- both plans were bad. Bush, on the other hand, had an edge on his demeanor that he had towards the crowd that was gathered in the room, even though he seemed whiny at times. In my opinion, Kerry had to field much more difficult questions compared to Bush, and neither of the two candidates really laid out any 'plans' for the future in running the country. It seems that we're going to have to vote for two black boxes. Overall, the debate was effectively a tie. If I had to choose one winner, Kerry would have won by a slim margin based on substance.
All there is to look forward to, now, is the third round of debates on Wednesday night. The topic: domestic policy. Hopefully, we'll get more and better answers in that debate, though it would be nice if we just had Kerry and Bush go at a free-for-all for two or three hours in a cage.
Until then,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)