Obam v Mccain Ohio Speeches

Ok, so a summary/analysis of the two speeches:

Mccain:

1. Attacks Obama (cites inexperience)

2. Claims Obama wants to redistribute wealth while he wants to spread it. Note: What exactly is the difference between the two, besides semantics?

3. Says the past 8 years have not worked economically speaking and accuses Obama of wanting to raise gov spending, but does not mention that by wanting to continue the war in Iraq, Mccain wants to continue one of the biggest expenses on our government's budget

4. Talks about his war veteran-hood

5. Speaks about cutting business taxes to stimulate economy. By business taxes, he means corporate taxes. Low corporate taxes are part of what led to the Great Depression.

6. Says he won't spend 750 billion to bail out Wallstreet, despite the fact that he was for the 750 billion bailout plan

7. Speaks about oil-drilling in Alaska as a solution to both high oil prices and energy dependence, despite experts' agreeing that drilling would take at least 5-10 years before it would have any effect, and that effect would be minimal

8. Mccain believes in this country while Obama does not. Mccain will fight for it as he has in the past. Mccain also implies voting for Obama would make America less safe.

Obama:

1. Professes faith in American people and gratitude to them for getting him this far

2. Says the crisis is bad and shows that the trickle-down theory of the past 8 years has failed

3. Says Mccain has "served this country honorably" and commends him for standing up to Pres. Bush on torture. Says however, that he has voted for all Bush tax cuts and agreed w Bush on economy and that even now "Senator Mccain has still not been able to tell the American people a single major thing he'd do differently than President Bush when it comes to the economy" This mixing of legitimate criticism with praise shows him to be more of a gentleman than Mccain, who merely attacked Obama vs Obama who attacks a specific position of Mccains, not Mccain himself, and even praised the man

3. Obama speaks about how Mccain has been attacking him and calling him names in order to win but it is time to show that those tactics do not work

4. He says America has had difficult times before and overcome them. Now we're in a difficult time and we must/can overcome it.

5. He says the gov's job is not to solve everyone's problems, but to "do what we can not do for ourselves". He then talks about America as the land of opportunity, and goes into details about his tax plan, citing exact figures. He talks about a 3000 dollar tax credit to companies for each job created on American soil, as well as job opportunities created by improving infrustructure (roads, bridges, etc. A recent NY Times article cited incredible need to improve infrastructure. Also, this tactic was used by FDR to create jobs during the Great Depression.) He then talks about investing in alternative energy sources. Note: This is more effective in the long term than Mccain's oil drilling, because it is more enviromentally friendly, cuts down energy dependence completely (as opposed to Mccain's plan which just minimizes it) and plans for the day when oil will run out/other countries will realize it is running out - and come running to whoever has the technology to replace oil with other energy sources. It thus could one day stimulate the economy, not to mention the jobs - both low-skill (physical labour involved in producing these technologies) and high-skill (thinking of the technologies, etc) it provides until that day comes, while strengthening the US's scientific clout in the world.

4. He then speaks about the need to improve education and healthcare. He says that an era of irresponsibility in which we forgot our responsibilities to each other and common sense of purpose led to this economic crisis, and we must renew our common sense of purpose and responsibility to each other in order to get out of it.

5. He then cites his belief in the American people to bring about change and the need to continue to hope. He ends by saying "God bless America". It is interesting that Mccain did not mention God at all, but pegs himself as the more religious candidate in order to get votes.

I am Pro-Life

I am pro-life. I am against the death penalty and unnecessary wars. I also am against unnecessary abortions. But I am pro-choice, as well. I support a woman's right to choose whether or not an abortion is necessary.

Pro-lifers have successfully framed the abortion debate in their own terms. As they croon about the sanctity of life, and how a fetus is a living thing, they have framed the debate as whether or not one is for abortions. But in reality, the debate is about whether or not a woman has a right to abortion, legally, which is something separate entirely. For example, I support women's legal rights to wear spandex mini-skirts. Yet, personally, not only would I not wear one, but every time I see someone wear one, I feel slightly nauseous.

Furthermore, many people who support a woman's right to abort are not in favor of abortion. They simply acknowledge the reality that abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. The question is whether they will be done safely in a doctor's office, or dangerously in a closet, using a coat hanger.

Pro-choice people must reframe the abortion debate: It is not about whether or not one supports abortions, but about whether, given that they will happen anyway, one wants those abortions to be safe or to endanger the lives of the women to happen.

To those pro-lifers I ask: Are your principles of sanctity of the life of a fetus worthy endangering girls? If so, would you be willing to look into the eyes of a frightened fifteen-year old's family at the funeral and tell them that? If the answer to either of those two questions is no, then maybe it's time to acknowledge that it is possible to be pro-life and opposed to abortion while in favor of a woman's legal right to abort.

Thoughts on Akko

1. While religion (an Arab driving in a Jewish neighborhood on Yom Kippur) was used to ignite the riots, it is really nationalism and inter-ethnic tension that caused it. Religion was a pretense.

2. Both Jews and Arabs have acted wrongly in this matter, since both have been involved in the fighting and destruction of people's property.

3. The reasons the Jews started the riot was because they were angered by the Arab driving in the Jewish neighborhood on shabbat. The thought that religious (or in this case, tradtional) Jews have the right to have no cars drive in their neighborhood in shabbat (or in this case, Yom Kippur) has slipped into the national culture from the charedim, who have their neighborhoods closed off to traffic on shabbat, and sometimes throw stones at cars that drive through those streets not closed to traffic. It has been aided by religious enclaves, such as Bney Brak, where the entire city is officially closed to traffic on shabbat, and even by more modern orthodox/religious nationalist yishuvim, where when one agrees to live in the yishuv, one agrees to not violate shabbat. (or at least, not violate shabbat in public) The police's arrest of the Arab man who drove through the neighborhood only reinforces the notion that the Jews have a right to have no one, not even a non-Jew, drive in their streets on sacred days.

Instead, the government should be reinforcing the idea that non-Jews and non-religious Jews do have the right to drive where they wish on shabbat and holidays, provided the street they drive on is not officially closed off to traffic. Should Jewish religious residents have a problem with this, the proper thing is to ask for the street to be closed off, not to throw stones at drivers. Throwing stones will not be tolerated. The arrest of the Arab driver is particularly discouraging because he did not brake a law by driving there, and he has apologized for doing so, and expressed a desire for coexistence.

4. This problem was caused by Israel's mistreatment both of Sefardi Jews and of Israeli Arabs. Sefardi Jews faced discrimination for a long time, and while this discrimination is diminishing, the fact is that many Sefardi Jews are on the lower end of the socioeonomic spectrum, and this is because climbing out of the hole dug by discrimination takes time, even after the discrimination has ended. (In this sense, they are somewhat similar to African-Americans, who faced discrimination until recently. Now, even though that discrimination has, for the most part, ended, and the number of African Americans in the middle and upper classes has been steadily  increasing for the past ten years, many African Americans still find themselves born into poorer homes or crime-ridden neighborhoods with bad schools as part of the lingering after-effects of 200 years of discrimination. For Sefardim, the era of discrimination is much shorter, but the concept is the same.)

Israeli Arabs, while equal under the law, still face much unofficial discrimination. No real effort has been made to absorb them into the Israeli economic system, and most are lower class. When two different lower class ethnic groups are put into a small area and forced to live together, it takes nothing but a small spark to ignite tensions between them. This can be seen from race riots in the US, which were usually between working class whites and working class blacks. Underlying the riots is the issue of economic competition when two groups of people are each lacking material wealth, with each group being jealous (at least subconciously) of the others' possessions.

Using racial and ethnic tensions is an excellent way for the capitalist enterprise to deflect proletariat hatred of the bourgeois onto fellow proletariats, who are defined as "the other", the enemy, based on ethnicity. This ethnic division distracts the proletariat from what they have in common: their working class lifestyle, and that they are both being unfairly used by the capitalist system. By disuniting the proletariat, the system ensures there is no proletariat revolution. This is not a conscious decision on behalf of the bourgeois elite, but a natural consequence of the capitalist system. In an era of material wealth, in which the proletariat is disconnected from his material possessions, never feeling the full right to them because he has been so divorced from their material production, (for producing something earns the right to said thing; man is meant to eat the fruits of his labor, and eating the fruits of someone else's labour, without offering something of one's own labor in return, goes against the natural order of things. Money is not a tangible fruit of ones own labour, but a poor substitute, a piece of paper certifying that one has worked - in the case of the bourgeios, this work is not physical and tangible, but intellectual and not physically substantive. Thus the feeling of ownership of ones labour, as well as the feeling of earning something for that labour, is obscured: the labour is not real, and the payoff is a piece of paper whose production one has no part in.) one focuses on other things to make life seem meaningful. These things can be as trivial as an aesthetic sensibility and philosophy of fashion, in which couture is transformed into high art. They can also be as spiritual as religion. This bourgeois value mutates as it trickles down to the proletariat, but it is nonetheless absorbed by them in some form. In the United States, where the upper class idolizes fashion, lower-class people have begun buying cheap "designer" clothing, like Isaac Mizrahi for Target, and name their children names such as "Gucci".

In this case, the unique political situation gave rise to a focus on ethnicity. This focus was exacerbated by an extremist religious nationalist yeshiva that opened recently. It distributed leaflets saying that Arabs are sons of dogs, and tried to boycott Arab businesses. That such a stream of thought is found among the religious nationalist camp is disturbing. In this case, given the close proximity of Jews and Arabs, it provided the match that would be lit by a car driving in a Jewish neighborhood on the Day of Atonement - an ironic day for a riot to start. A day that perhaps showed how much there is to atone for.

Sending police in might quell the riots, but in order to ensure similar riots don't happen in the future, whether in Akko or in other cities, is to absorb Sefardim, Arabs and other minorities into the economic framework, to help them to move up on the socioeconomic scale and to encourage them to go to university. Such a challenge is daunting, especially given the current economic climate - but in order to ensure peaceful coexistence, one must first ensurethe  sustainable, respectable existence of each group.

The Enviroment

Obama is has a more complex solution to environmental problems than Mccain. (For more info, please refer to the NY Times article.) This should be a reason to vote for him.

Why is environment important?

1. Long term well being of the planet, ensuring future generations of people don't die due to global warming, toxic substances in the air and water from polution, and lack of oxygen when trees run out, etc.

2. Foreign policy - It is easier to be pro-Israel when not in need of Arab states' oil. As oil decreases, oil prices should steadily rise, meaning we're pouring more money into failing Middle East regimes. Even if one is not pro-Israel, one must admit that the USA can have a more objective and self-serving Middle East policy without those financial ties.

3. Economy - As oil prices go up, the amount being spent on oil is money that could be spent on other sectors of the economy, and it is money going abroad, that could be spent at home. Furthermore, when we find efficient, oil-free ways to do things, this brings costs of production down, lowering the prices of products, so we can buy more goods. This means more stores are open and more people have jobs. (The research to find that efficient source of energy could be expensive; Obama proposes tax breaks for research and governmental exploration of nuclear power. This would mean tax-payers are paying for part of the research, but most of that money would be coming from higher corporate tax rates and from those earning over of a quarter of a million a year. Besides which, the long term cost benefit is worth it. It is possible that in order to cover the cost of research, or that, in the less advanced non-oil energy phases, product prices would raise slightly, but this raise would be comparable to the raise if oil were used, and would be beneficial in the long term, since once prices were lower they will stay constantly lower - unlike with oil-dependent production, where product prices fluctuate with the prices of oil.) 

Furthermore, as other countries become increasingly frustrated with oil prices, they will be willing to buy cost-efficient technologies that replace oil, and the country with such technology will profit.

Anti-Palin Rant

Palin has been playing quite dirty against Obama. "He's not American like you and me" - given the color of his skin, his Muslim sounding-name, and his African father, I do wonder if such a comment hints of racism, religious discrimination, and xenophobia.

But, leaving that aside, let's move forward to when Palin, whose husband thinks Alaska should secede from the USA, complained that Obama is unpatriotic and "pals around with terrorists". Now, serving on a board that is meant to improve education, in a purely professional capacity, all of a sudden has come to mean "palling around with".  In that case, I must be BFF with all of the pretensious people as well as the drunk frat/sorority people I go to class with. I mean, I do spend 3 hours a week with them - and guess what? While I might be able to tell you some of their opinions on genocide or Islamic art, I don't know most of them on a personal level, at all. Of course, this can not describe Obama's relationship with Ayers - Ayers did hold a small political fundraiser for him when he began running for senate - but then again, in Chicago, Ayers has recast his image as an education reformer and professor at a state-funded university. Obama can hardly be called anti-America for attending a fundraiser by a man employed by the American government. Besides which, one small political fundraiser does not equal BFF status, as Palin suggest.

Moving on: Upon hearing this horrible revelation, one of the Palin supporters shouted "Let's kill him!" Palin's reaction" Nada.

The minute Palin did not react to that very audible comment  by explaining the need for law, and for respecting people who you disagree with, and how different voices comprise democracy, etc., she did a few things:

1. She mocked her "pro-life" label.

2. She failed to defend democracy.

3. By not defending rule of law, she also failed to defend the political system she is supposed to be elected in order to defend and enact. In doing so, she was anti-American. Because loving America also means loving the American system of government, with its democracy and rule of law and voice for dissenting opinions. Letting a "let's kill him" comment go by violates that love.

4. She proved herself to be a dishonorable and immoral human being, who is ruthless and radical. Killing is radical. Not opposing voices crying for killing is also radical, and counts as passive  incitement.

5. She proved herself to be a racist. Crying for killing of a white man is inhumane. But when a group of white people is standing there listening to someone saying,, "Let's kill a black man", (which is what was happening since the "him" in that sentence was undeniably black, from a historical racial categorical standpoint) then it conjures up images of Southern lynch mobs. And if you don't stand up to the lynch mob, if you are standing on a podium and hear the lynching called for and say nothing to stop it, than you too, are a racist. That's exactly what happened at the Palin rally.

Obam v Mccain Debate: Some thoughts

I seem to have inadvertently deleted my belated debate notes in the process of saving them, so here goes my off-the-cuff blog post: Confession: I didn't actually watch the debates (no tv) but I did read the transcripts. A few points:

1. Mccain proposes the government's buying up housing mortages while cutting taxes. Where will the money come from? The last thing we need is a bigger deficit. He also proposes stemming the tides of globalization and stopping (or at least, radically changing) our business relationship with China. Most economists agree this is impossible/would severely harm the American economy.

2. Warren Buffet, multimillionare, supports Obama and is Obama's pick for treasury dept. sec. If he has confidence in Obama's tax plans, maybe we should consider those plans work.

3. Mccain often avoids questions, choosing instead to castigate Obama for (what he claims to be) mistakes made in connection to those questions.

4. When asked about Russia, Mccain proposed "moral support" to countries intimidated by Russia. Obama proposed moral support - accompanied by practical solutions.

5. Most of Mccain's tax cuts go to corporations. (note: low corporate tax rates were part of what led to the Great Depression.) Mccain voted for 4 out of 5 Bush budgets.

6. Obama would raise taxes, but only for those earning over a quarter of a million dollars. People earning less than that (ie most Americans) would either pay the same taxes or pay less. (depending on a variety of circumstances)

7. Mccain claimed he would find Osama bin Laden. He claimed he knew how to do so. Yet he criticized Obama for "talking big" when Obama said that, while we should give more nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, we should predicate it upon Pakistan's aiding us in finding terrorists and taliban, including within their own borders. Should Osama be clearly within reach, and Pakistan refuse to go after him, we should go after him ourselves. According to Mccain this means Obama said "he would invade Pakistan." Hardly. A targeted assassination in a remote hypothetical situation does not an invasion make.

8. Obama wants to decrease troops in Iraq and increase in Afghanistan while working with local leaders and minimizing corruption within the Afghani government, and cracking down on the drug (opium) trade which benefits the Taliban. Mccain simply wants a surge in Afghanistan - without taking troops out of Iraq. Hello over-stretched military. (not to mention over-stretched government budget.)

9. Obama called America "the greatest nation on earth". He also pointed out that historically, no nation has maintained military superiority while facing economic decline. This is an important point, especially since the war in Iraq is indirectly (if not directly) related to our economic decline. Getting out of Iraq would prevent our government deficit from ballooning, while enabling us to not over-stretch our troops. It would help our economy by giving our government more money to spend on healthcare and education. (link: you spend less on healthcare. you either invest the extra money, or put it in banks, or buy a new dress. no matter what, the economy benefits. education and economy - that should be self-evident.)

10. Mccain likes to point out how Obama was wrong about the surge, one aspect of the war. He fails to mention that Obama was right about the war as a whole, and voted against it. Mccain was wrong about the war as a whole, and voted for it.

11. Obama proposed military sanctions on Iran, especially when it comes to oil. (Iran currently imports oil, due to bad management of their own natural resources.) He also vowed not to take the military option off the table. Mccain provided harsh platitudes against Iran without concrete steps of how to prevent Iran from gaining WMDs. Instead, he preferred to criticize Obama for his willingness to talk to Iran.

12. Genocide prevention - Mccain was wishy-washy, but pointed to how he had effectively predicted that deploying marines to Lebanon under Reagan would be a failure. Obama, citing the Holocaust and Rwanda as examples, cited the need to prevent genocide. He proposed giving non-military or indirect military aid to African peacekeepers in Darfur, which is something concrete that does not endanger the lives of US soldiers. (He detailed the exact types of support, though, without my notes, I can't.)

13. People point to Mccain's experience as  Vietnam War Vet as positive. I wonder if perhaps it is not negative: While parallels can be seen between the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq, the two are still different wars in different eras. Viewing the War in Iraq with so much personal baggage, perhaps feeling we need to win in Iraq the way we couldn't in Vietnam, is something negative, and an obstacle Mccain may need to overcome in order to view the war in Iraq objectively. While every person and president has their own biases and life experiences that they bring to the table, this is one personal bias that Obama does not have to overcome in order to see the war in Iraq objectively. That being said, I don't think being a war vet should be held against Mccain - I just think the negatives neutralize the positives, making his veteran-hood a non-factor in deciding who to vote for.