Because our planet cannot handle another anti-environmental politician. We need a State Senator who will continue to lead CA in the fight against global warming. Tony Strickland is not that State Senator. Hannah-Beth Jackson is.
Check out this video from the Courage Campaign demonstrating Stricklands attempts to seem like a "green" candidate:
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Apple Donates 100,000 to No on 8!
Apple said the following in its statement:
Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees' same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person's fundamental rights-- including the right to marry -- should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/10/apple-against-t.html
Hell Yeah!
Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees' same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person's fundamental rights-- including the right to marry -- should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/10/apple-against-t.html
Hell Yeah!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
NY absentee ballot says Barack Osama
I can't believe that this seriously happened. How could three rounds of proof-reading not stop "Barack Osama" from getting on the ballot? And how could the county not automatically send out a new ballot to everyone?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
A Case for Intellectualism in Politics
A Case for Intellectualism in Politics:
It is an understandable notion that voters prefer a guy or gal who they could see sitting down and having a beer with. They flock toward affable, middle of the road, average Joe types because they can identify with them on a number of levels. Voters don't want to be patronized or talked down to; they want their leader to be one of them. Having extraordinary charisma has worked for many contemporary presidents like Reagan, G. W. Bush, and Clinton, and dates back far beyond the famous fireside chats of Franklin Roosevelt.
There is nothing inherently problematic about electing a leader with a charming and magnetic personality. Without a doubt, a president of virtuous character and outstanding charisma enjoys many advantages over those without, not in the least their ability to more effectively act as chief diplomat and more easily coerce the cooperation of Congress on key legislation.
The concern is not whether or not a candidate is likable enough to have a beer with or if they are devout enough to promote healthy moral values. Rather, we should ask if they possess the knowledge, wisdom, and work ethic of a truly capable leader. They need not fit the ideal mold of Plato's "Philosopher Kings", who possessed the highest wisdom and intelligence in the land, but they should at least have proven their ability to make rational, sound, and educated judgments. We need leadership that shows respect for the sanctity of facts and honors the truth, instead of distorting and filtering facts to their political advantage.
The leadership I am referring to is not often enough found in the halls of Congress or in the governors' mansions, but teaching in our schools and universities.
This brings us to Woodrow Wilson, the only U.S. president to pursue a career in academia and teach at an institution of higher learning. Wilson taught political economy at Wesleyan and Princeton Universities before being elected president in 1912.
Wilson's record was by no means flawless. He faced challenges both personal and political that would humble a man of any stature. He is well known however, for being a brilliant thinker and philosopher. He was a prolific writer, and a progressive democratic idealist. He preferred diplomacy before military action, but when our nation and allies were attacked, he fought and defeated Germany in WWI. He strongly advocated free trade as a basis for international cooperation, advocated collective international security, and established the League of Nations, which earned him the Nobel Peace Prize and evolved into the United Nations of today.
His ideas were revolutionary and idealistic, setting the foundation for 20th century international and domestic policy. The minds of professors, academics, and teachers like Wilson exemplify the mental acuity and thirst for empirical knowledge that is so badly needed to solve the most urgent issues of the day in a rational and logical manner. These are the type of thinkers who can be trusted to weigh all important data and possible consequences before making decisions as important as protecting the constitution or sending the country to war.
There is no doubt that John McCain is both a bright man and an admirable public servant. Despite his ranking of 894 of 899 at the Annapolis Naval Academy and concerns of war related psychological trauma and age related dementia, McCain still displays plenty of wit and intelligence. His sense of humor is keen and he is a respected member of the Senate, authoring key legislation like the campaign finance reform McCain-Feingold Act.
Yet McCain has admitted he is technologically "illiterate" and requires help from his wife to use a computer. Sure, he has performed the complex search engine feat that he calls "a Google" before, but at 72 year old, it is doubtful he could learn and understand the challenges and complexities of 21st century technology that runs our country if he cannot independently use a computer.
His Vice-Presidential choice, Sarah Palin, has by far the most anti-progressive and anti-intellectual record of all the candidates. She is a staunch opponent of stem cell research, abortion rights, and same-sex marriage. She believes wrongly that humans are not responsible for global climate change and that creationism, which spurns the scientific method for religious scripture, should be taught alongside evolution in our public schools. Demonstrating her painful ignorance of foreign policy, in a recent interview Palin was unfamiliar with the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war. Even more disturbingly, TIME magazine recently quoted Palin as saying "she asked the library how she could go about banning books" while she served as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.
On the other ticket, Barack Obama has proven his aptitude for academia and critical thinking. He earned his B.A. form Columbia University and later graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. He eventually landed a job at the University of Chicago, according to whose website Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years. He left his job as a senior lecturer when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
A July 30th New York Times analysis of Obama's teaching career described him as an "evenhanded" and provocative teacher. Students raved that Obama challenged their political instincts and questioned everything, looking at individual issues through a contextual lens. Obama led discussions by "surfacing all the competing points of view…with neutrality and equanimity". It is precisely this objectivity that has been so conspicuously absent from the Bush Administration of the last eight years, and more recently, of McCain campaign rhetoric.
In the era of Rovian politics, pundits and ideologues have made a dangerous gamble. They have increasingly been willing to manipulate language in a Machiavellian "truthiness," knowing that the information they spew is at best questionable and at worst, outright deceitful. They use fear and paranoia to push their agenda, blaming Mexican immigration or Islamic extremism for many of our problems when our governmental policies are often to blame. They manipulate emotions by casting dissenters as unpatriotic and take opponents' statements out of context. It is an obvious lie that Obama seeks to teach sex education to kindergarteners, yet the McCain campaign continues to play on the fears of social conservatives. This behavior is not only a slap in the face to the intelligence of the American voter, but it is an immoral and dishonest way to run both a campaign and a government.
McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis was recently quoted in the Washington Post as saying "this election is not about issues". Certainly, he would prefer if it were not. This cynical remark should be the last straw for voters who must not be distracted from the issues that matter: a stagnant economy, a collapsing housing market, inflated food and gas prices, a five year war, countless civil rights and privacy abuses, an environment in a critical state of disrepair, failing schools, attacks on gay and lesbian rights, widening income inequality, and countless other issues of the utmost importance.
We Americans must demand that our democratically elected leaders be those who can best address the issues honestly and critically with an even hand and wise judgment. If we fail to be vigilant and choose carefully at the polls, we risk more of the catastrophically poor leadership that has plagued us for the past eight years.
Matthew Weisner
It is an understandable notion that voters prefer a guy or gal who they could see sitting down and having a beer with. They flock toward affable, middle of the road, average Joe types because they can identify with them on a number of levels. Voters don't want to be patronized or talked down to; they want their leader to be one of them. Having extraordinary charisma has worked for many contemporary presidents like Reagan, G. W. Bush, and Clinton, and dates back far beyond the famous fireside chats of Franklin Roosevelt.
There is nothing inherently problematic about electing a leader with a charming and magnetic personality. Without a doubt, a president of virtuous character and outstanding charisma enjoys many advantages over those without, not in the least their ability to more effectively act as chief diplomat and more easily coerce the cooperation of Congress on key legislation.
The concern is not whether or not a candidate is likable enough to have a beer with or if they are devout enough to promote healthy moral values. Rather, we should ask if they possess the knowledge, wisdom, and work ethic of a truly capable leader. They need not fit the ideal mold of Plato's "Philosopher Kings", who possessed the highest wisdom and intelligence in the land, but they should at least have proven their ability to make rational, sound, and educated judgments. We need leadership that shows respect for the sanctity of facts and honors the truth, instead of distorting and filtering facts to their political advantage.
The leadership I am referring to is not often enough found in the halls of Congress or in the governors' mansions, but teaching in our schools and universities.
This brings us to Woodrow Wilson, the only U.S. president to pursue a career in academia and teach at an institution of higher learning. Wilson taught political economy at Wesleyan and Princeton Universities before being elected president in 1912.
Wilson's record was by no means flawless. He faced challenges both personal and political that would humble a man of any stature. He is well known however, for being a brilliant thinker and philosopher. He was a prolific writer, and a progressive democratic idealist. He preferred diplomacy before military action, but when our nation and allies were attacked, he fought and defeated Germany in WWI. He strongly advocated free trade as a basis for international cooperation, advocated collective international security, and established the League of Nations, which earned him the Nobel Peace Prize and evolved into the United Nations of today.
His ideas were revolutionary and idealistic, setting the foundation for 20th century international and domestic policy. The minds of professors, academics, and teachers like Wilson exemplify the mental acuity and thirst for empirical knowledge that is so badly needed to solve the most urgent issues of the day in a rational and logical manner. These are the type of thinkers who can be trusted to weigh all important data and possible consequences before making decisions as important as protecting the constitution or sending the country to war.
There is no doubt that John McCain is both a bright man and an admirable public servant. Despite his ranking of 894 of 899 at the Annapolis Naval Academy and concerns of war related psychological trauma and age related dementia, McCain still displays plenty of wit and intelligence. His sense of humor is keen and he is a respected member of the Senate, authoring key legislation like the campaign finance reform McCain-Feingold Act.
Yet McCain has admitted he is technologically "illiterate" and requires help from his wife to use a computer. Sure, he has performed the complex search engine feat that he calls "a Google" before, but at 72 year old, it is doubtful he could learn and understand the challenges and complexities of 21st century technology that runs our country if he cannot independently use a computer.
His Vice-Presidential choice, Sarah Palin, has by far the most anti-progressive and anti-intellectual record of all the candidates. She is a staunch opponent of stem cell research, abortion rights, and same-sex marriage. She believes wrongly that humans are not responsible for global climate change and that creationism, which spurns the scientific method for religious scripture, should be taught alongside evolution in our public schools. Demonstrating her painful ignorance of foreign policy, in a recent interview Palin was unfamiliar with the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war. Even more disturbingly, TIME magazine recently quoted Palin as saying "she asked the library how she could go about banning books" while she served as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.
On the other ticket, Barack Obama has proven his aptitude for academia and critical thinking. He earned his B.A. form Columbia University and later graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. He eventually landed a job at the University of Chicago, according to whose website Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years. He left his job as a senior lecturer when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
A July 30th New York Times analysis of Obama's teaching career described him as an "evenhanded" and provocative teacher. Students raved that Obama challenged their political instincts and questioned everything, looking at individual issues through a contextual lens. Obama led discussions by "surfacing all the competing points of view…with neutrality and equanimity". It is precisely this objectivity that has been so conspicuously absent from the Bush Administration of the last eight years, and more recently, of McCain campaign rhetoric.
In the era of Rovian politics, pundits and ideologues have made a dangerous gamble. They have increasingly been willing to manipulate language in a Machiavellian "truthiness," knowing that the information they spew is at best questionable and at worst, outright deceitful. They use fear and paranoia to push their agenda, blaming Mexican immigration or Islamic extremism for many of our problems when our governmental policies are often to blame. They manipulate emotions by casting dissenters as unpatriotic and take opponents' statements out of context. It is an obvious lie that Obama seeks to teach sex education to kindergarteners, yet the McCain campaign continues to play on the fears of social conservatives. This behavior is not only a slap in the face to the intelligence of the American voter, but it is an immoral and dishonest way to run both a campaign and a government.
McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis was recently quoted in the Washington Post as saying "this election is not about issues". Certainly, he would prefer if it were not. This cynical remark should be the last straw for voters who must not be distracted from the issues that matter: a stagnant economy, a collapsing housing market, inflated food and gas prices, a five year war, countless civil rights and privacy abuses, an environment in a critical state of disrepair, failing schools, attacks on gay and lesbian rights, widening income inequality, and countless other issues of the utmost importance.
We Americans must demand that our democratically elected leaders be those who can best address the issues honestly and critically with an even hand and wise judgment. If we fail to be vigilant and choose carefully at the polls, we risk more of the catastrophically poor leadership that has plagued us for the past eight years.
Matthew Weisner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)