Independents in the Election

As we all know, the first Presidential debates are approaching. This election is pretty close - and there are plenty of voters who are undecided. There is also a large number of voters who are independent - they don't openly support one candidate as of now. This is true with many people. They are upset with Obama because they believe that he did not improve the nation during his four year presidency, but they also do not like Romney (for various reasons). These independent voters are more important to the election than ever.

Independent voters do not get much media attention, but they are important. As Jon Cohen and Dan Balz say, independents are those whose "attitudinal swings can make the difference between celebration and dejection on election night." They are underrated, yet extremely important.

What I am trying to get to is that so many people are upset with both candidates. Why should voters have to choose between the lesser of two evils? Why are they so upset with both candidates?

Don't Ask Don't Tell

It's been over a year since the controversial policy"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed by the Obama Administration. The policy was simple - if you were a homosexual, you were allowed to serve in the Army as long as you didn't tell others, and didn't ask others about their sexual orientation. It made it seem as if the government was not comfortable having homosexuals serve our nation. To me, it the policy was disrespectful and distasteful. The Obama administration felt the same way.

The policy was repealed. Now, a soldier of any sexual orientation is allowed to serve openly in the military. Many high ranking military officers believed that soldiers serving openly would negatively effect both the amount of servicemen and women, and posed "an intolerable risk" to the effectiveness of our military. Well, it didn't. Those who doubted it are now proven wrong. There have no been absolutely no consequences for our military due to DADT's repeal. 

Why were so many people hesitant to repeal this law which disrespected so many people in our country? Does it show anything about some Americans' view on sexual orientation? What do you think about the law?

Keynesian Economics Holds True

Everywhere you go, you hear news about the 2012 Presidential Election. Whether it's watching your favorite television show, or even walking down the halls at New Trier, there are always people talking about the election. This election will most likely be decided by one factor - the economy. The election will come down to this: If the general public thinks they are better off now than they were four years ago, they will probably vote for Obama. If they don't, they will probably vote for Romney. If that previous statement holds true, Obama will win the election.

In 2009, Barack Obama announced the one of the biggest federal stimulus bills of all time - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This was a bill that was supposed to create jobs and save the economy from a complete crash during the recession. The way it was supposed to create jobs was through federal stimulus, investing $841 billion dollars in tons of sectors of the US economy. This theory of federal stimulus spending is backed up by the Keynesian macroeconomic (possible microeconomic, I'm not one hundred percent sure about that) theory. Keynesian economic theory believes that the best way to stop a recession is by investing tons of money into the economy. 

Of course, almost all Conservatives hate the idea of stimulus spending and Keynesian economic theory in general, because they think that stimulus spending has a net negative effect on the economy. Both sides bicker about which policies are best for the economy, and why. The Conservatives were proven wrong, says an article written by David Firestone of the New York Times:

"But the stimulus did far more than stimulate: it protected the most vulnerable from the recession’s heavy winds. Of the act’s $840 billion final cost, $1.5 billion went to rent subsidies and emergency housing that kept 1.2 million people under roofs. (That’s why the recession didn’t produce rampant homelessness.) It increased spending on food stamps, unemployment benefits and Medicaid, keeping at least seven million Americans from falling below the poverty line."

Firestone argues that the stimulus did its job - it put our economy in a far better position than it was four years ago, and it also saved millions of Americans from being jobless and homeless. If the average voter knew the statistics that Firestone presents, I think they would be extremely satisfied and shocked. If they knew that the economy is better than they think it is, and could perhaps improve even more under Obama's policies, would they vote for him? I think so.

Is Keynesian economic theory correct? Did the benefits outweigh the costs? If it is correct, does this mean that Obama has a greater chance at winning the election? Now that you know my thoughts, I'm curious to hear yours.

Greed

As I was surfing the internet a couple days ago, I found news stories that I expected. There were articles about the stock market, the protests in Cairo, and plenty of articles about the election. What I didn't expect to see was an article about a bank robbery. This isn't your generic bank robbery, where a group of people run in with masks and guns and run out with bags of money. No. This time, when the robbers were speeding down the roads with cop cars chasing them, they created a distraction.

The robbers began chucking handfuls of money out of the car. Their distraction was successful. Mobs of people began rushing towards the car. Not to stop the robbers, though. They ran to pick up the cash that was being thrown out of the car. The people had no intention of trying to help the police catch the suspects. They just wantedtheir money:

"Onlookers were waving to the suspected bank robbers, apparently signaling for them to throw more money"

This shows us a lot about a lot of Americans. Their top priority is getting or making money. I'm not saying that all Americans are infatuated with money, I am just saying that it is most people's instinct to make sure they have enough money to please them. Does this mean that we are fine with going so far as to breaking laws in order to get money? Is this a major problem in our society, or is it something that we should just accept?

Real Estate and Segregation

During today's discussion in class, Mr. Bolos brought up the topic of real estate workers and promoting segregation through house selection, whether overtly or not. The idea is that people want to make sure that certain areas include people of a certain race, religion, or ethnicity. For instance, Mr. O'Connor touched on how he grew up in an Irish-American part of Chicago where most Irish Americans lived because that is where the great majority of them resided. This made me remember a very similar story that occurred two summers ago in Charlevoix, Michigan.

After four days of relaxing at the beach playing soccer and swimming, eating delicious meals on the picnic table on the sand, and going out for nice dinners, my Grandma was so in love with Charlevoix that she decided she wanted to look in to buying a house there. The very next day, my mom and her went on a tour with a real estate agent of multiple properties. My Grandma fell in love with one.

You should know that my family is Jewish. What I didn't know, and what my parents didn't think was important, was that Charlevoix is a very Christian town. After a long discussion with the real estate agent, my Grandma asked if there were any temples around. The real estate agent was in shock. She then proceeded to talk my Grandma and mom out of the possibility of buying that house, or any other house. My whole family was shocked.

Why should it matter that my Grandma was Jewish while the rest of the people were not? Why did the real estate agent prevent my Grandma from providing her with business because of her religious faith? These were both questions nobody could answer.

Do instances like that show anything about Americans? Do we still have inner segregation? Do examples like that promote what America stands for - liberty and justice for all? 

Healthcare

Just last night as I finished brushing my teeth, tripped over my suitcase and fell into bed on the fluffy Marriott bed. As all three of us - me, Zach, and Matt - sat in our beds with the lights off, we began to talk. Since we are at a debate tournament, we naturally began to talk about politics, the election, and matters like that. We all have different stances on politics, which fostered a good discussion about both candidates. What intrigued me most was our section of the discussion about Healthcare.

The Healthcare law, or as some call "ObamaCare", just recently passed the Supreme Court in June. This got me thinking about Americans and their priorities - why do some want near-universal healthcare, and why do some not?

I think that the reason that there are conflicting opinions on this all are rooted in one cause - money. I heard a story on NPR about how now the pizza company Papa John's now has to raise their price of pizza because they now have to pay additional money for Healthcare. The thing is, the price increase is 14 cents. They are extremely upset over minutely increasing the price of their product that most customers won't even notice.

This tells us a lot about Americans. They all think that money is the most important part of their lives. While this may be true, it still shows us a lot about Americans' priorities, and money is certainly number one. 

Hegemony - Good or Bad?

During our class discussion today, we began to touch on the concept of American exceptionalism. We tried to determine both its denotation and its connotation. When I first hear the words "American exceptionalism", I think of American hegemony.

For those of you who do not know the concept of hegemony, it is generally defined as leadership or dominance that a certain group or nation has over another group or groups of people. In the context of America, we are the global hegemon.

Take a step back and think about those two powerful words. We literally control everything on the entire planet. Now, the question is obvious: is this control a good or a bad thing? Can we sustain hegemony for as long as we need to?

In my opinion, I think it is a bad thing, and is not sustainable. Although global dominance is a very powerful phrase, other nations do not really appreciate it. They may look to us as the police of the world - if they have problems, they can just holler over to the US for help. To me, that is not a good position for us, especially in these harsh economic times where we need to focus on our own national problems. In fact, some authors, like Ivan Eland, believe that hegemony tanks our economy. His logic is simple: other countries need our help. That help usually involves deployed military forces to end a war or stop one from breaking out in a different country. This, in turn, means we need more money to fund these wars we get involved in, therefore using our own resources for something that does not directly involve us.

I completely agree with Eland - I think American hegemony both hinders our own economic growth, and may even make us some enemies on the way. 

I also do not believe that hegemony is sustainable. Take the example I gave from above, and imagine what would happen if we got ourselves involved in multiple conflicts. Not only would our forces be deployed in other countries, and our money be spent on stuff across the globe, there are other countries that are beginning to step up as well. China is a perfect example of this - China's GDP is currently growing at a faster rate than the United States', and China's GDP will most likely surpass ours in the coming years. Add those three elements together, and it seems quite clear that we cannot sustain our global hegemony.

What do you guys think? Is having control over almost every country a good or a bad thing, and can we sustain it? 

Here is the link for Eland's article if any of you are interested. 

Taking It Too Far?

Everywhere I turn, whether it be in school or at home, I hear people talking about the election. Most people explain their views on each candidate, and why one is better than the other. There is no more talk of the other candidates who ran for the GOP nomination. Earlier today, I stumbled upon an article about one of my favorite "politicians" - Vermin Supreme.

For those of you who don't know about Vermin Supreme, he is quite the character. Here is a great article that outlines his views and gives some good background information on him. He has ran for plenty of political positions all over the country, and this year, he ran as a Democrat for President of the United States. With his iconic boot on his head, and his bullhorn in hand, he travels around the country spreading his messages.

He uses his messages to mock the political system. He has some basic stances that he loves to share. First, he will pass a law during the first day of office that makes sure everyone brushes their teeth. Second, he will give everyone their own pony. Thirdly, he will go back in time to murder Hitler. Yes, these ideas sound hilarious and ridiculous, but he ran for President seriously: "I am a 100% candidate. I am running."

If you want to see his commitment in action, here is a video that I will guarantee you will laugh at. It is worth five minutes of your time if you have nothing important to do.

In times like we are in now, with a seemingly bad economy and controversial social activities going on, was a candidate who mocked what others stand for appropriate? Did Vermin Supreme's actions expose anything about the current political system, or was he just wasting his time?