Sarah Palin Rally + Electoral College

Okay #1 the Sarah Palin rally was so amazing. I'm not saying I'm a McCain fan but actually being at the rally was so, so neat. Having a press pass probably had a lot to do with this...but I think I discovered something incredibly important at that rally: I absolutely love taking photos of real news happening in the moment. As a high school journalist I have never had an opportunity like that before. I am #1 incredibly lucky and #2 so grateful that I could experience that from a news stand point. It. was. incredible. This picture on the right shows just how close the press are really allowed to get: pretty darn close!!!

The electoral college...Do I think we should abolish it? Absolutely not. Do I think it's fair? No, not completely, but really what is? I understand the flaws (at least I think I do after our discussion today in government class and after doing the reading from the oh-so-unbiased Ronald Dahl) of the Electoral College...and how things can go awry (election of 2000--poor Gore), but I don't necessarily think any major changes need to be made to it. I think we should hold electors accountable for their vote. If the popular vote wants the Republican candidate, they should honor the opinion of the people and cast their representative vote in that manner. I think most electors do cast their vote in this way, or at least I certainly hope they would...

What I've learned about this whole political process, from going to the Obama and Palin rallies, hearing Congressman Wittman speak, and being visited by Mrs. Stimpson, is that I want to be involved. I don't think I have it in me to sit still with all of this political involvement going on around me. I can't bear to not get my hands dirty with it all. Sure, it's easy to write off politics and say it's all crap and yadda yadda and it doesn't get anything accomplished, but really that isn't the solution. It's not okay to not vote. It's not okay to sit at home and not get involved. It's not okay to be indifferent. While I must admit I told a peer of mine that I "didn't really have an opinion" between the two candidates, I will say that I am more than willing to avoid having someone else's beliefs shoved down my throat... I do have opinions, I just don't think I need to always tell people. It's not that I'm shy about saying my opinion (clearly), but sometimes it's just not worth the headache. This is the first election where I've demanded that both of my parents go out and vote. That they have to pick a candidate, even if they don't identify with one on every single issue. I have learned from Government class that it's so terribly important to do these things: not having an opinion or just not caring won't cut it.

More Palin Rally Pics!

Should there be limits on interest group participation?

What a topic to undertake, whew... Okay, here goes. I think that the government should regulate political interest groups. While I don't think the government has the right to say what issues are more important than others or what lobbyists should get the most face time, I do think it would be a legitimate and good idea to disclose Interest Group finances. As a citizen who may or may not be a part of an interest group, I want to know where these people are getting their money and whom is financing them. Interest groups have a massive influence on society, therefore I think finances should be disclosed. I'm not saying that Interest Groups should have to pass ridiculous tests and limits saying what they can and can't say or who's allowed to do this or that, I'm merely saying make the finances public record. JUST the finances...not the agenda. For example, what business does George Soros have in donating $15.8 million to MoveOn.org. After a little research via wikipedia, I found out how much he dislikes George Bush...he's a democrat to the max so it makes sense for him to want to fund MoveOn.org. While there's no underlying sneaky agenda to his funding, I would want to know if there was--publish the paper trail. That's all I'm saying.

"Is torture a legitimate means of combating terrorism?"

1st answer: yes. I picked this topic because I knew it would be hard. I very much support peace and am a slight pacifist, but sometimes I think as a nation we have to take the necessary steps to protect ourselves (even if this includes terrorist torture).

2nd answer: yes...though the argument about torture being "un-American" made me blink a bit, I still feel that a means of protection means a whole lot more than living up to an ideal.

3rd answer: YES -- “torture: any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.”... but aren't these terrorists doing this to innocent people? I feel there should be repercussions for their actions, rather than just being held in a jail cell like any normal prisoner on tax payer money. How are we supposed to get knowledge out of these people just by messing with their psyche? The Geneva Convention doesn't even allow you to do THAT. "And finally, in June 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects were entitled to protection from 'outrages upon personal dignity, and in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,' as outlined in the Geneva Conventions."

4th answer: I don't know!--"This is the country, after all, that helped liberate Europe from the Nazis; the country that reacts in horror to the notion of political prisoners—and what they likely endure—in China and to accounts of Saddam Hussein’s chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians. It is the country that ensures the freedom of speech and assembly. It is also the country where—and this is critical to the torture debate—one is presumed innocent until proven guilty." Gosh I hate that this game plays is such a devil's advocate.

5th answer: No--"Whereas the strong will endure, the weak will say anything—including falsehoods—to stop the pain." This is true. I believe in torture as a means of PUNISHMENT when it is sure someone has committed a crime. For instance, if you murder someone in cold blood, personally I think it's wrong that instead of facing the same death you gave that person, you sit in a jail cell on death row for 95 years soaking up tax payer money.

6th & final answer: Yes--they presented a situation under a time-crunch in which the terrorist suspect wasn't tortured and a bomb went off injuring thousands...though this is a far-fetched hypothetical situation... it still gave me the creeps to think that my torturing ONE person to gain information thousands of lives could be saved.

Question #3

If I had to vote right now, this very day, I would vote for Barack Obama. I wouldn't vote McCain because I don't support his health care policies. I think forcing businesses to pay taxes for their employers when they become sick is a bad idea. I'm no expert but to me I can see way too many loopholes to be found by the businesses. I think this would only hurt the "average joe" American worker, whether they work in a factory or behind the desk of a local business.
Another thing which I lean more towards Obama with is education. The reason I have to pay to attend this private school is because my parents were dissatisfied with the public education system. I think every parent should have the right to send their child to a public school of their choice and find comfort in the fact that their children are being well-prepared for life. That being said, this is not the reality of today. Example in case: myself.
One of the reasons I would be swayed to vote Obama is because he represents that one important, six letter word: CHANGE. I'm not saying this inherently makes him a better candidate, but in my mind he is so associated with that word that I feel like if I voted for McCain there would be no change (this is probably thanks to the media...). I think there are a lot of things that need to be modified in the world we live in and I know they won't all happen overnight, but I don't feel that Obama's "inexperience" will leave him unable to make the modifications necessary. In fact, I don't really consider him to be inexperienced at all. I think the media plays him up to be inexperienced because he isn't 78 years old like John McCain (again, another tactic by the media to influence voters).
Again, Obama is my choice if I had to vote in this election. Part of me is almost relieved that I don't have to vote because I am really not sure who I would pick. I would want to do a lot more research on the topic (yes, even more debate watching and newspaper reading) before I made a decision. It really scares me to think that 32% of our nation decide who will be the next leader for all 100% of us. Voter turnout is a whole 'nother can of worms.
Back to the case in point: If I had to vote, I'd vote Obama.

"Town Hall" debate style

Despite the more intimate setting of this "debate" (if you can even call it that)...these two are still talking about what they did in the past compared to one another, rather than what they're doing (note the use of the present tense) now.
"You're not interesting in hearing politicians pointing fingers" -Barack Obama. You said it Mister...so why talk about it? I can't decide if I like the style of this debate or not. I'd also like to know how the audience members were picked. I think the tension level of this debate is higher than that of the other one...not because one candidate is on the defense more than the other, but because both candidates are in such close proximities of one another. There's no podeum for them to hide behind here.
I think this style of debate is a lot more informational than when the candidates are speaking in front of thousands of people. I feel like at least the candidates aren't allowed to go off on tangents (at least not as badly) and that they're being held responsible for actually answering the questions...because the people who are asking them are right there in the audience hanging on their every word.

The VP Debate

Technically I'm supposed to blog about the debate...but in all honesty I feel asleep after question one. However, watching 30 minutes of "The O'Reilly Factor" before the debate was really interesting. According to O'Reilly if Sarah Palin could pull off a decent, respectable debate...where she looked like she knew what she was talking about, then the American people would give her a break and take her as credible. Geraldine Ferraro had great advice to give Palin before the debate began, "Know your stuff" were her words. I'm not sure Palin really does...which is potentially a HUGE PROBLEM.

In all frankness I don't think the VP should really matter when picking the presidential candidate. Constitutionally speaking, they really have no role...other than to make the deciding vote when the Senate is tied (which has only happened once or twice). I don't care about Joe Biden. I don't care about Sarah Palin. All they do is cheerlead for Obama and McCain. They just reiterate what the candidates stand for. Yes, they are technically Vice Presidents... but in my opinion they shouldn't determine who you vote for.