Obama's Cabinet

And the Cabinet is...drum roll please...wine glasses? No, not that cabinet. I'm talking about THE Cabinet--capital "C."

• White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Emmanuel
  
• Secretary of Commerce: Bill Richardson
  
• Secretary of Defense: Robert M. Gates
  
• Secretary of Health and Human Services: Tom Daschle
  
• Secretary of Homeland Security: Janet Napalitano
  
• Secretary of the State: Hillary Rodham Clinton
  
• Secretary of the Treasury: Timothy Geithner
  
• Director of the National Economic Council: Lawrence Summers
• Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors: Christina Romer
• Director of Domestic Policy Council: Melody Barnes
• Deputy Director of Domestic Policy Council: Heather Higginbottom
  

While I don't know what every one of these people will be doing, I like what I see so far. What am I seeing you might ask? Diversity. Men and women from different backgrounds, all coming together for one thing. I don't think Obama's Cabinet is necessarily any better or worse than previous administrations...and I think the hype over who he was going to pick was slightly ridiculous--too much speculating makes for too much gossip and untruths. I was happy just to hear the final announcements rather than read whole articles on who he might pick. I understand the importance over it, but I still think the media sometimes goes too far. I'm especially interested in Rahm Emmanuel because he was an advisor to Bill Clinton (who I deem as one of the more succesful presidents) and served as an investment banker (in which I sincerely hope he uses his knowledge and power for good).

And the winner is...

Obama! I wasn't surprised, really. The American people followed the trend they've set for every election. When there's: war, dissatisfaction, etc. it's likely that the candidate who offers the most "rejuvenation" or has the most contrast to the president in charge will be the next in the white house.

I remember falling asleep in front of the TV waiting to find out the winner. Truth be told, I didn't even think twice about who the winner was when I woke up bleary-eyed in the morning. Luckily when my mom made sure I was awake, she told me that Obama won. I wasn't sure how to feel.

I was thinking something along the lines of, "Change. Okay... This is happening, right? But what will really happen?" I really didn't know how to feel. I just want my country, our country, to get back on track. I don't care if it's John McCain, Barack Obama, or Chuck Norris who gets the job done, I just want someone to take the reins and drive. I can't predict the future, and I think we're in good hands (Obama's that is), I just really hope our economy can pick back up soon--it's affecting us all in a major way.

Government Pardoning

Government Pardoning

I think if I were President, I would use pardoning. It would depend on the type of case it was. If it was a person who is an apparent real risk to society: i.e. murderers, rapists, gang members, then no I'd probably be a little hesitant to pardon them. But really it all depends on the individual person. I hope I'm not being too naive in my thoughts that everyone deserves a second chance. I'm not saying let loose all of the criminals because they've been in jail for X amount of years, I'm just saying that I like to believe that people can change, and should at least be given that opportunity. This is one of the reasons why I would use the pardon. One of the things that scares me most about the legislative branch is injustice. I know (or at least hope) that most of the people sitting in jail soaking up tax payer's funds deserve to be there. But I also know that sometimes people are wrongly convicted: and this scares me more than anything. We are the United States of America, archetype of freedom, liberty, and McDonald's. Of course we never make mistakes...right?

These people who "slip through the cracks" of the system, meaning they either slip into the cracks wrongfully or there are those who deserve to be in jail for the rest of their life span...are another reason as to why I would use the pardon. I think it should be used with care, but used nonetheless.

Should the voting age be lowerd to sixteen?

While there are some pretty convincing arguments as to why the voting age should be lowered, such as the fact that "there is no magical transformation one undergoes when one turns eighteen," I'm going to have to say that I do not think the voting age should be lowered, at least not without some preparatory testing in lieu of being two years underage. I know there are probably a lot of uneducated adult voters out there who might vote for the wrong reason, or maybe not vote at all, but I don't think lowering the voting age is really a fair add-on to this problem. I think it would be odd to have the voting age be sixteen, but the legal age to still be eighteen. It just wouldn't make much sense to me. While I would love to be able to vote and feel pretty educated on the subject, and I know some of my peers feel the same way, it doesn't mean that ALL sixteen and seventeen year-olds should be allowed to vote. Then again, I'm not sure if testing to see if one is "ready" to vote at that age is a good choice either because then it's kind of reverting back to old ways in making African-Americans take tests to vote (knowing full well the majority of them simply would not pass).

The best thing to do is to leave the voting age at 18. This, I think...well, I hope, is enticing those who are under 18 (like myself) to get involved in politics in every other way possible.

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.