Post 17: The last of them

Alas, this will be my last post on my political blog -- officially, that is.

Unofficially, I'd like to keep blogging. And I can definitely see myself pursuing this more in Washington, D.C. while I have much more free time on my hands.

Something that's really bugged me in the past couple days is the whole deal of Poizner bringing up Whitman's voting records as campaign ads, mostly because I would just like to know where everyone is getting their facts.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Whitman remembers voting in at least two presidential elections, the most recent being 1988. If she wants to stick to that claim, she needs to be able to prove it.

Steve Poizner says she hasn't voted in more than two decades. Where is he getting his facts from? 

Nevertheless, things don't look so hot for Whitman with regards to her records. Who would put their trust in a politician who hasn't bothered to be a citizen first?

In the news today, former vice president Dick Cheney has officially endorsed Whitman. Whether that will benefit her, harm her or have little effect I'm not completely certain. However, my best bet would be that it won't do anything to further or to hinder her cause. 

In less-timely news, though still on the governor's race beat, Meg Whitman did finally meet with the board of editors at the Orange County Register as asked. She was, if you for some reason remember one of my first posts, the first candidate for governor to turn down the invitation in living memory at the Register. Bad move on her part, If I do say so myself. 

An ABC poll last week showed that Poizner was only trailing Whitman by two point. TWO POINTS! She was smoking him by 50 points not long ago.

Perhaps these campaign ads out by Poizner will be just enough to push him over the top. I wonder.

Less than one month left in the Golden State.

-- Katie

Post 16: The national debt

While the national debt has always frustrated me, I don't think I fully realized how massive it really is until I visited New York City last month.

There, the national debt, in ever-increasing numbers, hangs on the side of a building just outside the hub of Times Square. I don't think I really comprehended the horrid state of the national debt until it was broken down into how what my family's portion of that national debt really is -- $104,777. That's my family's income for an entire year, more or less.

For many families, that's twice as much as they make in a year. 

$12.4. Million? No way. Billion? Not even. It's in trillions. $12.4 trillion dollars. Now, I've had a difficult time finding consistent numbers on how much of that has been accumulated since Obama came to office. Some things have said $1 billion. Others $2 trillion. I've seen up to $10 trillion, which I think was just poorly worded journalism.

Nevertheless, the point is that the national debt is increasing. 

I'm writing this in light of President Obama's urging Saturday to pass Democrats' financial regulatory legislation with the argument that it would prevent future recessions and protect small businesses community bankers and credit card users.

But beyond that, I've been contemplating the state of the national debt in light of the recent crumbling of the economy of Greece. 

Experts have been drawing similarities between Greece's economy and ours, something that frightens me, to say the least. Is our economy heading south thanks to an ever-accumulating national debt? I know not. The thinking of most analysts I've seen seems to be along the lines of "We aren't Greece ... yet," has an NPR news analysis piece put it. 

Nevertheless, it's kind of bizarre to think about.

But I have to correct my current number. Perhaps I should have just changed it up top, but it seems more dramatic to do it this way. :)

That$12.4 trillion was true when I was in New York in April. But according to the National Debt clock, it's now $12.94. Trillion. Wow.

Now, perhaps there is some disparity between the two measurements. I'm not in NYC at the very moment as I sit here in Eagle's Nest expounding my thoughts, so I can't check the clock on Wall Street. But I can only imagine it's not too far off the track from that nearly $13 million.

I would like to hear from Obama less about health care and even education reform and more about how he can trim the national debt. 

As my mother always likes to say, 'What would the Founding Fathers think?"

Perhaps one of the most interesting things I've found while researching the national debt is an amusing blog post called "Give me liberty or give me debt" on the Meet the Founding Fathers website. 

George Washington stated,

"Nothing can more affect national prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possibly the incurring of any new debt."

Oh, how far we have come from having politicians who think like that. 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/the-saturday-word-financial-regulations-and-budgets/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/greek_tragedy_not_necessarily.html

http://thefoundationforum.com/2009/04/ffqf-give-me-liberty-or-give-me-debt.html

Post 15: Governor's budget cuts

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenneger revealed his budget Friday (today) -- a budget that hits children and those on welfare hard.

The plan would cut $83.4 billion from the state budget. From everything I've read thus far on the budget cuts, most of the newspapers are pretty biased against the governor's decision. The paper seem to victimize the poor and everyone else affected by this plan.

Personally, I think the budget crisis is forcing the governor's hand to do something that probably should have been done a long time ago. I know I kind of go against the flow of most Californians, and even Christians who let compassion overrule their common sense when it comes to politics.

Another prong of the governor's plan would pull 60 percent of state money from mental health programs. 

Unfortunately, people don't understand that there are simply things that must be done to fill the gaps of the $20 billion mess that this state has run itself into. 

It's also fascinating to me to see other states paying attention to California. California has always been a bit of a trendsetter, and other notice it, whether we think about it much or not. I saw articles in newspapers from New York and Michigan, just to name two, that featured pieces on the state budget crisis and Schwarzenneger's recent announcement. 

Here are a few of the numbers on the governor's new plan:

-- 60 percent of state money for mental health programs will be pulled

-- 1.3 million people on CalWorks will no longer receive government aid

-- $63.71 million will be cut from in-home care programs

-- $2.8 billion from K-12 education

Personally, I'm more than fine with the governor's decisions. However, I do have some problems with the things that "won" in the state budgets.

Parks was one of them, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Now, I'm all for cuts in essentially any area. But it does concern me that the budget seems to favor things like parks over people.

Something else that concerned me perhaps more than anything was the moving of 15,000 inmates -- only the non-violent ones, mind you -- from state prisons. That would save another couple billion dollars.

Unfortunately, just because an offender is labeled as "non-violent" doesn't mean they are not harmful to society. 

One area I was pleased with, however, was the governor's attention to colleges and higher education. State school systems as well as Cal Grants will see more favorable funding in the 2010-2011 budget.

The fiscal year officially begins July 1.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/05/schwarzeneggers-budget-eliminates-welfare-cuts-other-programs.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/14/MNO81DETHB.DTL

Post 14: Primaries at a glance

Thew New York Times is not typically the first site I go to when I want a good graphic. But for the upcoming elections, they actually had a quite stellar one.

The interactive map of the United States is colored, showing which states are leaning what way. Tossup states are yellow, while liberal-leaning and conservative states are coded in various shades of blue and red. 

California is, surprise surprise, a light blue shade. But it is not a dark blue shade. But that's only for the senate seat. What does that mean? Boxer had better step up her campaign and Republicans had better take advantage of the lack of enthusiasm over the incumbent whilst they still can.

In terms of the race for governor, California is a creamy yellow color, along with states like Iowa, Colorado and Arizona. The state, according to analysts, is a toss up. Perhaps surprisingly, the only states reporting dark blue colors for the governor's race were Arkansas and New York.

The rest of the states didn't have primaries, or were various shades of red and yellow.

Participation of college students in the voting process is something that has concerned me in the past. And with primary elections approaching rapidly, I begin to be more worried about that.

Students are the future of the nation; they need to be thoroughly involved with their leadership and support their knowledge bas.

Well, I'm wiped. So that's it for now. 

Some states, like Ohio and Indiana, have already held their primary elections. The majority of states have June elections, California included. But some primaries happen as late as the end of August.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate

Post 13: Oh, the Clintons

So, while I know I really should be devoting my attentions to the developing Supreme Court nomination story, I couldn't help but laugh at this one.

President Clinton is now being so gracious as to offer time with himself to anyone willing to pitch in to cover the costs of his wife's presidential campaign.

"Hillary’s campaign still has a few vestiges of debt that I know she would like to see paid in full. Will you reach out today to help Hilary this one last time?” he wrote to past supporters.

Hillary Clinton, according to the Federal Election Commission, still had $771,000 in outstanding debt as of April 1. 

My reactions to this story were pretty immediate. First of all, it's just kind of funny. But second of all, it's really embarrassing for the Clintons.

I would like to know whose idea it was for this "day with the former president" was.

And apparently, this isn't the only time Clinton has done this for his wife.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton isn't allowed to fundraise. But that doesn't bar her equally famous husband to do so.

It's been intriguing for me to watch Mr. Clinton assume a more behind-the-scenes role in the past few years as his wife has taken center stage.

I wonder how much he feels overshadowed by his wife -- how much he feels the need to draw attention back to himself.

There are probably few couples in American history -- certainly American politics -- with as much individual fame as Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have.

It's understandable that Mr. Clinton would want a bit of the limelight back.

Just a few thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynEromR3JZ8http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/bill-clinton-woos-donors-on-wifes-debt/

Post 12: The word is in

President Obama has selected the next member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's Elena Kagan. Kagan, if everything goes through as expected, will be the youngest member at "just" 50 years of age, and the third woman on the court. 

This, of course, benefits Democrats to have someone so young sitting in on the senate; she has lots of time left to serve her lifelong time in the nation's most powerful judicial court. 

I knew none of the options for the next Supreme Court member were exactly good ones. I wasn't expecting anything terrific to come out of this. The woman is a huge fan of executive power, which doesn't sit well with my citizen-centered mindset. 

But I suppose things could be worse -- as they always could be. 

Obama, as some publications (New York Times including) say, wasn't necessarily looking for the most liberal-minded candidate he could find. Kagan has won the support of Republicans at some levels.

Some interesting facts about Kagain:

- She was the first female dean at Harvard Law School

- She will be the first member of the Supreme Court with no judicial experience in about 40 years

People are saying Kagan is a safe pick. At the same time, people aren't too sure of her stance on many of the key issues. It's even uncertain as to how liberal or conservative she will be. In some ways, she was almost a shoe-in. But in others, she's a bit of a surprise bag.

Sotomayor was extremely clear on her positions. Kagan? Not so much. Sotomayor had a heart-wrenching tale about going from poverty to success. What does Kagan have? We'll see. She has lots of experience -- as an academic and as a government official. None as a judge. Maybe that's what Obama was looking for. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html?hp

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011860809_kagan14.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/09/ap-kagan-obamas-supreme-court-pick/

Post 11: They come and they go

The big news in the political world was the fact that Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah did not receive endorsement from the GOP. 

It's a big deal because Bennett, a moderate Republican, has had three terms in the state. And he won't have a fourth.

Furthermore, this makes Bennett the first incumbent for senator not to be reelected in 70 years in Utah. 

Republicans, it sounds like, are fed up with Bennett's failure to follow through and his collaborations with the Democratic party. 

The country on the whole, from what I've observed, is having a sort of backlash against the Democratic party.

We've seen it elsewhere.

Republican Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley in the race for the senate in Massachusetts, upsetting the entire Democratic party.

The Tea Party movement has caught on like a flame. People are becoming more conservative, not less. 

Some analysts think Calif. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is up against the toughest race of her political career. 

I'm still very skeptical about the direction I see our nation heading. It frightens me, actually. But it's comforting to think that, perhaps, the people are beginning to be frightened, too. Perhaps, our nations leaders have gone too far. Perhaps, people are starting to awaken to the dangers of a nation with no morals and no self-restraint.

I don't think I've even been so curious about the outcome of a political race that wasn't a presidential one. 

It's just fascinating to see that the nation is becoming so conservative that it chooses to reject Republicans with a record of service in the senate. So great was the discontent within the GOP that it was willing to take on nearly complete strangers in lieu of a veteran they don't think they can put their faith in anymore.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-utah-senate-20100509,0,5006134.story

http://www.gop.com/

Post 10: Distracting?

Firstly, I apologize for my lack of posting of late.

The past few days have been some of the most challenging both professionally and personally, and though that's no excuse, it happens to be true.

That aside, I found an interesting article during the course of a usual perusing of the Los Angeles Times today that talked about how the race for the senate seats is being largely ignored, as the spotlight is on the gubernatorial race. 

As of the last debate, the GOP candidates took a very united front. They argued very little about each other, and focused mostly on defeating incumbent Barbara Boxer, the democrat who has had a history of being in the senate since 1992 -- nearly two decades. 

"There is a unifying theme in the Republican Party and it's an extreme dislike of Barbara Boxer," said Carly Fiorina's campaign manager, Marty Wilson.

Certainly, it wold be thrilling to have a Republican clench a senate seat. Unfortunately, that is just very unlikely for two rather obvious reasons: 1) California is an exceptionally liberal-leaning and biased state. 2) Incumbents usually win.

Other candidates in the past have failed to reclaim the senate seat for the Republicans, and it's highly unlikely that that is about to change.

Then again, even liberal-leaning papers like the New York Times are asserting that Boxer has a very difficult road to reelection ahead of her, possibly the most difficult in her entire time in office. 

Democrats have a 1.5 million-person lead in California in terms of voters. But who knows? Maybe there is some glimmer of hope for the times ahead.

Sarah Palin has endorsed Fiorna. It'll be interesting to see how much affect that has on her shot. It's unlikely that Palin's endorsement would hurt her, and the kind of people who like Fiornia are more than likely to like Palin, as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/us/politics/02senate.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0508-senate-20100508,0,2715487.story

Post 9: Ethics in politics?

So this will likely not be the world's longest post, as it is 1:21 a.m. and I have to be up at 6 a.m. tomorrow. Yuck.

But I couldn't help but blog on this article when I came across it. The agency that looks into and files ethics violations for politicians in the state reported that it closed 721 cases in 2009. Apparently, that was double last year's number.

But even more disconcerting than that, very few of these people are being punished -- only one out of six, according to the Los Angeles Times. It's a shame that that's the case, and frightening at the very least.

Sure, some of the violations were minor, like turning in forms late. But shouldn't the government take its role more seriously?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/05/hundreds-of-ethics-violations-few-fines.html

Post 9: Campaigning with your face

It's all about presentation.

As I read updates on the Poizner/Whitman debate last name (I have no access to television really here on campus), I began to think of how much putting your face on camera affects, whether for good or for bad, one's campaign. And I began to think about how much more aggressive technology allows candidates to be as opposed to say 20 years ago.

Assemblyman David Jones, running to be California's next insurance commissioner, carries around his own camera crew to film his speeches and engagements. Why? Most likely so he can produce his own ads later.

Through social media like Facebook and Twitter, politicians can add people to their friend list and keep voters updated. 

One can't help but see their faces online, on TV -- everywhere.

I can't help but think back about the infamous Nixon/Kennedy presidential debate in 1960, in which those listening to the radio were sure Nixon took the debate, while those watching TV were certain Kennedy had won hands down.

Presence and presentation.

Without a strong presence and presentation, candidates cannot win the respect of the voters anymore. 

I sometimes wonder how much weight people give to candidates' actual arguments. When Obama was running for office, the most typical comment I heard about him was that he was a great speaker. And that he is. His calm, but certain demeanor, coupled with his excellent use of the English language, I think, played a large part in helping him with the November 2008 election. 

But running an office, unlike running for office, cannot be about presentation. It's about following through with what one said they would do in all those presentations.

And since it's all about presentation instead of anything substantial, that value is reflected in things like last night's GOP debate. 

All Poizner wanted to do was point out his opponent's flaws. All Whitman could do was defend herself. Things got rather nasty.

The candidates were too busy making the other person look back and themselves look good to focus on the actual arguments.

Alas, politics are politics. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like things will change any time soon. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/la-me-campaign-videos-20100503,0,1821303.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fpolitics%2Fcal+%28L.A.+Times+-+California+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Post 8: GOP Debate

Potential candidates for governor Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner took each other head-on Sunday night in San Jose in the second and final debate within the GOP.

Poizner took the offense the majority of the time, with Whitman having to defend herself for her possibly spotty record supporting Barbara Boxer and for her dealings with Goldman Sachs as e-Bay CEO. 

Although some view Poizner's campaign as caustic and as an attack, it seems to be working. In the past few weeks, he's spent about $2 million on ads, which has helped him cut the 50-point gap between Whitman and himself in half.

When I first heard about Whitman's entry into the race, I was pretty excited. Here's someone, I thought, who isn't completely corrupted by politics yet. Someone who knows how to handle money. But then, Whitman started spending out the kazoo and I started to lose my confidence in her. It seems that I may not be the only one out there like that.

It's always fascinating to me how candidates can take the heat off themselves by putting it on someone else. They fail to talk about the specifics of their own plans for a seat in lieu of tearing down someone else. Sure, it's great to have each of the candidates critiqued and revealed for a bit of who they really are, but I would have liked to hear more specifics from the candidates on their own experience and goals.

As a journalist, one thing that frustrates me about Whitman -- or should I say another thing -- is that she has refused to talk to news publications in an almost unprecedented manner. 

She refused, for the first time in the living memory of the San Francisco Chronicle staff, to meet with the editorial board to see if she was a candidate they would like to endorse. Some of her press conferences have been extremely selective, almost undeserving of the encompassing term press conference.

When you put yourself in the public's eye, you should not only expect to, but rise to the occasion with courtesy.

But I must say I have some respect for Whitman. She did manage to run one of the most successful companies in the nation. She's donated about $80 million so far for her campaign, completely out of pocket. Granted, not too many people can do that, but you've got to give a nod to her self-reliance.

The big day for the Republican party comes June 8. Primary Election. We'll see if Poizner can catch up to Whitman by then. At this point, he might have a shot.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-30/opinion/20877808_1_meg-whitman-el-centro-endorsement-processhttp://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15004018?nclick_check=1

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/05/poizner-to-whitman-who-are-you-really.html

Post 7: Immigration rallies galore

So today marked May Day, May 1, the day immigrant advocates parade down the streets of major U.S. cities protesting against the infringement of the government on their "rights" to be in this country.

As I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, illegal immigration -- for that's what it really is and should be called as such -- is an issue I have cared about since I was a kid. 

It frustrates me that people draw such ridiculous parallels, like between Nazi Germany and the new Arizona law permitting police officers to demand for the I.D. of anyone looking suspicious. Oh, yes -- it's so completely abhorrent that any state would require proper identification. Oh, yes -- it's so horrible to do racial profiling, the most effective method of catching people who come across the border illegally.

What's really funny is that Mexico is even harsher on its immigrants than we are on theirs. Mexico detests it when immigrants from even poorer nations like Guatemala traverse its borders to make better lives for themselves. 

Michelle Malkin, one of my favorite journalists, did an in-depth report on how Mexico treats its own immigrants in light of the uproar from immigrant rights advocates on account of the new Arizona laws.

The Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, accused Arizona of opening the door to "intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement, she quoted him as saying.

And yet, the Mexican government bars foreigners if they, and I quote, upset the "equilibrium of the national demographics." I don't know about you, but that sure as anything doesn't sound very welcoming to me. And according to Mexican law, those seeking Mexican citizenship have to show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving their economic soundness, bass an eye exam and prove they have the means of procuring their very own health care. Those are just a few of the stipulations Mexico imposes on anyone hoping to hop its borders. Illegal entry into the country is punishable by up to two years in prison, and counts as a felony on one's record.

Sounds pretty tolerant to me, right?

You know, problems at the U.S./Mexico border could be solved pretty swiftly if we just started treating Mexican immigrants as kindly as Mexico treats its own immigrants. 

Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, present at today's rallies in Los Angeles, said, “Everyone in God’s eyes is legal.” 

Well guess what, Cardinal Mahony? This world can't live without borders and boundaries. National boundaries have been around since practically the beginning of human existence. And if you're calling for a global nation, you're kind of beginning to sound like the anti-Christ. 

Breathe deep. Breathe out. I could talk about this one for forever. And I'm sure at least a few more posts will be devoted to this topic. Personally, I am proud of the state of Arizona for having some guts. I wish Californians weren't so naive. 

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rightsSigning off for now,

                           Katie

https://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6090/pub_detail.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02immig.html?ref=politics

Post 6: Here comes Hawaii

 

 

In yet another unfortunate chapter in the story of homosexual legislation, Hawaii’s governor has the chance of signing into law a bill that would permit same-sex unions in the state.

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle (Yes, that name is for real), hasn’t said whether she will sign the bill or not yet, according to the Associated Press. The legislation glided through the house with a vote of 31-20. If the bill passes, gays and lesbians will receive the same privileges as married couples, without the actual title.

If this legislation passes, Hawaii will become the sixth state, next to California, Nevada, New Jersey, Washington and Oregon, to permit civil unions.

In some states, gay marriages, full name and all, are legal, specifically in Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Hawaii actually almost legalized same-sex marriage in 1993 in a Supreme Court ruling, which would have made the state the first to do so. But back then, the populous was wildly against the idea.

It’s kind of frightening to think how rapidly not just our government, but our people, have warmed to the idea of homosexuality. And the up-and-coming generations are more for it than any before them.

A study released in March by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles found that 24 percent of college freshmen who align themselves with the “far right” approve of same-sex marriages. That’s 10 percent more than older generations who align themselves with the far right.

Overall, 65 percent of college freshmen approve of gay marriage, the study determined.

I would expect Liberals to warm to the idea, really. It’s the whole tolerance push in the Western world. I can see why it makes sense to them. But it’s horrible to think that conservatives are hopping on the bandwagon, too.

Even worse, Christians are warming to the idea of gay marriage.

It’s frustrating to see the basic principles of our Christian roots crumbling under our very feet. This nation, under God’s authority, no longer recognizes it. The Lord knew what he was doing when he established this world, and messing with that structure cannot help but have consequences.

As to Hawaii, we’ll have to see what happens. Unfortunately, I think it’s just one more step toward same-sex marriages becoming recognized nationwide.

Study:

http://chronicle.com/article/College-Freshmen-Approve-of/64685/

 

Associated Press article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/30/hawaii-lawmakers-ok-civil-unions/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post 5: Oh, illegal immigration

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Republicans need to get off of their butts.

Well, maybe I didn’t state it precisely like that, but a new Democratic initiative to reform illegal immigration just backs up my statement. Some of the top Democrats in the senate laid out a plan Thursday to reform immigration by beefing up border patrol and creating a fraud-resistant Social Security card.

Our immigration system is broken,” said majority leader Harry Reid.

Optimism was my first reaction. But then I had to think again. What lies behind this? Are Democrats really pushing for actual reform in the problem of illegal immigration.

And what chance does any such piece of legislation have, really? Republican representative John Boehner of Ohio accused Democrats of trying to sway some votes from conservative-leaning individuals before the November elections, calling the move, a “cynical ploy to try to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November’s elections.”

 Boehner also argued that the legislation wouldn’t make its way through Congress.

All this discussion takes place as the first legal challenges to Arizona’s stricter immigration laws popped up Thursday.

Just to catch anyone up to speed, last Friday, Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, signed a law prohibiting the harboring of illegal aliens and making it a state crime for any alien to carry out particular federal crimes. Perhaps most notably, however, the law allows police officers to detain people they think might be in the country illegally with no more than reasonable suspicion.

Personally, I am thrilled with Brewer’s decision. It makes me wonder if perhaps California could ever be on board with a plan like that. Likely not. But I think it’s worth a shot.

I firmly disagree with the New York Times editorial that chastises Arizona’s government for taking matters into their own hands and making aliens carry documentation with them. If the Feds can’t handle the problem, then more power to any state that can. And it is far from unreasonable to require people from out of the country to be able to verify their identity and place of origin.

I could probably spend the rest of my blog posts talking specifically about illegal immigration. But alas, I probably won’t. It’s an issue I’ve been arguing over since the beginning of high school, and one I have a very firm stance on.

If Arizona continues to be in the spotlight, I will likely expound upon that a little bit more.

 

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/us/politics/30immig.html?ref=politics

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html

Post 4: Supreme Court Shenanigans

So I apologize in advance for switching from topic to topic like this. I honestly am not ADD. But I do find a broad range of political topics interesting.

I was reminded at dinner today how much more closely I need to be following elections locally. I don’t even know who is running for Congress in my district. That, I realize, is a huge problem. If I consider myself to be interested in politics, what about the people who don’t consider themselves interested in politics at all?

That said, I will keep in step with my spastic blogs and discuss the short list for the Supreme Court.

Justice John Paul Stevens is set to retire at the end of this term, and seven candidates are vying for his position. Granted, it is time for the guy to go. He’s 90, for goodness’ sakes. He’s been there 34 years.

At this point, it’s basically choosing the least of the evils. All of them are liberal leaning, if not liberal the core.

Diane Wood has opposed some abortion restrictions and opposed conservative judges. Jennifer Granholm twice vetoed bans on partial-birth abortion. Janet Napolitano is straight up supportive of abortion rights. And that’s just a few of their doings in former and current positions.

Abortion is undoubtedly one of the biggest topics out there right now. And it’s frightening to think that these are the types of people with the potential of having one of the most powerful positions in the nation.

And it’s frightening that Obama, in such a short period of time, has the shot to appoint two Supreme Court justices.

It’ll be interesting to see how much Republicans backfire once a new liberal judge is appointed – it will happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/09/us/politics/20100409-stevens-candidates.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/politics/10stevens.html

Post 3: Oklahoma puts more parameters around abortion

In a vote that definitely brightened my day, the Oklahoma Senate voted Tuesday to override its governor’s vetoes and go through with two uncommonly strong anti-abortion issues.

 

The new laws require women to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a description of the readings before having an abortion. Not even victims of rape and incest are allowed to forgo the procedure, according to sources like CNN and the New York Times. The vote was 36-12.

 

Chris Benge, speaker of the house and a Republican, said this about Tuesday’s vote:

 

“We must move to stop the degradation of human life seen in recent years and stand up for those who cannot defend themselves.”

 

The governor, a Democrat, had a very polar view, however. Gov. Brad Henry called the law “an unconstitutional attempt by the Oklahoma legislature to insert government into the private lives and decisions of its citizens,” according to CNN.

 

As a conservative and a Christian, I have to side with Benge and the Republicans – and Democrats – who overrode this veto.

 

Perhaps it is an invasion of privacy, of sorts. But I am fully on board with the government intervening in someone’s personal decision when that decision involves the lives of others. Yes, a fetus is a life.

 

I can’t help but think of the scene from Juno in which the young pregnant teen sees her baby for the first time in an ultrasound, and realizes that she has a person, not an organism, inside of her. It’s a pivotal point in the movie, and ultimately leads her to choosing life for her unborn child.

 

There has been strong opposition, however – not necessarily from those in Oklahoma, but from liberal minds in other parts of the country. The Center for Reproductive Rights in New York has already filed a lawsuit.

 

The other part of the new legislation approved Tuesday prohibits pregnant women and their families from seeking legal damages if physicians deliberately withhold information from them about their pregnancies.

 

Oklahoma isn’t the first to pass laws regulating abortions like this. But it does have arguably the strongest laws. According to USA Today, at least 22 states have bills to increase counseling or waiting periods prior to abortions, and 18 states have bills to expand the use of ultrasound. Earlier this month, Nebraska’s governor signed into effect a law banning most abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the argument that the fetus is capable of feeling pain.

 

It’s exciting to see so much of our country implementing some common sense and watching out for the voiceless in society. And it’s exciting to see governments actually representing their people’s opinions on something.

 

A Gallup poll released in May 2009 reported that 51 percent of Americans described themselves as “pro-life,” while 42 percent of Americans described themselves as “pro-choice.”

 

Unfortunately, it’s very unlikely that any restrictions on abortion will be passed in the liberal state we know as California. But maybe, just maybe, there is hope.

 

 

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/27/oklahoma.abortion/index.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-26-abortionbill_N.htm

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/15/gallup-more-americans-oppose-abortion-rights/tab/article/

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0467406/quotes

 

 

 

Post 2: Naysayers

Republicans are the party of “no.”

 

And I include myself in this party. However, it has recently come to my attention just how much we are a party of “no” and seemingly nothing else.

 

President Obama brought up that very topic in his State of the Union address in late January. And it was probably at that point that I first really gave thought to the matter. Democrats come up with bills and Republicans simply shoot them down — or anymore, attempt to shoot them down and fail miserably thanks to their limited presence in Washington.

Since Republicans won’t create their own thought-through bills, they just end up vetoing everything the Democrats come up with. Sure, I have been in agreement with Republican representatives in the major battles in Washington. But in the meantime, they are failing to produce anything noteworthy. Republicans stood unanimously against the March health bill (which would tell Washington something when not a single Republican votes ‘yes’). Republicans are fighting the finance bill, which Democrats just announced today they will be pushing in a united front. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/business/26regulate.html?hp

Under the Obama administration, Democrats have accused Republicans of just saying no to everything. And the saddest part is that they’re right. It’s time that Republicans started stepping up and devising reasonable initiatives.

 

Post 1: And so it begins...

My name is Katie Watson, in case anyone reading this doesn't actually know me.

I am a junior journalism major here at the beautiful Biola University. And I have set out on an endeavor for my Intro to Mass Communications class to blog on a very regular basis about one of my favorite topics -- politics.

I will be moving to Washington, D.C. for the summer in one month and five days (and counting), so I decided this class project would be an excellent excuse to analyze one of my favorite hobbies -- government. 

If I weren't a journalism major, I probably would have gone into politics. In fact, that was on my list of top three majors when I decided halfway through my fall freshman semester as an English major that reading and teaching English for the rest of my life would make me want to jump off a cliff. Thankfully, I was rescued from that ledge. =p

But seriously, politics have always been an interest of mine. I want to make a difference in this world, and I thought that was one way I could have done it. However, I have always and will always love writing. That, I decided, was my passion, and everything else had to follow behind.

Luckily, journalism can encompass just about any hobby, pastime or interest. Instead of actually doing politics, I can write about them. Instead of actually going into criminal law, I can write about justice. Instead of actually being a dusty old historian, I can write about history. To me, journalism is the best of both worlds because you can become an expert about just about anything just through researching it and interviewing the experts.

And that is how I intend to pursue both my interest in politics and my love for writing. 

Let's see if it works. =p This summer will really be a testing time for me to see if political writing is actually something I want to do. I used to be completely positive it was the beat for me, but after delving into in-depth crime and feature stories, in addition to a slew of general assignments, I really have no idea at the moment. And the trouble is, my current job in journalism takes up so much of my time (40 hours a week) on top of my 17 units, that I haven't had nearly as much time to keep up with politics as I should. I can't even remember then names of the three people on the short list!

But since I will be writing about all this in summer, I figured I'd give myself a bit of a crash course. So forgive me if I'm not as knowledgeable as you expected. Believe me, if I had time to breathe almost, I'd be more read up on everything.

But like I said, this is my excuse.

So here it goes!

(Disclaimer: I am a conservative Republican. I try to be as objective as possible and look at things from outside the confines of my current spectacles, but that isn't always possible. And to burst your bubble, there is no such thing as completely objective journalism. There just isn't. Ask me why and I'd be more than happy to explain it to you. 

Signing off for now,

                            Katie