The Obama Fad

As the painfully long primaries finally wind down, the Democrats are finally coalescing around Barack Obama to be their nominee for president of the United States. My own state of Oregon has backed Obama and he is huge on campus here at Oregon State. There are a couple of big thoughts that have passed through my mind repeatedly as I watch all of this unfold. The first is an honest bewilderment at why Obama is so popular in the first place, a question I think I have answered but am looking for alternative points of view on. The other is a fear; the fear of someone that is little known, inexperienced, and highly radical. I will deal with these two questions in order.

 

As a political scientist, I look at first glance at Barack Obama and wonder how in the world he became so popular so quickly. He was a little known first term senator from Illinois just over a year ago but now he is a household name throughout the developed world. Europeans are coming out in numbers in their own countries to follow the new phenom in American politics. He is popular among African Americans (no surprise since he is one also), upper-class whites, and students. There are various reasons that could be delved into as to how he rose to prominence so quickly, but I am not going there in this discussion. I want to focus on students.

 

Obama is pretty popular with students nationwide. Based on his policies alone it is difficult to know why he is so wildly popular with students compared with Hilary Clinton. Their overall stated objectives and platforms are very similar. They hold the same common beliefs. Personally, I think people like Obama because it is trendy to do so. He is young, his background relatively unknown, and his policies flowery and hopeful, yet so vague. He is a master orator, I mean no disrespect to him. He definitely knows how to give a speech and rally his base. He talks about "changing Washington" and making "new politics rather than politics as usual". But he says nothing substantive, which brings me to my next thought.

 

When taken over time, the Senator's words seem so vague and empty. He talks about hope, crossing party lines, bringing real change that will last instead of short-term DC political change. He talks about what he will do and it all sounds great. But what are his plans to actually do any of that? How is he going to change things? Even if he wins and has a democratic majority beneath him, that sweeping of change is highly unlikely. And what is this change anyway? You watch any single show on TV and you will see multiple ads by all kinds of politicians and you might wonder if there isn't some federal law stating that all political ads must mention the word "change" at least once in the course of their message. Obama's slogan is "Change We Can Believe In" but what exactly is the change he proposes?

 

I wish that my fellow students were better educated voters. I truly think that he is the next cool thing out there and so people are riding the trend like they do with just about any other fad. I feel this is dangerous because they know little of what his policies actually are (because he keeps everything so vague anyway) and no one knows his background. Every year a non-partisan group ranks all senators and congresspeople on how liberal or conservative they are. The rankings are based solely on quantitative data: how that person votes in their respective house of Congress. Low and behold the rankings this year have Barack Obama as number 1 liberal. That's right, Obama is the most liberal man in congress. If many people see Hilary Clinton and John Kerry as radicals, watch out, here comes Obama.

 

This ranking I believe goes back to his votes even in the Illinois state legislature. His entire political career has been spent working to push the agenda of the most radically liberal people in this country. I think that is a dangerous person to have leading the United States. I think many people who support him now do not realize how far off center he is politically. I would take Hilary Clinton as president long before I would take Obama. And besides the fact that he is extremely liberal, I do not think he is strong enough to lead this country. When he wasn't voting his liberal agenda, on other issues he simply does not take a side. There are few other Senators who simply vote "present" instead of yay or nay as Obama. He shows up, but won't take a side.

 

Working  with Republicans and Democrats? Reshaping politics as usual in Washington? Are you kidding me? If Obama is elected president, you will see polarization of the parties taken to new heights. You cannot take a far-left leader and expect that even moderate conservatives are going to want to work together on everything. Someone more moderate is needed. It will be a sad day for the United States if Barack Obama is ever sworn in as its president.

The New Bad Words

Lately I have been watching the political ads on TV and I have been making some observations. A lot of the things said in these ads play on the emotions or internal feelings of people and, I might add, the ignorance of many. Using the media and strong words, campaigns are distorting the true meanings of words and making them into bad words to make things sound negative. Or they make negative things sound positive in a sort of Orwellian double-speak effort.

 

The first one that has really gotten me lately in the media is a couple of Democratic candidates (it is irrelevant where they are from or what they are running for) who have been running ads about lobbyists. They are talking about how bad lobbyists are and how we need to stop listening to the special interests of the lobbyists. After studying this fairly extensively, I have something to say about it.

 

Lobbyist groups I would dare to say are the reason we as regular citizens still have some direct influence over our politicians. Lobbyist groups do have lots of money, yes. Lobbyist groups are powerful groups that have the ear of the lawmakers. But did you know that you, yes you yourself personally, are represented by at least one lobbyist group all the time? It pretty much does not matter how old or young, rich or poor, or what your occupation, there is a lobbyist group representing your interests and fighting for YOU in Washington, in the state capital, wherever.

 

Even students are represented by lobbyists groups. OSU has a couple taskforces: one for federal and one for state affairs. There are many others too, but the point is these are lobbyists. Maybe they are not as powerful as some, so I will give you a more well known one: the American Association of Retired People. That's right, AARP is a special interest group, a lobbyist group that was meant to fight for the rights and interests of elderly people in the United States. The organization AAA is the same thing. These are lobbyists, these are special interests, and yet they have done many good things. No one would dispute this. Lobbyist groups keep democracy in full swing and keep the government accountable. In a system dominated by only two parties (unlike almost any other democracy in the world) interests groups make sure the minorities do not get shoved out of the system.

 

There is another ad out there that just galls me personally and I believe it is based on another gross misunderstanding of past events. The ad starts out: "Some votes weren't counted, and we got a mess" and the images on screen refer to the 2000 presidential elections. Apparently people still will not let go of a decision made almost 8 years ago. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Bush v. Gore still seems to just eat at some liberal naysayers. Does anyone really remember anymore why that case even started? Sure we know the outcome; recounting of votes in Florida stopped and Bush was declared the winner of the election.

 

People are still up in arms over what they feel was George W. Bush's political wrangling and that he used the Supreme Court to further his own political goals. But does anyone know why it became a court case in the first place? Al Gore got it put before the Supreme Court, not George Bush. And the decision was about as close to unanimous as a controversial decision can get: 7-2. The court was far less conservative than it is now and still a strong majority sided that the recount should stop. Why is this even an issue anymore? The problem was not that votes were not counted, the controversy was over a RE-count of votes that had already been recorded. Liberals, get over it. It is 8 years in the past, time to move on. You talk about change and moving on from the past, practice what you preach.

 

The last one I am going to touch on is a personal issue that bothers me more than any other political issue. This one is something that, again, is in a couple of democratic candidates' ads. This one has to do with "protecting a woman's right to choose". When you put it in those terms, it does not sound bad at all does it? But what exactly is being protected? What is being protected is a woman's "right" to choose to kill an unborn child. They are "protecting a woman's right to choose" by taking away an unborn child's right to life. It all sounds different though, does it not, when they sanitize it in the media and in political ads?

Devotion

In all likelihood I will watch the Oregon State University men's basketball team make history on Saturday. Unfortunately, it will not be the good kind of history. They will go down in history as the only Pac-10 team to lose every conference game in a season. They have currently lost 19 straight with an overall record of 6-23. I have not seen them win a home game. The games they won were either during marching band season and I didn't have to be there or they happened over Christmas Break.

It seems like going into every game I know that they are going to lose, but I cannot help feeling depressed every time it actually happens. I still get sad no matter how bad I know they are. I show up and I give my all to cheering them on. I yell at the refs and scream at the opposing team's coach like my life depends on it. When something goes good, I lose my voice yelling so hard. I bark at the opposing team's fans to sit down when they start pouring it on. Maybe the reason it hurts so much is that I invest too much emotion in each game. I just cannot help it; it is my team and I hate to see them triumphed over by anyone. Especially because of being in band, it is my duty to protect the honor of my school.

That is real devotion though. I could cheer for some other team because there is no point in cheering for mine. I could just not give any emotion to the game at all. There are many things I could do because the team is really bad. But what kind of fan would I be? I do not just love my team when things are going great; I devote my energy to them even when things have gone terribly bad. That is devotion: to stick by something or someone no matter how bad the circumstances become. To stay by their side in the roughest times.

What I am trying to say here is bigger than just my love for OSU though. I think that my devotion to cheering for Oregon State in every sport, through thick and thin, is sort of a good picture or example that can be applied to many other things. My generation has been referred to by some as the silent generation. I would add to that lazy. Don't get me wrong, this is my generation too, but I definitely see us as a silent, lazy generation.

My generation is no longer committed to anything. We have an attitude of "if it doesn't make me feel good, I don't want to do it." If life is hard, give up. I saw a commercial the other day, I believe it was a car commercial, that illustrates my point. Basically the narrator was saying that today if you do not like your house, get a new one. If you do not like something about your body, get a new one. If you do not like your wife, well, get a new one. He then goes on to ask, "What ever happened to commitment?" I guess that is what I wonder.

To prove my point about us being lazy, I will give yet another example from the press. I read an article about two weeks ago in the Daily Barometer, OSU's student newspaper. The article was about the type of "relationship" known as "friends with benefits." Basically the article talked about why these relationships are popular nationwide with high school and college age students. The reason is that it is easy: you get to have sex and whatever without having to commit to any kind of relationship. Why work at a relationship (because it definitely does take work) when you can just go "hook up" anytime you want without a relationship?

The sex professor here at OSU (who I already had almost no respect for) was almost praising these relationships in the article. It kind of made me sick. My generation likes to cheat on tests, find the easiest way to get rich, go out and have sex with all kinds of people without any commitment, and do all sorts of other things. Everyone knows that in America today we have the fattest population ever. We are so lazy.

Maybe people already know why we are called the silent generation, but I will go over it real quick anyway. Part of the reason is exactly what I am doing right here. Besides being lazy, my generation does not voice their opinions anywhere except in their blogs. When people in my generation get mad about some societal ill, they go and blog about it to release their anger. They do not go out and get anything done, they just blog about it and forget. Everything is OK after that because they made themselves feel good by writing that blog.

This election is somewhat unusual because there is a higher percentage of young voters turning out. But the fact of the matter is that most of those are 4-year college and university students who are more or less being pushed to get out and vote by their peers and professors. Not that that in itself is bad; as a political science major I would suggest doing it myself. But what I guess I am getting at is most people my age are not at a university. Most of the people in my age group are still not involved. Even the Darfur awareness among college students is not the biggest thing. It is almost more the trendy thing to help with than anything else. If it makes me look or feel better, than I will do it. That is my generation.

I guess I just wonder what this generation will look like in ten or twenty years. We are so lazy that we are not willing to work at anything. We do not work to make the country better. We do not work to make our states or cities better. We do nothing to help those who are really in need on the streets. We do nothing to keep our relationships strong. Are we just going to sit by when the government makes bad decisions in the future? Are we going to let our marriages fall apart at the first sign of trouble because it is easier to let it fall apart? Where is there room for devotion in the midst of our laziness and silence?

As for me, I want to have the same devotion, the same emotion invested in everything else in my life that I do in cheering on my team. I want to passionately pursue the goals and interests, and develop the talents that God has given me. I want to be passionately devoted to one woman for the rest of my life, no compromise. I want to be utterly devoted to my God. I want to do all of this no matter how hard it gets. That is true devotion. Of course there will be very hard times, but true character shines through the darkest circumstances.

The Short Time in Life

I went over to Newport today because all week I have wanted to just get out of Corvallis and be somewhere less hectic. I wanted to just get up and go to some place that was relatively quieter and away from all the stuff at school. I think it is a good thing to go do something far away from the things that represent stress in life. I went by myself, which may seem rather lonely, but it was actually kind of nice. I got to wander about, not having to stay with anyone, being able to do whatever I felt like. I guess it was while I walked around out on the sand that I thought about things, as I often do.

As my mind wandered, which also happens often, I thought about my friends and I thought about this girl. That always happens as a single guy right, you start thinking about the girl you like? I have felt lonely quite a bit here at school, missing friends and such, and I was feeling it a little more as I walked about on the beach. But as I kept thinking about this stuff, I came to a novel realization. For those of us people who are single, I realized it's fine to be single and not to lose heart. Not to be downtrodden by the loneliness. This is probably the shortest period of life we will face.

I think that from the time we first start "noticing" the opposite gender, we want to be with them. This is natural, of course. Chemicals start mixing and sensors start going off all over the brain. We get into middle school, high school, and college and find ourselves sick with the desire for companionship from the opposite sex. This is all very good, and I look forward to the day when I finally know that it is time to begin a relationship, but I have an interesting idea to introduce here.

When I said "this is probably the shortest period life we will face" I meant it, and here is why. If I was to say get married at age 25, and then only live to be 60, I would still have lived more than half of my life married, in a relationship. I would have spent 35 years in a relationship compared to the 25 I was not in one. Since the life expectancy for even a male in America is far higher than 60, it looks like I have a good chance of this happening. My point here is that it is OK to not be with someone right now if you are not. For those of you who have found someone, great! I hope it works out. I am talking to those of you who are sad and lonely because you do not have a man or a woman in your life. Do not be dismayed by all of this.

I guess the first thing that got me wanting to write this and started me down this line of thinking was a status update I read on Valentine's Day from a girl I went to high school with. It was lamenting the fact that she was not with someone. I know it is a hard thing to be single, I have done it for almost 19 years now, but this strange new thought came to me after I read it. Today at the beach only reaffirmed it I suppose. Think about the good things of being single.

The very fact that I was able to escape to the coast on my own was only possible because I am single. Think about it, if I had a girlfriend or wife and went to the coast by myself either without telling her or telling her that she could not come, I would be in major trouble. On the one hand she would be angry I did not tell her where I was going. On the other hand, she would be mad I did not want her to come along. There are other things about being single that are good things. If I wanted to do something with like "the guys" it is incredibly easy now. It's like this: you call up your buddy and say "hey, I'm gonna go climb a mountain, wanna come?" and he's like, "sure, when are we going?" "I was thinking about an hour." "Cool, let's go!" It's that easy.

If I want to travel, there is nothing holding me back besides money. I have all the time in the world because I do not have to devote it to anyone else. Now don't get me wrong here, it's awesome to be in a relationship and spend time with another person. It is great to meet someone else's needs. But this season in life, this relatively short time of being single (though it does not feel short now) is going to be over before you know it.

For those of you who are single, I challenge you to live life to the fullest now without another person for just a little while longer. Do not just rush into a relationship because you "need" to be with someone. I challenge you to go do some of the things you have always wanted to do. I myself would love to go study in Europe, and I think I am going to go do it next year. I am probably going to spend two months this summer in Canada working with a church plant. I know I could not achieve many of my dreams that I have if I were already committed to someone else. That is just the harsh reality of life.

Being in a relationship or being married is awesome, but do not forget to enjoy being single as well. This is a short time in life, and once it is over, it will not come back. There is life after being single, but there is also life during it. Live it to the fullest, realize your potential. Do the things you want to do while you still can. Remember to have as much fun single as you will in a relationship. If you take nothing more away from this, just remember that this is the short time in life; have fun living it.

All Men Should Be Feminists

You probably stared at the title of this post for a long time wondering what the red-blooded conservative Christian male writing this knows about feminism. Men should be feminists? Is he crazy? I hope that at the very least you do not think I am a chauvinist going into this. I hope to elaborate on the statement for which this post is titled. I think that men should definitely be feminists. So here I go.

I guess that the best place to start is with a definition of feminism. Feminism, according to Webster's Dictionary, is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Throughout modern history feminists have championed the rights of women where those rights had been withheld. I believe that it is the duty of real men to strive to protect femininity. I think that as men, we should stand up and fight for women.

It seems to me that today there are the extreme feminists who are against that notion. They feel that a man who stands up for a woman is anti-feminist or a chauvinist because he wants to protect a woman. I would like to argue that this is not only not a chauvinist attitude, but is very pro-women. The idea that standing up for a woman is bad and against women is going to the extreme of what Rush Limbaugh calls "feminazism". I do not have a lot of respect for old Rush, but I do have to say that the term "feminazi" applies to some elements of society today. I think they have twisted the good intentions of some men who genuinely want to protect women (not just because they are "weaker") and turned it against them.

I do not think there are many people out there today who would argue that men and women are the same. I do not think that if I asked a random person off the streets if men and women are the same that they would tell me yes. Men and women are completely different emotionally. Women get up in herds to go to the bathroom while men will not even speak, look around, or acknowledge another man in the bathroom. Women talk a lot (many thousands of words a day) while men do not talk very much (only a few thousand words a day). I do not think any guy, or any girl, would tell me that guys in general are more emotional than girls. Guys do not show emotion, girls can show a lot. I am not going to get into the idea of gender roles in this text. I just choose to recognize that there are differences between men and women.

One thing I really want to emphasize, though, is that I think that the differences are good. I think that the difference is beautiful! God created man and said he was good. God created women and said she was very good. If we all acted like men, we would all be very empty. If we all acted like women, we would hate each other for talking all the time; there would never be any rest. I think that men and women compliment each other in their very existence. I think that we are complete as men and women together. You need both sides of the equation.

Having said this, I return to what I feel is what a man should do: be a protector of femininity. I think that all too much today men see women as something to be conquered. They see women as just objects to chase after to meet their needs and desires. Not all men feel this way, I certainly do not. But you see it everyday on TV, on billboards, in stores. It has permeated our society. I believe that men should be champions of women. They should be promoting ALL women as beautiful creatures that deserve all respect and decency.

I heard it in health classes I think; the question of "why it is OK for a male to sleep around but a female who does it is called derogatory names?" While I do not think either one is good, there is a good point brought up in the question. Why IS it OK, socially acceptable for men and not for women. I have an answer: men are not protecting femininity. In locker rooms and other male gatherings we support the guy who is bedding all the women. We talk about women as if they are objects. We say derogatory things about them in the privacy of that gathering of guys. I am not saying that I want it to be OK for both men and women to be promiscuous, my readers know me better than that, but what I am saying is that a guy who thinks with a feminist attitude is not OK with the dichotomy.

From the time we are young, all of us guys somewhere along the line want to be a hero. We play all kinds of games in our heads or with others where we want to be heroic. A lot of girls want to be the princess that is rescued. I am not saying that you girls never want to be heroines, but what movie where the prince rescues the princess or the dashing knight downs the dragon to save the damsel does not stir something in you? I think that in mistaking the natural desires of a little boy's heart or a little girl's heart as being a product of a chauvinist society we have missed the point. Men want to protect women, not just because they might be physically weaker, but because it is part of a man.

Over the last 40 years or so we have tried to turn our male population into one that no longer fights for women. We have told men that it is chauvinistic to want to. In a lot of ways I think we have made men like women: we turn them into beings that are just nice and polite but do not stand up for anything. A true feminist man, or maybe just a true man, champions and upholds femininity. He does not go after it like a conquerer. Men should cherish women for the beautiful things they are. And I mean all women, not just the ones you think are "hot".

I am very much for the equality of women. It was always God's will that women be equal to, just different from men. Adam and Eve were both created in God's image. God is not male or female, he is Spirit. Men and women are both equally in the image of God and should be equal in all aspects of life. Men should be feminists because they should always fight to protect femininity, to protect women. What would it look like if more men stepped up and did this? How drastically would crimes against women decrease? How many fewer women would be hurt by men, either physically or emotionally? Some women out there might think I am a chauvinist for saying some of the things I have said in here, but my hope is that you see that to my deepest core I seek to promote femininity as something to be cherished and held dear. I support women, and I think that all men should do the same.

The Super Tuesday to End Super Tuesdays

Well, tonight sure was an interesting night in politics. As of ten minutes after ten, McCain is absolutely blowing Romney out of the water. Huckabee is doing an amazing job, he picked up more delegates than Romney, but still trails overall. Clinton and Obama are still extremely close in the grand scheme of things, but that race isn't entirely remarkable. It is down to two on the democratic side already. The thing about the republican race is that just a short time ago it looked like the party would never find a front runner. It looked like the republicans were going to be way behind the democrats in choosing their candidate, now it looks to be the opposite. McCain has jumped out front and looks to stay there.

Now it is time to talk strategy and who should do what next. This portion will be completely neutral. As far as the democrats go, the current strategy would be for both candidates to stay in the race. Obama is not down by very much. He may be down by close to 100 delegates, but when over 2000 are needed total to secure the nomination it is not insurmountable. Over to the republican side, it gets more interesting. McCain just needs to keep up the good work on his part. He is almost 300 delegates ahead of Romney now, and the republican candidate only needs a little over 1000 delegates to win. That is a bigger victory for McCain than the wins Hillary had proportionally. At this point, I would advise Romney to step out of the race. He only carried a very few states, and Huckabee came from behind to take several of his own states. Huckabee just derailed Romney's campaign, almost certainly for good. At this point McCain has too much momentum. There is almost no strategy left for Romney. Huckabee doesn't have to win now. He should try to become McCain's running mate in the general election.

Alright, now for the partisan stuff. I think McCain should definitely pick up Huckabee for his running mate. McCain's biggest problem is that the far-right conservatives are going against him strongly. If he were to take Huckabee along, I think that would really help him pick up the conservative vote and add that to his moderate and independent base. To be completely honest, I think that if the democrats choose Hillary Clinton, they will lose the general election. It please me to think that it might be Hillary versus McCain. I firmly believe that McCain would run away with the election. If for no other reason than the fact that everyone in the country would be voting as a result of her. Besides McCain's support base, there are so many people who would vote just to vote against Hillary. Whether it is necessarily true or not, she is perceived as radical and she is a very divisive public figure. If she is chosen as the nominee for the democrats, it will hurt them.

Obama would be a much more likely candidate for winning the general election, and I don't think the democrats at large are looking at the long run. It is really easy to say that yes, a candidate is electable in a party like the democrats. It is a whole other thing to say that the same candidate could win in the general. On top of my dislike of Hillary and my strong disagreements with her policies, I want a new family in the White House. Think about it, as long as I have been alive there has either been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. All three of them got us into conflicts, one of them had a scandal and was impeached. I'm sick of the dynasties, let's get someone new. If I was forced to have a democratic president, I go with Obama. Hands down. I don't necessarily dislike him, I think he might do a good job. People all over the world call Obama a new Kennedy. He's good looking and young. But I do think he is inexperienced. He was never a governor which is an actual executive branch office even if it is at the state level, and he has only been a Senator for a very short time. I think McCain is far more qualified, and I think he would sincerely try to bring the parties together. His record in Congress shows that he is very good at working with the democrats.

Alright, there's my analysis and reaction to this amazing Super Tuesday.

Self Perception

I have often wondered if other people feel, or have felt at some time in their lives that they are younger than they are. This may seem like a weird question, but it is one that I sort of grapple with all the time. I am in college now and so the world is supposed to be open to me. Being in college means I can make anything of myself. There is a world of opportunities waiting. But at the same time, I feel sometimes like I am way too young to be doing all of this.

It seems to me that as you grow up, you do not necessarily feel like you are growing up. I can remember elementary school, being in the lower grades and thinking that the fifth graders (who were the oldest kids at the school) were so much older and bigger. When my class got to fifth grade, I didn't feel any older than the kids behind me. I didn't feel that much bigger. The kids in my class didn't look like fifth graders, they just looked like the kids from my class like they always had.

In sixth grade I thought the eighth graders were so much bigger and older than me. I remember them seeming more like high school kids than my peers who were only a couple years ahead. The eighth graders were at the top of the school, the leaders. When I got there, again, I didn't feel any different. The sixth and seventh graders didn't seem all that small (well, some of the sixth graders were pretty tiny) and I didn't feel all that old. I felt too young to already be in the eigth grade.

When I got to high school my freshman year, man did those seniors seem grown up. Only four years older, but they were really tall, they looked like adults. They were so much more mature than us freshmen. Even the other upperclassmen, the juniors, seemed so much different. Last year I was a senior in high school. As a senior in high school I did not think I was that old or that grown up necessarily. I know for a fact that I wasn't all that big because in physicall size I really am small. I went to the middle school one day to pick up my sister and I was only about the average height for goodness sake. What do they feed kids these days?! But I didn't feel hugely older than even the freshmen as a senior. I felt like a high school kid. It almost felt like we were equal age.

It's funny how you perceive yourself throughout life. I didn't feel any older. I didn't think I looked any older. But the fact remained that I was indeed a senior. I turned 18 during that year making me a legal adult. My parents told me how mature I was. I had been driving for a couple years and I had a job. I felt like a kid doing all of it. And yet I wonder if at this time when I still just felt like me, the way I always had, still younger than those who held this position before me, I wonder if there were freshmen who saw me the way I seniors at their age. I wonder if the seniors of my early high school days ever felt like time flew by to get them where they were and if they felt too young to be there.

Now I am in college, and to be honest I feel different now. No one seems older than me anymore. Half the time I guess people's ages wrong because I guess on the low end when actually that person is a 4th or 5th year senior. The thing is, I still feel too young to be here. I am 18, I did graduate and I am on my own, but it's almost weird to be here. I don't feel inadequate, I think college life is what I was made for. People in college are more like me and the level of difficulty of classes is finally just what I like. But thinking about the changes the next few years will be bring, the change that is already occuring once again makes me think, "wow, we're too young for this."

I decided sometime during my senior year that it would seem weird to me when my friends or at least my peers started getting married. One girl who went to my church and graduated a year ahead of me is married now. A guy and girl who also graduated a year ahead of me from my high school are married. Another guy I know from that same year is engaged to a girl from my own graduating class! And now being in college I realize that realistically a lot of my friends and/or I could be married or getting married in the next 4 years or so. Wait, what? One of my best friends is currently in a relationship that seems fairly serious. Could he get married in the next few years? That question just blows my mind to think about.

Beyond the people getting married thing, I think about the fact that in three years, I will be out of college. I will truly be in the real world completely on my own. As a college student I would say I am halfway there. I am mostly into the real world, but being in school means that I am not completely out. In three years I will either be looking to get into graduate school, or I will be looking for a job to start making a living. Wow.

My fascination with this subject while likely continue for a while as I continue to explore this life ahead. As I ponder relationships, forge ahead in school and work, and listen to the news coming in from friends, I will probably think about just how young or old I am for quite some time. But more intriguingly, I will wonder whether the older people I know felt the same way when they were in the shoes I now fill.

I'm From Oregon

I have decided that there is something wrong with a person when they get up in the morning and would rather see a dark gray sky and/or rain than a bright sunny day. That's how I have felt for the last several days. I know, that just sounds wrong. But I really do like the rainy weather. It's easier to look out the window and see a dim sky and then settle back into my warm room and do whatever. That's a nice day. I will take the gray days over these freezing cold sunny days anytime. I guess it's because I'm from Oregon. Well, I mean I am originally from Wyoming I suppose, but I am basically from Oregon.

I think it is funny to watch people in the rain. There is this thing I have seen that reads something like, "You know you're from Oregon when you see someone with an umbrella and you know they are either from California or they are a wimp." So true! You can tell around campus who is from Oregon and Washington and who is not. There is one thing I witness almost daily that amuses me to no end.

There is this series of pathways criss-crossing I giant open area outside the Memorial Union called the MU Quad. Near the end of one of these cement pathways the path is always covered in a puddle. The puddle isn't at all deep, but it is really long and it covers the whole path. What makes me laugh every time is that most people do everything they can to not step in the puddle. They go out of their way to skirt around or jump over or whatever. Me, I walk straight on through without flinching. I mean come on, it's just water. I guess the Californians don't realize they won't melt if they get wet.

It's kind of funny the differences we have from state to state, and how the stereotypes come true in real life. I guess that is the point of a stereotype, they are based at least partly in fact. That's just my observation that I had to get out. I have been seeing this for the last month or so as the rain started coming every day. It's just kind of funny to watch people in this context.

My Stance on the Issues

I realized yesterday that even though I talk about a lot of political stuff as a political science major, my views on some of the main issues aren't completely clear. So I am setting out tonight to outline what I think, but more importantly, why I feel that way. I think a lot of the time in America we sit and bicker about the issues because our views on things are so different and yet half the time people don't even know why they believe that way in the first place. So here goes nothing, a clarification of my political views.

Iraq: I have a bit of a hybrid conservative/liberal stance on Iraq. I suppose you would call that moderate. I have different elements of the two which make up my thinking on the subject. I do feel that we need to get out of Iraq. I think that for the most part, we had very bad evidence going in. I will not second guess the president's decision to go in, I honestly am glad we finished the job of the first Gulf War: we got rid of Saddam Hussein. The fact is though, the CIA and the military did not have the amount of evidence they should have had before suggesting to the president and his staff that war was necessary. We know now that WMD's weren't there, but even Saddam wanted us to think there were. I'm not just some crazy conservative making this part up. It was in the news this week actually that a guy who interviewed Saddam after his capture found out that Saddam never thought we would invade. Saddam thought that we were bluffing, and he couldn't deny he had WMD because he didn't want Iran invading. Iraq and Iran fought a ten year war already; keeping up the ruse of having WMD, or at least not denying their existence was a necessary deterrent to Iran.

Now that we have invaded, I think we need to slowly leave, and make sure that the country is in better shape than when we got there. I don't care what kind of government they have when we are gone, but we need to rebuild and repair all of the roads, buildings, schools, and infrastructure that we destroyed in the war. I think we are probably making progress on that front. I think we need to keep a large number of troops there for the time being so that we can have some security for the people trying to rebuild the country. Al Qaeda is definitely present in the country. We can't forget that Al Qaeda actually did commit an act of war against the United State. I think that some of the troops would be best used if we sent a good portion of them from Iraq to Afghanistan, the homeland of the people who actually provoked a rightful response.

The troops need to come home, but we cannot leave too fast. If we do, the country will collapse, period. The Iraqis do not have the ability to keep the country in order right now. I realize that it is not our place to try to keep another country's population in check, but we are the ones that screwed things up in the first place. We have to keep our troop strength there until the Iraqis can realistically control it on their own because now it is our duty. We can't just say right now, "oh we screwed up, good luck fixing it" and leave. I don't care whether you agree with the war or not, it is our responsibility now to rectify the situation and come home. An immediate pullout is not going to solve anything beyond the Americans returning to their perfect lives and forgetting about the little country halfway around the world that we royally screwed over and then didn't help to get back on its feet.

Abortion: Here is my most right-wing stance. I in no circumstance support abortion rights, and I absolutely will not vote for a candidate if they support abortion on demand. Not even a Republican. Here is why I feel that way. I believe that at conception, life begins. Most biologists would agree. Life begins, the cells start dividing. By only a few weeks, the organs and brain begin to form and function. By ten weeks, the baby while still very tiny, has almost all the distinct features of a newborn. I simply do not understand how people can say that the baby is not alive. If a baby is alive and growing inside of a woman, aborting it is ending a life. The last time I checked, the willful taking of an innocent life was called murder. I don't support so-called "abortion rights" because I don't seem to remember the part in the constitution where the right to murder was outlined. If you find it, let me know.

On the anniversary of Roe v Wade last week there were a couple tables set up on campus here. One was from Right to Life, an organization I support. Across the way was a feminist table with a sign that read, "Don't mistake desperation for murder." I would venture to guess that at least half of all murders in the United States every year are committed out of desperation. Someone doesn't want to get in trouble for something, so they murder the person that would turn them in, etc. I would guess most murders are out of desperation. Abortion is a very selfish action. A young woman cannot ruin her lifestyle, so she aborts the child. I realize that many young women, especially teenagers, simply cannot support a child. First and foremost, choose a better option than abortion. Adoption is such a good option instead. Most adoption agencies require the adoptive parents to pay all the medical fees associated with the pregnancy and they will provide a loving family for that child. If you can't wait until the child is born to give it up, don't get into the situation in the first place. Don't have sex if you can't deal with the consequences.

There are always the exceptional circumstances that people come up with. In the case of rape, I am still not okay with abortion. It doesn't matter how the child was conceived, the fact remains that it is a living person. I know most people will not agree with me on this one, but this is how I feel. It may be a horrible thing that happened in someone life, but why take another life too? In the case of incest is where I come closest to saying yes, but I have to say no still. Again, it doesn't matter how the child was conceived, it is still a child. I know there is a much higher risk of genetic birth defects because of incest, but it is still a life. Would you kill a disabled child after it was born? No, they would lock you up forever because you are sick. The third case is if it would save the mother's life. In the United States, less than one percent of abortions are performed for this reason. I commend the mothers who are brave enough in those situations to carry the baby to term even if it may cost them their own lives. Tim Tebow's mother almost died, she was told to have an abortion to save her life. She refused, and he is a super athlete now, first underclassman to win the Heisman. His mother is still alive. I was reading in a medical journal one time that in most cases, if the mother's life is in that mortal danger, the abortion only slightly lowers the risk of the mother dying.

I think we would all agree that a parent killing their newborn child because that child is an inconvenience to them would be a most egregious offense. Why is it that mere months before that point it is perfectly okay? To me, it isn't okay, and I will never support abortion.

Gay Marriage: This one will be short and to the point. I do not support gay marriage for a couple reason, but my full stance on this will surprise some. My definition of marriage is a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman. My definition of marriage isn't just about two people loving each other. I hope they love each other, but that isn't what a marriage is. The term gay marriage is a bit of an oxymoron to me. At this point, I think I am okay with the civil union thing. Domestic partners, that's an okay term. It is none of my business what gay people do. I think it is wrong, but it's none of my business. If they want the special rights like any other couple, go ahead. But it is not marriage. I do think that if we allow gay marriage, we have to allow polygamy on principle. There are people in the US nowadays who are involved in so-called polyamorous relationships. Basically, a man and his wife have a shared girlfriend. Effectively they are all three in a relationship with each other. They all view each other as equal spouses almost. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow polygamy so that people involved in polyamory get their "rights" too.

Health Care: I honestly don't spend a lot of time thinking about health care. I do not support universal health care though, and that is just simple economics to me. I would not support universal health care because this country simply cannot afford it. Most countries in Western Europe do have universal health care, so does Canada (which might as well be part of Europe anyway). Look at the populations of those places though compared with their wealth. Most Western European nations have a similar GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity to the United States, but most European countries have very tiny populations compared to the United States. If we went to universal health care, the government would be bankrupted quickly. And have you been to Canada? You could spend 10 hours waiting for service at the ER. It's ridiculous. Productivity goes down significantly when those systems are implemented. That's why it was shot down in Oregon, a very liberal state.

I do believe that programs like SCHIP and other social welfare safety nets should be expanded. If one cannot afford to have health insurance, then the government definitely needs to help them out. If someone can provide their own and it isn't too much of a hardship, then let them buy their own. The government should not be concerned with providing for those who can provide for themselves. That encourages laziness.

Education: I am not an expert on education below the college level. I honestly don't know what needs to be done to make education better. I think that programs that work should be kept and programs that don't fix education should be scrapped in favor of something better. As far as college goes, I think something needs to be done about the high tuition rates. I am a bit biased on this one as a college student, but I guess now I understand what they mean by the astronomically high tuition rates in this country. I pretty much can't afford to go to a university in my own state. I definitely couldn't attend OSU if I was from out of state. And this is a relatively cheap university. If we are to remain competitive in the world, we have to make college easier to pay for. As it is, only the rich or the extremely poor can go to college without too much hardship. I say the extremely poor because they are basically the only ones that qualify for federal money. My parents can't afford to help me with much, and the federal government told us that my parents should be able to pay for all my college expenses and have thousands left over. If they know where that money is, I would really like to know because I could use it.

The Economy: We have a market economy - let it work. Keep control of the market to a minimum, it has worked for a couple hundred years now. If you must implement control on the market, be careful. Overall, there isn't much that the government can do for the economy I feel. Again, simple economics. The market comes in cycles. Even when a recession or depression hits, it rebounds naturally in the future. If people would just know one thing about the economy, I wish they would know that the president has no say in the economy. Presidents' approval ratings usually go up and down with the economy, but in reality they have almost no control over the economy whatsoever. If anyone has control over it in government, it is congress and some of the bureaucracy. Other than that, the market does what it does.

Gun Control: We have enough gun control already. I don't think any more gun control is necessary. We are guaranteed the right to own guns in the constitution and I don't think we should mess with it much anymore. The more we moderate gun ownership, the more people will get them illegally. Canada has more guns than people, but they have an extremely low murder rate. Gun control isn't necessarily the answer.

I believe I have covered all or most of the major issues. You are more than welcome to disagree or agree. Comment this blog or send me a message. Maybe we can have a stimulating discussion of one or more of these hot button topics.

Maybe They Just AREN’T Thinking

I would ask what the conservatives like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush are thinking, but I am starting to think that they just aren't thinking. They are all just outraged at the thought of McCain becoming president, or even getting the nomination. They keep blasting him as a liberal and saying Hillary is more conservative. GIVE ME A BREAK!

McCain has a record of upwards of 81% conservative voting, he is pro-life, pro-gun, pretty much for the war, etc. He is definitely a conservative. Remember, he was almost the nominee in 2000, but Bush got it instead. McCain does get a lot of support from the Independent voters. That's not a bad thing, it means he applies to a less homogeneous, more diverse section of the American population. He is taking some of the most flak for working across party lines to get things done. Oh gee, it's just horrible to compromise and try to bring the country together.

John McCain is the best shot the Republicans have at winning the presidency this year. If it was to be McCain versus Obama, it would be the most exciting election in modern history. Obama vs Romney = blowout for Obama. If the Republicans want a conservative president, they better get it through their thick heads that a far-right or a far-left candidate are not going to get in. A right-of-center candidate is a great advantage for the Republicans. Get over it Hannity and Coulter. Stop bashing the candidate that could very well win the general election for us.

I Have To Admit

I just watched the State of the Union address tonight. President Bush's 7th and final speech to the joint session of Congress and this nation. I know that he is an extremely unpopular president now. His approval rating is approaching that of Nixon after Watergate. He got us into a war that people don't like anymore. I am not saying I necessarily like the man. We agree on several issues, mainly social issues and I commend him for fighting for what he believes in.

Now looking back, having watched this final State of the Union from Bush, and listening to the commentary before and after, I have to admit that I feel sorry for him. He has just under a year left in office, and already the prospects running to take his spot are more important than he is. Besides the address tonight, I think we have almost forgotten that we have a president in the midst of looking for the next one. The Congress is completely controlled by the opposing party, meaning he already has almost no political clout, but then his own party is abandoning him left and right.

Were this England, Bush would have resigned long ago with this little support from his party and the public. (Well, he wouldn't be the president anymore if it were England because the party in control of Parliament chooses the Prime Minister, but you know what I mean.) But it just seems to me that at this point, even things that the president and congress agree on, simply don't matter. I heard before the speech from the commentators what Nancy Pelosi said about the president. She called him names and said several things with an attitude of "screw the president".

Every candidate for every office talks about unity in the country. They talk about stepping beyond parties and doing what is right. What ever happened to that? We couldn't get compromise when the president was strong, we get even less now that he is weak. So I really do feel sorry for the president. His legacy will likely not be a good one. He is publicly disrespected and derided for every little thing he says or does. Can anyone with sincere honesty try to tell me that he wanted to screw up the country? What benefit would it be for him to do that? I don't have a huge amount of respect for some of the stuff he has done while in office, I don't agree with everything he says. But for me, the fact remains: he is still the president. He deserves respect as the Commander in Chief, the Executive, the Head of this Nation.

I am far more centrist leaning than my parents. I am a registered independent. I side more with the Republicans, but that is irrelevant to what I am about to say. My parents are very conservative, but there is something they said when Bill Clinton was the president that I will never forget. While Clinton was still the president I said something pretty disrespectful about him. I immediately got in trouble for it. My parents said that it doesn't matter what I think of him, he is still the President. That has stuck with me for a long time. Were Bush in the opposite party, it wouldn't matter how much I wanted him out of office, I wouldn't make the public remarks that some do. He is still the President, whether you like him or not. He WAS elected to the maximum amount of terms.

So yeah, I do feel sorry for the man now. He is at the end of a job that didn't go so well. He is facing a hostile congress every step of the way. There isn't much going his way, and there won't until he leaves. Barring of course the capture of Osama bin Laden. I guarantee his approval would skyrocket at least temporarily if bin Laden was captured and brought before the country for justice. I guess all we can do now is hope and pray that these last few months will be less stand-offish and that something can get done in Washington. I don't know if it's possible anymore for the two parties to agree to a compromise. But I hope that sometime they get over that. Maybe the election year will solve a lot of problems. A new congress, a new President, maybe the changes will finally allow us to get beyond our current differences. One can only hope.