Occupy your job application

That's Newt Gingrich's advice, and who knew that the Occupy movement could be solved so quickly?  

I can't help but appreciate the irony in it. Because it seems to me that, if unemployment and economic inequity was not such a problem, the movement would be smaller. Not gone. But certainly smaller, and possibly less sympathetic.

Frustrated by your unemployment status?  Upset because the cascade of economic catastrophe after a speculation "bubble" put a damper on job prospects, housing opportunities, etc?  Underwater financially thanks to $50K+ worth of student loans, which are necessary for a degree that's needed for a job that doesn't exist?

It's cool. Get a job. Improve your hygiene, especially those of you that stink of pepper spray. 

Problem solved.

Well. Until tweens flood the job market.

How do you say "What?" in Cuban?

Or, more importantly, how do you say "Can both sides please move away from the pandering and on to addressing the very real social and economic problems that are fueling a series of protests across the country, problems that actually affect both left and right and will only continue to be more detrimental in the future?"

Fund me... but not Rick Perry.

Let's be honest, I'm not often impressed by the Republican Right. Or even the Republican "middle" - which is really just less-right.


But Rick Perry is on my radar with his stance on Global Warming. Not because I Love Al Gore, but because of Perry's line of reasoning.


From the Huffington Post:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his skepticism about climate change one step further on Wednesday, telling a New Hampshire business crowd that scientists have cooked up the data on global warming for the cash.

In his stump speech, Perry referenced "a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects."

"We're seeing weekly, or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what's causing the climate to change," Perry said. "Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the earth was formed."

That's right. According to Rick Perry, Scientists cook the data.



But wait, that's not all!


The WaPo goes on to report the next day:

“They have seen the headlines in the past year about doctored data related to global warming,” Perry writes. “They know that we have been experiencing a cooling trend, that the complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists, and that draconian policies with dire economic effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be concerned.”

Good thing science is never manipulated or hijacked by the Right. Never. Never ever.


Now, I'm not saying scientists should never be questioned, or that science is always right, or that science knows everything about a given topic (let alone global warming) right now. There are too-frequent reports of people who have falsified data and lost their positions, issue retractions, damage other careers, etc. This is very, very bad. Even one report is too-frequent, given the nature of scientific research to build upon the findings of others.


But this is discovered through the process of competition, further experimentation, and peer review.


Not by politicians.


Just because a poll says a majority of people don't believe a theory (Global Warming, for example) is not true, doesn't mean that their theory is any more correct. Popular opinion does not a truth make. Ask Copernicus. 


It's the collection and evaluation of evidence - which can be a long, gradual process - that should influence our interactions with (and actions on) the world.


Perry uses general terms when he talks about these Scientists Gone Wild, if you watch the clip (at the end of the post). "Substantial number." Which then becomes "some cases". He points to the emergence of scientists that question the working hypothesis as evidence that the theory is false - thereby furthering the implication that the data is false and politicized. 


No, it's science. 

Science.

Scientific development comes from trying to prove or disprove a working hypothesis. Perry is merely taking the flip side of what he's accusing liberals of doing - that is, politicizing global warming - only he's doing it at the expense of science's credibility in the eyes of the public.


And I didn't hear any disclosures, Governor Perry. Come on, even "scientists" do that.


I'm not sure if it's willful ignorance, or a belief that the public is not interested in specifics behind his accusations, or the desire to capitalize on a popular idea about science.


And in a way, that's what's most alarming about Perry. His comments reflect a fundamental problem in the perception of science - which, in turn, leads me to believe this is an attitude he's likely to carry into the White House. 


The prejudice that scientists would fabricate data to funnel in research dollars doesn't bode well for the future of research in America. Clearly, Perry has never tried to apply for an NIH grant.


It's not about global warming, Perry. Sorry.


Here's a video of his answer so you can judge for yourself. The question takes a while and is hard to understand, but Perry is loud and clear.

Independence Under God

In the days leading up to the weekend, I noticed a trend among a certain subset of my Facebook friends. Statuses began to change to this:

FB Friend: I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!" MY GENERATION GREW UP RECITING THIS EVERY MORNING IN SCHOOL WITH MY HAND ON MY HEART. THEY NO LONGER DO IT FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING SOMEONE! LET'S SEE HOW MANY AMERICANS WILL RE-POST THIS & NOT CARE ABOUT OFFENDING SOMEONE

To be honest, I didn't give it much thought until I read the following comment someone (not my FB friend) had posted in agreement:

Commenter: They don't say it in alot of places and its [expletive] if you don't like it go the [expletive] back to your own country. Alot of men and women lay their lives down each and everyday so that cry babies can whine about reciting the pledge of allegiance

Typically I'd shy away from discussing this type of thing on my blog, but I feel like a day that celebrates American Independence sort of calls for it. 


Wikipedia summarizes several aspects of controversy surrounding the pledge. They include:


1) That the promise of freedom to dissent means that people should not be required to give an oath of allegiance (as does the right of people to not speak in public).
2) That those likely to recite the pledge on a daily basis - kids in school - are too young to really understand what that oath means.
and
3) Objections to the constitutionality of including the phrase "Under God."


Let's start with an extremely streamlined summary of the recent controversy over the last two - schools and "Under God". Feel free to clarify my omissions and/or imply my ignorance in the comments below. 


Also (because, sadly, I feel this might be necessary), please keep in mind that if you think you know my personal opinion(s) on God and/or religion from reading this blog post, you are most likely wrong.


Allons-y!


Since the 1960s, the courts have been dealing with challenges to the constitutionality of prayer in public schools. 

A case filed in 2000, Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., raised objections that, for instances where the Pledge was recited in public schools, led by teachers, the clause "under God" was an endorsement by the state of religion, and thereby violated the first amendment.


To review, the first amendment guarantees freedom to exercise religion, and prohibits laws that impinge on the establishment of religious beliefs. Congress is also prohibited from making laws that can lead to the establishment of a national religion - the "establishment clause."


In 2004, the decision of the case (which was that requiring students to recite the pledge was unconstitutional) was struck down on the basis of standing. The next incarnation of the case - Newdow v. Carey - eventually resulted in a decision in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of pledge recitation in public schools.


Of course, if you believe in freedom of religion, then this follows: some people can say "under God" if they want, and anyone who doesn't want to, doesn't. Right?


Not exactly.



Before I get to my thoughts on the FB commenter (or rather, the mentality behind the comment), let's look more closely at the controversial words - "under God."


The Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by a man named Francis Bellamy, and adopted as the national pledge in 1942. The words "under God" were officially added to the original pledge twelve years later, in 1954 - although unofficial use of them began earlier. This addition was allegedly drawn from the Gettysburg address, although some question exists as to whether or not Lincoln used the phrase in his famous speech.


Different versions appeared in different manuscripts after the speech.

Version 1: "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  

Version 2: "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  

Others have challenged the actual meaning, suggesting that in the context of the time, Lincoln's "Under God" would more accurately mean "God willing" and not a declaration that the nation follows God.


At the time of the "Under God" addition to the pledge, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, made these comments:

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country's true meaning. 

Especially is this meaningful as we regard today's world. Over the globe, mankind has been cruelly torn by violence and brutality and, by the millions, deadened in mind and soul by a materialistic philosophy of life. Man everywhere is appalled by the prospect of atomic war. In this somber setting, this law and its effects today have profound meaning. In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war." (Source)

Reading the above excerpt actually gave me a lot of food for thought. Seriously, I had no idea about the history of the pledge, although I remembered the court case(s). The context of the change as stated in Eisenhower's adderss has me thinking about the reasons why the pledge might have been made official - not in the terms of is it "good" or "bad". 


Now, on to the comment.  Some critical questions:


Just because we've done something the same way for a long time, does that mean we shouldn't question it? (hint: bad news for any movement that has ever challenged the status quo.)


Is it a legitimate attitude that questioning a Pledge of Allegiance - or the willingness to say "Under God" - makes someone a coward or anti-American or anti-troops?


More bluntly, which was what caught my attention to begin with: Is there a place for people who are not comfortable with "under God" - either because they are atheist, agnostic, deist, or ascribe to a religion that is not compatible with the phrase - in America?


Most people would say something generic like "I don't care what religion so-and-so is" - but consider the ongoing discussion over whether President Obama is "really a Christian."  

We can't have it both ways.  

We can't be the "melting pot" but tell the Gruyère that it has to sit this one out because it's asking uncomfortable questions.


It's easy to dismiss dust-ups like this as a matter of political correctness - the "fear of offending" noted by the commenter. However, when those seemingly PC-issues crop up, it's equally important to understand why and look for clues as to what that issue reflects of our psyche as a nation, and as individuals. 


The assurance of 'freedom of religion' in the first amendment means nothing if it's a thin veneer covering up an "us or them," "fall in or get out" sort of mentality.


There are plenty of arguments for whether America was founded as either a secular nation, or a Christian one, and those for both sides carry flaws. The truth is that the Founding Fathers were white, Christian (although some may have technically been deists), and many owned slaves. 


In a modern age where the founding of America is idealized and politicians carelessly rewrite history to suit their rhetoric, we have to remember that, for all they accomplished, the Founding Fathers faced their own limitations - limitations of their time and their life experience - that are not necessarily applicable to the America that exists 235 years later. Nor SHOULD those standards be applicable.


Relying on the literal words of documents from that time restricts the nation to the past, rather than conferring independence in the future - for those who wish to live "under God," and for those who don't.

Happy Fourth of July! Drive safely, and enjoy the fireworks.

That's what SHE said...

Chris Wallace of Fox News Network has gotten attention for asking Michele Bachmann the type of hardball, cutting-edge question that defines good journalism.


"Are you a flake?" he asked.


Shocker --> he's gotten some criticism for posing this question to the Queen of the Tea Party.


I actually don't watch Wallace (or Fox), although I did catch his sparring with Jon Stewart a little more than a week ago. Wallace apologized via vidblog the next day, but it seems his apology was not accepted (or acknowledged?). Snap. 


Can we say "exploitation of circumstances for free publicity?" All together now.


So why do I mention the flap? Well, I'm not a Bachmann fan myself (for many reasons, but this post is not about that), and the "Tea Party" movement in general makes me want to punch kittens. (I know. Sorry.) 


Still, as I heard the quotes from the interview - particularly in the absence of context for WHY he might ask such a question - I wondered two things:




1) how likely it was for another (male) candidate to get the same question, 


and - a question I've seen asked less frequently than the first - 


2) Is the fact that Bachmann is female (and thus a possible victim of a sexist slight) a distraction from asking if there is legitimate basis for Wallace's question - ie, is she a flake? 



And then I thought about the way our perceptions color our behavior - as voters, as commentators, as journalists, and as consumers of news and politics and economics. 


The truth is, one can get angry about Wallace's question, or about the way women have slogged through political races in a way that is not required of their male counterparts (thanks to Sarah Says for that book recommendation). Or one can get angry about how racial commentary often colored aspects of the 2008 presidential race (and continues to do so in Obama's presidency - but that's another post). 


This cuts both ways. I can even get angry - although the more accurate term is flabbergasted - at a Myrtle Beach Tea Party co-founder's endorsement of Bachmann.

Gerri McDaniel, one of the founders of the Myrtle Beach Tea Party group, said she has heard people are coming from all over the Pee Dee region, not just from Myrtle Beach.
 

Bachmann, she said, is someone you "just have to meet. She's got what I like to call the 'fire in the belly' for the people.

"She's not the ordinary female," McDaniel said. "She's very intelligent. She's an attorney - a tax attorney." 

Read more: http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/06/27/2244452/bachmann-venue-changes.html#ixzz1QVpemBex 

[Emphasis mine]

Come on, people.


It's idealism to hope that one day sexism and racism will disappear. I'm not sure that will ever entirely be the case. We categorize things (and people). It seems to be how we work, with some wiggle room - I found the PsychToday article pretty interesting in that regard. 


More realistically, the trick might be increasing awareness of that tendency, and asking how that categorization influences our behavior before we act. 


Or at least, not letting it creep into the way we define, challenge, or praise our presidential candidates.

Sen. Kittleman to Step Down as Minority Leader

This headline caught my eye today in the Sun, thanks to some posts by HoCoRising and SarahSays about Kittleman's efforts to introduce a new civil unions bill.


From the article:

Senate GOP leader Allan Kittleman told his caucus this morning that he will step aside as minority leader, heeding concerns from other Republican senators who voiced discomfort over his decision to introduce a civil unions bill. 

"I'm a social moderate and I wanted to stand up for what I believe in," Kittleman, from Howard County, said in a brief interview this morning before going to the Senate floor. “It is more important for me to stay true to my beliefs than it is for me to be the Minority Leader,” he said. 

Speaking on the Senate floor he it was "no secret" that he is left of his caucus on social issues. He said the caucus would "feel more comfortable" with a different leader.  

My first thought on this was that it's a shame to lose a reasonable moderate from the a leadership position.  However, HoCoRising has another take on this, including the possibility of this as a step in Sen. Kittleman's run for County Exec.

Why I don't 'get' the GOP...

This is not a political blog, but that doesn't mean I don't think about politics.  I do.  Especially when I listened to the mention of the Michael Steele Question on NPR's Morning Edition, which briefly recapped the RNC debate.

Steele is the incumbent, but he's also called the underdog in this piece.  Still, he argues that the GOP's success in November is due to him.  Challengers disagree, and also point to the RNC's deficit and Steele's 'liberal' spending.

It also offers some insight to the people who would replace him.  More on that in a minute.

As someone outside the GOP, I have not been impressed with Steele.  The financial status of the RNC seems like it should be a big deal.  His job should be to fund-raise and distribute resources to campaigns.  

And then there's the drama, although I guess there's always drama.

Three things stood out at me from the brief clips of debate, though, and that's why this post is called "Why I don't get the GOP" and not "Why I don't get Michael Steele."  They reflected widespread opinions or beliefs that I have difficulty understanding and/or seeing as reasonable.

1.  Who was responsible for the November election?

This has been touted as a victory for the Republican party, but I disagree.  I'm not even sure the Democrats are "at fault."   


This was a victory for the vocal Tea Party.  But the victory is partial. 

The Tea Party appears so far to the right that they risk alienating the moderates that might otherwise shy from expanding government spending.  A good demonstration of this was in Alaska, where Lisa Murkowski (the Republican incumbent) won as a write-in after losing the primary to Tea Party candidate Frank Miller.

The way I see it, if the GOP can't figure out how to harness this movement without alienating its own party, then they're at risk.  

2.  Can Sarah Palin win a general election?

In the clip, Michael Steele's response was bullet-quick.  Yes.  The other candidates agreed.

Personally... I think they're all wrong.

The novelty of Palin as a "female candidate" (Hillary who?) is starting to fade.  There's more baggage attached to her name, including a failed election.  She resigned as governor of Alaska, possibly her single shot at asserting she's qualified to be president (given her past political experience).  Nothing about that move says "I am committed to expanding my political horizons."  


She's also very polarizing.  Polarizing is not good.  Rhetoric is all well and fine, but Presidents must come to the middle to get anything done.

I have other opinions that I will keep to myself.

This is not to say that another Palin-like candidate won't emerge.  I just believe, if she gains the GOP nomination in 2012, she is going to lose.

3.  Who belongs in the Republican party?

This was the biggest point of surprise for me. I'll simply give the two answers that stood out, and let you decide why.

The first was given Reince Priebus, who chairs the Republican Party in Wisconson.  He is one of the leading challengers, and may well chair the RNC into the 2012 election.  

Priebus: "...if you're pro-abortion, pro-stimulus, pro-G.M. bailout, pro-AIG, well, you know, guess what, you might not be a Republican."


Speaking of stimulus... [cough cough there's always drama cough].  Sorry, let's move on.


There was a lone dissent among the candidates, and it came from... 

Steele: "...we cannot be a party that sits back with a litmus test and excludes, and the national chairman cannot go into a state, 'You're less Republican than you are, therefore I will not talk with you and only talk with you. That is not the Republican Party that I joined at 17 years old. And it will not be the Republican I lead over the next two years. Trust me."


...great. A reasonable answer from the guy who's probably headed out the door anyway.




So this is what I don't understand.  How can the GOP be focusing on exclusion when they want to attract numbers to unseat Dems in 2010?  Are they relying on Tea Party momentum, and do they not see its drawbacks as well as its benefits?  


Does the GOP (or leaders like Priebus) expect to have enough 'pure' Republican support to ensure moderates and independents support them in the polls?


Moreover, Priebus' litmus test doesn't just cover the basic ideological things such as their stance on gay marriage that define but at the present time do not exactly exclude party members.

With views like this from candidates, it's not hard to see the very real possibility for the future path of the GOP: away from moderates, and away from the possibility of gaining traction with the majority of the electorate.

At least, that's the view from the outside looking in - a position that, considering the proposed terms of exclusion, is not likely to change.