The World and Everything in it

Of Health Care Reform, Libertarianism, John Boehner and the Republican Nonsense

2009-07-30T21:04:00.003-05:00

I had to come out of my long vacation from the blogosphere to comment on the subject of health care reform. I had to say something about the circus going on in Washington and the mockery they are making of health care reform.

Who ever says that those who have health insurance are perfectly happy with the current system is wildly out of touch. I have health insurance through my employer, but the coverage is awful and the premium is still too high. I pay more than $200 per paycheck for all three of us (me, my husband and daughter). This cost does not include the portion that my employer pays. I am not even counting the copays, deductibles and fees I am charged when I make use of my health insurance policy.

We would never be able to afford health coverage for the three of us, should I (knock on wood) lose my job. Last time I changed jobs, there was a three month period we were without insurance. Cobra charged us $800 per month just to keep my daughter's policy active. For the three of us they were charging over $2500. Thus, I can understand why the self-employed, the unemployed and the poor who do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare would be unable to pay for a premium on their own. There are really no affordable choices in the market.

Nothing irritates me more than hearing the critics of Obama's health reform efforts taut their credentials as "free market" protectors. As if! They love to say nice things about competition and freedom of choice, while killing the idea of allowing healthy competition from a public option. So which is it? Do they really want freedom of choice and competition or they are just saying that because they pay lip service to the "idea" of competition? In the meantime they are signing deals with their corporate friends to defend their right to keep ripping us off.

Of all arguments that are completely false, nonsensical and moronic, the "free market" one gets the crown. Let us look at the libertarian ideal of liberty, competition and choice, to determine where the "free market" argument being thrown at us is deeply flawed.

Libertarians believe that for a society to be just, each person should be permitted to live as they choose, without interference from others. Libertarianism, in contrast to utilitarianism, believes that restricting the liberty of some to promote the greater good for the greatest number is unacceptable. The key is to ensure that in exercising one’s choices, one is not interfering with anyone else’s liberty. For libertarians, justice is equal to respect for individual liberty (Shaw & Barry, 2009).

The problem with the libertarian philosophy is defining where someone’s individual liberty ends and someone else’s begins. What happens if the opposition of a few to implement a universal health care option interferes with someone else’s choice to participate in it? What if someone’s choice of maintaining the current system, because it is the best choice for them, infringes the liberty of others to choose a more affordable and perhaps free option? The libertarian argument comes down to whether implementing a universal health care system actually restricts individuals rights. Libertarians and conservatives argue it would. They believe it would restrict competition and deprive us of options. However, this argument is flawed. First, the current system already restricts competition and consumer freedom of choice. Most consumers get insurance through their employer, and it is the employer, not the consumer who has the ultimate say in the choice of plans. Additionally, those who do not get insurance through their employer find that there are not enough affordable choices for them to acquire insurance on their own. In many cases, they are turned down by the insurance companies due to their perceived risk. The consumer is not sovereign in the insurance market, thereby defeating the foundation of pure competition.

A public health option in contrast, would allow for market forces to work in the consumer’s favor once again. Those who are happy with their current private insurance can choose to stay with it, while giving a choice to those who are unhappy with the current system to switch to the public option. Those with private insurance would actually benefit from others accessing a public health option. This is because the costs of covering the uninsured that are currently being passed to the insured from health care providers would no longer be applied. This would drive the premium prices down. Private insurers would have to offer better benefits at more affordable prices in order to effectively compete with the public health option.

Many contend that the public option would “kill” competition and drive private insurers out of business, because no one would want to pay for private insurance. They say the public option would “crowd out the private sector” (Boehner, 2009). This is the most nonsensical argument of them all. If people choose the public option it is due to two market based principles: It offers what they need at a better price. If private insurers are unable to offer the same or better benefits than a public option at a better price, they deserve to be driven out of business by the almighty “invisible hand”.

The Truth About Obama's and Clinton's Legislative Career Comparissons

2008-04-01T18:51:00.008-05:00

A few months ago I received an e-mail from somebody claiming that Hillary Clinton's legislative career in the senate was less impressive than that of Obama's. Since I had very little time and patience to fact check every claim made on the e-mail, I took it at face value, thinking to myself that whoever took the time to put together that list must have done very good research. The conclusion I drew was that Clinton's senate career was very lackluster compared to Obama's young but very prolific one according to the e-mail. Since then, I have heard several Obama supporters propagate this e-mail's claims in websites like Facebook and the Daily Kos.

Now I know that this was a misleading e-mail campaign, probably started by a starry eyed Obama supporter, that took the time to count all of Obama's sponsored and co-sponsored bills in both the US Senate and in the Illinois Senate, whether they passed into law or not. This person however, forgot to be just as fair on Hillary and only counted bills that she sponsored and passed into law, leaving out her co-sponsored bills and the ones that she sponsored but did not pass into law.

According to Factcheck.org, the real tally is as follows:

	Obama	Clinton
Years in Senate	3	7
Bills sponsored*	129	358
Bills passed by Senate	7	32
Bills signed into law	2	19
Sponsored, per year	43	51.1
Passed by Senate, per year	2.3	4.6
Signed into law, per year	0.7	0.7

*Sole original sponsor

From this I can deduct that Obama's career is not all that bad, but Clinton definitely has more to show than him, which supports my original perception of both candidates, pros and cons and highlights Hillary's strenght in experience.

Take a look at the article from Newsweek, which quotes Factcheck.org on the debunking of the legislative career unfair comparisons.

The Pyramid of Capitalism: What is Wrong with This Picture?

2008-03-17T22:10:00.009-05:00

I saw this image posted in a Facebook group and I thought it deserved a post. First of all, I got to say that it is the greatest piece of propaganda ever designed. It had me there for a second, until I started to look at the image with a real critical eye. I asked myself, what is missing here? Where do I fit in this picture? I find myself nowhere in this picture. Not that I was hoping to have my picture somewhere in this poster, but I was looking to find the group of people that would represent me in the pyramid. My group is missing or is being misrepresented. It is missing the middle class, the educated professionals, the intellectuals, the scientists, the engineers, the Doctors, the lawyers. In other words, people who are not part of the ruling class and that still work for their money.

The first level: these are the blue collar workers and the poor peasants that work for a minimum salary. They appear to be heavily exploited by the upper bourgeoisie class, because their sole purpose is to make the food for them. Per this poster the proletariat are not consumers, they are producers.

The second level: these is the bourgeoisie class. Apparently, they have nothing better to do than to drink wine and have parties at the expense of the poor. They appear to serve no purpose on society, other than to leach on everyone else. Since it seems that by definition I am part of the bourgeoisie, I see no resemblance of me in this portrayal.

The third level: these is the military. They are pictured here as ready to shoot the proletariat if they rise up.

The fourth level: these is the clergy. They are pictured here as the masters of manipulation and deceit. They are in cahoots with the ruling class.

The fifth level: these is the ruling class. The politicians, the ultra rich and powerful. People who run the government and ultimately reap the rewards of all the hard work from those at the bottom.

So there you have it. All layed out for you in an easy to understand pyramid that explains it all. Stinks if you are a blue collar worker right? Of course, the poster conveniently ommits the fact that the pyramid levels are connected by ladders. Nothing is really keeping the lower level from moving up the ladder, by earning a degree and getting a better paying job. The pyramid pictures the bourgeoisie class as idle rich people and forgets to acknowledge that within that class there are people essential for a functioning society (Doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, scientists etc). Additionally, picturing the military at the top of the bourgeoisie, is not real. In a capitalist society, the military is more at the bottom of the pyramid with the blue collar workers. The clergy is also not at the top level in most free market economies, their power has practically dissapeared in first world countries. The ruling class is an accurate portrayal.

While I agree that savage capitalism is exactly what the word implies, I don't agree that communism or socialism are the answer either. At least in a capitalist society, one has the chance to pursue a better life (the pursuit of happiness???) and may be able to achieve it. Communism on the other hand, seems to get rid of all the levels in between the proletariat and the ruling class, while removing all the possibilities for the working class to ever brake out of poverty and dependance.

Socialism and communism greately depend on the poor class for survival, because no society without workers would ever function. Thus they thought it 'fair' to move even the Doctors, the engineers and all the educated people to the same level as the unskilled workers, paying the same and keeping them just as poor as the rest. Brilliant, isn't it? Well, what is the incentive for someone to go through school and become a Doctor, when they can just drive a cab and earn the same money with less effort???? I just don't get communism... Never will.

Why Should Hillary Quit????

2008-03-10T20:29:00.003-05:00

I have heard some people say that Hillary should quit before Pennsylvania. I heard this even before she won Texas and Ohio. Some contend that if she continues to the end it will "destroy the party". Why? Isn't competition good for the democratic process? Last I checked, people vote because they want to state their choice. What good is it to vote when one does not even have a choice anymore? I bet that Texas and Ohio were thrilled that for the first time in decades, they have a say in a primary election, the same can be said of Pennsylvania. Additionally, Obama has not won the necessary number of delegates to clinch the nomination. To be the nominee a candidate needs a minimum of 2024 votes. Obama only has about 1300 estimated delegate votes and Hillary only trails him by about 100. Why should Hillary quit? This to me is a virtual tie.

Of course, the talk of quitting mostly comes from the Obama camp and the media enamored with Obama's celebrity. If it was Obama trailing Hillary by 100, would they also be asking for him to quit for the "sake of the party". I do not think so. Hillary should continue to Pennsylvania and give the voters there a chance to make a stand. If the math then does not add up in her favor, then she will probably gracefully quit and Obama will be the nominee by default. However, if the math continues to be a virtual tie, she should stay on. The Super Delegates then will be left the difficult task of voting with their constituencies or voting their conscience.

Colombia Alone in its Fight

2008-03-08T15:07:00.005-05:00

As a registered democrat it is absolutely apalling to me that the democrats in congress have aligned themselves against the only ally the United States has left in Latin America. Simply put, Colombia hugely depends on the help coming from the United States to fight drug trafficking and terrorism. Two problems that current President Alvaro Uribe has pledged to erradicate and has had great success. Colombians can attest to it. However, democrats, pressured by some left-leaning organizations, have continously stalled the passing of a free trade agreement, as well as the much needed military aid the U.S. provides.

Many Americans are unware of how important it is for the United States to keep a strategic democratic ally such as Colombia. Some are widely misinformed or do not care. Unfortunately for colombians such as me, who still have family and friends living there, it is disheartening to see the little support Colombia receives from the international community. This disdain for the decades of conflict Colombians have suffered at the hands of marxist guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries alike is heart wrenching.

Unfortunately, many on the US left think, that the FARC are a group of heroes fighting against an oppresive right-wing regime. The truth is that they are a narco-terrorist organization, dedicated to the kidnapping of civilians and political figures alike, with the goal of undermining a rising democracy. Alvaro Uribe is a conservative, yes, but he is not a dictator or an oppressor of the opposition. The same cannot be said of his neighbor Hugo Chavez. Uribe was elected democratically in a historic landslide with record voter turn out. This is why I do not understand the reasoning of the democrats in congress, do they really support democracy or do they want another U.S. hater at the head of one of the most important and strategic countries in the region? It is sad to admit that Colombia is much alone in its fight.

Chavez The Oportunist

2008-03-07T21:03:00.004-05:00

It is not a secret that Chavez hates the United States and his allies. He does not waste any opportunity to throw insults at President Bush and his imperialist nation. However, none of us had a really good grasp at how much an opportunist he is. Using the Colombian incursion into Ecuadorian territory as an excuse, he sent 90% of his troops to the borders with Colombia. Why? Colombia's military were nowhere near the border of Venezuela when they killed the infamous FARC rebel. The issue should have only concerned Ecuador, but somehow Chavez found his way to the middle of the crisis and became the protagonist, relegating Colombia and Ecuador to background noise. Why would Chavez get involved in this dispute? Because he wants nothing more than to have a perfect excuse to get troops and arms into colombian territory to help the FARC rebels overthrow Uribe's government.

Of course, after today's Rio Group Meeting in Dominican Republic, they all had to play nice and come to an agreement. However, the questions of why the FARC rebels are allowed to cross into Venezuela and Ecuador and set camp there are still unanswered. Unfortunately for Colombia, Uribe is politically isolated, surrounded by known sympathizers of the terrorist group. Colombia is alone in its fight against guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries.

Uribe however was able to gain something for the colombian people out of this. A deeper look from the international community into a conflict that has been largely ignored.

Blog in Animated Suspension

2005-06-24T15:00:00.000-05:00

Just when we were starting to get acquinted, I have to put this blog in "Animated Suspension". Unfortunately, I do not feel like writing or discussing politics at this moment. I will keep on reading all those who I visit frequently. I thank your for your interest in this blog and your active participation.

Sincerely,
Lina Maria

Iraq Adrift

2005-06-17T12:53:00.000-05:00

Iraq is a mess. But, we can't pull out. There has not been a time as important as this one for the United States NOT to cut and run. Do the American people really understand the magnitude of our actions in the Middle East? I don't think most people do unfortunately. To the majority of Bush voters this was a war to "kick terrorist's booty". Now that the booty being kicked is ours, they want to pull out? What happened to their "These colors don't run" bumpersticker motto? No sir, lady, I am sorry; we have to stick around and take it like a man (or woman). We went in there without a real plan, now we have to pick up the pieces and put them back together. What is wrong with the Republican leadership that they do not want to face the music? They want to pretend all is fine and dandy, while more attacks take place and the country falls deeper into chaos. But the Democrats are not helping either. They are hoping for a "Vietnam era" backlash on the government so they can take back the power. As a result, no one is talking about how to win the war in Iraq and successfully grow the seed of democracy there.

I really hope President Bush comes to his senses and fires Donald Rumsfeld. Why is Mr. Rumsfeld still in charge? Oh! Never mind! If anyone is guilty of our "squandered victory" it is him. As Thomas Friedman says in his piece, "Let's Talk About Iraq":

From the day the looting started, it has been obvious that we did not have enough troops there. We have never fully controlled the terrain."

The only way we will be able to control the insurgency and finally bring peace to that country is by putting the manpower necessary on the ground to do so. That is of course, if our intentions were really about bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East. If the Republican leadership that was so gun-ho about this war and our "democratization" effort starts backpedaling, they will give the Liberals enough proof to back their belief that their intentions in Iraq were never pure.

I am especially upset about the fact that the Bush Administration seems oblivious to the mistakes we have committed in the aftermath of the war. It appears that their efforts there are poorly planned and that they are not willing to do what it takes. It looks like they were only trying to put a "U.S. friendly government" there. So far, they have not even tried to really rebuild that country. How can they rebuild Iraq if they do not have enough soldiers to guarantee that the insurgents are controlled and squashed? How can they expect Iraquis to resume their normal lives if they can not even walk from one corner to another without risking their lives? Added to the violence and security issues is the fact that we have not put enough of the resources asked for by President Bush to rebuild the country's infrastructure. It is no wonder why Iraquis are so upset and feel hopeless. I really hope that I am wrong, but if President Bush does not do something to correct this soon, he risks not only losing Iraq, but the confidence of the American people.

I am at odds with the majority of Liberals about the war, because I am not at odds with my Liberal principles. I think it would be a great mistake to leave the Iraquis alone in their efforts to rebuild their country; especially when we went into their houses and wrecked havoc. It is irresponsible and cruel to forsake them now. The U.S. needs to stick it out and finish the job, otherwise we would be adding another failed state to the list of failed states we are guilty of creating. This country needs to come to terms with the fact that wars are not pretty and people die in them. Leaving before ensuring we have accomplished our mission because we can not face the consequences of our actions is a sign of weakness; a weakness that can be easily exploited by America's enemies. Osama Bin Laden was counting on us cutting and running. I hope we can disappoint him by staying in Iraq as long as is needed to secure a real democracy there.

war
Iraq
Middle East
Terrorism
Military

Illegal Immigration

2005-06-15T14:14:00.000-05:00

There is no subject that gets me more upset than immigration. It is difficult for me to be impartial and treat this subject with a cold analytical mind. After all, I know many of these people. I know them and have seen how they really live. Illegal immigrants have no access to government benefits. They can not apply for welfare, bank accounts or health benefits without proper identification, a social security card, a driver's license and/or passport. In some states they can not even attend school if they can not prove legal residency status. Therefore, I have always known that those who claim otherwise are lying to their teeth.

Thought Mechanics alerted me to an investigation by the Arizona Republic. They decided to find out exactly how many illegal immigrants had the prop-200 measure (approved by Arizona voters as the ultimate anti-immigration law) been able to stop from getting benefits. According to the Arizona Republic, "so far, only two welfare applicants have been reported to immigration authorities for seeking state benefits illegally as defined in Proposition 200". But it does not stop there. The law is supposed to stop illegals from registering to vote by increasing identification requirements. However, as the AR points out, the law has affected newly arrived legal residents more than anybody else. One out of every three registrations has been rejected and not one has been from an illegal immigrant. In other words, the law was supposed to stop a problem that really never existed.

This is not news to me, but it may be news to others who really believe illegal immigrants are here to take advantage of the great government giveaways. The truth is that illegal immigrants can not obtain government benefits because they are not citizens or legal residents. Unless they are able to pay a crook a lot of money to obtain some kind of counterfeit identification, their chances of even getting a driver's license are nil. An illegal immigrant does not have a green card or work permit, which is required to obtain a social security number. Without a social security number, one can not apply for a bank account, a driver's license in most states, or any government benefits. In States like Florida and New York, someone can not obtain a driver's license without a social security card and a green card or U.S passport. To apply for college one has to prove legal residency status, otherwise one is not allowed to attend. In other states, if a parent can not prove their legal status in this country, their children can not attend school. In summary, the U.S. already has sufficient anti-immigration laws to help "deter" illegal immigrants from coming to this country and "stealing our precious tax dollars". But those who hide their racial bias behind these lies will continue to spread them.

If they are so concerned about illegal immigrant’s access to government benefits, then why do they oppose a "guest worker program", which would transform them into contributing members of our society? As Jet of God Dem! says in her piece Modern Day Shame:

Jumping up and down and screaming about illegal aliens is not productive here. No American would ever work fourteen hours to net $7.00. President Bush's temporary worker program merits consideration.

In addition, if they are so concerned about undocumented people who may be terrorists, why not document everybody and ensure they are here to work and not to kill us? Of course, this would entail giving some kind of humane status to those people who come here to pick our fruits, wash our dishes and build our houses. But no, those who want all illegals deported and the South Border "closed" do not want to treat them like humans. To them they are worse than pests; they are a menace to their "way of life". Notice how I said "south border" and not simply borders. The truth is that most people, who oppose immigration, oppose just "Mexican and Latino immigration". No one was even thinking or talking about the U.S. border with Canada until someone mentioned how easy it was for terrorists to cross into the country that way. Of course, everyone was busy thinking on how to get rid of those "pesky Mexicans".

I think it is time for the U.S government to be honest witht the American people. They can not stop immigration, nor do they want to. They may try to keep it under control, but the reality is that no matter how many border patrol agents are put on the border, they will never be able to completely stop these poor immigrants from coming here. Politicians also know that these people are necessary for the development and advancement of America's economy; trying to stop them is trying to stop progress. What is needed is a more humane immigration policy that gives these people the chance to work in this country and contribute to our economy the right way. By marking someone as an "illegal alien" we are not only demonstrating that we do not value hard work, but that we punish it. Why punish someone for wanting to work and provide for their families? Why prevent them from being part of our society? Is it because they look different and speak another language? When we are able to answer these questions honestly, then we can decide if our current immigration policy is adequate.

Being an illegal alien is no picnic, it makes one a nobody, an invisible person walking the streets. In addition to having no access to basic benefits that most Americans take for granted, they also have no basic rights. They work for wages below the minimum wage, extreme long hours and no vacation time. They are usually exploited by employers who take advantage of their "invisible status" and threaten them with deportation if they do not comply with their demands. In some respects, it is very similar to slavery.

Some may ask, why do they do it? Why do they stay under such terrible conditions? Why don't they go back to their countries if it is so terrible? The answer is that many of them would prefer to be slaves than to let their families die of hunger. They come here to work hard and earn money to sustain their families. Walking long hours in the desert risking death or getting caught, the possibility of being beaten and enduring inhumane living conditions, are sacrifices that they offer for the well being of their loved ones. If you had no other choice, wouldn't you do the same?

immigration
illegals
borders
national security

Let’s Talk!... Please

2005-06-10T18:32:00.000-05:00

Post featured at Bring It On!

While I was trying to figure out what to write about, I came across the news of Howard Dean's "latest gaffe" and I found the perfect topic and inspiration. Dean's comment is a perfect example of the kind of rhetoric we despise so much from the opposite side. No one likes to be labeled or pigeonholed and if it does not look pretty coming from a Republican it looks worse on a Democrat. I do not blame Dean for saying what he thinks, but I do blame him for being careless and creating further division. The kind of attitude that Dean displays may delight some, but it angers those middle-of-the-road people who feel offended by his words. Unfortunately, Dean is just the symptom of a larger problem. Democrats are out of touch with a great percentage of the population. America is not comprised of red states and blue states. Just as there are white Christian Democrats in Louisiana, there are black Republicans in New York. If Democrats are to ever regain the status of a national political party, they need to learn how to communicate with them, not demean them.

Last year I was heavily involved in John Kerry's campaign; both financially and emotionally. When we lost the election, I cried for almost two weeks until I realized that there is a time for retreat, and a time for action. At the end of the two week period I wanted to find out what had happened. I wanted answers and solutions. What I found was not pretty and the deeper I dug, the worse it got. When I reached the bottom, I found out that we had built a campaign on a non-existent foundation. We had no ideas, no vision and our promises rang hollow. The big movement was all based on hatred; a deep, unhealthy hatred for President Bush. We were the "Anybody but Bush" supporters. It was no wonder then that middle-of-the-roaders left us cold on November 2. Things haven’t improved since the election either. Liberal Democrats don’t seem to have gotten the message at all. Their attacks have become meaner and more belligerent. Attacking even fellow liberals who dare to disagree with them. I am a casualty of such assaults.

After the election, instead of focusing on the future and rebuilding our party, many liberals have decided to wallow in their own disappointment and bitterness. The worst part of such destructive behavior is that it is pushing real supporters away. People like me, who have volunteered, given money and invested their lives in the Democratic Party are treated like neocons in disguise; all this, because some of us dared to question our motives and offer a different approach. In other words, Liberals are emulating the ugly tactics they criticized the Republicans of using. It is not a pretty sight and has made me look at the issues from a different perspective. I began to understand why Liberals are not trusted on defense and more Americans prefer Republicans to handle taxes and the economy, as odd as that may seem to Liberals. The hard truth is that Liberals intentions, however sincere, are trampled by their actions and rhetoric. Liberals can not claim to be liberals and be against the freedom of the people of Iraq, regardless of how much we dislike the war that got us there. Being against Bush, should not put us in the position of rooting for the United States failure in the Middle East. Liberals hatred for Bush has severely clouded their judgment. Possible solutions to major problems, like the educational crisis, globalization’s impact on the economy, social security’s future solvency, illegal immigration, terrorism, etc. are never seriously discussed. Liberals are engaged in a never-ending childish pie fight. I wonder if it is ever going to end.

This negative attitude and name calling has to stop, and soon. While Liberals are busy pulling Republican’s pig tales, figuring out how to “get back at Bush and his friends”, the Republicans are working hard at cementing their status as the majority party in this country. It is time for Liberals to take a hard look at themselves and decide where they are going to go as a movement. We need to talk and really listen to each other, because an echo chamber is not what is needed to find real solutions to the problems. Disagreements are likely to happen, but it is necessary to keep an open mind. After all, Liberalism is synonymous with open mindedness. In order to find that common ground to bring us together and find our mission, we need to ask ourselves, what does Liberalism stand for? Liberals are supposed to believe in the goodness of humanity and self-determination, defending civil rights and political liberties, while moving towards progress. Only when we counter hateful rhetoric with brilliant ideas is when we will regain the confidence of the majority of American people. Time to put down those pies; let’s talk and really listen.

liberals
democrats
politics

Smart Ass Education... No Child Left Behind Reloaded

2005-06-03T17:46:00.000-05:00

I read an interesting article in the New Republic by Robert Gordon, a former education adviser to John Kerry’s presidential campaign. He talks about the need for Democrats to focus on the educational crisis, by going beyond criticizing No Child Left Behind's lack of funding. In his opinion, the party’s education demands have been more about money than reform. I checked the Democratic National Committee's website to see if what Mr. Gordon says is really occurring. He is correct; the party's complaints about NCLB are focused on money. Mr. Gordon may be onto something when he says that Democrats are losing their "edge on education". He also says that "in emphasizing resources, Democrats evade questions of culture and institutions".

Another problem with attacks on No Child Left Behind coming from the Democrats is the fact that the majority of them supported the plan. Others, like Ted Kennedy, were heavily involved in its creation. Therefore, these attacks feel partisan and make the democrats look as unprincipled panderers to a constituency that strongly opposes NCLB. As a result, the real problems with the bill and their possible solutions are never discussed, missing the opportunity for a real national conversation on the status of education in this country. Anyone who is against the No Child Left Behind Act and its reforms is not taken seriously by the other side and viceversa, allowing the problems with our education system to grow larger.

To be able to talk about this without taking sides, we must understand that no one wants our children to get a below standard education; not even Republicans. Perhaps it is time we took a look at No Child Left Behind's main points:

Summary of the No Child Left Behind Act
The law is geared towards accountability; students’ standardized test scores now indicate how well teachers and schools are performing. If these test scores do not increase by a certain amount each year, known as the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), then sanctions are imposed on the school and the district. If schools continue to perform poorly they may have to offer students free services. Should the test scores remain inadequate after a number of years, schools could lose federal funds or face a complete shut down.

While the end result is based on students’ test results, the teachers bear most of the burden. You must get your students well prepared for standardized tests and you must already be or become ‘highly qualified.’

To be ‘highly qualified’ you must have three things:

1. Full state certification
2. Minimum of a bachelor’s degree
3. Demonstrated competency in each academic subjects you teach

Source: Education Center Online

So in essence, the act has the noble purpose of giving American children a high standard education. Accountability is necessary to ensure that those standards are met by putting highly qualified individuals at the head of America's classrooms. So far so good. However, the American Federation of Teachers(AFT) sees great flaws in the law that prevent schools and teachers from delivering the high standard education and highly qualified individuals it was supposed to provide. I visited the AFT's website, to see what they had to say about No Child Left Behind. I summarized their proposals in the following table:

Problems with NCLB	Recommendations for Improvement
The mechanism for holding schools accountable, the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) formula, doesn't really measure progress and fails to distinguish between effective and ineffective schools	Set challenging but demonstrably attainable student progress goals. Judge school effectiveness by measuring the progress that schools achieve with the same students over time. Accurate accountability decisions without excluding certain groups of students and holding large and small schools and diverse and homogeneous schools equally accountable for their performance. Reporting on student achievement by subgroup. Ensuring that NCLB's own AYP requirements and regulations also meet scientifically based standards.
The development of alternative routes to demonstrate excellence has been disorganized with lax monitoring by the U.S. Department of Education, leaving many teachers and paraprofessionals with a shortened time frame in which to meet the education requirements	Require that all states create a rigorous HOUSSE (High, Objective Uniform State Standard of evaluation) and extend the deadline for teachers and paraprofessionals to demonstrate their qualifications in states that have not developed the HOUSSE or timely procedures for paraprofessionals. Require states to develop high-caliber teacher induction systems to ensure that new teachers receive the support they need to provide effective instruction during their beginning years.
The promise to fund NCLB remains unfulfilled. This shortfall has undercut the efforts of states, districts and schools at a time when they are working to meet new, rigorous requirements for students and teachers.	Provide the necessary resources to implement the plan and see results within three years.
The School improvement process is seriously flawed.	Improvement process most be based on credible data for identifying struggling schools that need additional resources. Intensive planning year, when a school is first identified as "in need of improvement," so that the school can develop an improvement plan that addresses the needs of the school and is based on research-based, proven programs. Require schools to implement choice and supplemental services only if the school improvement plan has been demonstrated to be ineffective after three years. Require the school to undertake more drastic restructuring if the school does not show measurable improvement.

It did not surprise me to find that teachers are not asking for the law to be repealed. They are merely proposing some changes to make it better. If anyone is qualified to talk about education it is an educator. This is why I find it odd that these proposals are not talked about more in Washington and not pushed by Democrats or Republicans harder. Perhaps it is time that both parties stopped the grandstanding and spring into action. There is no issue more pressing than Education. Our children have been already left behind by children in other parts of the world with a better education. We need to do something now and No Child Left Behind is a start, but we can do better... This is the issue Democrats can win with in 2006 if they get their acts together.

no child left behind
education
democrats
teachers

Becoming a Political Orphan...

2005-05-25T05:44:00.000-05:00

"lonely donkey out in the rain"

I have written articles on my disappointment and major differences with the Left before, but this beautifully written piece by Keith Thompson, Leaving the Left, has given me more to think about. I had become increasingly alienated from the left, but it was not until I witnessed liberals fall and tear each other apart after the election loss that I found out they really have no clue. During the weeks of soul searching after the election, my clouded judgment was cleared by tears caused by the bitter truth; a truth that gave me the greatest of heartbreaks. This truth that I was too blind to see, told me that the unity of purpose we seemed to share was only a mirage. It was an illusion created by my deep desire to bring change and justice.

I thought the left was supposed to stand for change, but instead I have found out they want to preserve the status quo, even when that status quo represents stagnation, regression and oppression. I thought the left was supposed to stand for justice, peace and liberty for all humanity, but instead I have found that they want justice, peace and liberty only for themselves. This is not the liberalism I grew to admire. At least not the one I have read about in history books. A liberal is a person that is “not limited by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas [and is] free from bigotry”. Liberalism has been hijacked by people who are anything but liberal. It was not until I saw their cynicism, hatred, and narrow-mindedness that I was able to understand this revelation. They do not want change, justice, peace and liberty for others, because they only care about themselves. Liberal is synonymous with generosity and what they are proclaiming does not represent it anymore; it reeks of selfishness.

I have been abandoned by those who I considered my family. They are strangers to me now. I don’t know this house anymore… and it hurts me, because I have nowhere else to go. The “big tent” has shrunk and I do not fit in anymore. Now those inside it view me with disdain, wagging their fingers at me with an accusatory look on their faces. They are condemning me for believing what I believe. I am not a liberal, they say, because I think freedom is an American gift to the world, not synonymous with tyranny and oppression. They pushed me into the shadows because I do not share their desire for failure. They accuse me of being an impostor, a “horrible” conservative in democrat disguise, because I do not believe that everything the United States has done has been motivated by evil purposes and has only brought about disaster. But I do not care what they think of me. I know I am a liberal; it is they who are kidding themselves. They have become what they proclaim to hate. They have no open minds, no fresh ideas, and no beautiful ideals for a peaceful tomorrow. They have only criticisms and hateful speech. I want no part in a movement that has such a gloomy, sad and narrow view of the world.

There is no party that encompasses my political vision. Liberals and Conservatives today are a sad shadow of what they used to represent. One used to stand for individual freedom and justice, while the other for responsibility and constitutional rights. Recent events demonstrate both support anything opposite those ideals. Because I profoundly believe in the liberal principles of self-determination, fairness, honesty, integrity, kindness, forgiveness and optimism, I find my self without a party, group or movement that espouses such values; I have become a political orphan… I wonder how many feel forsaken like me.

***********************************************************

Note Aside: I am sorry if I haven't had much to offer lately. I have been suffering "writer's block". I really do not like to write "filler" posts, therefore my blog does not get updated if I do not have anything worth writing about... Please do not be shy and leave your comments, I am not afraid of different opinions.

politics
democrat
liberal

"The Kingdom of Heaven" Belongs to All

2005-05-11T11:09:00.000-05:00

I saw the much talked about movie last weekend. Do not worry, there will be no "spoilers" in this post. I thought it was a good movie that could have been better if they had devoted more time to character development. I read a couple of critics, which give the movie mildly bad reviews. They all say the same thing; something is lacking in the movie. Nevertheless, I thought the movie was well made within its time limitations and it sparked my interest in that dark period of our history. But I do not want to talk about the movie's merits for an Oscar or its box office earnings. It is the debate around it that I am interested in. I am pretty sure that there has to be a legion of "upset" christians and their muslim counter-parts at this point. The movie did not depict muslims as the absolute "bad guys" as "some people" would have liked. But it also romanticized the notion that the crusades "were a series of defensive wars against Islamic aggression"(BBC) and that there were "crusaders" (Bloom) "fighting for tolerance". This movie could have been much more powerful if Ridley Scott would have chosen to be historically correct, by showing us the stupidity of it all and how we haven't learned from history. But this movie was not about the crusades per se; it was more about how can religion be used and abused. In this sense, Ridley achieved his objective.

Some complain that it makes the muslims (Salah al din specially) look good, because in their minds muslims are supposed to be the evil doers with no hearts or any redeeming qualities. As if the crusades were actually justifiable, these people believe that christians were merely "defending" themselves. On the other side we have some complaining that it portrayed the arabs as "mindless machines". As if "infidel annihilation" was justifiable. What I think both sides of the argument are "missing" is that the crusades were more of a land grab effort than a mechanism of "defense" to stop Arab or Christian invasions. Both sides were fighting for domination of the other. In the real story, there were no good or bad guys. It was a bloody, senseless war over a piece of land. Muslims would kill christians and jews to take control. Next, christians would retaliate killing muslims and jews to take control again. Multiply by 8 and we got the crusades. There was really no justification for either side to kill thousands upon thousands of people in a never ending cycle of violence. Sounds familiar? Unfortunately, history tends to repeat itself and that same piece of land continues to be the center of hostilities between three major religions.

It is unfortunate that more than 900 years later, we still have not been able to achieve peace there. I do not care if one is "pro-palestine" or "pro-israel", one should not celebrate the death of innocents, just because they "belong to the enemy". How can someone be pro-palestine when they kill thousands of innocent jews? How can someone be pro-israel when their army kills thousands of innocent palestinians? Pro-israel people would say that Israel has the right to retaliate and defend itself against the enemy, but then pro-palestine people could say the same. See the senselessness of it all? Why couldn't we learn from past centuries mistakes and see how retaliation has never ended any cycle of violence? Unfortunately, we may not live long enough to see peace blossom in the middle east. It may well take 200 more years of nonsensical violence. But one can only dream of a peaceful tomorrow.

The most important lesson to draw from our dark history is that the end never justifies the means. Religion is a beautiful thing when our hearts are free of hate. Hate distorts faith. A distortion that allows for atrocities to be committed in its name.

*******************************************************
For a fair and balanced review of the "Kingdom of Heaven" see:
Roger Ebert

religion
movies
christians
muslims

Average Americans

2005-05-05T15:13:00.000-05:00

I had wanted to talk about the American people for a long time, especially since I received a shower of criticism due to a piece I wrote in my Spanish blog called "Que Europa se Vaya al Carajo" (To Hell with Europe). There were a lot of comments that demonstrate the immense gap existing between the rest of the world and Americans. This is not news. Nevertheless, that piece made me realize that Americans are not the ones who have closed minds and conserve stereotypes of others. I had been reading what some Colombians, Spaniards, French, Germans, etc. think of Americans, I now know that they are the ones who conserve exaggerated stereotypes and they refuse to recognize the true face of America.

I had subjected myself to an interesting experiment in my Spanish Blog, letting my readers propose subjects for me to write about. It was supposed to be a fun game and people were supposed to propose crazy subjects; the crazier the better. The last subject proposed by one of my Colombian readers said: "Talk to us about the vision of the average American, selfish in regards to the world". This statement is a fallacy. The "average American" is not selfish in regards to the world. The average American has little time to be selfish. The average American takes money out of his/her paycheck to send money to as remote places as Darfur or Indonesia, even when they may not know very well how to locate them in the map¹ and aware that they may never get due credit for their generosity. The average American sends medicines, food, clothing and other essentials to all parts of the world through different non-governmental organizations, knowing that there is a possibility that it may never reach those who need it most. The average American, far from being "selfish" is generous, idealistic and has a good heart. This is why in many cases they end up being victims of scam artists in other countries.

Average Americans are far from the typical image attributed to them. The image of the psychopathic soldier that shoots innocents indiscriminately, the "trigger happy cowboy, the "Rambo" that defeats an entire army by himself, the redneck" who has an arsenal in his home to kill intruders, or the super rich person who lives in a mansion, are exaggerated, false and stereotypical images of the average American person. A bar full of cowboys is probably not the place to find "action". True cowboys are solitary and reserved men, whose temperament is far from the cartoon taken out of John Wayne films. The common American people are calm and peaceful people, who prefer to spend time chatting with relatives or friends and perhaps drink a beer while warming up the barbeque grill. Most of the boys, who enlist in the armed forces, do it because they love their country and consider it an honor to fight for it in the battlefield, not because they enjoy killing people. Common Americans are not rich either. Their garages are not full of expensive cars, because many do not even have a garage. Average Americans do not have millions in their bank accounts, because many live paycheck to paycheck. The average American has the same dreams as any person in any other country; to have a serene, comfortable and happy life with their family.

The average American person, wakes up early in the morning, packs a sandwich for lunch, has breakfast with coffee and bread and goes off to work. Lunch time, is not even a whole hour for many of them, because most get only a half hour. For them it sounds like a lie to hear that in other countries people have time to sleep during a lunch time that lasts 2 hours. Those Americans that are lucky, leave their work at 5 p.m., those that are not, must work extra hours. Surely they make more money than people in other countries, but as they make more money, their living standard increases and they must pay more for things that would cost a fraction in another country. The difference then is almost insignificant. Many struggle to pay all their bills at the end of month. And as money does not grow in trees, many have to find a second job to make ends meet. The average American does not rest and vacations to Caribbean islands are a luxury that few can afford. Work consumes a great many of them. That is, those who are lucky to have a job.

The average American is frankly misinformed and poorly educated. Cable news networks keep them uninformed and interested in junk like Michael Jackson's trial. Some news is simple propaganda and is to blame for this disinformation of the American people. Added to this is the fact that their primary and secondary public education system is very bad. Many become indebted to pay extra for private education, putting even more stress on their budget. But those that cannot pay extra, end up with a below standard education that concentrates more on passing State examinations than on giving a complete education to the children. As Bill Gates said in a speech, "high schools are obsolete"; it is no wonder then why many Americans seem to not have a clue and the new generations appear to be completely out of touch.

It is true that there are some Americans who are rude, egocentric and violent, but these are a minority within the great majority of decent people in this country. Many are sorry that the scandal of Abu Ghraib soiled the memory of generations of men and women in uniform who gave their lives in the fight for freedom. Many are aware that the decisions taken by their government are reflected negatively or positively upon them. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that it is not fair to judge a whole population by the actions of a few. We Colombians know very well how bad it feels to be judged based on the actions of a minority.

Americans treat people well if people treat them well. But if they feel threatened they can turn into ones worst enemy. This is what happened with 9/11. They had never been attacked so atrociously. They had been attacked in conventional wars, but they had never been victims of such a barbaric act that there was no discrimination between civilians and military targets. Terrorism changed the happy go-lucky Americans. They do not understand, nor will they ever, why innocents must be assassinated in the name of an ideology. Those who chose Bush did not do it because they do not care what happens to the rest of the planet. Bush managed to convince many Americans that his intentions were to liberate the Iraqi people and to eradicate terrorism of the face of the Earth; an idealistic notion to believe in, but never a selfish one. This is why I think that the “Average American isn't selfish in regards to the world”. On the contrary, they care too much. This has been an altruism that has cost them dearly and continues to go unappreciated.

I wrote this piece not from the point of view of a foreigner living in America, but from the perspective of an immigrant who has fully integrated into this society. After I posted this in Spanish, people continued to say mean things about Americans. They still believe that Americans are blind and selfish; something they feel was confirmed by the reelection of President Bush. Never mind that nearly half of us voted for Kerry. But even those I know who voted for Bush, did not do it because they want to destroy the world. Many of those who voted for him did it because they truly believed he would rid the world of tyranny and terrorism. How can someone call that selfishness? Naive maybe, but not stupid or selfish.

To all Americans, Bush voters or not, feel proud of what your country stands for and keep your heads high. Have faith in yourselves and your values… Truth will always prevail…

To non-Americans: Throw the first stone if your country is free of wrongdoing.
******************************************************

Footnotes:
¹ This was a particular mean comment by one of the people who commented in "To Hell With Europe". Apparently, he thinks all Americans are so dumb, they do not even know where Canada is.

America
People
Life

Of Activist Judges and Litmus Tests

2005-05-03T00:33:00.000-05:00

An interesting debate has been developing between Cathy Young and Prof. Bainbridge in regards to the supposed "litmus tests" for judicial nominees. Young believes Democrats are justified in doing such tests and Bainbridge believes it is a form of discrimination against people of faith. Read the articles to see each side's point of view.

A judge's personal and religious beliefs should not be the cause for him/her to be rejected. We should only be interested if the person in question applies the law according to the constitution and does not make "new rules" according to his/her beliefs, which is what an activist judge does. Now, let's get something straight here, because we have seen this "activist judge" label being used loosely by some conservatives. Some conservatives refer to a judge as an activist if he/she does not apply the law according to their personal beliefs, sometimes disregarding the whole point of applying the law accurately and impartially. During the Terri Schiavo tragedy, we saw many of these so-called conservatives, accuse conservative Judges (and Republican I might add) of being "activist", forgetting that these Judges ruled on this case according to the written laws, not based on their personal beliefs. The same people that complain about judicial activism, are advocating exactly that. They want to fill the judicial benches with Judges who "share" their beliefs, hoping that they will rule according to those beliefs and not according to the law. That ladies and gentlemen is called hypocrisy. The only test a judge should have to pass is the one of impartiality.

A judicial appointee, whether religious or not that has a history of "applying" or "inventing" the law, according to his/her personal bias, is a bad judge and should be rejected. However, if there is no indication in the person's record that his/her religious or non-religious beliefs have interfered in their accurate application of the law, then that person has all the right to be taken into consideration. Whether the Democrats have been discriminating on the sole basis of religious beliefs is up for debate. I am pretty sure that a lot of research and background investigation goes into the acceptance or rejection of any judicial nominee. I certainly hope that out of all the judges nominated, the few that the Democrats rejected were so because they did not meet the qualifications of a good judge and not because they were not "liberal enough" or because they were "too conservative" or "too religious". However, the FACT that of all the judges nominated by Bush, 205 have been confirmed and only 10 have been rejected, tells me that the threat of the "nuclear option" due to "obstructionism" is yet another conservative attempt to push Democrats into a corner. Whether they will allow themselves to be pushed, is yet to be seen.

Politics
Judiciary

Thieves

2005-05-02T20:53:00.000-05:00

I came to work this morning and found a commotion of police and security personnel roaming around my office. They started to ask me questions: At what time I left on Friday, if I locked, if I saw anybody, etc. I was confused and asked what was going on. It turns out they stole all the computers in our area. They chose our office from all the offices in the company and took all the computer towers. Of course, I had all my documents and important projects in the computer's hard drive. I lost 3 months worth of work and important engineering projects. I wonder if the thieves know how much damage they caused... Of course society leeches do not care about others, they take what they need regardless of where it is coming from...

Of course, now I have to wait God knows how long to get a new computer and more work will pile up... ughhh! Sorry, if I had neglected this blog before, now is going to be even worse...

Revolution of the Silent Majority

2005-04-26T14:55:00.000-05:00

Someone said that "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and it may be true, but not in the sense that the author of the book intended. This revolution I am talking about will not be organized with street protests, boycotts or manifestations in front of the capitol. The revolution of the silent majority that is never heard among the screams of the minority may come as a surprise, that is, if it is not already under way.

Moderates are a group of voters that do not usually support a specific political party completely. Many times they are the ones who decide an election. In fact, more than the radical evangelicals, it was the moderates who gave the election to Bush. But according to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., the moderates are revolting against Bush, turning away from his domestic policies. Dionne writes: "The party's agenda on Social Security, judges and the Terri Schiavo case is out of touch with where moderate voters stand". This is true, because most moderates are merely interested in living their lives in peace and prosperity, with as little intervention by the government as possible in their private decisions.

The attempt by conservatives, lead by Tom Delay, to coerce judges to rule in favor of their religious ideology in regards to the Terry Schiavo case, was seen as a flagrant attack on the constitution and the separation of powers. Public opinion was highly against intervention in this private family matter by the senate. Additionally, the President has not had much success with his Social Security plan either, because most Americans (the silent majority) do not equal Social Security with government handouts. They mostly see it as a "payback" from the government on their contributions and as a safety net for the elderly.

Dionne's article points to some poll results, which are very interesting:

"The pollsters asked how Americans would vote in a contest between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush if the Constitution were changed to allow them to run in 2008. Clinton beat Bush, 53 percent to 43 percent."

While we should not relish on hypotheticals, these results are very telling. Perhaps President Bush and the Republicans need to tone down their rhetoric a notch and maybe ask real people what they think. Democrats ought to do it too. It seems to that both parties are awfully out of touch. In the meantime, "vive la resistance!" (no pun intended :))

politics
moderate
revolution

My Church and Me

2005-04-20T13:12:00.000-05:00

I feel bad now. Yesterday's post was put up in a rush and I did not even give a chance to our new pope to start his pontificate before judging him. Due to some comments made by others in my Spanish blog, I saw the need to explain my position better. I read the article that Forajido recommended to me and I liked it a lot. Apparently Ratzinger is a good person and although he seems very conservative, he is not as bad as painted out to be by the media. I forgot how the media loves to create or destroy icons in the name of ratings. Pope Benedicto deserves the benefit of the doubt and that at least we give him a chance. He has big shoes to fill and great problems to confront. We should give him the chance to build his pontificate before discarding him.

What I wrote on my other blog yesterday, gives the impression that I think the Pope is guilty of AIDS in Africa. It is not so. I do not think that the dictates of the Pope are responsible for the AIDS deaths. The pope is not to blame for the heartless attitude of many governments in this planet who ignore the African continent and only look at it when millions have already died . Nevertheless, in my opinion it is important that the Pope, with his world prominence and capacity to transmit his message to all the corners of the planet, helps people understand the magnitude of the AIDS problem and how to prevent it. The prohibition of contraceptives by the Catholic Church has not helped. In the third world, not only in Africa, many men and women see the use of condoms like something abnormal and a sign of unmanliness. Added to this, is the fact that many Christians (not only Catholics), think that the use of contraceptives is sinful and that AIDS is God's punishment for the promiscuos and godless. Unfortunately, AIDS affects women and married men just the same and children are born with it. So this is no longer a discriminating disease, reserved just for the promiscuous. If the Catholic Church decided to help, by allowing at least the use of condoms and educating the people, I think that great progress in this sense would be made. The power of the catholic church is still very strong and to use it for this purpose would definitively change the course of history and many lives would be saved.

As far as unwanted pregnancies goes, the church and christianity contradict themselves. If all conceived children, should be wanted children, then in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, why is the use of condoms and other contraceptives prohibited? I think that the church should let women and families decide when and how many children are they going to have. Also, if one is against abortion, it is not possible to be against its prevention. The Pope and the Church need to reflect about this. The position of the Catholic Church is that we must be open to the gift of children. Not everybody is ready to receive that gift and not all have the means to support it. It is very important that the Catholic Church recognizes that sexuality is a fundamental part of the human being and therefore, trying to keep it repressed is to deny the nature that God created. There is nothing wrong with preaching abstinence, but restricting the private decisions of the faithful is against God's precepts in my opinion. God gave us free will. Each one of us decides what is better for ourselves and our families, based on our moral precepts. To allow the use of contraceptives is not against those moral precepts and the teachings of Jesus. Encouraging the bringing of children to the world that end up as beggars or to prohibit the methods that prevent abortions, is in my opinion, antichristian.

Celibacy is a tradition of centuries in the Church. I do not believe that celibacy is absurd. What is absurd, is the exclusion of married people from the priesthood. In this crisis in which the Church is sunk, with the pedofilia scandals and priests shortages, the possibility of including married men in the priesthood and the ordainment of women should be considered. I believe it is important for the church not to exclude pious men and women who would enrich the Church with their personal perspective of daily life. The ordainment of women is less urgent than taking off the imposition of celibacy on priests, but actively including women in the Church, would empower it greatly. After all, women, and most of all mothers, are the ones who impart their faith to their children and grandchildren. Many married men and many women are astounding examples of love, rectitude and faithfulness; I see no reason to stop them from spreading the word of God from a pulpit.

Finally, I want to clarify that my disagreement with some church precepts, does not stop me from respecting its beliefs and admiring late Pope John Paul II. For me, John Paul will continue to be a model of rectitude, spirituality, sacrifice and love for mankind. It is difficult for me to accept that there is a new Pope whose name is Benedict 16. I fear he would regress us back in time, instead of bringing us to the new millenium. It disheartens me that he may not have an open mind and that he may alienate all those that are begging for him to listen. But, my fear does not prevent me from respecting him or hoping he will move the church forward and into new beginnings.

I pray to God that our new Holy Father, Benedict 16, does not allow the Church to die. I hope God illuminates him and guides him, because we needed him to make crucial decisions for us and for the future of this old religion. We are expecting a lot from you Benedict, I do not want to be in you shoes. God Bless you.

******************************************
Note: Benedict can not be so bad, if he believes that caring for animals is in accordance with God's wishes. He has said in the past that: "degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible". Good! I always believed that animal cruelty, abusing and using them for horrible experiments, should be a sin. I just hope PETA does not get a hold of the Pope. I don't want him to issue a new law, prohibiting Catholics from eating meat and forcing us to become vegetarian... I like steak and I don't want to be a sinner.

religion
pope
catholicism

New Pope even more Conservative than JPII

2005-04-19T12:48:00.000-05:00

New Pope, Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

I was secretely hoping for a surprise, but there was none. Ratzinger was the one everyone was expecting would be chosen. He is even more conservative than John Paul the Second. It is a problem because the church can not continue to ignore that there are serious problems within it that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, with the election of Ratzinger, the hopes for a modernized catholic church have been pretty much squashed.

From a story in MSNBC, it appears that his is going to be more narrow minded and intolerant than JPII:

Many blame Ratzinger for decrees from Rome barring Catholic priests from counseling pregnant teens on their options and blocking German Catholics from sharing communion with their Lutheran brethren at a joint gathering in 2003.

Ratzinger has clashed with prominent theologians at home, most notably the liberal Hans Kueng, who helped him get a teaching post at the University of Tuebingen in the 1960s. The cardinal later publicly criticized Kueng, whose license to teach theology was revoked by the Vatican in 1979. (source:MSNBC)

So much for change. Perhaps he will reform us back to pre-Vatican II... (Sarcasm)

Relgion
Catholic

On a Collision Path with Globalization

2005-04-15T22:25:00.000-05:00

Color me skeptical or a typical lefty, but I am really weary of globalization and free trade. There are great benefits for sure, but there are great costs as well. I understand the principle of a free market and better prices for consumers, but what happens if those low prices come with the hidden cost of lost jobs?

There are many questions still unanswered about where we are headed as a nation in the global economy. What are our people going to be doing in the future? Our economy appears to be shifting from manufacturing to service industries, but even some of the service industry labor market is being outsourced. What are Americans going to be doing with their lives? Are we going to be the “investor class” of the world? I really do not know. All I know is that if the trend continues, the Chinese and the Indians will successfully shift the global balance of economic power by their sheer determination and most Americans won't know what hit them.

Economics mini-lesson

For capitalism to work correctly, it needs to be regulated, something that dismays fans of a “laissez faire” economy. Capitalism is a great economic system, but left on its own it's a destructive force, capable of making a booming city into a ghost town. If there were no rules and no one to enforce them, Walmart could create such a big monopoly that it could practically control many governments, or create its own. Microsoft could conceivably kill all competition and control the world market for all computer products from software to microchips. This is not an exaggeration, industries that big would give no room for newcomers to successfully compete and thrive. National and multinational companies would continue to merge, creating bigger and bigger economic empires and eventually, monopolies. A monopoly is the logical goal of a corporation. It means no more competition and the ability to set market rules and therefore prices. Monopolies kill the main benefit of capitalism, which is fair competition. This leaves consumers without choices, forcing them to accept whatever price is set. This is the main reason for the existence of anti-trust laws, to prevent the abuse of the market system. Thus, regulation of capitalism is essential for the protection of consumers and producers themselves. Governments are usually able to control the market in their own country, but what happens when there is no one to watch and enforce the rules in the global market?

It is happening: Capitalism is eating its young

The benefits of globalization are vast and undeniable. Today we are able to communicate with the entire world with the stroke of a key. We have access to a vast structure of communication with the internet and satellites. Globalization is supposed to help develop economic freedom and competition By enabling access to technology and luring foreign investments, workers should become more productive and the living standards of all people should improve. These benefits, however, have apparently not reached everybody, especially in the third world.

The reason for the unequal distribution of benefits from globalization is that there is no central government to ensure fair competition in the market. What we see is an international "Wild West law of trade", where anything goes. The World Trade Organization (WTO) came into being for the sole purpose of setting the rules of trade and providing a venue for negotiation between countries. In the past, however, this organization has mostly served the needs of the great powers making them the greatest beneficiaries of global trade. The third world has seen how the great powers continue to grow at their expense, while they have become increasingly unable to enter the market and compete, thereby canceling the benefits of free trade and creating more poverty in their countries. The multinational corporations(MNCs) of the great powers are monopolizing the international market. This is one of the biggest setbacks of free trade and globalization and it does not only affect the third world.

Globalization has come back to haunt its greatest promoters; the great powers. While third world countries can not compete in the goods and services market, they are successfully competing in the labor market. The higher standards of living, and wages of the great powers is pushing companies to outsource their labor in order to remain globally competetive. This is causing a "job drain" in developed countries. More and more companies are moving their operations to eager third world countries that open their markets. Many third world countries provide cheap labor, and an attractive package of weak labor laws, little or no taxation, and lax environmental regulations. Workers in the first world are left at a great disadvantage, because they are forced to accept lower wages, thereby reducing their standards of living. Some would say that this is the balancing act of the free market, but I see it otherwise.

Mend it don't end it

While I believe that globalization has had more negative effects than benefits, I also believe the problem lies more in unregulated capitalism than an interdependent world. What I mean is that globalization could bring the benefits I mentioned before, if the rules are applied fairly and equally to all. A leveled playing field in the global market would mean all countries abide by strict laws on labor, environmental regulations, and anti-trust laws. In the real world, this does not happen. The third world gets away with unfair labor laws for its citizens, while the great powers get away with unfair competition and veiled trade barriers on foreign products. For example, the European Union and the U.S. subsidize their farmers which is unfavorable to countries whose major products are agricultural. In the third world, labor and environmental standards are typically below those of the first world. It is the responsibility of the WTO to ensure that all sides play by the rules. Unfortunately, the WTO has not been sufficiently empowered to accomplish this task.

It does not have to be that way. What is needed is more cooperation between countries to ensure a level playing field. The situation will not improve overnight. It will require a lot of work, dedication and most of all compromise. Most countries find it extremely difficult to delegate some of their sovereignty to an international organization. Giving an international organizaion power over labor laws, environmental regulations, subsidies, and tariffs would face fierce opposition from powerful domestic organizations (lobbies) and the public.

There are many who wish globalization would go away. Some still dream of a self-reliant economy with no trade deals. Unfortunately, globalization is unstoppable and irreversible. No country is self-reliant and an autarky is impractical; something China admitted when they decided to open up their market. Countries need to trade in order to obtain goods they can not produce themselves. The United States, with all its economic power, imports more than it exports. It relies on foreign countries for everything from oil, cars, electrical machinery and appliances to clothing, seafood, fruits and vegetables. Despite nationalistic desires to support domestic products, it is not efficient, cheap or even possible for most countries to produce all the goods demanded by their consumers. Opposition to trade is therefore futile . Whether its under NAFTA, CAFTA, or EFTA, countries have to trade in order to keep prices low, and satisfy consumer demand.

Strap in folks, we are on a collision course

So, what can America do? Brace for impact, because if we're not ready to compete in the voracious world market, we are in for more than a bumpy ride. We can not afford to rest on our laurels. There are eager, capable and cheap workers in China and India ready to take our jobs in the blink of an eye. It may be unfair, but there is really nothing we can do about it. That is why they call it a "free market", because just as we are free to buy whatever we want, companies are free to leave this country and set up shop in China. As much as we love to paint companies who outsource American jobs as horrible greedy monsters (well just a little), competition from other nations is fierce and in order for our national companies to survive and thrive, they need to lower costs and maximize profits.

What we need to do is enter the competition on the terms that have been set forth. Americans need to wake up from their slumber, because if we don't prepare, the impact will be devastating. Indians, Chinese, Brazilians, Chileans, Europeans, have all been preparing for a long time. We have not. In recent years we have seen companies close plants in this country, and move them to other countries. We have not known what to make of it. Now, they are outsourcing engineering work, computer design, communication technology services and even medical diagnostic. Something is terribly wrong and it needs to be addressed.

The truth is that the people designing our computer software in India, engineering our cars in Japan and inventing technology in China are not only cheap labor. They are productive, skilled and highly educated workers. The United States, in contrast, is losing ground in technological innovation, science and education. We do not have enough engineers and scientists. What we have is an epidemic of laziness, which is the product of an underfunded, ineffective and obsolete education system that encourages mediocrity. We can not afford to leave poorly educated kids in charge of the future of this country. What we need is for the government to REALLY invest in education, because the only way our workers will be able to compete in the global market is if they are as skilled, productive and eager as those in the third world.

Many around the world must be puzzled when Americans complain about the negative effects of globalization, after having been one of its main proponents, and beneficiaries. We must stop the complaining and get to work. We need to better educate our children, help empower the WTO, and prepare ourselves for the challenges of a new world. We must hurry, because time is running out.

Economics
Globalization

My take on the Misanthropic Bitch

2005-04-14T10:35:00.001-05:00

I have to thank Sebastián for introducing me to the world of this crazy person. I am still not sure if it is a man pretending to be a woman or a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman... But I really do not care. I like the stuff "the Bitch" writes, even though he/she proclaims to hate anything from "camel jockeys" to "dittoheads" and "spics", which pretty much includes me. I've ridden camels, been a dittohead and I am must certainly a proud "spic". Nevertheless, "the Bitch" knows how to write and keep you interested, maybe just out of curiosity, masoquism or pure shock, but it keeps you hooked.

godless sodomites

I have spent part of my morning reading some his/her stuff, but the one that struck me the most was the piece about the "homosexual agenda"*. I was rolling on the floor with that story, mostly because it is absolutely true. I mean, these people actually believe that there is a huge conspiracy to bring down life as we know it and are trying to force us to accept, God forbid! other human beings as equals; the nerve!

I guess I am a Godless sodomite too, because I don't believe sponge bob and Barney are part of "an effort to indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality". I believe in God, but that does not mean I accept bigotry and discrimination against a group of people because of their sexual orientation. Please spare me the passages in the bible that supposedly say "homosexuality is a sin", because I interpret God and the bible in a very different way. In fact, the bible can be intrepreted in so many different ways it can probably justify the killing of people who eat pork on a Saturday.

*Link removed - seems that the MB has become a pornographic site

intolerance

The "Freedom Fighters"

2005-04-12T09:15:00.000-05:00

Some people love to think of the insurgents and terrorists fighting in Iraq as "freedom fighters". They justify the beheadings of innocent civilians, the killings of iraqui policemen and officials by saying that they surely deserve it for "helping" the invaders. I guess brutal and deliberate murder of civilians is ok, because the end justifies the means.

I was never in favor of Bush going into Iraq the way he did. I would have preferred for him to be honest from the beginning about his intentions in regards to the Middle East and democracy. But what is done is done, and we are already engaged in a crucial fight for peace in the Middle East. If Bush fails, not only the United States will fail. It will be the entire world. For those who are wishing for a resounding defeat of the United States I tell them that they better pray their inner wishes do not come true. As much as some would like to pretend that terrorism is a Bush invention, it is very real. There are people who are willing to kill themselves and kill others with them.

Unfortunately, Bush has the disadvantage of being Bush. If it was Bill Clinton or even Reagan who said "we need to fight for democracy", not only all Americans would be in favor, but the world would be behind them as well. For that I blame Bush squarely. He really has no diplomatic skills. However, whether it is Bush or not, people need to get down from cloud nine and realize that terrorism and religious extremism are very real and affect all of us. Some would like to pretend it is all a lie and cover their eyes to the truth, but sometimes it is good to remind them that these monsters are not Bush's administration invention:

Iraqui families confront insurgents (video link)

terrorism

No Words Left

2005-04-08T07:45:00.000-05:00

Add to the List of Despicable Politicians: Mel Martinez

2005-04-07T08:06:00.000-05:00

Somehow I never liked this guy and it isn't because he is a Republican. There is something about his demeanor that inspires distrust. It looks like my intuition has been vindicated. He was the one responsible for sending "The memo" to all Republicans telling them of the "great opportunity" the Terri Schiavo tragedy represented to them. In other words, Mr. Martinez is largely responsible for politicizing the issue to make it a campaign poster for Republicans. He admitted to this much yesterday and of course a "fall guy" already resigned taking the blame for Mr. Martinez.

Let's see how many of the bloggers and right-wing apologists correct themselves after blaming Democrats for "forging" the memo. Rush Limbaugh's website (I die before I link to him), The American Spectator and countless of conservative blogs that tried to cover up the mistakes of their party, should at least come out and admit they were wrong. Don't worry I won't hold my breath.

News and politics

My Pope Has Died

2005-04-04T13:35:00.000-05:00

In 1986 I was a member of the “infancia misionera” (missionary children) in Medellín, Colombia. We were jittery, preparing for the visit of Pope John Paul II. The nuns were preparing us with rigorousness; they wanted us to sing the Ave Maria for the Pope in the Metropolitan Basilica. We were to be at the Cathedral early, in order to be seated and organized properly. The nuns were very specific about us wearing our school uniform and a scarf with the Vatican colors (yellow and white) draped around our shoulders. As my mom and I were driving through hellish traffic, I remembered that I had left my scarf at home. I knew I was in trouble and that the nun would send me home without seeing the pope. I started to cry and my mom was as upset as I was. When we found the group, the nun saw my face full of tears and said “let me guess, you forgot your scarf?” and I assented. She smiled and said: “I knew some of you would forget the scarf, so I brought some spare ones. I would not let a simple scarf prevent my girls from singing for our holy father”. We went inside the cathedral and waited impatiently for the pope to arrive. When he entered the church the entire cathedral trembled. Its old walls appeared to scream with the same joy as the thousands of us gathered there. We were captivated by him as he spoke of love, forgiveness and faith. We were humbled when he referred to the “missionary children” as the hope for a better world. We sang the Ave Maria and I still remember the solemnity of that moment.

It has been 19 years since and my faith has gone faint. I have abandoned my church in search of a different truth. I lost and found myself following a different path than the one set for me since childhood. I had forgotten why prayer helps to heal. I had forgotten the teachings of my beloved grandmother; to have faith and to never forget to thank God for every minute of happiness. I no longer believed as I was taught to believe. When my pope died, the first thing I remembered was that day at the Cathedral, the enormous joy and love that we felt through his words. I remembered how good it was to be part of something bigger, to help without expecting anything in return, to pray for forgiveness and receive the miracle of love.

Today I weep not because we lost the man, but because we lost the Shepard. The light of our beacon of hope has extinguished. John Paul in my heart is as irreplaceable as it is my renewed faith. I was born a catholic, raised a catholic and will continue to be a catholic until I die. I will carry on with the legacy of my ancestors and will spread the light he put in my heart. I will never forget the examples he set for us. He would stand up to injustice and oppression, spreading the message of peace and freedom, he would forgive those who did him wrong and ask for forgiveness to those he owed it to. He was a missionary more than a pontiff, traveling the vastness of this world to bring hope to the distressed people of foreign lands. No one obligated him to travel this much, for it was his choice. Up until the last days of his life, he would make an effort to greet the crowds and talk to them.One could feel the love emanating from his gentle smile and beautiful eyes.

He did not need to speak that last time from his window in Saint Peter’s square; his simple presence spoke more than a thousand words. He lived a full life dedicated to spirituality and service to mankind; not a moment wasted, not a moment will be forgotten. Peace be with you holy father.

Religion