the mind of Austin Hostetter

REASONING

2012-09-06T20:38:00.003-04:00

At the beginning of this week, I posted a vlog which outlined my reasoning for not supporting Mitt Romney. In it, I expressed three main topics (the economy, the Affordable Care Act, and the budget deficit) that prevented me from voting Republican. I also stated that, although I had a set ideology, it did not affect my voting in this election. I claimed that I was a pragmatic voter, and was voting along pragmatic lines as to which candidate I felt more comfortable with to handle the said issues above. Here is the vlog, which I removed shortly after posting.

I wish I could say that everything I said in it was true (it is true that I am definitely not voting on Romney because of those three issues), but the truth is, it's not.

The truth is that my ideology and personal convictions are almost the sole drivers of my decision this November. The truth is that I feel morally obligated to stand for the things I stand for and object to the things I object to. The truth is that I cannot vote for a candidate, a party, or a platform that continues the inequality of wealth in this country, encourages greed to corrupt Wall Street, doesn't believe health care is a fundamental human right, preaches the deportation of immigrant children, gives even larger tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while cutting benefits for seniors, undervalues the importance of education and its role in our economy, desires to continue deadly militarism and combat operations in Afghanistan, supports the further destruction of our planet and air, and resents the dignity of gays and lesbians so much, they support a federal ban on marriage equality.

The truth is, I am voting the way I am voting almost solely out of personal conviction and moral obligation. Now, I do fully support a pragmatic approach to governing and compromise during legislative negotiations; however, I expect that from my elected officials - I do not vote on it.

With our country at a pivotal point in its history, we must choose which road we will travel. I know what kind of world I would like to see, and I try to work in everything I do to see its fruition. My vote can be no exception.

So, I apologize for the slightly inaccurate vlog. I felt like it didn't send the message I wanted to send, therefore, I needed to write this response to myself.

With both Obama and Biden speaking tonight, let's consider their vision for the next four years, and compare it to that of Romney and Ryan. Will we continue to move towards the visions that we have, or will we allow the fear of uncertainty to drive our vote.

I've made my decision.

BLOATED

2012-08-27T13:00:00.000-04:00

Our national debt and continuous budget deficit have both been main focuses of political discussion over the past five years. With federal spending continuing to increase with no real end in sight, fiscal hawks (including myself) are beginning to grow increasingly concerned about the future of our country's federal budget.

The main debate over the budget deficit has mainly concerned tax hikes as opposed to spending cuts; that will not be the topic of this blog. Rather, I will focus on only one aspect of this debate: spending cuts.

Conservatives spend most of their soapbox time blasting this administration for its reckless spending while calling for cuts to discretionary spending like the EPA, education, the arts, etc. But it doesn't take a genius to see that anyone claiming that discretionary cuts will solve our budget crisis is either incredibly unintelligent or just plain lying. From this pie chart, which shows the breakup of our federal budget in 2010, you can see that discretionary spending isn't bloating our budget.

The main contributions to our excessive spending are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense spending.

Now to many politicians credit, the unsustainability of Medicare and Social Security has been addressed. However, our bloated defense budget and unrealistic military endeavors are topics that very few choose to focus on. Our defense spending and overall mentality on security has taken over our fiscal priorities and has put us in a poor position both internationally and domestically. How did we become this "so called superpower" that believes its main objective is to police the world?

Before WWII, our country kept both its defense spending and military operations to a minimum. In this era, isolationism was a widely held belief; the idea that America had no right meddling in other countries' affairs and that if we kept to ourselves, we would be left alone.

However, WWII forced us to enter a European crisis in hopes of preserving the ideals we stood for. To do this, we had to up our game in defense spending and military troops in order to provide the aid necessary for our European allies, just like we did for WWI. However, unlike after WWI - where we scaled down our spending and involvement once the war was won, we continued our surge of military intervention.

This was mainly the result of the Cold War, which began between us and the Soviet Union directly after WWII. During this time (through the 60s, 70s, and early 80s), our main national focus was beating the Soviets in a make believe arms race and preventing the spread of Communism in countries we had no business being in. These national efforts pushed us further and further into a militaristic society, where we kept a large military at all times, and were never considered "at peace".

This mentality escalated even further with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan's fierce desire to spread American ideals to all countries he felt needed it created our modern day "defense hierarchy". This broadened after the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, which sent this country into a feared-driven, revenge-seeking decade that ended in two failed wars.

Within all of this, our relationship with other countries weakened, our definition of war changed, and our budget continued to bloat itself with unimaginable amounts of defense money.

And now, in 2012, we are stuck with a budget deficit. Yet with all of the budget-focused rhetoric harping on money spent for senior citizens healthcare and art classes in school, I am wondering why defense isn't on the table. With clear evidence that America once existed without this national desire to police the world and protect ourselves from every possible line of attack, why is it that we feel we must continue the path we are on?

The truth is we can't. Our budget cannot sustain itself unless taxes are raised, reforms are made to Medicare and Social Security, and cuts are made to defense spending. There is no reason to keep the militaristic mindset that we have; if we can change our foreign policy beliefs on what our role in the world is - we can help save our fiscal future.

Let's hope this discussion comes up in the coming presidential election. But let's face it, a candidate for president can't talk about cutting money for the military without sounding "unpatriotic". So, we are probably screwed.

BRIDGING THE GAP

2012-08-23T13:37:00.001-04:00

If you didn't know already, America is slowly crawling its way out of an economic recession. If this is the first time you've heard this knowledge, please lock yourself in a storage crate and never come out again.

We've seen countless efforts by both sides of the aisle to speed up the recovery process, yet nothing seems to really pack a punch. Although I believe fiscal policy can generally help during economic hardships (and I believe the president's efforts have lessened some of the damage from the current mess), the part of the economic cycle we are now in cannot be overcome by government involvement, tax cuts, or deregulation. In short, we're just going to have to accept the status quo for a while.

Why is this?

Right now, we are in the midst of a shift in our economic identity. We've seen a shift like this before; in the past century, our country moved from an agricultural economy into an industrial era. During this historic shift, the large portion of our population could not transition their farming skills to manufacturing skills at a pace that met labor demand.

Now, we are evolving out of that industrial era and moving into an information/technology age. Now, instead of demanding the basic industrial products America use to pride itself on, the market is asking for new technologies and innovation. With this shift in demand, manufacturing is laying workers off, creating a wave of unemployment. And although these newly-unemployed workers are skilled in an industrial sense, they do not have the necessary knowledge or training to participate in a new information-based job. Therefore, they stay unemployed.

Evidence of this easy to find. We hear about the lack of jobs in the economy and how this lack is a large factor to our economic woes. Yet, even with this lack of employment, there are an enormous amount of technologically-based jobs available in places like Silicon Valley that go unfilled by American workers. Why? There aren't enough members of the American workforce educated in the skills needed for the jobs. So, to meet this labor demand, companies import workers from other countries, such as China, Japan, and India.

This gap that is forming in our labor market will keep the economy sluggishly growing for a great while. While those in the generation above us scramble to find manufacturing jobs that are no longer available, unemployment will remain high and companies will continue to suffer.

Although this results largely from a natural shift in our economic cycle, there are still ways the federal government can speed up the process.

We need a newly educated workforce; therefore, our population needs access to strong, affordable education. If the government wants to help us grow our way out of this recession, they can start by reforming and investing in our public education system. Giving everyone the capability to educate themselves for this new era of jobs is the easiest and most effective way to create economic growth.

On top of this, the government can set new standards, subsidies, and investments in innovation and new technologies - such as clean energy projects. New businesses focused on utilizing this new set of information-based skills will have an easier time starting up if the government is on their side.

Recovery is going to be a slow, drawn out process. Although the recession we are in has many factors associated with its origin (recklessness on Wall Street, an unregulated housing market, etc.), its recovery is largely impacted by the place we are at in our economic cycle. So, politically, let's stop blaming Bush or Obama for the slow recovery, and instead focus on how we are going to grow ourselves into a new economic boom - through and emphasis on education and an investment in innovation.

VLOGOSPHERE: GOVERNMENT STIMULUS

2012-08-15T15:44:00.001-04:00

A quick history lesson concerning government spending during WWII and its relation to the politics of this year's election.

BULL

2012-08-08T19:11:00.000-04:00

Conservatives have spent the past year trying to peg President Obama as an extreme liberal. Claiming that he is creating a "socialistic, welfare society" that is totally run by the federal government has been the Republican message since 2008.

In this election season, conservative interest groups as well as the Romney campaign have brought this argument center stage. By condemning some of Obama's accomplishments, such as the Affordable Care Act or the 2009 stimulus package, Romney fans are attempting to convince voters that Obama's plan is to create a federal government-run state, which rewards people for not working and takes from those that are successful.

This week, the Romney campaign has continued this message, releasing a new ad that allegedly claims Obama's new welfare reforms pull back on the Clinton-era welfare to work reforms and gives the "lazy" free money.

Like most campaign ads that have been released for this election, this video is complete BS. In fact, the independent fact checker, Politifact, gives it a "pants on fire" rating.

The reforms the ad refers to have nothing to do with ending welfare to work. In fact, the reforms focus on ideas that conservatives generally praise. Contrary to the ad, Obama's changes actually keep in place the welfare to work provisions; however, they do change how funding is handled. Rather than having the federal government control the program, Obama has given control to the states - who, according to the White House, have a better understanding of how to disperse welfare to rather than the federal government.

Better yet, these new provisions were recommended by many Republican governors in 2006 letter, including the governor of Massachusetts at that time, Mitt Romney.

Just like the arguments against the Affordable Care Act, Republicans are suddenly against something simply because Obama endorsed it. Although Obama's changes to welfare promote states rights and limits the powers of the federal government (which is always praised by conservatives), Romney is choosing to lie about it, treating it like a new, socialistic endeavor by an ultra-liberal President.

The truth is, Obama is continuing is moderate streak as President, giving states more control on who can receive welfare (keeping the provisions of welfare to work), in hopes of reducing welfare fraud and in turn lowering the cost of welfare in this country.

I call bull on this ad.

WHY THE SWITCH?

2012-07-11T13:06:00.000-04:00

And now for some brief, personal commentary ...

I will admit that a shift has taken place in my political views over the past four years. This topic often comes up when I am discussing current events with a high school friend or acquaintance from my home town. They often wonder how the 2008 moderate-conservative McCain supporter could have morphed into a (what they call liberal) Obama fan in 2012. So how did this evolution come to pass?

I feel I might as well briefly explain the journey I've gone through since my departure from the great town of Nappanee to 1. defend why I believe what I believe now and 2. put to rest the notion that I am only a product of my environment (Ball State has corrupted me into becoming a hippy-liberal).

So here's some autobiographical blurbs answering these questions ...

On social issues
Contrary to popular belief, there really hasn't been a shift here. Although I may have been a bit more silent on some of my views due to the environment in which I was currently in (a ultra-conservative, evangelical town), I still held what most of my close friends labeled "liberal" social views. Out of conviction, I have always been a proponent of gay marriage. Even though I was a bit tougher on "border control" in the past, I have always thought amnesty was the correct thing to do concerning illegal immigrants. I've always been skeptical of what rights the 2nd Amendment actually gives citizens, and I have never supported the Death Penalty (and believed it should be nationally banned).

On economic views
This shift has mainly come from being educated in economic theories and policies. I largely held the views I do now concerning government spending and its relation to economic growth, I just never knew that was a view most Republicans didn't hold. However, I did shift my views on taxes and spending cuts, which was brought on by my realization of the economic inequality in this country. Around my senior year of high school, I was able to spend some time in both the projects of Washington D.C. as well as impoverished areas of the Dominican Republic. These experiences gave me a personal connection to poverty, which ultimately changed my worldview on wealth, government and its relation to poverty, and what it means to help those in need.

On foreign matters
This is most definitely the section that has shifted the most. Before my freshmen year of college, I was an unabashed supporter of both the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My main reasoning for supporting McCain over Obama stemmed from these views (and my large acceptance of Obama also came from the change in these views). During my freshmen year of college, I began to seek out what my faith and spiritual beliefs really had to say about violence and war in general. After studying some different sources and readings, I realized that, if I really believed what I believed, then I could not morally accept what America was doing abroad. Because of this, I quickly took a major shift into becoming what many can call a pacifist.

And the rest, as they say, is history. Now that I've explained myself, I am hoping I can lay my "flip-flopping" to rest.

I don't consider switching views to be a bad thing or something that should be apologized for. In fact, I believe the opposite. It is natural for people to change how they feel on certain matters as they grow as human beings. If we never change or evolve our personal views, we aren't learning anything. And if we never learn anything, we will never be able to grow.

VLOGOSPHERE: SCOTUS RULES

2012-06-29T12:55:00.001-04:00

The Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, surprising politicians and talking heads alike. Beau Browning and I give our reactions to the announcement.

THE MANDATE

2012-06-25T12:51:00.001-04:00

This is a huge week for the Supreme Court and the country alike. After already ruling on SB 1070 (Arizona's controversial immigration policy) and campaign finance reform, SCOTUS is set to announce their ruling on President Obama's landmark legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as Obamacare), on Thursday.

Before I begin, I feel it is necessary to highlight the Affordable Care Act's main features (it seems as though people still aren't getting it) as well as the question at hand concerning the Supreme Court.

In 2010, after a year of debating, arguing, and back and forth, the Democratically-controlled Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to expand health insurance coverage to many Americans by making it more affordable. Despite what many people claim, the bill does not create "socialized medicine" or government-controlled health care - it actually doesn't really do anything major to health care in general. Instead, the bill focuses on how insurance is issued.

The bulk of the bill does this:

Prevents patients from being dropped from their insurance because of pre-existing conditions; penalizes insurance companies that try to drop patients because of this.
Sets up healthcare exchanges for patients without employer-provided coverage to find affordable, individual insurance.
Expands Medicaid to cover more lower-income patients who do not have employer-based insurance and cannot afford their own plan.
Provides subsidies to middle-income families to help pay for health insurance.
Allows young adults to stay on their parents health insurance plans until they are 26 years old.
Creates a federal health mandate, requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance; those who choose not to have insurance will face monetary penalization.

The main hullabaloo over the bill concerns the final bullet point above - which is also the main topic (though not the only one) in the Supreme Court case against the bill. Many believe Congress's attempt to force Americans to purchase health insurance violates their constitutional role, while others believe this falls within Congress's power to regulate.

The part of the constitution in question is the interstate commerce clause, which, over the years, has given Congress the ability to regulate "commerce across state lines". Congress has used this interpretation as their justification for passing regulations on businesses and products. Supporters of a mandate claim Congress has the power through regulation to pass such a measure, while the opponents claim that forcing citizens to purchase anything abuses that power.

The Supreme Court will decide which side is right on Thursday.

SCOTUS really has three options: either uphold the bill, strike down the individual mandate while upholding the other components of the bill, or strike down the bill entirely.

I hate to break it to those in favor of this bill, but I believe it is unlikely the individual mandate will withstand the court's beating. Although I feel the rest of the bill may be upheld, I do not think the bill will hold its strength without the mandate in it - and will therefore need to be repealed altogether.

Although I do think this bill has pros (along with some cons), I did not think it was the best solution at the time it was passed. In my opinion, the whole system needed to be changed to deal with the costs of care, not just how insurance is accessed. However, moving forward, I think the bill will do great things for expanding coverage in this country and I do believe a mandate is necessary for expanding that coverage while attempting to control costs. With that being said, do I think it's constitutional? I'm not sure.

If the bill is struck down, it will have major implications for the election in November. Because this is Obama's signature achievement from his first term, many feel that its repeal would doom his chances of seeing reelection. However, I'm not so sure.

Repealing "Obamacare" is a signature part of Romney's platform and, due to the unpopularity of the bill, many potential (ideologically based) Obama supporters are backing Romney solely because they want to see the bill repealed. If the Supreme Court shoots it down, Romney loses a main platform point, and Obama no longer has opposition due to his commitment to see the bill enacted. In short, a ruling against the Obama Administration could in fact help Obama. We'll see.

If it is repealed, it would be in the Democrats' best interest to formulate a plan to move forward on this issue as fast as they possibly can. Showing that Republicans have no alternative to offer to the Affordable Care Act other than repealing it can potentially help Democrats in the fall (keeping in mind that a very small, moderate plan may be their best option).

In short, I don't suspect that the mandate will make it through the Supreme Court; however, I don't necessarily believe it will hurt Obama all that much. The important thing to remember is that we aren't just talking about politics with this issue: we are discussing how 30 million Americans will pay for health insurance - a necessity that every human being needs. Controlling costs and expanding coverage is fundamental to our overall economic health - and this is an issue that will not go away with this ruling. It will undoubtedly face this country and our generation for the next decade.

VLOGOSPHERE: OBAMA GETS HIS MOJO BACK

2012-06-19T20:10:00.000-04:00

RECALLS, SHECALLS, AND TEACALLS

2012-06-06T14:17:00.000-04:00

If you are a news-junkie, you would have thought that the second American Revolution was taking place last night. However, the political spin and hype generated by the talking heads on both sides of the spectrum was largely inflated.

Last night, of course, was the recall election in Wisconsin - mainly for Republican Governor Scott Walker. Because of Walker's brutal cuts to pension funds and entitlements for public workers as well as his determination to reduce collective bargaining rights in the state, the unions protested and demanded that, just two years after Walker's election, a recall take place (basically a repeat of the 2010 election). And with enough signatures, they managed to do just that.

However, after months of excessive ad spending, corruption (on both sides), and ideological jargon, Walker won for the second time.

Now I have stated my feeling on Walker's policies before. I've admitted that I understand the reasoning behind the significant budget cuts made to public pension funds and that I agree it may very well be necessary. However, I have also admitted that limiting collective bargaining rights has nothing to do with balancing budgets, and that Walker is doing this only for ideological reasons; therefore, I do not care for him.

But despite my personal dislike of Scott Walker (as well as the fury of many Wisconsin citizens), I do think this recall was frankly a waste of time. Walker won the election in 2010 and, more importantly, he won while campaigning on the very things he is now being recalled for. If the majority of the state voted for him and his views, why is it that now they are pissed off at the very thing they voted for?

I understand the importance of having recall elections available in times of legal matters; however, I think this was an abuse of that right. Perhaps the people of this country should inform themselves on the issues and the candidates before they vote, that way they don't have to bitch and moan about the things the very people they elected are doing.

The same goes for those that voted for Obama only to complain about stimulus spending and healthcare reform.

Just a thought.

TOUGH LOVE

2012-06-01T14:27:00.000-04:00

I don't think I am catching anyone off guard with this statement: I am supporting Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

However, my support is not bent on my absolute love for Obama. I also suspect that the majority of my peers/readers of this blog recognize the criticism I have provided over Obama's first term in office; specifically concerning his lack of overall legislative leadership, his handling of the economy and the national debt, and the result of the ludicrous healthcare debate.

But despite my quarrels with first-term Obama, I still believe his ideological standards are superior to Romney's heading into the future. However, as the weeks of campaigning progress, I am becoming more and more concerned with the route Team Obama is taking heading into November. The issues they are concentrating on as well as their overall tone, to me, seems to be off-base and frankly ineffective.

To win in November, Obama must accomplish three things (besides creating a solution to the electoral equations any presidential candidate faces): ignite the liberal base and ensure their participation in the election, spark the interest and initiative of the youth vote in similar terms to 2008, and convince independent voters that he can handle the economic future of this country better than Romney.

So far, he is only doing one of these - igniting the liberal base. Spending vast amounts of time trashing Romney's record at Bane Capital and as Massachusetts governor gives uber-liberals a rush; however, it does not persuade the independent base of this country in his favor. What independents and disgruntled Democrats are looking for is a plan for our country's future. And right now, Obama doesn't have one.

Although it is the wrong plan, Romney does have core elements he is running on. If Obama wants to pull ahead, he needs to do the same.

So, Mr. President, it's time for some tough love. If you want to continue leading this country, you must convince us that you have goals and missions for our economy, society, and foreign policy throughout the next four years. These plans cannot just be the Buffet Rule or bashing Romney; rather, a strategic outlook towards boosting economic growth, reforming our government, lowering our debt, and setting new standards and policies that will drive our societal and foreign matters for the next decade.

For the next few months, Obama should show his commitment to lowering our national debt by embracing the Simpson-Bowls proposal, create a bold strategy for rebuilding our economy by demanding investments in infrastructure and education, working towards tax reform, and establishing a long-term energy plan, and setting new foreign policies that reshape our role in international affairs by reducing our military presence abroad.

A simple, yet bold movement forward needs to be the Obama campaigns strategy - not blatant attacks on the Romney camp. Though it's true the hope and change rhetoric of '08 will not work, simple policy measures (similar to those he presented in 2008) will place Obama far above the GOP.

So, Mr. President, are you up to the challenge? Are certainly hope so, because President Romney is just something I don't think I could ever fit into my vocabulary.

EDUCATION RANT VLOG

2012-05-24T16:29:00.001-04:00

Sometimes you just need to rant. Austin discusses student loan interest rates and the importance of education to society as a whole, and guest host Nathan Stewart gives a rant about the current state of education majors and the education field as a whole.

THE SIGNIFICANCE

2012-05-09T16:45:00.000-04:00

As anyone who is tuned in knows by now, President Barack Obama announced earlier today he has

"concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married ... "

This has already sparked a firestorm among both supporters of marriage equality as well as endorsers of efforts like DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

Leaving personal beliefs and preferences aside, I would like to briefly comment on Obama's remarks, the political ramification and significance of thus remarks, and what it means for the future of America's policies.

Here are my random, sporadic thoughts.

Everyone believed Obama supported marriage equality. Although candidate Obama did not endorse the measure in 2008, his administration's commitment to further gay rights and to the gay community has been unprecedented. His recent "coming out" doesn't really politically help him (it will rally some of the liberal base and further the support of the gay community - which he already had; however, that's about it). In fact, in many ways, it can potentially hurt him.

Conservative Democrats as well as moderate Independents who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage may drift away from the President (if it is in fact an important issue for them). Many believe the announcement could very well cost Obama North Carolina, Virginia, and possibly Ohio in the fall. It could rally the youth vote around him (the demographic polling on this issue shows major support for it among young voters), a base the President will have to carry in order to win.

It is a historic announcement for the fact that it is the first time a sitting president has endorsed marriage equality; however, as far as policy goes, it really isn't that significant. Obama did not state he would propose a constitutional amendment allowing same-sex marriage; in fact, he claimed the decision should be left up to the states. The exact same stance he had before today. All he was really clarifying was his personal views.

However, the shear fact that Obama made this announcement can pose significant. A national leader supporting this kind of measure can have an enormous effect on the progress of the movement - even if that leader does nothing more than raise support for it.

I personally think - regardless of where you stand - you have to give the President credit for speaking from conviction. Whether or not you agree with a person, you have to respect them for standing for what they believe in - even if it is politically damning or unpopular. The fact that Obama showed his support for marriage equality even though it could cost him some key electoral votes shows he is a man of integrity and leads from conviction - which are characteristics I think all Americans want their President to have.

So, is it significant? For the progress of gay rights - yes. For federal policy - no. Will Obama gain or lose support for is stance - difficult to say. Was it the right move - absolutely.

Glad we've had this talk. Now we can return to the issues that will most likely face both candidates in the general election - like jobs, the economy, wealth disparity, and the national debt.

:)

THE VLOGOSPHERE :: ELECTION TALK

2012-04-18T20:46:00.002-04:00

UNCONDITIONAL

2012-04-16T13:08:00.001-04:00

If the economic recession of late has brought light to one thing, it has been the ever growing wealth disparity that exists in America. As more and more slip into the decay of unemployment and poverty while the richest one percent of the world continues to benefit from the capitalistic endeavors they pursue - and while economic growth continues to dwindle even when the wealthy and fortunate make record profits, the reality that a fundamental flaw exists within our society becomes evident.

This flaw is not the product of failed public policies, entitlement programs, or tax codes (rather these political mechanisms are products of the flaw), but the result of a societal mindset that has evolved over the past century. As a debate concerning the growing lower class begins to unfold, discussions involving welfare, taxes, healthcare coverage, and upper/middle classes' roll in helping poor are constant.

And, as we've seen time and again, those hoping to avoid a "welfare state" approach these discussions with the same conditions: those in need of assistance need only to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, work hard, and reject any assistance given. To them (who generally hold themselves to the right of the political spectrum), giving to the poor is not taboo; however, it must be met with certain conditions. Many have no gripe with giving the church fundraisers, soup kitchens, or homeless shelters - which is noble in itself. Yet when it comes to providing for the welfare of those simply less fortunate (the lower class), these "fiscally conservative" members of project America close their pocket books without a second thought.

The O'Reilys, Hannitys, and Romneys of the world believe that giving should be met with conditions - and if they believe you are capable of working or providing for yourself, they refuse to concern themselves with the payment of your living.

And here lies the flaw within American society. For far too long, America has touted the idea of the individual, claiming that we need only care for the interests of ourselves and that, above all, our own personal well-being is to be looked after. Rather than holding to the foundations of community that is the basis of a pluralistic society, Americans choose to make excuses for not sharing what they believe to be theirs.

The problem with the mindset of deciding who is and who isn't worthy of receiving our generosity boils down to the idea of empathy. Without empathy, one can never truly recognize the needs of others. Politicians and big-wigs can debate marriage equality, poverty and welfare, and healthcare coverage all they want; however, until they are forced to live without or face persecution, they will never understand who is worthy of what.

Perhaps that's what this economic doomsday is showing us. As more and more are forced to live with less, society's empathy towards one another is progressing - and the prospects of building an American community is becoming possible, allowing discussions of fairer taxes, expansion of healthcare coverage, and improvement to entitlements to begin.

But this switch to a society based on community will never truly unfold and these political changes will never come to fruition until those within the middle/upper class recognize the importance of empathy.

If the conditions and barriers to giving can change, there will no longer be a lower class in the country. If those with wealth can choose to love unconditionally, removing the qualifications associated with their giving, welfare will no longer be necessary, those needing a leg up will have it, and our economy will thrive - not through harsh business practices or forced government takeovers, but because of an idea of community - and societal belief that we're all in this together.

An unconditional way of living with others. That is the key to solving the American crisis that exists today.

A MESSAGE TO ALL THE SANTORUMS OUT THERE

2012-03-22T14:54:00.000-04:00

The recent revival of the culture war has pushed the conservative wing of the Republican Party even further to the right and has introduced a new effort to combine personal, religious beliefs with national, political policy.

Although the debates on contraception, gay marriage, and abortion are at the forefront of this new battle for America's soul, they aren't the main catalyst for this post; rather, the new syncretism of spiritual ideology and political message - or better put, the talking heads and politicians that drive this new orthodoxy of political buffoonery.

The current leader of this message is Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. Santorum is largely popular because of is rightwing social views and, more importantly, his mixing of personal convictions and public policy messages. Santorum's catholic faith is his drive to lead a public life. He has been intermixed in essentially every social debate of the past year, and has openly expressed his desire to mix faith into our country's governing system.

His faith, not faith in general.

Santorum's methods are nothing new. Anytime a politician driven by right wing, christian-social beliefs gallops into the limelight, they attempt to convey the skewed message that America is built on faith - and therefore our laws and policies should reflect that. Although it is true that many of the white, middle-aged, straight men who built the foundations of America were religious in a certain sense, it is extremely problematic for Santorum to assume that their biblical interpretations were the same as his.

In fact, it's also extremely arrogant, and doesn't fit with the message of love, tolerance, and forgiveness - which is the way I interpret Christ's message.

And therein lies the problem with Santorum's push for faith and government. Right-wing social activists love to push their biblical interpretations into public policy; however, they fail to realize that they are taking a big risk in assuming that their interpretations are completely accurate. And if we are going to make national laws abiding by those interpretations, I would think we would want to ensure their authenticity.

The problem is we can't.

I have personal beliefs that would make many on the right convulse and foam at the mouth, and I recognize that those beliefs may very well be inaccurate - in fact, they probably are. Because of this, although personal conviction will drive my reasoning for supporting many political efforts, my beliefs will never be the basis for national policy.

The Santorums of the world need to represent this mindset as well - not for me or for the betterment of the country, but for the sake of their own spiritual endeavors. Keeping a humble perspective on your religious ideology is the only way faith can work. Believing in it so strongly that you forcably push it down others' throats puts you in the position for evangelizing falsities - which I'm sure none of the Santorums of the world want to do.

So, to those that wish for the rest of the world to believe as they do, please remember this simple fact:

You may be wrong.

Do you wish to guide the largest country in the world if you are in fact wrong? I would think not.

But then again, I could be wrong.

THIS WAR MUST END

2012-03-07T15:21:00.000-05:00

By now I'm sure you've probably seen this video (it has been all over Facebook); however, if you haven't, please take 30 minutes to view it.

I know there is some discrepancy in the nonprofit world over the legitimacy of Invisible Children and their handling of funds; however, I do feel that this video sheds some light on an issue that has yet to be resolved, points out some major changes that need to come to America's foreign policy, and gives an excellent portrayal of the significance social media is playing on an international scale.

So, if this video hits you like it's impacting the rest of the digital world, I would encourage you to take part in its movement. I certainly will be.

I understand the politics behind many nonprofits and the falsities behind the funding of said nonprofits - which is why I always focus on supporting a movement or cause and not an organization. However, I also feel that as long a few cents of my contribution goes to fighting what I believe in, it's completely worth it. I'd rather a small portion of my money go to helping people make a difference in the world than all of it going towards another app for my iPhone. But that's just me.

This cause, to me, rings particularly true because, although it does involve the U.S.'s military to an extent, it does not promote a violent pursuit of the rebels, but a peaceful resolution through the international courts. Therefore, it not only propagates the ideals of helping those in need, but also the belief in a non-violent resolution to help the world - a message that needs to be further expanded.

So take some time to watch the video, possibly give money, and gain a broader perspective on the world outside of the American bubble.

IMMERSIVE

2012-02-23T14:22:00.001-05:00

Well, after revamping this blog just a few short months ago, I've already been slacking on the posting front. I apologize for this. My political focus as of late has been focused on elections ... a bit more local.

More on that at a later date.

As most probably know, I am taking a different approach to higher education this semester. Along with a few business classes, I am jumping out of the typical college atmosphere and throwing myself into - what Ball State has termed - an "immersive learning" experience.

For this semester (and a following summer semester), I am working with a group of twelve students at the Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library in downtown Indianapolis. The overarching goal of this project is assemble and construct a new, long term marketing plan for the library as well as accomplish four major projects. To complete these projects, the group has been divided into four teams.

The first three teams work relatively congruent to each other. The first team, known as the "Archives Team", is collecting a variety of rare Vonnegut manuscripts, letters, etc. from various libraries and collections across the country. They will be digitizing these archives after they are collection.

The next team, the film team, is doing - you guessed it - film editing and collecting. Their main mission is to find interviews of Vonnegut, film adaptations of Vonnegut works, etc. and assemble short video clips with the footage found.

Both the archival and film collections will be digitized and placed on a touch-screen TV as well as a 27-inch iMac in the Vonnegut library with an interface that will be designed by us as well. These montages will also be placed on an iPad interface (also designed by our teams) to be used on a traveling Vonnegut exhibit, which is being envisioned by our "traveling exhibit team". This exhibit will recreate Vonnegut's home study, display his works, and integrate iPad presentations to give prospective viewers a museum experience away from the library.

The final team (my team) is the products team. Our main objectives are to create and produce new, innovative products for the library gift shop and boost e-commerce sales for the library by redesigning essential components of their website. We are also working to restructure the layout of the physical gift shop within the library.

(the first t-shirt designed for the KVML, based on the Pamela Bliss's building size mural located in downtown Indianapolis)

Supplementing this project is six credit hours of class - an English class, where we are reading the majority of Vonnegut's works, and a marketing class, where we are developing the marketing plan for the library as well as studying national marketing trends.

So far, this has been an amazing experience. Being thrown into a real world business scenario, in my opinion, provides me with an incredibly grounded educational experience. I felt that, rather than solely focusing on politics and social change, I would share some of my experiences with you throughout the duration of my college life.

Hope you enjoyed.

HOW HELPING AMERICA HURTS AMERICANS

2012-01-27T17:49:00.003-05:00

This past Tuesday, President Obama delivered a surprisingly moderate, uneventful State of the Union address where he, like most expected, called for tax reform, a commitment to higher education, infrastructure investments, and a commitment to bringing jobs back to America.

For a while now, the new political trend of working to bring recently outsourced manufacturing jobs back to our shores and promotional tag lines like "buy American" have engulfed the economic debates. To help boost American job levels, many (on both sides of the aisle) have made commitments to creating a climate that allows manufacturing to return, giving the starving middle class of this country another chance. In his speech Tuesday, Obama added to this rhetoric, calling for new taxes on companies that ship jobs overseas.

But if true economic theory is taken into consideration, these calls for the rebirth of American manufacturing are detrimental to our economic health. Like many know, manufacturing jobs have moved overseas because, among many things, labor is much cheaper in other parts of the world. In the grand scheme of things, outsourcing and moving manufacturing to cheaper locations creates more competitive prices for the American consumer; if these jobs were to return to America, more people would be employed, however, prices would be a great deal higher.

The same goes with the whole 'buy American" concept. Passing trade laws and taxes that "encourage" consumers to buy American rather than foreign products affects competition and therein forces the consumer to pay a higher price for goods.

If we really want to build a strong workforce in this country, we need to drop our love for manufacturing jobs. Our economy is in a transition from a manufacturing economy to an information based economy (which is why manufacturing jobs have moved overseas). While most of our workforce is trained in manufacturing, these kinds of jobs are gone. The only way to create pure growth is to innovate; mainly, move to the next economic step.

So how do we put a manufacturing based workforce back to work in a new information economy? Promote and invest in education, allowing the workforce to learn skills in broadband internet, new energy technologies, and high speed rail. If the government really wanted to create jobs, they should be revamping our education program, invest in clean energy research and technology, and invest in new infrastructure.

Obama and the rest of the country need to get a grip on this. It's time for our government to invest in the future, not live in the past.

2012-01-22T10:43:00.000-05:00

A REMINDER

2012-01-16T11:06:00.001-05:00

In a time plagued by arguments of wealth and poverty, free markets and socialism, and greed and redistribution, let us take a moment to reflect on the happenings of the financial collapse.

Since the birth of "Reaganomics", the government has been deregulating the financial sector of our economy. With this new power to reign free, Wall Street gave rise to large financial firms, also called investment banks. These firms are not like commercial banks; rather than accepting deposits and distributing money, these investments banks concentrate on issuing securities to its customers (individuals, corporations, and governments). Their main business is centered around issuing securities and insuring pension funds, hedge funds, etc.

Because they mainly focused on securities, financial firms handled the insurances behind most mortgage loans issued by commercial banks. When the deregulation faze was at its highest, many investment banks began to bundle these mortgage-backed securities to trade and sell to investors. After this trading proved to bring an impressive return, financial firms began to encourage banks to issue more mortgage loans so more trading could take place.

So, banks began issuing risky home loans to just about anyone. Rather than only granting mortgages to customers with good credit and a down payment, banks now allowed customers to take out mortgages to buy houses that were way out of their price range. Because these loans were much more volatile, the financial firms and investors collected even higher profits from them, and the investment banks grew larger and larger.

There was no reason to suspect system to collapse; housing prices continued to go up; therefore, everyone would eventually be able to pay back their loan (or the bank could repossess the house at a higher value). However, like we have all come to know, the housing bubble eventually busted, and the market plummeted.

Home owners across the country began to default on their loans, and banks began pull from the insurances set up in the investment banks. This immediate and sudden pull of money caused the financial firms to embark on a downward spiral, and, to kick things off, Lehman Brothers (one of the main investment banks) collapsed, causing mass panic on Wall Street. After more firms like AIG began showing signs of failure as well, everyone began to panic.

Because everything from home loans to pension funds is insured through these firms, their collapse would equal a global economic catastrophe. The federal government knew this. So, in an effort to prevent economic Armageddon, the government passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which provided a capital injection (aka free money) to investment banks to stop the bleeding and continue the flow of credit.

However, rather than using this capital injection to continue lending money, the investment banks used it to raise their management's salaries and issue historic bonuses to their employees. Rather than punishing the people who single handling made the economy tank, banks gave them raises, and the country slipped into the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression.

People are confused as to why the Occupy Wall Street protesters are so pissed at corporate banks. Let this be a reminder.

THE NEW OBAMA

2012-01-13T16:55:00.000-05:00

A few hours ago, President Obama asked Congress for the powers necessary to restructure the executive branch of the government. These powers, according to Obama, would be used to create a leaner, more effective government for small businesses to work with.

By streamlining many government hurdles through combining and eliminating many government entities, the processes by which businesses in this country work under would become less burdensome and more effective in combating the recession. On top of this request for power, Obama announced the Small Business Administration would be promoted to a cabinet level position, ensuring the voices of small business owners would be heard.

This is just the most recent of the President's attempts to woo businesses in this country - and it's working. For the past month, Obama has focused his efforts on the economy, jobs, and creating a safer, consumer-friendly environment for businesses to participate in. With a renewed commitment to the Consumer Protection Agency, the passage of the payroll tax holiday, future cuts to the defense budget, and a call for "leaner" government through merging agencies, Obama is positioning himself as a new kind of liberal in an effort to gain popularity in an election season.

Obama's new policies aren't all expanding or shrinking government; they are creating a smarter, more effective government that will help drive the economy in the 21st century. With all of the hoopla on the right involving his massive expansion of government, Obama is showing his true colors: he is not committed to a larger government or less freedom, but to creating a government and economic system that is fair, productive, and ready to combat the future.

I have personally been impressed with the President's performance in the new year. With the GOP preaching about extreme measures that would radically impact the way this country operates, Obama is providing common sense solutions that will have huge implications.

This much is clear. After spending the majority of his first term in healthcare battles and continual staff debacles, Obama is finally regaining his mojo, focusing on what needs to be the top priority for this country: creating a 21st century government model for a 21st century economy.

A VLOG OF EPIC PROPORTIONS

2012-01-12T13:30:00.000-05:00

This vlog was produced directly following the results of the New Hampshire Primary this week. It features opinions regarding the final polling numbers, and the GOP race overall.

FYI: all vlogs will be posted on The Vlogosphere, which is located above this page on the navabar. The page should be updated frequently, so be sure to check it out if you wish to see my pretty face.

PACIFISM, NOT ISOLATIONISM

2012-01-08T19:30:00.000-05:00

In a time of massive federal deficits and economic collapses, America's fiscal future rides of the brink of Armageddon. Yet the unsoundness of the country's current economic state pales in comparison to the degradation of its moral standing in the world.

After a spending almost a half a century lusting for war, America is at a pivotal point in its foreign policy. Standing in the face of terror enemies, Arab springs, and new growing superpowers, we must evaluate our strategy moving forward on a global scale. In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has laid the groundwork for this evaluation with the announcement to draw down military levels across the board through significant cuts to the defense budget.

The economic and fiscal impacts of this measure are profound: almost half a trillion dollars will be removed from defense spending - a bloated budget that accounts for one-fourth of this country's overall spending - in an effort to scale down our ever-growing national budget deficit.

Yet the moral implications of the draw-down are even more significant. Ending the ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan provide a benchmark in American history; one that ends the policies of "nation building" and aggressive defense. Since the days of Vietnam and the beginnings of the Cold War, America violently pursued a mission committed to conquering in the name of capitalism and killing for the sake America's best interests, creating negative connotations towards democracy that led to the formation of modern day terrorism and religious extremism.

Libertarian leaders like Ron Paul realized the encumbering importance of scaling back our military efforts; however, they have missed the mark in many respects. The true, conservative approach to foreign matters (as proclaimed by Ron Paul) is isolationism, a belief that America should only focus on herself and not mettle in global matters. This, although providing a simple answer to our fiscal dilemmas, does not conquer the moral imperative that exists.

We are a blessed nation, and, as of right now, we exist at the top of the world's powers. Our moral obligation does not stop at resisting the temptations of war. With our abundant wealth and overwhelming power, we have the duty to promote peace throughout the world. Rather than completely turning our backs on the rest of humanity, it is our time to set a new course in America's foreign policy.

With an emphasis on economic growth and equality, human rights, and religious freedom, America must continue its commitment to spreading democracy, not through military means, but through the measures of foreign aid, economic sanctions, and social business.

Pacifism, not isolationism, should be our future. A desire to see a world without war, without poverty, and with abundant equality and freedom can be the new doctrine leading into the next generation. And, like so many times in the past, America can be the head of this movement, leading through example.

My hopes are that Obama's small, simple effort to reevaluate America's military can be the right catalyst to spark this flicker of hope into a roaring fire.

Only time will tell.

EVERYONE'S A TERRORIST NOW

2012-01-06T13:09:00.000-05:00

If your holidays consisted of caucus results, Congressional recesses, and secret legislation viewing, then this post will most likely not surprise you in the least bit. However, if your news proficiency was lacking over the past few weeks, don't you worry, Uncle Austin is here to fill you in.

In recent weeks, Congress passed the Defense Authorization Bill, continuing the efforts to fight terrorism on a global scale with tactics including enhanced interrogation and the elimination of Habeas Corpus for suspected terrorists. We've seen bills like this before: efforts to combat our enemies that completely violate the dignity of "suspected" criminals and tarnish our reputation of standing for equality and freedom.

But the neo cons needed more to fulfill the lust for their ultra-heavy militaristic addictions. To really give the terrorists a kick in the crotch, they added that these measures can be applied to anyone; however, instead of knocking the gonads of terrorists, they missed their mark and racked the American people.

Now, according to this new bill, the military will gain the right to detain any U.S. citizen without the proper warrants if that person is suspected of being a national security threat. Ergo, if Grandma spews hateful jabber about elected officials at the supermarket, it's off to Gitmo for her.

But wait, the hero of this story, Barack Obama, will save Grandma, won't he? Actually not. Obama signed this bill into law, stating that he did not support the bill and will not use it's power. The problem: even if Obama doesn't use his new authority, the next president probably will.

This new source of power for the Commander and Chief and the military is easily one of the greatest violations of the Bill of Rights in recent history. Now, our protection against the powers that be in this country are no longer guaranteed. Like so many measures before, the government is using this defense bill to slowly strip away our God given dignities in an effort to combat an unspecified, undefined enemy.

Yet even with its evident problems, this bill highlights a larger issue that is at hand in our government and in our society.

"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." When Ben Franklin uttered those words, it was as if he knew our country would seek to limit the rights given to its citizens in the means of "protection" and "security".

Ever since its creation, America has always needed an enemy to face. First, it was the British. Then, the Germans followed swiftly by the Japanese. The Soviets, Communists, and Chinese followed, and now, it's Muslims and "religious extremists". The problem with our enemies now is the same one we've faced in the past: they are generally not as bad as we make them out to be.

Locking Japanese citizens up in internment camps and arresting communists simply because of their political beliefs, at the time, seemed necessary to protect the country as a whole. But as we face this country's next great rights battle, a battle I suspect will be used to lock up Muslims and supporters of Islam, we must stop to address what drives this need to always be fighting a villain.

The catalyst: fear. Fear drives our foreign policy and causes us to act irrationally. 9/11 angered this country and drove us to find a new enemy, even if that enemy was unjustly accused. Because of the actions of a few select people, we have demonized an entire sub-sect of the global population to feed our ever-growing fear.

So, instead of attacking this bill because of its contents (which should be done), perhaps we should instead look at the reasons for the passing of such bills, and look to solve that reasoning.

We face major security problems in this country, but the only way they can be solved is through negotiation, understanding, and a willingness to admit that America isn't the center of the world.