Stop the witch-hunting of Nancy Pelosi

I have been watching CSPAN quite a bit today and I am utterly appalled over the negative stance being taken by House Republicans against Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I watched her entire speech and I found NOTHING partisan or poisoning about her speech. On the contrary, she reminded me of the reasons why I am grateful that she became Speaker of the House. She was a loud voice speaking up for the needs and concerns of the American people. The reality is that we are a month from an election where EVERY member of the House of Representatives (with the exception of the few who are retiring) will be campaigning for reelection. One-third of the Senate seats are up for reelection. This bill was so unpopular with constituants, does anyone really think that they would risk their political career on a bill that was hastily put together and backed by a government who's economic policys have been more inept that a kindergartener's? I don't believe it. In fact, this bill recieved a yea vote from less than 40% of Republicans and 60% of House Democrats! Among Representatives with highly contested seats, yea voting was 15% for Republicans and 25% for Democrats. For a full view fo the voting record check out: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-district-congressmen-doomed.html

In addition, the American Government is currently almost ten trillion dollars in debt!!! The blank check handed to the Executive Branch by Congress has been grossly abused by this administration. For the party of fiscal conservitivism, they sure like to spend a lot! How could they honestly believe that we the people would just hand them a blank check again? This reason is precisely why we are a REPUBLIC not a democracy or a dictatorship. I believe that this could be a turning point in American Government where Congress can assert it back and bring a balance of power back to our government. I hope that it is so.

My thoughts on the Presidential Debate: Part Two

Okay, I'm back for part two of my in-depth and expert analysis.

Question #5: What about Iran?
McCain: Iran could possibly maybe be a threat to Israel if they acquire/manufacture nuclear weapons. Basically, I ran getting nuclear weapons would set off a chain reaction that would result in the entire Middle East against poor defenseless disorganized Israel. To stop a second Holocaust the U.S. should come together with other democratic countries (but not the UN because they don't work since they allow the "bad" guys in) and crush Iran. This should be easy because they are "lousy." (his word, not mine) Also, we must sanction them to essentially starve them to submission. Any diplomatic negotiations must have preconditions.
Obama: Iran is a problem and houses terrorist organizations. He claims McCain wants to change legislation for the Iraqi occupation to include measures that would allow America to go to war with Iran. Unfortunately the war in Iraq has only made Iran & other middle East terrorist organizations stronger. Sanctions have not & will not work. While The U.S. must not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, which could create serious problems in the region. Diplomacy must be the process with Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others. Isolation only increases these countries vigor in acquiring nuclear weapons. Preconditions must not be required for diplomatic conversations to occur, though there must be extensive forethought and planning.
My thoughts:This was by far their most interesting exchange. McCain seemed determined to show that he would hardline the issue and refuse to back down, negotiate, or otherwise be involved in any way with any country he deems an enemy. In addition, he seemed determined to show that Obama is inexperienced in foreign policy. His inability to do anything but say the same lines over & over again, his ineptitude at pronouncing the President of Iran's name, and his incomprehensible comparison between the heights of North and South Koreans gave the impression that he was the one who is lacking. Obama did not expound enough on his foreign policy ideas other than to say that the key to executing good foreign policy and relations is to be diplomatic. He seemed to imply that America should hold it's allies close, but negotiate firmly and openly with it's enemies. He did not falter, nor did he show any weakness in his foreign policy ideals. Both were weak on actually answering the question. Their spar over word choice and who-knows-Henry Kissinger-best were quite entertaining, though I was glad when Obama acted responsibly and put a quick and decisive halt to it.

Question #6: What about Russia?
Obama: They have been our ally for a while and we should approach them diplomatically with the help of the International community. We cannot go back to the Cold War, we must look forward. We must lift up fledgling democracies and allow them to assert themselves in the International community. The way to fix it is support democracy and decrease oil dependence. McCain consistently voted against developing alternate energy.
McCain: Read my lips: KGB. Russia has just been waiting like a spider to pounce, we have to inhibit the pouncing. He does not give a plan of what to do, but he says to watch the Ukraine for political breakdown. Others in the region will follow.
My thought: We,, I have to say that this one was relatively simple to work out. Obama has a plan - it is called diplomacy. McCain has a plan - it is called watch from behind a stone wall (and perhaps throw a few hand grenades! JK)

Umm - they bickered for a bit here about alternative energy and foreign & domestic oil production. They both really said nothing.

Question #7: Could there be another 9/11?
McCain: We are safer now then on 9/11. He was a part of the joint commission on 9/11, and he helped create the laws and saw many of them implemented. The govt has been drastically reorganized since then and because of that, the country is doing much better. The country has more to do, including increasing border security.
Obama: Some good changes have been made, but more are needed to make America safe. There are still problems with ports of entry, and now with nuclear weapons.
My thoughts: Neither really said anything, but to give them credit, they were almost out of time.

My thought overall: I guess what struck me the most was the non-verbal communication between McCain & Obama. Obama treated McCain with respect & deference. He often complimented or agreed with McCain when he made good points and respectfully contradicted him when he disagreed with McCain's point. But more than that, Obama faced often toward McCain and looked at him while he was speaking. He also often turned to look at McCain when addressing him, especially id Obama was contradicting McCain's point. McCain, on the other hand, did not turn to look at Obama once during the whole debate. In addition, McCain was often smiling and smirking sarcastically nearly every time Obama spoke. It was disgraceful the ungentlemanly conduct of Sen. McCain. I was already not fond of McCain because of his policies (which do not coincide with mine). When he chose Palin as a running mate, I shuddered. However, last night was the icing on the cake. No person can carry on successful foreign relations if they cannot keep their cool and show respect to those who are different. McCains is the WRONG person for the job. I hope other Independents saw what I saw and choose as I choose - to vote Obama '08!!!

My thoughts on the Presidential Debate: Part One

Well, the gloves have been thrown down. For the first debate, I must admit that it was, for the most part, well done. My personal opinion is that Barack Obama was much calmer, more respectful, and gave more substantiated viewpoints. I would like to go through question by question and give my thoughts.

Question #1: Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?
Obama: Supports economic recovery so long as it is done with oversight, thoughtful planning, and protection for taxpayers & homeowners. He also noted that trickle-down economics do not work. Any economic plan must build from the working class up.
McCain: Thinks it is great that Republicans & Democrats are working together - that will fix the problem. (note - he did not answer the question or even remotely discuss any solutions.)
My thoughts: Obama gave a solid four part plan that supported economic stability coupled with fiscal responsibility. He also states an economic viewpoint that I believe - that trickle-down economics do not work. McCain blew a bunch of steam, but said nothing.

Question #2: same as question #1, since it was not fully addressed by either candidate
Obama: Cannot answer whether or not he will vote for the bill because it has not been written yet. Notes that any bill must include both short and long term solutions. Short term solutions include the current bill to financially prop up Wall Street. Long term solutions must come by changing the infrastructure to include oversight & regulation. There must be oversight that assures that working people are not getting worked over by those who can hire lobbyists. Focus should be on the working people.
McCain: Sure he'll vote for the bill. He saw this coming. They need to have accountability and those responsible for this debacle should resign. The problem is that Washington & Wall Street are greedy. He will hold people accountable for greedy behavior. He will do this by fixing the regulatory agencies that were not doing their jobs. American workers are the best in the world and their is nothing wrong with them, the problem is with the system, which he will fix. The right leadership (presumably his) will get America through this tough time.
My thoughts: McCain has a point that regulation & accountability are the key to preventing this problem from recurring; however vetoing every bill to come across his desk seems a little drastic. What about appropriations for social programs such as public schools, health care for the poor, and more? McCain also used this question to launch his first attack on Obama. I would also like to note that he said he would vote for the bill without having seen it. Obama, on the other hand, refused to commit to voting for or against the bill until after it is written. That seems to me to be a wise choice. In addition, Obama reiterated the need to refocus on what the govt can do for the people who are struggling.

Question #3: What would they do as President to lead us through this financial crisis?
McCain: He would get spending under control. To do this, he would eliminate earmarks & pork-barrel spending across the board by vetoing all spending bills to hit his desk. Accuses Obama of wasteful spending. Drives home the fact that wasteful Washington spending is the problem with the American economy. So basically, cut taxed & keep spending low is his recipe for economic success. Especially he wants to lower taxes on businesses to encourage them to keep their businesses here in America. For the American people, he wants to give tax cuts to allow them to purchase their own health care insurance.
Obama: Highlights the monetary difference between current earmarks ($18 billion) and McCain's proposed tax cuts ($300 billion). Obama would raise taxes only on the rich and cut taxes to the middle class and the working poor. This is the foundation for his bottom-up economic policy. He agreed that earmark reform is important, but he also wants to close the loopholes in the tax code that enables corporations to evade tax payments. He reiterated that the key was in the economic success of the middle class. With regard to McCain's health insurance tax cut, Obama accuses McCain of planning to tax health insurance coverage payments, which he says would effectively nullify the tax cut. He also stated that the current economic fiasco is evidence that deregulation does not solve problems, it creates them.
My thoughts: I feel that both candidates shared their viewpoints and took turns insulting each other's policies. Neither gave a good economic plan and neither answered the question. For me, Obama's ideas are more in line with my economic views.

Question #4: What spending will you give up as President in order to finance the bail-out?
Obama: He wants to spend on lots of important things: health care, energy Independence, education from preschool to college, & infrastructure. He states that he realizes that these will not be tackled all at once due to the financial crisis, but they will remain on the table and implemented as the become fiscally viable. In addition, he would support starting these programs by eliminating programs that do not work. He denied being ultra liberal, stating that he simply opposed bills proposed by the Bush Administration (which he stated that McCain himself had supported). He also noted (in response to a comment by McCain) that balancing the budget would require finesse ("you're using a hatchet when you need a scalpel") and he looked to the past (FDR in the Depression) for ideas of how to reestablish a strong government in a time of economic trouble.
McCain: He just wants to cut spending. Accused Obama of being too liberal. Advocated for elbow grease & a scrub brush to clean up all govt agencies. End subsidies & only take on fixed-contracts (So the price you settle on is the price you pay). Any wasteful spending should be killed. In fact, he promised to freeze all spending except on defense, veterans affairs, & entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid). He hinted that he wants to fund alternative energy. In addition, he went off on a long tangent about creating jobs by funding nuclear power plants. Again he reiterated that only programs he deems important should be funded. He said that taxes will stay lower if govt stays out of free markets - including heath care.
My thoughts: McCain's plan seemed broad, hazy, and fraught with the Bushian "trust me to do it right" attitude. Though I agree that wasteful spending needs to be kicked to the curb, absolute freeze of all spending will hurt a lot of people who depend on govt aid. In addition, McCain did not seem to be very solid on what he would spend money on. First he said complete freeze, then freeze on all but three things (all of which are currently big-spending, highly inefficient programs), and finally he swished in a maybe energy reform too. It seemed very wishy-washy and not well-though out. Obama did not change his position on spending. He stated that he wanted to curb wasteful programs to make way for new efficient ones. I think that Obama was very clearly thinking in the long-term, not in the short-term. To me, this is the planning necessary for a good leader.

Well, it is late, I will continue with part two tomorrow. Thank you for reading. Feel free to comment/criticize.

Starting a Blog

Okay, so I have finally cracked! I am staring a blog! I think that this will be a good way to update people who care on what is going in my life. I am currently at home with the kids. My sister-in-law is over visiting and informing us all of her current persecution. At least it serves for a good laugh later. Other than that, I am studying for next week and watching "Becoming Jane."

Yesterday my kids and I attended Ohlone Day at Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park. It was great. We saw the dancers, made miniature Tule Boats, and met many interesting and generous people. Lolys was given a lovely hand-made Ohlone Regalia by the woman seated second from the right in the picture below. Lolys was very touched and has been inspired to join the local Azteca dancers as soon as her swimming schedule changes. Evan may follow along and become a dancer too! Until then, they will continue to concentrate on becoming the future Michael Phelpses!!!






As for me, school continues to kick my ass, but I am fighting back!!! I think that I may actually make it through this semester without a nervous breakdown (which would be a welcome change)! I have many events I am hoping to be able to attend this fall, including a seminar in October. I am also attempting to organize community outreach events for the Latino Student Nurses Association, since I have been elected their PR officer. Well, I am off to hit the books!