Obama fever causes Austin conservatives headache

I had the opportunity to go see Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in Auditorium shores a while back. I have great things about him- and given that I love politics and this guy was the "rising star" at the Democratic National Convention in Boston only 3 years ago- I figured this guy is the new voice of the Democratic Party.

So I got there to be amazed! The whole place was overwhelmed with enthusatic people all over the state. A friend and I managed to get a pretty good spot in the crowds- after a long wait... the band which was from New Orleans (no offense to them but they were terrible and tried to be political.... uh... ya... NO!) *On that note, new era political songs suck for the most part- now the late 60s, 70s music that was anti-war... AMAZING! Just a random tangent but anyhow.

So Barack enters the stage, he commands immediate praise and yelling. This guy is a star I think to myself. But I wonder if his physical statue can match his vision for the country.

I am not really sure how to explain; I like the guy- he definetly brings charm, intellect, and a sort of suave to what most consider a rather boring subject- politics. His background in being a community religious speaker can be easily picked up in his syntax, the smooth like pattern to his speech replicates a younger Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

As far as substance, being more of a moderate, or perhaps a described "neo-conservative" in the neon-blue oasis called Austin, Texas in a sea of crimson red... ya thats right... a metaphor! I found some of his platform inagreeable. But I do give alot of credit to the gentleman from Illinois for his consistency on ALWAYS being against the Iraq War- a claim few Democrats can hold minus perhaps Senator Russ Feingold (D-MN).

His focus on results rather than simple rhetoric and bipartisanship is refreshing; I have somewhat skeptical still. One of his most famous quotes, "Ive been in Washington long enough to know that things need to change." In addition to all the other Democratic candidates, Obama wants universal heath care... but by 2012; something I cannot and will not support.

Obama also pushed his resolution which called for a redeployment of US forces outside of Iraq ending by March 31st, 2008. I cannot understand why the Democrats in general continue to insist on placing deadlines or withdrawal- regardless of the situation on the ground. From a military strategic standpoint that does not make any sense if you really committing to defeating an enemy. For example, if we are trying to capture and hold area A, and regardless of whats going on in area A, by date X- we are gone... um... are you joking me?! How does that make any sense. You go into the battle to win. Ultimately, I think the decision to leave, stay, whatever, should be based on the commanders closest to the ground and not some bureacrat or politician!

To have the advantage of seeing some heavy weights such as former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and of course Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) especially when Texas is generally a given "R" state and few candidates come- I find it refreshing and will continue to challenge, comment, and question these fine people as they make their way for the White House.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015511.php

"the Texan" remarks to a fellow post,

"After many years of courtroom experience, politics, and just plain intelligent (I hope) observation, it is evident to me that many people on the "left" of the political spectrum are determined to treat terrorists as simple criminals."

"The Texan", a conservative writer, continues to rant about how the "left" is trying to be soft on terrorism. The Texan while making some generic, rather, characteristic traits of the generic left, ignores the more intense debate regarding historical, legal, and constitutional issues regarding the prosecution of suspected "enemy combatants". To "the Texan" justice is sought by shift retribution.

"canislatrans" writes,

"Hold on a minute, five years imprisonment, no trial, no right of habeas corpus, no public evidence to support the governments charges?
This is the United States of America?!!"

The writer upholds intrisic values with a sensational rage. The writer wishes to extend mentioned rights to all or atleast practice what those preach. While the author does warrant having a case of alarm, the writer simplifies the arguement- really who would'nt be for fair and speedy trials and the right of habeas corpus?

My American Dream

I think it really helps to understand why I feel that I think the American Dream is one, uniquely American and two, a reality. My understanding of the American Dream is my experience and really my grandfather's personal life story.

My grandfather, Kenneth Duke, a long-time descendant from the aristocratic Duke family of the South was born and raised in the barren state of Oklahoma. His mother's descendants were "sooners" and were white pioneers hoping to carve out a piece of the American dream- to own a piece of pie so to speak. Anyhow, my grandfather, lived in poverty for most of his life, worked hard and never graduated high school in the small town he grew up in Oklahoma. He made by with what they had. Sacrifice was not just a word to him, rather a living reality. He decided at 18 to enlist in the Air Force during the late years of World War II- where he met a lifelong friend that happened to live in Texas and was in real estate. Each month while other GIs took their paychecks cashed them and spent their allowances, my grandfather saved- probably his past naturally made him a "penny-pincher." He agreed to instead each month use part of his paycheck to invest in land south of San Antonio; he continued to do this throughout the war and then some until he meant his lovely wife in Japan. They married and moved back the States. Thanks to the GI Bill, my grandfather obtained some college education as he worked as a used car salesman. Later, he decided to branch out on his own and become an entrepeneur.

When I was born, the land my grandfather had purchased was just outside of San Antonio's southern extremities. He sold part of the land for development but retained most for himself, building a family ranch which I spent a good deal of my childhood there. To me this rags to riches story of my granfather personifies the story of the American Dream where a boy that really had no further aspirations or possibilities to move up, was able to climb the social ladder of America. Yes, out of luck of his friend but mainly out of a strict abherence to personal restraint.

I can only hope to be half the man my grandfather was. He was a man of conviction, strong character, a sense of duty to others, and above all was compassionate. My grandfather instilled in me a sense of work ethic- I remember he used to me that those that work hard will be rewarded, to avoid distractions, and remain faithful to your friends and family. My family has high hopes for me and rightfully so- I am representing my family name. They push me to achieve my dreams, obtain a college degree, and above all be kind to those around me.

The American Experiment

In The Federalist Papers 10, James Madison argued that in the Republic various "factions" would spar over control. The "factioning" of the Republic is both natural and healthy. These "factions" as Madison wrote would allow for competition and a wide array of beliefs, values, solutions, etc. Factions, in a modern sense, can best be seen as special interest groups, political parties, even the separate branches of government. Imagine a pendulum that swings back and forth from time to time. Such a constant flux and teetering is an inherently good thing as a prolonged concentration of power would amount to tyranny.

Historically, some have argued that America is instead a society run by the elite. I suggest those interested read An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. While I cede that power during the early days of the Republic was predominately white, male plantation owners; today's society is far more diverse. The power advantage that once traditional elites held has slowly given way to the more pluralistic viewpoint for two reasons. The methodology and structure of the America political system is very hostile to a power grab by a given group of elites. To change a given policy, one must convince the executive branch, then the legislative branch which consists of two very different chambers (with a majority), ensure the judiciary will interpret the law according to an elite's viewpoint, get approval from the bureaucracy, and finally have the media spin it correctly. This cumbersome division of power specifically prevents a power grab of one group of people. Each and everyone of the institutions have to be in lock-step to finally get an idea into law. These "safeguards" are for all intensive purposed the "factions" Madison spoke of. Many might argue that the elites get what they want- not so.

A modern example- political elites (with power and money on their side) wanted to reform Social Security to privatize the account and allow greater money making opportunities, yet regardless of what opponents call "elite connections, wealth, etc." such a proposal failed due in part because of other "factions" were able to block such a move.

The elite power model school of thought simply is wrong (too much people's dismay). America is, as Madison articulated, a pluralist society where numerous "factions" compete for power, resources, etc. Perhaps one faction might be more powerful than another but it is still a conflict of "factions."

JAG meets 9/11

Did anybody ever watch the USA's series JAG. Big fan! It's about the military justice system and the lawyers who take on the cases specifically for the U.S. Navy- the Judge Advocate General i.e. JAG. Really good series, if y'all are every bored or just wanna see a pretty good made for tv series- I'm telling you.... JAG.

FYI USA programming, you can send the check to my campus mailbox for that plug. LOL.

Back on topic- So my topic is going to be should "enemy combatants" i.e. terrorists be allowed to face trial in a civilian court of law or face military tribunals?

Snowing

I just had to acknowledge the fact it is snowing! I love it.

Against All

So I'll be the first to say it... I'm resisting the notion that most of the topics discussed in class or in the book are deemed "social issues" or "social problems." And even more so, that government should enact policies to remedy these complexities in modern society. Not everything under the sun is a "social issue" or a "oh god, we must fix X"

I stand firmly in opposition that for example, government should do something to remedy the inequality of wealth. Or healthcare. Just putting that out there.

Comments, criticism, or maybe even praise (though I doubt it)?