Classmate Response, Stage 8

While sifting through my classmate’s blogs I came across one in particular that piqued my interest. On Donkey vs. elephant’s blog was an article about gay marriage, and my classmate’s view on the subject. There are several points brought up regarding gay marriage and more specifically gay couples raising children that I don’t really agree with.

The first point that I disagree with is that children raised by gay parents will face hardships that children with heterosexual parents won’t. Yes I agree that children with homosexual parents could potentially face ridicule by other children, however I do not think there is a single child who hasn’t been made fun of at least once in their life. Another element to your argument that I disagree with is that “children need both a maternal and paternal influence to be healthy.” Many children, for whatever reason, are raise every year that have only one parent and therefore lack either a fatherly or motherly figure in their lives. I think I would be safe to say that many of these children live fairly “healthy” lives. President elect Barack Obama was raise by his single mother and grandmother, two individuals of the same sex, and he seems to have turned out rather “healthy.”

All in all I do not see any legitimate reason why a gay couple should not be allowed to be married. I believe the issue you brought up of gay couples raising children holds no ground. It is my view that any child raised in a loving, caring, and structured environment will be of sound mind and behavior regardless of whether a single parent, heterosexual couple, or homosexual couple, cares for them.

A Necessary Evil

From the start of the war in Iraq there has been a detailed media coverage that is unparalleled compared to past conflicts. With this increased exposure many different aspects of war have been brought to the public’s ever judging eye that might not have ever existed before, mainly the use of contractors and most controversially armed contractors. You might ask, what is a contractor? Well in regards to the Iraq War it is any individual or company that is hired to do a specific job for the military. Many people question why we use these companies to fulfill jobs that some might consider a responsibility of the military. The reason is two fold, cost and man power.

The end of the Cold War brought about a dramatic downsize of America’s military. This reduction of both manpower and funds is not particularly hurtful especially during peace times, however it is very noticeable in the way the military operates during a conflict. Because of the scale of the Iraq War and the decrease in manpower the military has to rely more on the private sector more than ever before. The military has hired companies, most notable Halliburton and KBR, to fulfill roles for the troops that do not require a service member such as preparing meals, washing clothes, and other basic duties. With these types of roles taken care of the military can utilize its troops more productively.

The most controversial aspect of all this contract work is the armed contractors and Private Military Companies (PMC). Many people believe these contractors to be mercenaries doing America’s dirty work; this could not be further from the truth. In reality these individuals are just armed security guards. With the rebuilding of Iraq comes lots of things that need protection. Iraq is still an extremely dangerous place where anything can happen, everything from supplies to businessmen needs security. This is where the cost aspect comes in. It is very expensive for the U.S. military to send an armed convoy along with every truck full of gravel to rebuild something. With every soldier comes a whole network of logistics and support. The average cost of one soldier in Iraq for one year is $390,000. It is way cheaper to hire a company such as Blackwater, Triple Canopy, Aegis, or any of the other PMC’s to perform these security roles. Soldiers are trained to do many different things and it would be a waste of a precious resource to send them on security convoys everyday, especially while you have these PMC’s that specially trains their employees for convoy and VIP security.

I do realize that there is a lot of ongoing controversy as to whether these contract companies are making too much money off the Iraq War. I am not debating that, how ever I do believe that they serve a very necessary role and free up a lot of soldiers to do more important work.

Classmates Commentary

While reading through my classmate’s blogs I came upon A Smorgasbord of Politics original commentary about the Presidential election. I was very intrigued by the various points she made and how similar her views are to my own.

I strongly agree that a good many people in America vote or support an individual candidate based largely on that candidate’s race, gender, or physical appearance, particularly in our most recent presidential race. I am very pleased to have witnesses our nation’s first African American President be elected, however just because of his skin color it does not mean he is automatically going to bring about change. What will bring about change is his policies and how successful they are, these have no connection to race.

I found the idea of an anonymous election very insightful. It would be nice to have a process that eliminated any exterior biases in the voter’s minds to ensure that the absolute best candidate with the best policies would win and not the best looking candidate. I know a lot of people that look and talk very convincingly, but they are actually just full of malarkey. However as my classmate pointed out this would be extremely difficult to achieve. Even if some form of hybrid election process was created I don’t really have any confidence that it would be instated any time soon based on how willing our government is to update certain facets to changing times.

Is It Over Yet?

As many of you know Barack Obama aired a thirty minute multimillion dollar infomercial on over seven different television stations on October 29. Why would he do such a thing when it seems as though he has already locked up the 2008 presidential election? Perhaps it is because democrats have a reputation for losing on election day when it previously seemed clear they had shored up the victory. Or maybe it is because the Democratic party still has a bad taste from Florida in the 2000 election. But I believe that the real reason Barack Obama decided to run this thirty minute infomercial is because of doubt. The doubt that his campaign intelligently recognizes still exists in many voters minds. Barack Obama is an untested man when it comes to executive experience, rightfully so some people are hesitant to vote for him because they don’t know enough about him. That is why he chose to air this infomercial. His performance clearly erased the doubt that might remain in potential voter’s minds. He achieved this by identifying one by one the different issues at the table and telling people what he would solve them.

Do I think that this infomercial is going to help Obama edge out a win? Probably not. I think Obama would still win regardless because he has run a very good campaign while McCain has not. Obama has been criticized for not having enough foreign policy experience so he put Joe Biden, who has lots of foreign policy experience, on the ticket as VP to compensate for this. John McCain is thought to lack on economic policy, but instead of selecting a VP candidate that would counter this weakness he chose to nominate someone with hardly any experience at all. Someone he thought would help pull in votes but might actually be hurting his campaign more than helping it. Obama has made all the right moves and has surrounded himself with the proper people to be successful in the Presidential race. McCain hasn't quite done this.

This is why the infomercial isn’t going to help that much. If Barack Obama wins this election, I believe, the only purpose his infomercial would have done is increase the margin of victory. Barack Obama doesn’t want to just win. I think he wants a landslide victory, to make a statement that the Democrats ARE the right party for change.

Regardless of who wins I hope that the next president is actually the right person for change.

McCain is Out

The article I chose, Is John McCain Losing It?, by Robert Parry touches on Senator McCain’s performance at the third debate and examines why he is already out of the presidential race. I believe Parry hit the nail on the head with this article. McCain showed the signs of defeat in the third debate.

I very much agree with Parry’s statement that McCain “appears to lacks a sense of balance or even reality.” It amazed me that John McCain would claim that he is the “victim” of negative attacks when his running mate is making ridiculous statements and even McCain’s supporters are making absurd remarks about killing Obama at his campaign rallies. As for Sarah Palin it appears she does know how to speak, she just doesn’t know how to think before doing so. To associate Obama with terrorists is very inappropriate especially these days with the bitter taste from 9-11 still remaining in the public’s mouth. John McCain lost a great deal of face value with me by not refuting these remarks. The remarks against John McCain have been minor compared to what has been said about Obama, McCain’s claim as the “victim” looks like a last desperate attempt at some sympathy votes.

I found the section of the article entitled Defensiveness very interesting. Prior to reading this article I had heard of John McCain’s temper however I had not yet seen an example of this. During the third debate it appeared that McCain was visibly angered. I would not consider hotheadedness a good trait for president. The leader of the Free World should not be flying off the handle and making rash decisions.

Going into this presidential race I would have given the upper hand to McCain based on his experience. However I believe McCain has made an enormous amount of tactical errors and in doing so essentially locked up the win for Obama.

Sarah Palin for VP?

The article I chose was written by New York Times opinion columnist David Brooks. In the article Brooks discusses Governor Sarah Palin’s performance at the Vice Presidential debate and what she needed to accomplish there to keep the Republicans in the Presidential race. According to Brooks, Governor Palin had to achieve two things. First, survival, she had to prove that she was “capable of completing an extemporaneous paragraph — a collection of sentences with subjects, verbs, objects and, if possible, an actual meaning,” because apparently she has struggled with this in the past. Second, she needed to bring about a shift in momentum towards the republicans. Brooks argues that she easily accomplished the first, but that it depends on who you talk to whether or not she attained the second goal. I would have to say that I do agree with Brooks in that Sarah Palin proved she has the ability to complete a sentence and she did so with flying colors. However I find it very disheartening that completing a sentence is a needed goal for one of our country’s Vice Presidential candidates. For the second goal I disagree with Brooks. I don’t think she gained any additional support for the Republican ticket what so ever, she might have even lost some. Brooks gives points to Governor Palin for making it clear that “she was not of Washington, did not admire Washington and knew little about Washington.” Maybe it would be smart for Sarah Palin to distance herself from Washington during these hard times but she still needs to have adequate knowledge about Washington and how it works. Without this knowledge Palin just looks ignorant. Although I am not a fan of Joe Biden I would have to easily give the debate victory to him. Through out the night he schooled Palin on every subject that was covered.
I am a big fan of John McCain, but I think that Sarah Palin is not be the strongest choice for VP. It appears to me that she might have only been selected as VP in order to pull in more votes for the Republicans, not because she is the best person for the job. I think that this was made clear during the VP debates. It saddens me that David Brooks is praising Governor Palin for surviving the debate. In my opinion a good Vice Presidential candidate should never be praised for surviving a debate, they should be praise for being dominate throughout the debate and putting their opponent on defense.

With the election date fast approaching and the current state of our economy it is no surprise that the majority of the political media coverage this week would be focused on the presidential candidates’ economic policies and their respective plans for fixing the Wall Street crisis. According to an article by ABC News both presidential candidates have adopted opposite strategies to combat the problems on Wall Street. Senator McCain offered a detailed six-point plan for reforming Wall Street which included a consolidation of regulatory agencies, promoting greater transparency, and creating a new oversight body called the Mortgage and Financial Institution Trust (MFI). However, Senator Obama chose not to present any plan for fixing Wall Street. Instead he decided to hold off and let Congress propose its plan first.

It will be interesting to hear what Senator Obama’s strategy for Wall Street is. Once he reveals it I believe the American public will have a better idea of the economic strategies of both presidential candidates. Its important for the American people to be aware of the economic views of the candidates considering that the economy is at a low point.

Link to article: