Technology Race

The presidential election is in full force and more people than ever are getting involved, which warms the bottom of my heart. However, they aren't necessarily getting involved by donating money to a particular campaign or attending the rallies and speeches. Facebook, texting, IPhone apps, and Twitter are the foremost tools of the modern political campaign. In fact, I receive update texts from the Obama campaign and emails from the Romney committee, I found out about Huntsman's campaign announcement via my phone's newsfeed, and encouraged people to do some political research via this very blog.

Even since the 2008 election, technology has increased by leaps and bounds. Technology is being integrated into education and communication, changing the way we interact with our friends, co-workers, employers, even celebrities and is also changing how we see ourselves. I mean, look at me- I'm blogging for heaven's sake!(But I am still avoiding Twitter) I started this blog on assignment for a college class and in that same class worked on a project for improving support group websites. Nowdays, when I hear something clever or have an opinion on a world event, I join the discussion. People like Obama, Romney, Huntsman, and other world leaders are starting these discussions, even leading them in Congress, in the White House, in debates and rallies. But we, my fellow Americans, are joining them via Facebook, Twitter, text, Hulu, YouTube, blogs and other social media outlets.

Will technology set the curve for this race? Will the candidate who is the most "plugged-in" win through the reach of their technology?

Taking a Stand on the Issues

In honor of the first debate of the presidential election campaign, I thought I should briefly explore where I stand on some of these issues. Please be aware that I am not an expert on all of these topics and reserve the right to research some more and change my mind. Not to worry- I will tie in technology in my next post : ) And the best one is saved for last, so try to read the whole thing or at least skim til you get to the bottom ; )

• Health Care- I support a universal health care mandate, but not at the federal level. If operated at the state level, each state would have more control over the revenue and be able to dictate state tax cuts. Also, by localizing the health care and insurance within each state it will create jobs that cannot be outsourced and help build the economy.
• Peanut Butter- Crunchy or Smooth? This debate has been raging for decades with casualties on both sides, people debating in the condiment aisle of grocery stores and even all out peanut butter wars. But in considering the merits of each camp, I've found that both are solid contenders for the top spot. So I must go with moderation in all things- smooth pb on my crackers or celery with crunchy pb on my sandwiches.
  
• Stem-Cell Research- Being a scientist myself, I have researched and studied about the processes and uses of stem cell research. I even attended a conference on the subject back in 07. I was surprised to discover that most members of Congress, when asked to describe their understanding of the definition of stem cell research, had little to no correct assumptions or conceptions about such research. Stem-cell research does not destroy life, but rather is working to find cures for medical conditions of every sort so I support stem-cell research wholeheartedly. However, in tangent, I do not agree with cloning for recreational science.
• Pepsi vs Coca-Cola- Like you even need to ask. Pepsi, hands down, no question. The patriotic colors, the superior taste, the family tradition, everything points to the right answer of Pepsi.
• Education- An issue close to my heart to be sure. While many presidents have lauded young students as the future of America, they have left primary and secondary schools out in the cold as far as the budget goes. Among the top industrialized nations, America has the lowest literacy rate. Maybe because we pay people who run around with balls or who pretend to be other people more than we pay our teachers. I support the idea behind "No Child Left Behind", but I have seen some of the errors in implementation. There needs to be more funds allotted with greater flexibility in order to meet the financial needs of the schools as well as the individual needs of students for attention and resources. I agree with alternative educational methods including home school and vocational training as well as the necessity of involving the community and family in the education of children.
• Dogs or Cats? I'll make this one perfectly clear. I am a dog person. It's not that I specifically hate cats, but given the choice I will take almost any dog over a cat (except the little yappy purse dogs or a pit bull). Cats are antisocial and sleepy all the time and when the whole point of me getting a pet is companionship the dog is usually alert, playful, loving, loyal, and intelligent. A dog can be with me in many situations from watching TV to going for a run, taking a trip, or doing projects around the house. While a cat may purr next to me while I watch t.v., look at me like I'm crazy if I tried to get her to run with me, puke all over the car on road trips, and sleep right on top of my craft project on the table. Dog person.
• National Security- Many of the national security issues on the table right now are the wire taps on incoming Muslims to the US and the threat of terrorists from within our country, and nuclear proliferation particularly in connection to North Korea and Iraq. I'm against wiretaps on any immigrants or visitors to America on principle, but rather suggest a more thorough screening process to allow for both security and privacy issues, not to mention tolerance to be maintained. I'm still undecided about Guantanamo and will continue to research. I agree that nuclear conditions need to be regulated, but not just on a national scale but on an international one. We had the opportunity to do so with Poland and the Czech Republic and backed out, which was probably right for the time. However, whether in NATO or another Summit, global consensus needs to be sought after.
• And finally...
• Edward vs. Jacob? ( Disregard the resolution reached in the fourth book of the series for the purpose of this debate) Upon my first reading, I was unequivocally in the Edward Cullen camp. I mean, there is something to be said for being absolutely drawn to someone and falling head over fangs in love. And maybe it's because we all want to believe that kind of love can exist--the unshakable, all-powerful, can overcome any obstacle, changes everything, consuming love. And I'm not saying it doesn't, the jury is still out. BUT, I've had more experience in dating, love, and relationships since I first read the series. You got to admit upon reflection- why would you love someone who always pushes you away and keeps you at arms length, who makes you feel like you're never good enough? It makes me think Bella is a bit stupid and blind, not to mention a glutton for pain. Instead, I would rather be with someone who allows me to be myself around him, all the time, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Someone who is full of light and happiness and warmth and joy. Someone who holds me close instead of pushing me away. Someone I'm friends with first and grow to love. Someone who knows how to apologize and keeps his promises. Someone who will defend me with his last breath but can also tell me when I've made a mistake. Someone like Jacob Black. So, all fiction and fantasy aside, I pick Jacob.

If you'd like to explore the issues a bit more or the candidate's stance on them check out this website. Please leave a comment or share your own view on hot-topics of the day.

Praying for Politics

With the presidential race starting up I realized I have neglected politics for way too long here. I'm a political junkie...you didn't know that? Yeah, well after spending a summer at both the Senate and UN, going to numerous political rallies for both major parties (meeting three of the major candidates in the 2008 election), studying International Relations for a year before switching to teaching, diving into political texts on my study breaks and secretly reading the New York Times everyday, I think I've come to the conclusion that I can say what I think about politics. It's not better or worse than anyone else discussing politics on the blog-o-sphere, just my own informed and carefully thought out opinion.

When I was eight I dreamed of becoming the first woman president, a dream that endured through high school even. I made 20 and 30 year plans, plans for military service and law school- factors that most successful presidents had in common. In my conversations with adults growing up I would inevitably ask about their concerns with the government. I listened to my great-grandmother tell me about the Depression and talked to my Dad about reforming the welfare system. And the only reason I studied economics at all was so I'd understand how a government effected the economy and how the economy effects the people. But enough back story of my misplaced political aspirations.

You might be wondering, why did I change my beautiful dreams? Well, in all honesty, the more I explored and experienced ( see first paragraph), I realized there was something more to a politician than knowledge of social issues, compromising and negotiating, serving and sacrificing for our country, and standing up for your values and viewpoints. No. There is this sneaky little thing called politics. I learned that it meant so much more than the science and art of political government and the managing of government affairs; I quickly discovered that it often means a thirst for power achieved through manipulation and exploitation behind the guise of patriotism. Not 100% of the time, but way too often. You might be thinking, well duh! But I'm an optimist and a bit of an idealistic, but I figured this out before I was 20 so give me some credit. And furthermore, I learned this not from watching my TV and listening to others opinions on the pitfalls of our government; I learned this working side by side with people I admired and respected and seeing how politics changed them. So I made a choice. This is not the path I want to take.

Nevertheless, I will always remain a conscientious citizen and inquisitive political follower. Which brings me to the presidential race at hand. From my parents I learned to vote for an individual rather than a party, though I tend to feel more at home on the Republican side. And I've learned to not just listen to the speeches, but to research their voting history in the Senate or House and so on. Does their voting record match their speeches? Are they consistent- do they stick to their guns? Do they make choices based on what they really believe instead of what is popular at a certain time? Do they admit when they make mistakes and strive to work harder? Back in 2008, I was just a few months shy of 18 so I couldn't vote. But I distributed pamphlets in my dorm with information on both major candidates views on certain topics and encouraged others to register to vote. Had my birthday been slightly earlier, I might have found myself voting for Obama. While I agree and disagree with various parts of his actions and positions, I will save a more in-depth look at Obama for another post.

I want to talk about Mitt Romney. And John F. Kennedy. And religion. I am an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Mormon. As such my political opinions are shaped by personal values and religious beliefs. Back in 1960, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to obtain the presidency. He made his connection with religion quite clear in his famous address to Protestant ministers. " I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest. . . But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

Romney is of a different faith than Kennedy, but shares a similar opinion. Just as JFK did not represent the Catholic church, Romney does not stand for all Mormons (though quite a few of us are excited about his prospective candidacy). They enter the race as men of personal faith and public service- one often influencing the other. Romney, back in '07 stated "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone,". He went on to say, referencing Kennedy, "Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith...No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths." For the entire speech, click here.

While church and state are separate by law, it is my experience that politics and religion never can be far apart. I may not choose a candidate because of his particular sect, but his values and the actions he takes based on those values place before me a depiction of a man (or woman) who might be given power over our country. And whether I agree with their specific beliefs in God or religious practice or not, I look for common ground of faith. I look for someone who will be consistent in their values, for that will give me a better understanding of a candidate than pages of issue statements and inspiring speeches. As the presidential race starts to gain momentum I will continue to talk about the issues and ideas at hand.

What do you think? How much does the candidates or your own religion affect your voting? In a country promising religious freedom and tolerance, are we wrong to use it as a measurement? Just a thought.

I think I'm going to pray about it : )

American Ideals vs. Perceptions

The mid 19th century found the fledgling American nation searching for an identity. Instead of being English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Irish, etc, the idea began to emerge that the people of the American continent were a completely new thing altogether. But what? Many suggested the beloved values of their mother countries, only for many philosophers to disregard the very thought. No way were we going to be a "hack" (to use our new lingo)- a clever imitation of something already done. No. We were the pioneers, the independents, the free-thinkers, the rebellious, and the mavericks. Tocqueville and many others set out to define the "American"- some through values and others through events/actions.

So what did they think was American?
- "Conquest"
- Discovery
- Individual development
- Freedom from government and social constraints
- Democracy
- Right to Rise
- Freedom of Speech and Religion
- Courage
- *Progress

Of their entire list, the word "progress" stood out to me. Though many things, ok- everything, has changed since the mid 19th century, change is constant. And I feel that America is a part of that. Now, I understand that we are not the center of most inventions or even all the best ideas. But there is a huge part of our culture that leads right into change; we strive for the next, better thing, the chance to revolutionize a field or market. As I was researching the American frontier and Manifest Destiny, I found it interesting to see how the perception of Americans abroad has also changed. In the beginning, many saw America as the upstart newbies. Who knows if they will last, but they have some great ideas and inexhaustable enthusiasm! Unfortunately, the majority opinion abroad today is very negative. I looked through European blogs and discussion boards and was saddened by the opinions and stereotypes that so many people have of America.

Here are just a few (the more articulate intelligent ones beyond hollywood and cheeseburgers).

* That the US is a nation in the process of killing itself through food.
* That many Americans are controlled entirely by greed and the need for personal materalistic gain.
* That most Americans are only concerned about economy, completely ignoring nature, and not caring about how many species they eradicate.
* That they've got the whole gun and weapons debate completely wrong.
* That the American election campaigns are nothing but one big idol-worshipping and mud wrestling PR show, instead of debates about actual politics.
* That religion plays way too big a role in administrative decisions and affects the American laws way too much.
* That the American economic philosophies are too one sided to cope with the current problems (more or less refusing to adopt a contractionary monetary policy in order to reduce inflation)

I am an American. Proud to be one. However, I admit that we have our faults and failings. America has an ego and a control issue; it is more than just our government too. The American people as individuals are developing those bad habits and traits. Can we save ourselves? What do we need to do to correct our behavior and the world's perception of us?

What does it truly mean to be American?