Author: Sarah Riordan

“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  That’s the first thing that I’d do.“  – Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007. 

Despite what the Obama campaign would have had the American people believe prior to Nov. 4, the president-elect is not out to help the pro-life community. Though he claimed in his third debate with Senator John McCain that he would like to limit the number of abortions by supporting organizations that help women through crisis pregnancies, his voting record, and his willingness to support tax-payer funded abortions, tells a much different story.  Obama’s pro-choice stance is so extreme, that he voted against a bill that required doctors to provide life-saving treatment to infants who are born alive after a failed abortion.  At the federal level, when, H.R. 4292, Born-Alive Infant Protection Act  came before Congress in 2000, it was passed unanimously by Democrats and Republicans alike.

With an unabashedly pro-choice president coming into office and a liberal pro-choice Congress, bills like Congressman Jeff Fortenberry’s, H.R.7091, are all the more important for pro-lifers. Fortenberry leads the fight to protect the unborn by asking Congress to give more financial support to organizations that help women who are going through a crisis pregnancy. In the bill, Fortenberry suggests that grant money be given to pregnancy help centers. These grants would become available once an organization provides proof that their services are indeed helping those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy.

What criteria does Fortenberry suggest to gauge the effectiveness of these crisis pregnancy centers?  To receive a grant, a center would need to provide services including health care, clothing, food, a place to stay, and emotional support.

Fortenberry bolsters his position by citing an array of staggering statistics. According to research mentioned in the bill, 48 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since 1973. The bill also says that in 1992 nearly 98 thousand domestic adoptions occurred in the United States.  This number is in stark contrast to 2001 when only approximately 59 thousand babies were adopted. 

Though not directly stated in the bill, the reader can easily infer the correlation between the decrease in domestic adoptions to the increase in abortions. Other numbers given imply that most of the women who choose abortion, choose it because they aren’t financially capable of supporting a child. Rather than providing taxpayer funded abortions, Fortenberry’s solution to the economic issue is to provide financial assistance to those who can either help a woman get on her feet, or help her find an adoptive home for her baby.

Unfortunately, under a Barack Obama presidency, in all likelihood, a bill like this will never see the light of day. The sad truth is, President-elect Obama is one of the most pro-choice presidents our nation has ever seen.  Despite what he and his spokespeople say, his voting record speaks for itself.   

Fortenberry’s attempt to aid pregnancy help centers that do not promote abortion will most likely fall on deaf ears. Though Fortenberry’s goal is to provide women with a real choice and should be supported by both Democrats and Republicans, for some reason, the majority of Congress members along with our incoming president, feel (or so their voting records indicate) that limiting abortions would somehow be detrimental to our society. Perhaps Obama will live up to what he said in the third debate and sign this bill; but don’t hold your breath.   

Author: Jared Fallon

“We’re entering a brave new world of presidential fundraising.”– Michael Toner, chairman of the Federal Election Commission 

The 2008 Presidential Race proved to not only be demographically historical, but the most expensive in US history as well, blowing past all previous records. Since January 2007 the 2008 presidential candidates combined have spent roughly $1 billion dollars ($2.4billion if you count candidates other than McCain and Obama) – an increase of over $300 million from the previous record-breaking 04 presidential election. This increase truly is colossal when considering back in the Bush vs. Gore election $250 million sounded like a large sum. Due to the airwave-saturating spending habits of Senator Obama there is a now a precedence to spend up near $33,000 per second just to air a commercial on only one of the big networks (estmiates taken from NBC, CBS, and FOX) during primetime spots. When are the rising costs of US elections ever going to be enough? All-time-high records can be found in virtually all other areas of US political campaigns as well.

It is anticipated the new cost to elect a US president and members of Congress will cost a staggering $5.3 billion. The most expensive congressional race of 08 hails from Illinois’ 14 district, where candidates vying for Dennis Hastert’s previous seat have spent a combined $7.5 million as of October 11 – more recent filings will certainly prove to be higher. As spending goals continue to be significantly greater than the ones before, the psychological effects of such increases may prove to me more devastating than the financial costs. To a large extent the American public already feels that far too many politicians get to their point of servitude by far too many political favors and connections to begin with. Despite the fact that the 08 election year is proving to have very high turnout, I predict that eventually as spending reaches a peak voter turnout will begin to drop significantly. Regardless, it appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending and will most likely see fresh, new waves of proposed legislation in an attempt to impose political spending limits of the sort that can be found in Canada.

To date there are not many proposals on the table. Several of them merely reduce portions of campaign financing (such as individual campaign contributions) while increasing other categories, such as the presidential primary qualifying threshold – even to the tune of 5 times that of current standards. (Ironically) Among its supporters you will find Senator Obama’s vote. The only proposal that aims for an overall guaranteed reduction is Michael E. Capuano’s (D-MA) H.R.2269, which aims to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Capuano hopes to reduce the $2,000 maximum amount of individual contribution that any person can make with respect to federal offices down to $1,000, and adjusted for inflation after 2010. Thus far he is his only sponsor.

For the sake of debate, although Senator Obama has spent more raw dollars than ever before, a short delve into political campaigns from America past does help put these numbers into perspective, if only in a shallow sense. In terms of real dollars the most expensive campaign dates back to 1896 when $3.5 million was spent to ensure Williams Bryan did not get elected. Adjusted for inflation, that sum was equal to over $3 billion in today’s dollars.  However, this is the most extreme example that one can draw a comparison to. Back then Chinese goods were considered a valuable rarity and John McCain was only 2 years old…my how the times have changed. Most Americans would agree that the amount of spending on elections is getting astronomical, and overall does lend itself towards increased government transparency. Similar concerns have caused other Democratic nations, such as Canada, to place strict limitations on a variety of different campaigns. For presidential campaigns both the time limit and the overall expenditures are capped. Whether or not Canada’s specific approach would work as a model for the US, it’s nice to see that there are other realistic case studies for when the time for reform is demanded (or needed, whichever comes first).

It appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending, but sooner or later public support for political race spending limits (and perhaps campaign length restrictions) will tip the scale for proposed reforms. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

The time is now. Early voting is steadily streaming in and by mid-week America will know the end of this long presidential race. Until then we wait in high anticipation for this highly historical election. According to Real Clear Politics, the average polling data shows Obama leading by 6.3 points, while others show Obama leading by even more.  Despite the fact that the general public thinks Obama will win, Senator McCain predicts a late-night win on Election Day, believing that the American public will choose him in the wee hours of the day.

Dr. Frank Newport editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll explains in the video below that 1980 proved to be the biggest example of the polling change, where Jimmy Carter was ahead with registered voter by eight points before Ronald Reagan won the popular vote by 10 points. With the lead that Obama has on McCain, it can narrow, but it would be highly unusual occurrence. 

There are so many behind Senator McCain who feel that these numbers unjustly show the reality and strength the candidate has for victory on Tuesday. Jeffrey Lord is one of them, a former Reagan White House political director and author, who claims the answer was clear back in August: McCain. Billy Kristol also gave his predictions of the election in favor of McCain this past Friday on The Daily Show. Lastly, Andy Martin, legendary author and Internet columnist, spoke against Obama’s intense advertising to then praise McCain for taking command saying, “John McCain is going to win the presidency, (but only) by a whisker.”

Republicans need not to cross their fingers, The Mack is back!

Author: Sara Hilbert

Election Day is here California, and you have been hit with the second most expensive campaign. Next to the presidential race, the combined efforts of committed individuals in favor and against Proposition 8, have raised over $65 million. This has resulted in the most expensive social issue campaign in the history of the nation. Californians are not the only ones concerned. Millions of campaign funding has come from groups and individuals out of state. Those donors know the reality; California is the front lines of the war for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Here are some quick facts before you head to the polls:
The official title description of Proposition 8 is “eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.” This constitutional amendment changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Prop 8 defines marriage to be recognized in the state of California between one man and one woman. In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state. If proposition 8 is enacted, it would revoke the 16,000 same sex couples their marriage agreement that have already taken place since June.

If you check this box that would mean it would over ride the California Supreme Court decision for legalizing same sex marriages. This bill is strongly supported by many groups including: Focus on the Family, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and the Knights of Columbus. These groups feel family and marriage values are threaten by a few opinionated judges. Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family wrote, “Quite literally, the institution of the family is hanging in the balance. If homosexuals are permitted to marry, then the entire legal basis for the family will be undermined.”

John McCain has spoken for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Throughout his campaign, McCain has stated that if something were to change, public opinion would have to dramatically change equal civil rights within state and local governments first. Only then should allow congress be allowed to legally consider amending the constitution. He feels like everyone should be included, but it is unclear about his plans to directly reserve rights for same-sex couples.

By reinforcing the rights of these 16,000 couples this monumental moment would set the stage for many other states to follow, which some hope would then pave the roads to be recognized under federal law. Many famous celebrities actively speak against this proposal such as Brad Pitt, Ellen DeGeneres and Steven Spielberg.The newlywed, Ellen DeGeneres and her same sex partner, Portia De Rossi, begs people stop the discrimination. On her show, she compares this unfair treatment to withholding voting rights from blacks and women. She says, “There is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people. All of us. You are no different than I am. Our love is the same…. My hope is someday it won’t be called contract it will be called marriage.”

Barack Obama, personally, feels stronger for traditional marriages but fully supports the same sex lifestyle and their civil rights; from emergency visitation rights, health coverage, employee benefits, property and adoption rights. He also wants to expand federal hate crimes and the Employment Non-Discriminatory Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

With the prices of gasoline at the pumps, one would almost assume that many people would be excited. One would think that the way people drive would revert back to the familiar ways of yesteryear. Finally, I can afford to fill up my tank again! Well, we are all probably relieved by the prices at the pump; however, people are still playing cautious. Many of us have changed the way we drive and the way we live our lives in order to save a few bucks here and there. I know I have and I probably won’t be changing my cautious ways anytime soon. With the very close upcoming presidential election, the weight of the current financial crisis is currently on every voters mind.

Throughout the campaigning, especially within the recent months, it has become a major concern and focal point. Both John McCain and Barack Obama backed President Bush’s $700 billion rescue package for the financial industry. Both believe in more tax relief for the middle and working classes; however, McCain and Obama differ in the taxation of high income earners. Obama would like to revoke the tax cuts that Bush made for those higher incomes, while McCain believes that is not necessary. Either way, the financial problems are definitely not going away any time soon.

America is not alone. The financial crisis has clearly become a global concern, with its impacts leaving no corner of the world untouched. Over the previous weekend of October 25, there was the annual Asia-Europe meeting, or ASEM. The ASEM is an informal process of dialogue and cooperation that brings together the member nations of the European Union and the EU Commission as well as sixteen Asian nations and the ASEAN Secretariat. The ASEM allows for these nations to debate informally over a variety of issues. At the ASEM, Premier Wen Jiabo of China called for new rules to guide the international financial system, following a call by Asian and European leaders for the International Monetary Fund to intervene and deal with the ongoing global financial situation.

According to Premier Wen Jiabo, “[w]e need to draw lessons from the crisis…We need financial innovation to serve the economy better. However, we need even more financial regulation to ensure financial safety”. No one denies that something should be done to help fix the world’s struggling economy. Current French President Sarkozy said that the ASEM summit was “helpful” for the promotion of efforts to tackle the problem. China appears ready on all counts to step up to the plate and take a lead role in fixing the credit crisis. If China does indeed decide to intervene it will be interesting to see if they honor their word or not, granted if other nations allow the proposal at hand. China has been a huge exporter of cheap consumer goods to the United States and other nations, beating nearly all other manufacturers around the world. With the economies of these nations on the fritz, China needs to begin turning its spending ambitions internally. An editorial in the New York Times claims that, “ To get China’s consumers to spend, the government will need to spend more at home, investing in public work projects and providing more social benefits—including health insurance and pensions…This is clearly Beijing’s interest, though China’s leaders are still clinging to the old export strategy”.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

With about one week to go in the Presidential Races, Barack Obama is still the preferred candidate. According to the Gallup Polls on October 21, 2008, Senator Obama was in a seven to ten point lead against Senator McCain.  The poll is based on likely voters, voters voting intentions, and past voting behavior. Although international opinions from countries around the world seem to play a significant role in this presidential race, there is little evidence as to how much impact their opinions truly make. However, the Gallup Poll reveals that in about seventy different nations, there is a near four to one preference for Senator Obama over McCain.

One has to remember that statistics are just statistics. Until the fateful day of the election, no one really knows who will be elected to office and no one really knows how well that particular candidate will do in office until he gets there. This past Sunday, Colin Powell interviewed on Meet the Press, announcing his endorsement towards Barack Obama. He admits to being close friends with John McCain and that both candidates are qualified; however, McCain would be just more of the same ole’ same ole. He described Obama as more of a “transformational figure”. Powell stated that “[b]ecause of Obama’s ability to inspire…the inclusive nature of this campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities…he has both style and substance—he has meet the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president”.

Powell even referred to his own party as being discriminatory. Apparently, some Americans still believe that Obama is Muslim, and has possible affiliations with terrorists. According to Powell, Obama is Christian. I don’t know if Powell’s endorsement really means much, especially so close to the election. However, Powell does raise a good point. Even if Obama was a Muslim, what is wrong with that? What is so wrong with being different? If we were all the same, the world would be a dreary place to live (and politics would be a lot more boring). I wonder how many voters will go and vote just because Obama is black or because McCain is white. I wonder how many of those voters will deny the reason for their vote is based on color. We have come a long way in America, but the taint of discriminatory thoughts and actions still linger. Perhaps its human nature this judgment of character before we even get to know a person.

The idea in electing a President should be based on what each candidate stands for, their past records, etc. For instance, Obama co-sponsored the Senate Bill 1492, which sets out to develop the quality of federal and state data on ease of use and eminence of broadband services while giving the Nation more affordable services at the same time. McCain co-sponsored the Senate Bill 1810, amending the Public Health Services Act. This allows for better information and services to patients who are diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Obama wants to raise taxes. McCain believes in expanding alternative energy technology. These are just some of the issues we should be taking into account. The amount of challenges facing the presidential candidates this election truly are daunting, and will prove to become even more so as the current financial crisis is experienced more and more in all other parts of the economy, and in our personal lives. 

Russia. No other country in recent past has had so many confirmed near-nuclear experiences, discolored alliances, and bitterly cold disputes with the United States. Many signs are clear that Russia wants its reemerging global presence to be known to all – while the United States is increasingly receiving pressure to slow down its rapid military spending habits and hegemonic pursuits. Many critics believe that since 2007 Russia announced its newest military doctrine the page has finally turned for the two rivals. Russia’s stance on NATO’s eastward expansion and the US’ presence in the region has never changed, viewing the moves as “reckless”, “dangerous”, and “not unnoticed.” Russia’s 07 doctrine outlines what its commanders should be preparing for if the nation were to get into war. This of course, coupled with Russia’s recent and worrisome Venezuelan agreements should have Americans questioning McCain’s and Obama’s plans for US-Russian relations.

In a consistent manner with most of the world Obama, in general, is seen with much higher favorability than his Republican opponent. The general perception that we hear is based on McCain’s warnings of “dangers posed by a revanchist Russia” and a sense of urgency to increase political pressures on the quickly strengthening Moscow. It is clear enough that the Arizona Senator’s plans for Russia will not be viewed favorably by both Putin and Medvedev. In addition, more recent comments from Palin in reference to Russia make it clear that no matter how foreign policy will be decided Russia will not appreciate the Republican Party. But what about Barack Obama? Despite the general American perception that Obama would be much more…tender, on Russia the reality is that no matter who wins November’s election affairs between the US and Russia can, and will become much, much more intense. How much more intense should be at the forefront of the respective countries’ citizens, and the rest of the world for that matter.

Senator Obama so far has played his overall stance on Russia down, allowing criticism to be directed at the Republican Party. But yet the facts point to a much more hard-line policy that leaves Moscow unsettled. Instead of Obama criticizing Bush’s lack of hard-line actions towards Russia Obama stated that the President “…proceeded to neglect our relationship with Russia at a time when Putin was strangling any opposition in the country when he was consolidating power.” As the conflict between Georgia and Russian heightened Obama cited Russia has having no possible justification for the attacks, explaining further that Russia should not move towards a “regression to conflicts of the past”, ignoring the recent developments that NATO has taken closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Each of these developments received sharp criticism by most Russians in political circles. Shortly afterwards, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, compared Putin to Hitler – a risky move against a Prime Minister that continues to hold great sway over the country and its affairs. Furthermore, Stanford University Professor and Obama’s senior advisor on Russia, Michael McFaul, is viewed by Russian political officials as being “consistently harsh on political developments in Russia.”

McFaul is not only considered “Obama’s top Russia strategist” by Russian political officials, but is known for his sharp criticism of the Kremlin – especially in the area of foreign affairs. McFaul is deeply respected in the US for his council on Russian affairs and democratic policies around the globe but ironically shares many of the same views as McCain. Whether or not you believe Obama would take drastic measures on Russia, his political party affiliation must be taken into account as well. Despite the fact that Republicans are proving themselves to be extremely talented at long, drawn out wars, Democrats are not all as hug-friendly as Clinton was. The three biggest conflicts that shaped the 20^th century as we know it were all initially overseen by democrats. Woodrow Wilson and World War I, Franklin Roosevelt and World War II, and Harry Truman and the Cold War. Another interesting dimension is to remember Obama’s 6^th longest serving Senator in US history, Joe Biden. Biden’s subtle but strong criticism of Russia’s recent conflict with Georgia should not go unnoticed simply because he isn’t as obnoxious about the Alaskan Governor with no US-Russian relations experience.

If Obama does indeed take the presidency escalating urgency for improved affairs with Russia will not be as rosy as most Americans like to believe. Setting aside whether or not Obama follows in the footsteps of Democrats past, as Russia continues to show its reemerging presence time will only tell the degree to which the US will need to respond. The interesting factor is that it Russia will most likely not be able to tell the difference between McCain and Obama, which partially explains Russia’s latest bold military moves so close to Election Day. The lack of US foreign policy flexibility will prove to be a drastic problem for America as Russia gets back on its feet and starts running. Russia is simply becoming too great of a power with too many strings attached around the globe for the US to continue along its same lines of action. Sooner or later, as the US non-so-allies continue to strengthen relations with Russia, there will be a tipping point for change. We simply cannot remain on the same tedious tight rope we are balancing on right now. Either way, when examining Obama and McCain’s stances on Russia it becomes abundantly clear that Americans simply do not have much of a choice for this election unless something changes significantly within the next month. For further examination of these views, look up Obama’s most recent actions towards Russia or Google his support of NATO expansion and development.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican and personally have attempted to avoid all of the hub-bub in regards to the 08 presidential candidates because the press tends to be redundant, occasionally biased (who’s ever seen equal coverage??), and, at times, just plain exasperating. However, the media has continued to taunt me with snippets of Palin’s speech since the day I missed it and has tweaked my interest. Due to intrigue, I have managed to find the official text and see what all the excitement was about. During the Republican Convention, Sarah Palin proved herself to be an eloquent speaker. She stated all the right things we all want to hear. She’s a smooth one alright, spewing words to inspire, uplift, and make your toes tingle.

Palin’s acceptance began with praise of McCain, quickly leading into a humbling portrait of herself and her family. She spoke to our hearts as she told of her three month old son who has Down syndrome -the portrayal of a motherly, down-to-earth kind of woman that many of us can relate to. She goes on to discuss her experience as a small-town mayor, stating that she always sticks to her story, revealing that she never supported the Bridge to Nowhere and against lobbyists. This point raised red flags in my mind. According to various sources, Palin did support the Bridge to Nowhere at one time as well as hired a lobbyist that secured $27 million for Wasilla, Alaska while she was Mayor.

Governor Palin believes it is necessary to break “our dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart” by increasing our domestic oil supply specifically through drilling in Alaska. As much as I am for breaking our addiction to foreign oil, I disagree with drilling in Alaska. I believe that preserving the natural beauty and environment of the state is very important. It is virtually impossible to increase drilling and not harm the environment in some way. I do agree, however, on the importance of moving forward with alternative sources of energy. We are in a time of great energy demand changes and as more people are using more energy the concerns over global warming are skyrocketing.

As with any political campaign, one cannot leave out a little bashing of their opponent. According to Palin,Obama’s plan is to “make government bigger…take more of your money…give you more orders from Washington…and to reduce the strength of America”. “How will we be better off if these types of policies are made?” she asks. This is a valid question. The same could be asked of a McCain-Palin administration. Palin answers this by stating that McCain will use his career to promote change, mentioning his honorable journey from prisoner of war to Oval Office. McCain’s story is powerful and moving – a sound strategy for the Republicans. “For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds”. Leave it to the ever eloquent Palin to portray McCain as America’s hero.

Despite some twists of truth (what Politician doesn’t?), Palin made a valid argument for a McCain administration. Her words weigh heavy on our hearts, gaining my attention and millions of others. Perhaps I’ll become a Republican?

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/palins-powerful-speech/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/evolutionary-politics-spore-effect http://www.statesurge.com/news/evolutionary-politics-spore-effect#comments Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:39:18 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=102 Everyone knows about the crazy never-ending controversy between evolutionists and creationists. Obviously, creationists believe in a creator, a being bigger than themselves that they cannot understand who made the world and everything in it. Evolutionists stand on the objective side, claiming science as their defense, arguing that we have evolved from primitive living organisms. Perhaps after enduring the debate you may question, is that absolutely all there is? Is there no middle ground - no alternative thinking? The answer is a resounding "no".]]>

Author: Kristin Cox

Everyone knows about the crazy never-ending controversy between evolutionists and creationists. Obviously, creationists believe in a creator, a being bigger than themselves that they cannot understand who made the world and everything in it. Evolutionists stand on the objective side, claiming science as their defense, arguing that we have evolved from primitive living organisms. Perhaps after enduring the debate you may question, is that absolutely all there is? Is there no middle ground – no alternative thinking? The answer is a resounding “no”. There are many who make their stand upon the base of something else called intelligent design. Intelligent design refers to a different kind of scientific research program consisting of philosophers, researchers, and all kinds various scientists who are out to prove design in nature. It does not emphasize natural selection, rather it puts the spotlight on an intelligent cause. So how does all of this connect with the profound world of politics? Where do our future leaders of the US stand on this pressing issue? Astoundingly when the question arose in the first Republican presidential debate about whether or not anyone present believed in evolution, only three raised their hands against the theory. Perhaps this is not true evidence of the opinions of our politicians, but rather a confirmation that many are playing it safe when asked about something so highly controversial. All three of the ones who raised their hands at the debate dropped out of the election.

When asked by the York Daily Record about evolutionism vs. creationism Barack Obama answered that he is an evolutionist and expressed his opinion that science and faith are two very different things, and should be treated as such. John McCain is also an evolution supporter. When asked about his views, he stated his belief in evolution, but also his respect for those who can say boldly that the earth was created in 7 days. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a creationist. She is also firm in her beliefs.

It is important to know our leaders’ value systems and crucial for them to be leaders who are not afraid to state what they believe in. This topic of evolution is widely discussed in our society, and therefore plays a significant role in who we are as a public. As an active democracy, US politicians obviously concerned with public interest. And one thing the public are wildly interested in as of recent is a new game called “Spore.” This trendy online game has exploded into the hands of the public, allowing the player to control the evolution of species from its unicellular state, allowing the player to serve as an intelligent designer. This game officially came out in the United States on September 7^th and has been extremely popular, occupying the computers of people all over the world. It is exceedingly advertised, strongly recommended, and in high demand. Obviously the debate on evolution is a popular one; it is something that triggers interest in the human mind! For this reason this disputed topic cannot be ignored in politics.

For information about legislative bills concerning scientific and technological education capabilities, click here.

Author: Jared Fallon

Does anyone remember when presidential candidate John McCain called for a Gas Tax “Holiday” in April of 08 as Americans were priming themselves for the most expensive fuel prices experienced yet? We can’t help but imagine what our current policies would look like now, how McCain’s campaign would be affected, and whether or not such a shallow, short-term policy would have truly garnered any extra respect for this Arizona Senator. What I am proposing over this Presidential season is an “Election Holiday” – a break from the constant bombardment of details on the 08 Presidential Campaign and its affairs. A break that will allow us to recharge in the same manner that gas tax alleviation would have been appreciated, if only for a short amount of time. The logic between the two is actually quite similar.

McCain was simply looking for a near sighted relief to a growing present problem – one that affects a widespread population and tends to distract from greater economic and political goals. Why wouldn’t a break from the Presidential Election mumbo jumbo not equally be appreciated? This is not to undermine our political system or our adapted form of democracy, but to instead propose a new break along the same line of thought that many politicians seek short-term relief policies for – a time to reset, reflect, and recharge. In the haste and intensity of such a historical election it is important to not get lost in partisan politics nor details that are less consequential (i.e. Palin’s granddaughter scandal or Obama’s contagious smile). At such a crucial crossroads in American politics, we need not stray from our grander goals for reform – ranging from our current burdensome military policies to our aging infrastructure system, to our increasing tensions with our not-so-friends overseas. Let’s work for reform. Let’s work to not lose sight of our more intrinsic need for meaningful policies and get America where she needs to be.

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/election-relief-holiday/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/palins-stance http://www.statesurge.com/news/palins-stance#comments Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:59:57 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=91 It seems this Presidential election will bring about some firsts in United States history: a black man as president or a woman as vice president. The announcement of the Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's Vice President has definitely evoked a strong reaction throughout the nation. Perhaps that is what the "maverick" was looking for?]]> Author: Crystal Fontaine

It seems this Presidential election will bring about some firsts in United States history: a black man as president or a woman as vice president. The announcement of the Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as McCain’s Vice President has definitely evoked a strong reaction throughout the nation. Perhaps that is what the “maverick” was looking for? It has been highly noted that Palin lacks experience with only two years as Governor and before that a Mayor. Despite her lack of experience in foreign policy and such, Palin does have much experience with the general public, especially those in Alaska. What the real question we should be asking does not involve experience, but where does she stand on the issues.

Senator McCain announced Palin as someone “who can best help me shake up Washington”. Palin took office on December 4, 2006 as the first woman Governor of Alaska. As Governor, her top priorities have been transportation development, public health and safety, education and workforce development and resource development. The Palin Administration invested five billion dollars in state savings, implemented the Senior Benefits Program, and overhauled education funding. Governor Palin is well known for her advocacy in drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska, specifically the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Ironically, McCain and Palin have differing views concerning the topic. McCain opposes drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, while his opponent Obama supports the idea. Governor Palin agrees with Obama about completion of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. Also, Palin fought against legislation, sponsored by Senator Lieberman, which intended to designate the Artic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness. She created Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office, which provides oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment and facilities.

Although a bit of an outsider in the Republican Party, Palin has shown fearlessness throughout her years as Mayor and as Governor. She has gained a reputation of political purity, trying to clean up the mess of corruption. For instance, she resigned as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission due to the deficiency of ethics moral principles in other Republican members. Palin left frustrated after her complaints of conflict of interests and legal violations within the committee. Governor Palin has served as chair of other committees as well. She currently serves as chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, promoting the preservation and effective recovery of domestic oil and natural gas while still protecting the environment, public safety, and health. Recently, she was appointed chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resource Committee. The committee pursues legislation to guarantee state needs are considered as federal policy is created in the areas of energy, environmental protection, agriculture, etc. She has passed two major pieces of legislation to overhaul state ethic laws and a completive process to construct a gas pipeline. In addition, Palin submitted the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. The legislation is to act as a medium to get natural gas pipelines built and bring state’s extensive gas reserves to the market.

John McCain is known as the “maverick” in this campaign for presidency. Perhaps that is the very reason he chose Governor Palin to be his running mate. Together, they may indeed be the ticket to shake up Capital Hill and even the nation. “Leaders don’t wait. They shape their own frontiers. The bigger the challenge, the greater the opportunity” – Anonymous.

Author: Sara Hilbert

The McCain Campaign not only recently announced their vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin this Friday, they shocked us with it. Over these last view days America has searched, googled, and gossiped about the life of this Alaskan Governor.

Sarah Palin was born February 11, 1964 in Idaho and raised in Skagway, Alaska. Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho and married a lifelong commercial fisherman Todd. Nevertheless her most important role is being a mother of 5 children; Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. Her involvement in the lives of her kids lead to her first major political move. Beginning at local PTA meetings, then moving on to city council, where she served two terms in 1992 and 1996 in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska. She was then elected Mayor of Wasilla for two consecutive terms in 1996 and 1999. In 2006, Palin was elected Governor of the state of Alaska, becoming the states youngest and only female governor. But how will Palin handle the change of small town responsibilities to leading a country of 300 million? Once sworn in office, will Sarah Palin be following McCain around wondering what to do? This is not a sexist comment, but rather a question regarding her experience. The stage lights are a lot brighter in Washington than Juneau. Regardless of her good judgment and morale, Sarah Palin will be silently sitting in her inexperience at the defense meetings. Instead of bringing solid expertise and knowledge, she will try to take her backwoods data and weigh it to the country.

An additional point of question is the relationship between John McCain and Sarah Palin. The president and vice president don’t have to be the best pals; however, in order to be the most effective, they must be a comfortable and highly compatible combination. Compared to other choices like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, and Joe Lieberman, it is hard to convince us that this is a running mate that John McCain desired.

This claimed maverick reformer exploded this week at the GOP convention with a strong confidence. Palin made sure we knew she was not here to get a good opinion column from critics, but to stand up for the American people. With little known about her past records and law making, I wonder if she knows that she can’t clean house in Washington when they do not agree with her.

Does the Republican party really believe in her? Do they hope her small business background and same-as-us attitude will bring a more balanced approach to the candidate? Or has this become a poor strategy to win leftover Hilary votes? We have to look further down the road and ask, if in Washington will Governor Sarah Palin be ready?

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

The issue of energy is a popular, but very important, topic in the 2008 presidential race. It is an issue that reaches all of us, especially in our pocketbooks. As the election draws ever closer and recent spikes in gas prices begin to fall, we are faced with the decision that may either lead us towards greater energy independence and efficiency or leave us in the same ole’ rut.

John McCain’s strategy, or the Lexington Project, proposes to expand domestic oil and natural gas production as well as fund for alternatives in energy. He believes in lifting restrictions on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, putting our own reserves to use. According to McCain’s campaign website, the Outer Continental Shelf contains 77 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. McCain would push automakers, issuing a Clean Car Challenge that would create a substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. While McCain supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles, he also supports the market for alternative energy sources, such as Solar Energy and Hydro. He proposes a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for fully electric vehicles and Plug-In Hybrids. In addition, McCain supports Nuclear Energy, which is a proven source of zero emission. The French may actually be on to something here, if we’d only pay attention. Currently, nuclear energy produces only 20% of our power. McCain’s goal is to construct 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, eventually constructing 100 new plants.

Obama provides a different strategy. He would like to crack down on excessive energy speculation by closing market loopholes and increasing transparency in order to thwart traders from unjustly lining their pockets. The plan calls for a swap of light oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for heavy crude oil to help bring down those ghastly oil prices. Obama would like to see an increase in fuel economy standards, while establishing a national low carbon fuel standard to reduce carbon in fuels 10% by 2020. Also, there would be a “use it or lose it” approach concerning oil and gas leases. Under this approach, oil companies must develop 68 million acres of land which are leased but aren’t drilled in. He promotes responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas, prioritizing the assembly of the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline. Although he suppors more domestic production of oil and natural gas, Obama realizes the need for better and cleaner energy. He proposes $1 million of Plug-In Hybrids to be on the road by 2015. A $7000 tax credit would be created for purchasing advanced vehicles. In addition, Obama would ensure that 10% of electricity would come from renewable sources by 2012 and 25% by 2025.

Since man has walked the Earth, we have developed new and innovative ways to power our world, whether it was wood, coal, and now petroleum. What’s next on the list? Only time will tell. Whoever is elected this November cannot ignore the need for alternative energy sources.

Sources:
www.johnmccain.com
www.barackobama.com

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

We all make choices every day. In November 2008, we must make a tough decision concerning the future leadership of our nation. Will it be John McCain or Barack Obama? One of the foremost concerns of the American public is the economy. Each candidate presents plans to solve, or at least help, our economic woes.

John McCain provides an economic plan that is to help relieve the American people. McCain’s plan involves a decrease in the price of oil and an increase in the value of the dollar. He believes a summer gas tax holiday should be implemented, suspending the 24.4 cent diesel tax and the 18.4 cent federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. According to McCain, small business is the ticket to economic growth. He intends to help small business by reducing individual tax rates and permitting access to capital from small tax rates on dividends and capital gains. McCain would like to curtail expensive mandates as well as boost international competitiveness to keep jobs here in the United States. The mortgage crisis has affected many Americans all of the country; therefore, McCain proposes a new “Home Plan” to help those in need. This “Home Plan” would provide timely, vigorous, and targeted help. In addition, McCain’s plan calls for reform in Social Security and control of Medicare growth by supplementing current Social Security with personal accounts and improving on quality care.

Obama plans to jumpstart the economy through tax relief and relief for the current housing crisis. Obama proposes to establish $10 billion in a Foreclosure Prevention Fund as well as $10 billion in relief for state and local governments that were stricken powerfully by the housing crisis to avoid cuts in fundamental services. In order to protect home ownership and crack down on mortgage fraud, Obama resolves to create a new FHA Housing Security Program. He believes in mandating an accurate loan disclosure, requiring a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit Score. In addition, he pledges for more accountability in the subprime mortgage industry. Obama’s plan includes a “Making Work Pay” tax credit, which could be up to $500 per person and $1,000 per family. He would also like to simplify tax filings for the Middle Class. Like McCain, Obama supports small business. A national network of public-private business incubators would be created, investing $250 million per year.

Whether Democrat, Republican, or out in the mid-field, we as United States citizens have a very important and tough decision to make this election year. Perhaps to make the decision easier, we should leave Florida out in this one. Just kidding, folks.

To learn more visit: www.johnmccain.com or www.barackobama.com

In our first election satire since 2004’s “This Land” and “Good to be in DC”, we bid farewell to Bush and give Obama and Mccain a proper JibJab hazing! And, of course, who could forget about Hillary and Bill? This rip-roaring musical romp gives the election process the proper spanking it deserves!

ENJOY!

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

As a young American in the 21st century, I have never known oppression. I have never longed for freedom because I was born free with the ability to make my own choices and be whoever I want. Thousands every day live in fear of just speaking their own minds. As Americans we look on to those nations of tyranny half-way across the world. We sympathize, but never truly realize. One such nation lives in our very own backyard just 90 miles off the tip of Florida. That nation is Cuba.

US-Cuban relations have been virtually non-existent for decades. Since 1961, official US policy has been economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. Key issues for America’s “beef” with the island nation arise from human rights violations, Guantanamo Bay, and the Cuban exile community living in Southern Florida. During his administration, President Bush has kept things tight concerning Cuba. Americans may only visit immediate family once every 3 years with an allowance of up to $300 to carry into Cuba. In 2003, President Bush established the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, where several Cuban-Americans sit. Under the CAFC, a fund called the “Cuba Fund for a Democratic Future” was developed to support independent civil society, finance university scholarships, and break the information barricade in Cuba.  Congress has been a little more lenient on the island by amending the trade embargo to allow agricultural exports from the U.S. to Cuba.

Earlier in 2008, Fidel Castro stepped down and relinquished command to his brother, Raul. Who else better to leave your throne to than family? The change in power has sparked a debate on future US-Cuban relations. Raul seems to have indicated a willingness to at least listen to what the U.S government has to say. Perhaps it hasn’t gotten as much media time as the energy debate, but Cuba is still an important topic for the 2008 Presidential race. McCain and Obama have similar, yet different views concerning Cuba. John McCain would keep the embargo in place and not permit economic aid. In general, he has voted in support of restrictions on Cuba. In 1992, he cosponsored the Cuban Democracy Act. According to McCain, he would “press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, legalize all political parties, labor unions, and free media and to schedule internationally monitored elections”. Barack Obama would also not lift the embargo unless Cuba liberates its political prisoners, start instituting free press and take other steps to democratize. He has voted twice to cut off TV Marti Funding.  However, Obama looks to stabilize relations at some point. He would allocate for unrestricted family travel and remittance to the island. In his May 2008 speech in Miami, Obama stated “There are no better ambassadors for Freedom than Cuban-Americans”.

The change in leadership within both nations may bring about more diplomatic relations in the future. Perhaps, one day we will see a free Cuba.

Even the McCain camp did not find the cover to be in good taste. John McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds agreed with Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who stated “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

AUTHOR: Megan Yarbrough

Keeping up with the candidates and their individual details can be difficult at times. This article, designed as a quick overview of four of the current presidential candidates, will help you feel and appear knowledgeable.

U.S. Senator John McCain (Republican)

Biographical Background
John McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, later serving as a pilot in the Vietnam War. During his service, he spent five years as a prisoner of war. McCain was elected to Congress in 1982, representing the 1st congressional district of Arizona. Four years later, he was elected to the Senate. He is now a senior senator and serves on the committee of commerce, committee of science and transportation, and the committee of Indian Affairs. McCain has seven kids and four grandchildren. Currently, McCain and his wife, Cindy, reside in Phoenix, Arizona.

Issues
Stem Cell Research: According to Senator John McCain’s statement on stem cell research, McCain realizes that stem cell research may provide new cures and treatments for diseases. He supports funding for adult stem cell research and other stem cell research provided that it does not involve the use of human embryos. He also supports legislation to ban the creation of human embryos, by any means, for scientific use. Additionally, he believes that scientists should only be able to conduct embryonic stem cell research on embryos that were leftover from in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be frozen or destroyed. The use of embryos in embryonic stem cell research, in his opinion, should be contingent upon the donor initially being aware that embryos adoption is an option, and then only later being informed of the ability to donate them to research. Written consent should be received and financial compensation should be illegal.

Education: McCain believes that the public school system is in need of reform. He supports the creation of additional recruiting and training for teachers, paid for through funding by the federal government. Furthermore, he believes that annual reports on the school’s performance should be available to the public. McCain is a strong advocate of the voucher, or school-choice, system that would allow parents to choose which school their child would benefit from the most. He believes that the voucher system would give disadvantage children a better chance of succeeding and improve the overall performance of schools.

U.S Senator Barrack Obama (Democrat)

Biographical Background
Married with two children, Malia and Sasha, Obama currently lives in Illinois. Born in Hawaii, he moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, with his mom and stepfather when he was six years old. He lived there for four years before returning to Hawaii to be raised, for the most part, by his grandparents. He attended Columbia University and later graduated from Harvard Law School.  Obama has always had a strong interest in civil rights and started his career working in Chicago as a community organizer. He served on the state senate for seven years. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have two children.

Issues
Stem Cell Research: Barrack Obama believes that stem cell research has the ability to cure many diseases that currently are difficult, or impossible, to cure. He supports the use of stem cell research, and realizes the limitations of the research on only adult and umbilical cord cells. Therefore, he does support embryonic stem cell research provided that it is done on the embryos that would otherwise be discarded. He also feels that review boards should monitor all scientific research involving embryonic research.

Education: Senator Obama supports an increase in funding for the early education program, Head Start. He supports a plan that involves all school district’s submitting a plan for improving their school through reforms. The top twenty plans would be accepted, and those schools would receive additional funding to implement their plans provided that they show results. He is also an advocate of the Step Up program (Summer Term Education Programs for Upward Progress) that would provide disadvantaged students with summer learning opportunities. Additionally, Obama supports an increase in the maximum of federal grant money available to future college students.

It can be challenging to research and understand each candidate running for the presidency. However, next time someone strikes up a conversation about the differences in the candidates, you will have some knowledge of the candidates.

Sources:
www.cnn.com
www.washingtonpost.com
mccain.senate.gov
www.exploremccain.com
www.newyorker.com
obama.senate.gov

By Jackson Boyer

With November drawing ever closer, more and more questions are being asked regarding the two remaining candidates for President of the United States. While each party is doing their fair share of political name-calling, one argument particularly stung the Republican candidate in his battle for the White House: how old is too old? While the younger (and some say, more spry) Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, is a mere 44 years old, the Republican nominee John McCain is 72; old enough to be his father. Even though John McCain has had almost 20 years of Senate experience, the issue of how his age could possibly affect his judgment in office has been raised. Following is a list of four great American Presidents who were considered “over the political hill” before being elected as President, but when given the chance, accomplished great things.

Most Republicans consider Ronald Reagan to have been the single most economically effective presidents of all time. During his two terms in office, Reagan not only lowered taxes for the average American but also helped mitigate the country of more than a decade of recession. Reagan also helped bring about the end of the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War; needless to say, his fight against communism was one that has echoed throughout the ages. He was 69 years old when he took office in 1981.

Harry S. Truman faced some of the most difficult decisions of any leader throughout history. Truman authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Japan, forcing the end to WWII and saving countless lives that would have been lost had the war persisted. He also made great strives socially, with the implementation of the Fair Deal which was aimed at helping the vast number of Americans still suffering from the Great Depression. Truman was almost 61 years old when he rose to the challenge of leading the free world during one of its most troubling times.

Dwight D. Eisenhower not only led America, but also led the entirety of the Allied forces in WWII as their supreme commander. Eisenhower also helped form NATO with other allies in Europe after WWII and became its first Supreme Commander in 1951, all before even becoming president. While in office, he put pressure on communism, helped oversee Korean ceasefire, formed NASA and advocated social change by proposing and enacting the Civil Rights Acts of 1957. He accomplished all of this while establishing the construction of the Interstate Highway System, which now stretches across the US for more than 46,000 miles. Someone who liberated Europe, generated worldwide peace and launched a fundamental space research organization must have been young, right? Eisenhower was 62 years young when he took office in 1953.

John Adams, the United States second president and first vice-president, is an example of how little age hinders ones ability to lead. Adams was an advocate for the US’ independence even before the revolution occurred. Serving as the representative of the Continental Congress in Europe, he helped negotiate America’s independence from and peace with Great Britain. During his presidency, Adams helped enact a number of strong domestic policies that are still used as models for today’s law making. Adams, one of the most significant founding fathers of our country, was 61 when he took office in 1797…an almost unheard of age for the time.

These individuals were given the opportunity to lead the US and made great progress for our country. It is ignorant to cast aside someone’s experience and proven track record simply because of their age, as so many are attempting to do with Senator McCain. The men listed were the brightest of the bunch, and as they aged, only gained more experience and expertise. It is in my opinion that John McCain, and the like, are like a fine wine and only get better with age.

AUTHOR: Billy Skid

We’ve been hearing a lot about experience in the presidential campaign this year, and we’ve been told that experience is the most important qualification to be President. Well here’s a list of five great American Presidents who, before the job, has less experience in government than Barack Obama will have had if he wins in November.

Andrew Jackson

Prior to becoming President, Andrew Jackson had been military governor of Florida for one year, Congressman for one year and a Senator for three years. Of course, he’d also been a general, and Americans do love their general presidents, but before becoming President he had a total of five years in government service. Obama will have twelve.

Abraham Lincoln

It’s almost bizarre, but before becoming our greatest President, Lincoln had served only two years in the House of Representatives, during which he vocally opposed the Mexican-American War as a war of imperial aggression. (Sound familiar?) Just two years of government service. The rest of the time he spent lawyering around the state of Illinois. (Sound familiar?) Oh yeah. To win the nomination, he had to defeat an immensely popular New York senator in the primaries. (Sound familiar?)

Teddy Roosevelt

Two years governor of New York, six months Vice-President of the United States. That’s it. He was also only 42 years old when he took the job, four years younger than Barack.

Woodrow Wilson

Just two years as Governor of New Jersey. Prior to that, he’d been a college professor, much like Barack has been a college professor, and a college president. And, like Barack and Teddy Roosevelt, he’d written some books, though neither Wilson nor Roosevelt wrote a book nearly as good as either of Obama’s.

Franklin Roosevelt

The guy who rivals Lincoln and Washington for the title of the greatest president, FDR, before taking the job, had been Governor of New York for four years, state senator for two years and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for seven years. All right, so that’s one more year of experience in government than Obama, but only a year.

The point is that while McCain and Clinton keep harping on experience as a crucial ingredient to being a great President, our own American history has shown that experience in government doesn’t really matter. What matters is wisdom, judgment, empathy and compassion. And Barack Obama has no shortage of any of those.