Saturday, July 4, 2009
My Next Step
Study for the Bar. Pass the Bar. Find a Job. After that, I will come back and write more.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Weekend Political News
Rove says McCain went "too far" in ads
Obama brings in record haul
McCain to be in NH to capture NASCAR voters
Clinton says "No Palin"
Opinion: She's not ready
Opinion: The Fate of Roe v. Wade
Opinion: Obamanomics
You best stay on Palin's good side
Cautious Campaigning in Shadow of Storm
States restore voting rights for ex-cons
Obama, trying to rally jittery backers
Video: Generation gap?
Obama brings in record haul
McCain to be in NH to capture NASCAR voters
Clinton says "No Palin"
Opinion: She's not ready
Opinion: The Fate of Roe v. Wade
Opinion: Obamanomics
You best stay on Palin's good side
Cautious Campaigning in Shadow of Storm
States restore voting rights for ex-cons
Obama, trying to rally jittery backers
Video: Generation gap?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
I watched Rev. Jeremiah Wright's interview with Bill Moyers on PBS the other night. I actually thought the interview was well put together and helped Wright defend some of the things he had said in his sermons. After listening to him speak and watching some clips of his sermons, I must say that the mainstream media and right-wing columnists and radio hosts have grossly mischaracterized Wright. Unfortunately, his words have been taken out of context and used for political reasons, that is to discredit Obama's presidential candidacy. As a result, Wright has been demonized and labeled as being extreme. If you watch the entire video and even watch some of the full sermons from which the media has taken only small clips from, you will understand entirely what he is talking about. In no way did he ever say he hated the US or imply that he hated white people. On the contrary, he has a very diverse church membership, including whites, and his sermons preached hope and action to change the flaws of our country.
There is no way one can call him anti-American or unpatriotic when he preaches that his members should stand up and make sure this country, and its government, does not fail its own people. This country was founded on the premise that its citizens should question its government when its policies fail. Furthermore, as an individual, he even quit school to enlist in the Navy and became a medic despite the fact that his own country discriminated against black Americans and other racial minorities. He even assisted in operating on President Lyndon Johnson when he was a young man.
Unfortunately, a man who has dedicated his life to this country and to his Church has been characterized as a man who is out of touch with mainstream America. He has even been called a racist. Perhaps, he is out of touch with mainstream America, but the question is who is mainstream America? What the media and the right-wing conservatives do not say is that mainstream America consists of mostly white Americans who have never experienced the same things as a black man growing up in a racially divided America. Perhaps, it is the mainstream America that is out of touch with those who have been historically oppressed and looked down upon? Perhaps, it is mainstream America whose eyes are closed and unwilling to understand what it is truly like to be in a non-dominant position purely based on race? Perhaps, mainstream America and those who oppose Reverend Wrights' words without putting them in context or listening to his whole sermon should stop judging him. Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Only then will you fully understand where he is coming from and be able to share the same window in which to perceive the world.
There is no way one can call him anti-American or unpatriotic when he preaches that his members should stand up and make sure this country, and its government, does not fail its own people. This country was founded on the premise that its citizens should question its government when its policies fail. Furthermore, as an individual, he even quit school to enlist in the Navy and became a medic despite the fact that his own country discriminated against black Americans and other racial minorities. He even assisted in operating on President Lyndon Johnson when he was a young man.
Unfortunately, a man who has dedicated his life to this country and to his Church has been characterized as a man who is out of touch with mainstream America. He has even been called a racist. Perhaps, he is out of touch with mainstream America, but the question is who is mainstream America? What the media and the right-wing conservatives do not say is that mainstream America consists of mostly white Americans who have never experienced the same things as a black man growing up in a racially divided America. Perhaps, it is the mainstream America that is out of touch with those who have been historically oppressed and looked down upon? Perhaps, it is mainstream America whose eyes are closed and unwilling to understand what it is truly like to be in a non-dominant position purely based on race? Perhaps, mainstream America and those who oppose Reverend Wrights' words without putting them in context or listening to his whole sermon should stop judging him. Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Only then will you fully understand where he is coming from and be able to share the same window in which to perceive the world.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Don't you want someone SMART?
My friend recently ask me the above question and my answer is stated below: (sorry for any typos -- I wrote in haste)
I agree that we need someone SMART. We also need someone who understand the Constitution and not afraid to change the status quo. Obama taught Constitutional Law. The last 8 years, we've had an administration who has been trying to destroy our Constitution and everything it stands for. We need someone who can uphold what it actually means. If we do, our country will improve and other countries will see that we follow our own laws rather than try to eliminate them.
We also need someone who is not too close to the special interest. The Clintons have been around too long for things to change. Politicians are politicians....they will not give up the chance to gain more power. If obtaining more power means conceding to special interest, they will eventually cave.
You also have to think about the general election. The primary is not just for you to vote for someone you like. You have to think about the strategy and how you can win the general election. If you think about it, Hilary is too divisive as a figure. Don't get me wrong, I like her stances on most issues. However, half of the country still hates the Clintons, especially Hilary. She will be seen as partisan a figure as Bush. Republicans will never want to work with her on any issues. If they don't work with her, she will never get things done when she's in office and we will have the same political environment we've had for the past 8 years.
If she is the democratic nominee, she will likely have to go up against either McCain or Romney. McCain is seen by the general public as a "straight talker" and someone who is rather moderate. He would easily win the republican votes in the general election and win a large portion of the independent voters. This will be too difficult for Clinton to overcome. If Romney is the nominee, he will destroy her just because he is a ruthless man who will do anything to win an election. He will come across as a strong business man who can fix the economy and portray Hilary as a radical Liberal (which I don't think she is). This country does not want a radical liberal. They want someone who can unify the country regardless of what party they are. Hilary just can't offer that right now.
As for Obama, if he wins the democratic nomination, he will be able to get a large portion of the religious voters because he is religious. If Romney is the nominee for the Republicans, some religious voters may vote for Obama rather than Romney because this country may not be ready for Romney's religious background. Religion is a bigger issue in this country than most believe. If McCain is the nominee, Obama will hopefully out debate him and he will not be seen as such a partisan figure as Hilary. This will neutralize the fact that McCain is seen as moderate and Obama will be able to win more independent voters than Hilary would be able to.
Finally, do you really want the same partisan political atmosphere we've had since Bush has been in office? We really do need someone who can bring both sides (Dems and Reps) to the table.
I agree that we need someone SMART. We also need someone who understand the Constitution and not afraid to change the status quo. Obama taught Constitutional Law. The last 8 years, we've had an administration who has been trying to destroy our Constitution and everything it stands for. We need someone who can uphold what it actually means. If we do, our country will improve and other countries will see that we follow our own laws rather than try to eliminate them.
We also need someone who is not too close to the special interest. The Clintons have been around too long for things to change. Politicians are politicians....they will not give up the chance to gain more power. If obtaining more power means conceding to special interest, they will eventually cave.
You also have to think about the general election. The primary is not just for you to vote for someone you like. You have to think about the strategy and how you can win the general election. If you think about it, Hilary is too divisive as a figure. Don't get me wrong, I like her stances on most issues. However, half of the country still hates the Clintons, especially Hilary. She will be seen as partisan a figure as Bush. Republicans will never want to work with her on any issues. If they don't work with her, she will never get things done when she's in office and we will have the same political environment we've had for the past 8 years.
If she is the democratic nominee, she will likely have to go up against either McCain or Romney. McCain is seen by the general public as a "straight talker" and someone who is rather moderate. He would easily win the republican votes in the general election and win a large portion of the independent voters. This will be too difficult for Clinton to overcome. If Romney is the nominee, he will destroy her just because he is a ruthless man who will do anything to win an election. He will come across as a strong business man who can fix the economy and portray Hilary as a radical Liberal (which I don't think she is). This country does not want a radical liberal. They want someone who can unify the country regardless of what party they are. Hilary just can't offer that right now.
As for Obama, if he wins the democratic nomination, he will be able to get a large portion of the religious voters because he is religious. If Romney is the nominee for the Republicans, some religious voters may vote for Obama rather than Romney because this country may not be ready for Romney's religious background. Religion is a bigger issue in this country than most believe. If McCain is the nominee, Obama will hopefully out debate him and he will not be seen as such a partisan figure as Hilary. This will neutralize the fact that McCain is seen as moderate and Obama will be able to win more independent voters than Hilary would be able to.
Finally, do you really want the same partisan political atmosphere we've had since Bush has been in office? We really do need someone who can bring both sides (Dems and Reps) to the table.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Broken Health Care System
I finally made time out of my busy schedule to watch the ultra-liberal, Michael Moore's new documentary called SICKO. After watching this movie, I would recommend the world to watch it, or at least those living in the US. The movie is basically about how the US health care system is broken and how it is not as wonderful as we all claim it to be. There are about 50 million people in the US without insurance, but this movie is not necessarily about them. Instead, Moore focuses on how grossly inadequate health insurance is for the rest of the 250 million people living in this country and how the insurance companies control what can and cannot be treated.
He makes a great point about how we have grown up learning to despise a socialistic society where everyone is treated equally and works for the betterment of the community as a whole. We've been told over and over by schools and by our democratic government that a socialized or nationalized health care system would mean that the government would end up running peoples' lives and that important health decisions would be taken out of the hands of our family doctors. Some how our country has developed into one where we have an "Every man is for himself" attitude. We've bought into a capitalistic society where the laissez faire philosophy rules the day and the rich and powerful continue to get the best services. Who cares about those who cannot pay for all their medical bills? It's not your problem if someone dies of congestive heart failure because he had inadequate health care coverage through corporate insurance companies and cannot afford to pay out of pocket for certain necessary treatments. It's not my problem, right? Wrong. It is my problem because that same person could have easily been someone I know or a family member, or even me. Would you want to live in a country where the public cares about your health and well-being so that you can be a productive member of society? Why do the rich and the powerful only get fair treatment and the right to quality health care?
The right to quality health care. This theory gives me a segway into another good point that Moore made. I've thought about this point in the community health courses I took in college, but I never realized how true it is until now. Why is it that we do not consider health care to be a public right? Why is it that in our individualistic society we have left the poor, the sick and the old to die on the streets purely because of their inability to pay for medical care? I believe a mark of a great country is one where the government and the nation takes care of those who do not have the means to take care of themselves. That is why we have a somewhat socialistic society when it comes to our public education system, our fire department and our police department. We allow our children to go to public school without paying for an education. We allow people to use the fire department when there is a fire without paying extra. We also rely on the police to keep our streets and neighborhoods safe without paying extra. Why is it then that people have to pay extra for health care? Aren't people paying enough taxes so that they can receive quality care without having to pay deductibles and co-pays and relying on private insurance companies who will end up screwing them in the end? Oh wait, our taxes go towards funding the military instead. Apparently, people do not have enough compassion to pay for the health of fellow Americans.
It's a sad state when Americans rely on health insurance companies who only care about profit and the bottom line rather than one's health. It's also sad when our government continues to tell us that nationalized or socialized medicine will not work because it will take the decision power out of the physician's hands. It's just sad to hear this right wing propaganda when we can see that poorer countries in other parts of the world have better health care systems than ours while we are spending millions to line the pockets of the insurance companies. Instead, why don't we utilize that money in a more efficient manner and invest in a so-called Nationalized health care system?
Below is an article I found describing how the government is already controlling our health care and how it severely limits what doctors can do. I think we can do better than our current system.
Ex-surgeon general accuses Bush officials of censorship
Says they chose agenda over facts
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times July 11, 2007
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's first surgeon general alleged yesterday that administration officials prevented him from providing the public with accurate scientific and medical information on such issues as stem cell research and teen pregnancy.
"The reality is that the 'nation's doctor' has been marginalized and relegated to a position with no independent budget and with supervisors who are political appointees with partisan agendas," Dr. Richard H. Carmona told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological, or political agenda is ignored, marginalized, or simply buried.
"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," said Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006. "The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party."
Carmona testified alongside former surgeons general C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, respectively. They also told the committee that they faced political interference, particularly on morally charged issues such as sexuality and drug use.
But Carmona said some fellow surgeons general told him the interference rose to new levels during his tenure.
"The surgeon general has to be independent if the surgeon general is going to have any credibility," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and the committee chairman. The panel is considering changes that would insulate the surgeon general from political crosscurrents.
Administration officials had no immediate comment on Carmona's denunciation, but the Health and Human Services Department was expected to issue a statement. The House hearing occurred two days before a Senate panel is to meet to consider the nomination of Kentucky cardiologist Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. to succeed Carmona. Holsinger already has drawn political fire from leading Democrats and gay and lesbian organizations. As a lay member of the United Methodist Church, Holsinger has strongly opposed the liberalization of church policies toward gays.
Surgeons general are viewed as public-health advocates who serve, in essence, as the nation's family doctor. Previous surgeons general have played pivotal roles in debates about smoking, drunken driving, mental health, and disparities in medical treatment between whites and minorities.
Carmona said that he expected that would be his role when he came to Washington, but that his attitude was politically naïve.
When the issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research came up early in Bush's first term, Carmona said, he felt he could play an educational role for administration officials and the public by openly discussing the latest scientific research.
Stem cells can be grown into any type of cell in the body, and some scientists see the promise of a cure for Parkinson's and other diseases in them. But producing embryonic stem cells has involved the destruction of human embryos, raising moral issues that some, including many religious conservatives, find profoundly disturbing. In 2001, Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research and has since blocked attempts by Congress to lift the restriction.
Carmona said he was told to stand down from playing any educational role because a decision had already been made. He also said administration appointees who reviewed the text of his speeches deleted from them references to stem cell research.
Likewise, on the issue of preventing teen pregnancy, Carmona said he was not allowed to deviate from the administration's position that abstinence was the best approach. In fact, he said, he believes a variety of approaches are needed, including contraception for sexually active teens. The administration did not want to hear the science, but wanted to preach, Carmona said.
He makes a great point about how we have grown up learning to despise a socialistic society where everyone is treated equally and works for the betterment of the community as a whole. We've been told over and over by schools and by our democratic government that a socialized or nationalized health care system would mean that the government would end up running peoples' lives and that important health decisions would be taken out of the hands of our family doctors. Some how our country has developed into one where we have an "Every man is for himself" attitude. We've bought into a capitalistic society where the laissez faire philosophy rules the day and the rich and powerful continue to get the best services. Who cares about those who cannot pay for all their medical bills? It's not your problem if someone dies of congestive heart failure because he had inadequate health care coverage through corporate insurance companies and cannot afford to pay out of pocket for certain necessary treatments. It's not my problem, right? Wrong. It is my problem because that same person could have easily been someone I know or a family member, or even me. Would you want to live in a country where the public cares about your health and well-being so that you can be a productive member of society? Why do the rich and the powerful only get fair treatment and the right to quality health care?
The right to quality health care. This theory gives me a segway into another good point that Moore made. I've thought about this point in the community health courses I took in college, but I never realized how true it is until now. Why is it that we do not consider health care to be a public right? Why is it that in our individualistic society we have left the poor, the sick and the old to die on the streets purely because of their inability to pay for medical care? I believe a mark of a great country is one where the government and the nation takes care of those who do not have the means to take care of themselves. That is why we have a somewhat socialistic society when it comes to our public education system, our fire department and our police department. We allow our children to go to public school without paying for an education. We allow people to use the fire department when there is a fire without paying extra. We also rely on the police to keep our streets and neighborhoods safe without paying extra. Why is it then that people have to pay extra for health care? Aren't people paying enough taxes so that they can receive quality care without having to pay deductibles and co-pays and relying on private insurance companies who will end up screwing them in the end? Oh wait, our taxes go towards funding the military instead. Apparently, people do not have enough compassion to pay for the health of fellow Americans.
It's a sad state when Americans rely on health insurance companies who only care about profit and the bottom line rather than one's health. It's also sad when our government continues to tell us that nationalized or socialized medicine will not work because it will take the decision power out of the physician's hands. It's just sad to hear this right wing propaganda when we can see that poorer countries in other parts of the world have better health care systems than ours while we are spending millions to line the pockets of the insurance companies. Instead, why don't we utilize that money in a more efficient manner and invest in a so-called Nationalized health care system?
Below is an article I found describing how the government is already controlling our health care and how it severely limits what doctors can do. I think we can do better than our current system.
Ex-surgeon general accuses Bush officials of censorship
Says they chose agenda over facts
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times July 11, 2007
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's first surgeon general alleged yesterday that administration officials prevented him from providing the public with accurate scientific and medical information on such issues as stem cell research and teen pregnancy.
"The reality is that the 'nation's doctor' has been marginalized and relegated to a position with no independent budget and with supervisors who are political appointees with partisan agendas," Dr. Richard H. Carmona told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological, or political agenda is ignored, marginalized, or simply buried.
"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," said Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006. "The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party."
Carmona testified alongside former surgeons general C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, respectively. They also told the committee that they faced political interference, particularly on morally charged issues such as sexuality and drug use.
But Carmona said some fellow surgeons general told him the interference rose to new levels during his tenure.
"The surgeon general has to be independent if the surgeon general is going to have any credibility," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and the committee chairman. The panel is considering changes that would insulate the surgeon general from political crosscurrents.
Administration officials had no immediate comment on Carmona's denunciation, but the Health and Human Services Department was expected to issue a statement. The House hearing occurred two days before a Senate panel is to meet to consider the nomination of Kentucky cardiologist Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. to succeed Carmona. Holsinger already has drawn political fire from leading Democrats and gay and lesbian organizations. As a lay member of the United Methodist Church, Holsinger has strongly opposed the liberalization of church policies toward gays.
Surgeons general are viewed as public-health advocates who serve, in essence, as the nation's family doctor. Previous surgeons general have played pivotal roles in debates about smoking, drunken driving, mental health, and disparities in medical treatment between whites and minorities.
Carmona said that he expected that would be his role when he came to Washington, but that his attitude was politically naïve.
When the issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research came up early in Bush's first term, Carmona said, he felt he could play an educational role for administration officials and the public by openly discussing the latest scientific research.
Stem cells can be grown into any type of cell in the body, and some scientists see the promise of a cure for Parkinson's and other diseases in them. But producing embryonic stem cells has involved the destruction of human embryos, raising moral issues that some, including many religious conservatives, find profoundly disturbing. In 2001, Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research and has since blocked attempts by Congress to lift the restriction.
Carmona said he was told to stand down from playing any educational role because a decision had already been made. He also said administration appointees who reviewed the text of his speeches deleted from them references to stem cell research.
Likewise, on the issue of preventing teen pregnancy, Carmona said he was not allowed to deviate from the administration's position that abstinence was the best approach. In fact, he said, he believes a variety of approaches are needed, including contraception for sexually active teens. The administration did not want to hear the science, but wanted to preach, Carmona said.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Denial of racism in sports and in general
1) As an Asian American person, race issues have always been very interesting to me, especially in the world of sports. Understandably, most race discussions are purely about white and black issues in this country given our history. Unfortunately, as a result, Asians and Asian Americans are often left out and generally invisible in the gereral discourse of race. On the other hand, as more and more Asians are playing American sports (i.e. Yao, Dice-K, Ichiro, etc...) Asians are slowly becoming part of the general discussion. This is a good thing.
2) Unless a person of color is seriously being unreasonable, they should never be told that they are being "too sensitive" when it comes to being discriminated against, either overtly or subtly. As a person of color, one of the most irritating things to me is when a white person tells me that I am being too senstive because I thought someone commmitted an act of racism towards me. When a person who comes from a class of people who have traditionally been discriminated against feels reasonably offended for some reason, those from other groups should not be telling them that they are "too sensitive" because it is simply a way of dismissing what happened. In general, I think that when you've never experienced something, don't think that you know better,IMO.
3) In regards to overt v. institutionalized racism towards certain groups, overt racism may be on the decline (i.e. Imus' situation), but there is still plenty of institutionalized and sytemic racism in America. It's not surprising that people in power, generally white American males, do not notice the systemic racism and will continue the status quo. Why not continue the status quo when, for the most part, your group is successful? This is usually not a conscious decision anymore, or at least I hope. Unfortunately, because of past and poorly made historical decisions by people in power (i.e. legislators) many minority groups are still affected by institutionalized racism. For example, between 1882-1943, the US government enacted the Chinese Exclusionary Act, which prevented Chinese men and women from immigrating into the US. Don't you think those 60 years have affected how Chinese and other Asian groups have been percieved in the US? Now, think about all the other racial minority groups who have been negatively discriminated against in the past and think how that has affected them in today's society. It's no secret that white American males are still, for the most part, going to better schools, getting better jobs, and getting paid a higher salary. As a result, there are many more white Americans who are in power, who either consciously or subconsiouly want to maintain the status quo.
Keep in mind, racism is not just an American phenomenon. Institutionalized Racism = racial discrimination + power. What group has power will most likely be the group charged with racism. However, this does not mean that individuals cannot be prejudiced towards each other.
So, next time someone of a racial minority group claims that they have been racially discriminated against, please don't just say "you're being too sensitive." That's just an easy way out from having to talk about why that incident has occurred.
2) Unless a person of color is seriously being unreasonable, they should never be told that they are being "too sensitive" when it comes to being discriminated against, either overtly or subtly. As a person of color, one of the most irritating things to me is when a white person tells me that I am being too senstive because I thought someone commmitted an act of racism towards me. When a person who comes from a class of people who have traditionally been discriminated against feels reasonably offended for some reason, those from other groups should not be telling them that they are "too sensitive" because it is simply a way of dismissing what happened. In general, I think that when you've never experienced something, don't think that you know better,IMO.
3) In regards to overt v. institutionalized racism towards certain groups, overt racism may be on the decline (i.e. Imus' situation), but there is still plenty of institutionalized and sytemic racism in America. It's not surprising that people in power, generally white American males, do not notice the systemic racism and will continue the status quo. Why not continue the status quo when, for the most part, your group is successful? This is usually not a conscious decision anymore, or at least I hope. Unfortunately, because of past and poorly made historical decisions by people in power (i.e. legislators) many minority groups are still affected by institutionalized racism. For example, between 1882-1943, the US government enacted the Chinese Exclusionary Act, which prevented Chinese men and women from immigrating into the US. Don't you think those 60 years have affected how Chinese and other Asian groups have been percieved in the US? Now, think about all the other racial minority groups who have been negatively discriminated against in the past and think how that has affected them in today's society. It's no secret that white American males are still, for the most part, going to better schools, getting better jobs, and getting paid a higher salary. As a result, there are many more white Americans who are in power, who either consciously or subconsiouly want to maintain the status quo.
Keep in mind, racism is not just an American phenomenon. Institutionalized Racism = racial discrimination + power. What group has power will most likely be the group charged with racism. However, this does not mean that individuals cannot be prejudiced towards each other.
So, next time someone of a racial minority group claims that they have been racially discriminated against, please don't just say "you're being too sensitive." That's just an easy way out from having to talk about why that incident has occurred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
