Obama Vs. Oil

We’re all saying it. “I never thought I’d see the day when gas would go below 2 dollars.” “I just filled up my tank for 18 bucks.” Yes, it appears as though the 5-dollar a gallon prices have surpassed, at least for now. And we should all breath a sign of relief that the economic crisis has also forced oil prices to lower, which subsequently means less money for terrorist organizations. Hopefully though, the mentality created by expensive gas prices over the summer will not diminish. That people will not leave public transportation or the carpool lane and hop back into their Hummers. And yet, this is exactly what the most powerful businesses in the world would like to happen, but not if Obama has any say. Come January 20th we will begin to witness the clash of titans, as the powerful oil companies will, for arguably the first time, find a foe and not a friend in the Oval Office.

When you look at the past 100 years, oil has always been a factor in important decision-making. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI the Middle East was broken up and given to Western nations based off the location of oil fields. Soon, revolutions for independence would end complete Western control of these countries, but not Western dependency.

After the gas shortages of the 1970s, Americans foolishly ignored the wake-up call and would continue their complete energy reliance on an unstable Middle East. Since then, in complete disregard for the interests of people living in the region, we have invested billions into oil, through war and the creation of large military bases.

In the past eight years, President Dick Cheney… I mean President George W. Bush has been arguably the most pro-oil President the United States has ever witnessed. In addition to the Iraq war, policies such as tax breaks for both consumers and producers of cars that weigh over 6000 pounds have helped to encourage oil consumption. And we wonder why America’s three largest automobile companies have yet to spend money in research and construction on more energy efficient transportation. Thankfully though, Bush is on his way out and hopefully taking some oil lobbyists with him.

However, oil companies continue to be the richest organizations in the US and surely will not go down without a fight. As the recent third-quarter profits saw red-figures for almost all major corporations, Exxon Mobile posted record profits of 14.83 billion dollars. In an attempt to stay on top, gas prices have lowered, but it is surely not the final tactic to encourage American consumption.

Have we finally learned our lesson? Will we be able to give up the Ford F350, which has become a symbol of Americana? Lets hope so. And lets hope that a President Obama will be the first to win the battle against the almighty oil.

Choose Your Lameness

With news of more economic disaster it seems as though January 20th cannot come soon enough. President-elect Obama will already have his hands full come inauguration day, but things could, and probably will, get much worse over the holiday season. In such times of crisis it seems imperative to replace public officials as soon as possible after Election Day. Lincoln, for example, had to wait until March to enter the White House, as President Buchanan sat back and watched the country break apart before entering a Civil War. The problem was solved in 1933 after FDR was forced to wait until March as the nation suffered through the Great Depression. The passage of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution served as the solution, which among other items, made the start of the newly elected President’s term on January 20th instead of March. However, in such crucial times, is this date still too far away from the first tuesday in November?

In many cases, Presidents choose to spend the lame-duck session building foreign relations and solidifying their legacy. President Reagan, for example, met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and helped to bring a final end to the Cold War. President Bush is currently meeting with Asian leaders this weekend in Peru, however this is surely a different time and a different President. Foreign leaders of the world have lost most, if not all, respect for the President Bush and are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to communicate with an Obama Administration.

President Bush could also take the route of many other Presidents and issue pardons. His father, President George Herbert Walker Bush, pardoned former staffers involved in the Iran-Contra affair. The current President surely has some felon friends that would appreciate this get out of jail free card. Maybe Senator Stevens will be one of the few to be granted an early Christmas present. It’s not as though Bush has to worry about his reputation as his approval ratings are already below that of President Nixon before he left office.

In this case, the ideal role for Bush is a difficult one. Almost everything he has done these past eight years, from the Hurricane Katrina response to the Iraq War, has lead our country down a horrific path. Yet times are increasingly scary in the US and it would be reassuring to have a President that said or did something. Thankfully, I don’t see President Bush attempting to make Obama’s transition more difficult by issuing thousands of pages of new regulations. Ideally, I would like Bush to leave the White House with the same personable and jokester attitude that helped get him elected. Chances are he’ll take some prankster inspiration from President Clinton, who removed all of the “W”s from White House computers. Here’s a suggestion, leave Obama piles of spare “change” around the oval office.

A Spot on Mount Rushmore

About a month ago I drew comparisons between the 2008 Presidential election and the 1932 contest between Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Thankfully, I was accurate in my prediction that history would repeat itself as the United States witnessed a new political party shift and a significant change in direction. Additionally, the economic crisis has already made the 32nd and 44th Presidencies comparable and I believe Obama will carry out his term in office similarly, and along with FDR, become one of the Greats.

Polls indicate that the Reagan days of limited government are gone, at least for now, and Americans are ready for larger federal involvement. Similar to “change,” FDR ran on a message of a “new deal,” for the American people. During his first 100 days in office, FDR was easily able to pass numerous bills through Congress. Obama will have a supportive Democratic majority in Congress and will also have this opportunity to be immediately effective.

The current economic crisis on Wall Street is familiar for those Americans who witnessed the fall in 1929. However, there was no 700 billion dollar bailout in 1932 like our government has approved, but rather the creation of numerous social programs. With 700 billion of taxpayers’ dollars being handed over to the nation’s wealthiest banks, how can one make the argument that all Americans shouldn’t have access to affordable health care or quality education?

FDR’s creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps is also similar to Obama’s policy to double the Peace Corps and reward those that take part in other forms of civic duty.

FDR made initial cuts to defense, although this would change drastically at the start of WWII. In comparison, an Obama Presidency will bring a close to the War in Iraq and the waste of billions of dollars.

Through the Yalta conference, FDR helped establish a new post war world and lasting foreign relations. Obama has already seen immense support from foreign officials who are eager to work with new leadership in the United States.

In the 1930s government began to play a larger role in the lives of Americans. Therefore, FDR created fireside chats to present his proposals directly to the American people through the radio. Obama has already taken advantage of the technological advances in communication, text messaging supporters important decisions such as his choice of Senator Biden for the Vice-President position. In addition, Obama has promised to make available on the Internet all of the bills that pass through his office. The transparent government of the 1930s is surely something the American people have indicated they would like to return to.

Unlike FDR, Obama faces an energy crisis. Fortunately though, Dick Cheney and other oil lobbyist no longer have the power to gage wars and policies that benefit them directly, such as tax breaks for the purchase of Hummers and vehicles that weigh over 6000 pounds. Obama will further use the energy crisis to revitalize the economy and make the United States serve as an environmental example to the world.

I now wish there were not Presidential term limits. I realize that my complete faith in our future President could be perceived as naïve, but these is a crucial time for our country. “All we have to fear is fear itself,” is just as relevant today as it was 75 years ago, and I expect an equally inspiring message from President Obama on January 20th. My prediction is we will rise to greatness again though, partly because we have no where else to go but up and because we have a great leader to take us there. Sorry FDR, but I think he might even surpass you, and in 50 years they will be carving out a new spot next to your cousin on Mount Rushmore.

The Passing of the Civil Rights Torch

The Civil Rights chapter in American History books was forever altered this past Tuesday night as we elected the first black man to serve as President of the United States. Yet, although African Americans saw a symbolic end to their own struggles, the chapter did not conclude as millions of Americans witnessed the removal of their basic civil right of marriage.

While the struggles of gays and African Americans share comparisons it is wrong to view them under one movement. Today there are no fire hoses or police dogs attacking gay activists, and while hate crimes do take place, we are assured that our judicial system will bring the appropriate punishment to the perpetrators. But it is also wrong to think the Civil Rights struggle should only encompass African Americans. The term “faggot” and phrase “that’s so gay” have replaced the “n-word” as the most socially acceptable derogatory slur that stems from the degradation of a minority group. Additionally, both movements depict a minority fighting for equality and while we are told that such minority interests are protected against the majority under the Constitution, this is clearly not the case in California.

By a simple majority vote, California passed Proposition 8, easily adding another amendment to the longest State Constitution in the US. Although there have already been three laws suits stating Proposition 8 was an illegal Constitution revision rather than an amendment because it fundamentally alters the guarantee of equal protection, these are projected to fail.

Many prop 8 opponents, especially first time younger voters who mostly opposed the initiative, awoke to this news Wednesday morning in disbelief. How could the most liberally progressive state uphold discrimination and inequality? The answer is fairly simple though: religion. Religion has been used to oppress minorities and restrict civil liberties since the early days of our Nation. Of the seven in ten voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds of them voted in favor of the ban. A Los Angeles Times article highlights another factor of the ban.

“Jeffrey Jackson of Lynwood said he struggled with how he would vote on Proposition 8. On the one hand, as a black man casting his ballot for Obama, he said he had a deep and personal reverence for civil rights. On the other, he is a Pentecostal Christian. In the end, it was that religious faith that guided his decision. "It's straight biblical," said Jackson, 46. "It's just not right."

To my surprise and disappointment it was ultimately the California black vote that decided the Prop 8 outcome. Exit polls showed that will Asian Americans opposed the measure and Whites and Latinos split evenly, Blacks heavily favored a ban on same-sex marriage by roughly 70 to 75 percent. Even though Obama himself opposed Prop 8, this was not widely advertised most likely for fear of affecting key swing states.

Blacks are not only passing the Civil Rights torch to the LGBT community, but also helping to throw it even farther back.

Since his 2004 keynote speech I have actively followed the career of Senator Barack Obama and am truly elated about his election. Yet, November 4th will also mark the day in which a right was taken away and equality was pushed back in the closet.

LAUSD Needs A New Game Plan

This election cycle it appears more effective to fabricate the notion of a same-sex marriage curriculum mandate then to actually propose a solution to improve the education system.

Los Angeles voters, however, will decide on Measure Q, which is an initiate that would allocate 7-billion dollars to the corporate conglomerate that the city’s Unified School District has become. As a passionate advocate of education reform it is troubling to feel so unsupportive of this bond. Yet, with poor leadership in LAUSD - recall the recent payroll disaster that cost taxpayers millions to resolve – it is foolish to hand over 7 billion dollars to individuals more concerned about expanding administrative staff then improving classrooms.

This is why I propose a new concept for LAUSD officials, to follow the same path as San Francisco and other educationally progressive districts and place a parcel tax on the ballot instead of a bond. A parcel tax would vastly enhance the education in LAUSD by providing quality teachers and essential classroom materials.

School bonds and parcel taxes are the two main authorized methods for districts to raise funds. School bonds, however, have strict limitations on how the funds can be allocated. In general, bonds are required to fund school facilities (i.e. improvements on old schools and the construction of new buildings), whereas money for school supplies, curriculum, teacher salaries, and other operating expenses can only be raised through a parcel tax.

Since 2000, voters have approved $19.3 billion for school transformations in LAUSD, resulting in 67 schools constructed with another 12 still under construction. Although LAUSD has passed four bonds since 1997, the district has yet to put a parcel tax on the ballot and make any attempt to raise money for inside the classroom.

One year after declaring 2008 “The Year of Education,” Governor Schwarzenegger also announced $4.8 billion in cuts to education funding statewide. As Sacramento continues failed attempts to balance the budget, necessary components of classrooms, such as textbooks and supplies, are often the first to be affected by educational cuts. A parcel tax, however, gives the funding power back to the community.

Southern California is falling dangerously behind Northern California when it comes to educational funding. Of the 133 parcel taxes that have been approved in California 120 of them have been in Northern California school districts.

This past June, San Francisco voters approved Proposition A, an extensive parcel tax raises roughly 29 million to recruit teachers, raise salaries and update classroom technology.

Clearly Los Angeles has a different political landscape then San Francisco though. Many Los Angeles officials wont consider a parcel tax because the two-thirds majority makes it difficulty to approve. In addition to placing a parcel tax on the ballot, changes should be made with the two-thirds requirement to make it easier for school districts to raise funds.

In 2000 Proposition 39 Amended the California Constitution to lower the school bond approval to a 55 percent majority. Pressure should be put on legislatures to support a similar bill for school parcel taxes that would lower the vote threshold from the current two-thirds requirement.

State Senator Joe Simitian of Palo Alto has introduced several similar bills, SCA 17 being the most recent, yet it failed to pass out of committee. Through lobbying efforts on behalf of LAUSD and other large school districts as well as support from teacher organizations, a parcel tax amendment could pass through the State legislature.

LAUSD needs to shift the focus from outside the classroom to inside the classroom. The district no longer faces the overcrowding concerns as it did in 2001. In fact, enrollment has gone down roughly 100,000 students in the past six years and is projected to continue to decline until 2015.

With the combination of a poor economic climate, unpopular leadership in LA Unified, and the large price tag, this is ultimately the wrong bond at the wrong time. As a solution, the focus should switch from pushing a massive school bond on voters to addressing the real concerns of the school district.

In proposing the parcel tax the worse case scenario is voters don’t approve the measure, but I have a feeling that through a carefully crafted message, constituents will realize the benefits in supporting classrooms over buildings and giving funding control back to the community and out of the hands of irresponsible bureaucrats.

Going Down In Style

With ten days left until Election Day, McCain’s campaign hangs on by a thread of designer clothing. This past week proved to be another struggle for the GOP as they were forced to again defend themselves. For Democrats, the main story was that Obama would leave the campaign to visit his gravely ill grandmother in Hawaii, and for the Republicans it was that Sarah Palin has expensive taste.

Although McCain’s numbers are down in almost every swing state, the RNC believes the most effective use of their dwindling funds should go towards clothes and makeup. On Wednesday, Politico broke the story that the RNC spend roughly 150,000 dollars for Palin’s new wardrobe. Granted she couldn’t sport her typical bikini bottoms and moose sweatshirts on the national campaign circuit, but as the RNC scrambles to compete with Obama’s millions, this figure is surely ridiculous.

Moreover, in the same way opponents used John Edward's 400 dollar haircut to portray him as an elitist, the story is extremely damaging to Palin’s image. How many soccer moms do you know spend 75,000 dollars at Neiman Marcus? That’s more than the yearly income of most American households. McCain was quick to defend his fellow maverick stating, “she needed clothes.” He grew more furious though when a reporter quested whether the RNC paid for his wardrobe, as he fiercely responded with “I buy my own suits!” Ten points down with ten days to go, a debate on fashion is not what McCain needs.

Then yesterday, The New York Times released figures on the highest paid individuals in the McCain campaign. It was not the chief strategist or communication director, as most would assume, but rather a newcomer to the political scene. Amy Strozzi was the highest paid individual, making $22,800 dollars in the first two weeks of October. And what does the highest paid McCain staffer do? She is Governor Palin’s personal makeup artist. Right behind Strozzi at the number four spot, Ms. Angela Lew made $10,000 dollars for her “Communications Consulting” during the first week of October, as she serves as Palin’s traveling hair stylist. Not to say these ladies don’t have the proper credentials. Strozzi was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on “So You Think You Can Dance.”

Now I hope this article doesn’t spark another tirade from Campbell Brown, as I understand women have different standards when it comes to physical appearance, but over $30,000 dollars in two weeks on hair and makeup! Maybe it is the male prejudice as I have never purchased makeup nor any type of hair product, but I just cannot wrap my head around these figures. This expensive attention to style is a direct contrast to Palin’s “hockey mom” image and appeal to the working-class, and also because the McCain camp is so poor. How can they figure this expense is more important than a last minute advertisement in Indiana? I guess it does matter a little more when you have a Vice-Presidential candidate that is all looks and no substance. At least Sarah Palin will be dressed in style when she sits next to a somber John McCain in an Arizona hotel room and watches the Electoral map turn blue.

Tradition vs. Equality

On November 4th California voters will decide to either respect the privacy of Portia and Ellen’s relationship or to force equality back in the closet. If approved, Proposition 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, and overturn the June 2008 Supreme Court decision that declared the ban unconstitutional. Proponents of Prop 8 argue for a defense of “traditional marriage;” yet fail to realize that while traditions evolve, notions of equality are unchanged.

Not long ago, heterosexual couples fought to obtain civil marriage equality. In 1948 California became the first state to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional, 19 years before the Federal government would overturn every state interracial marriage ban and insist the “freedom to marry” belongs to all citizens. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate a majority of minorities oppose Prop 8, likely because they have a clearer understanding of marital discrimination.

With millions of dollars being spent to protect marital tradition it raises the question, why limit the cause by solely focusing homosexuality? Marriages’ most visible enemy, divorce, destroys roughly 2/3 of Californian couples and should be made illegal. Another traditional marriage perpetrator, adultery, is also too common and should be made punishable by forcing those convicted to display the letter “A,” at all times. Mandating marriage for couples that choose to engage in sexual reproduction (a Bristol Palin doctrine) would further help to regulate tradition.

Homosexuality has been documented in some of the earliest civilizations, including ancient Rome and Japan, yet marital customs mostly stem from religion. Many of these traditional marriage values originate from the Bible, in which women were viewed as property of their husbands. Why not put this decision regarding the ownership of wives to the electorate?

California recognizes the Constitutional separation of church and state, yet marriage poses a problem as it inherently combines the two. However, marriage does not require a religious ceremony, rather a quick trip to City Hall to sign legal documents or an even quicker Vegas drive-thru is sufficient.

Religious organizations main argument is that under the law they will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages. Such claims are untrue in the same way that a priest is not required to recognize a Muslim ceremony under the Catholic Church. Moreover, it is worth noting that Prop 8 is compelling religious institutions to encourage promiscuity over love and commitment.

Many states have found legal compromise in the creation of civil unions but why the need for a different legal category. Should such classification extend to other nontraditional engagements? Perhaps those that choose to marry an illegal alien, thus granting citizenship, should fill out a special marriage-B license. Then again, as the Connecticut Supreme Court recently reminded us, this country has already overturned the notion of separate but equal.In his majority opinion legalizing same-sex marriages, Justice Richard Palmer wrote that the court found the

"segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm," in light of "the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody."

In a political scare tactic, proponents of Prop 8 are suggesting the possible ramifications of legalizing same-sex marriage. One advertisement is truly a conservatives’ nightmare as it depicts a child suggesting the book “King and King” for his bedtime story. Additionally, in a series of blatant fabrications, proponents insist that schools will be forced to teach same-sex marriage. Curriculum though is controlled on the local level and is the same reason intelligent design is only taught in selected school districts.

As same-sex adoption rates continue to rise, marriage should parallel the evolution of the family structure. Children are already exposed to peers with same-sex parents and will be confused to learn that certain individuals are not “created equal” and granted such basic rights as marriage.

Traditions are subjective and continually changing. In contrast, as the California Supreme Court declared, equality is always protected under the Constitution. The passage of Prop 8 is truly a step backwards for society and the gay-rights movement. By voting for tradition as oppose to equality, there will be a lasting detrimental effect further encouraging homophobic discrimination for countless Californians.