Polarizing Express

The article I found in LA Times dealt with how people are beginning to see Hillary Clinton. People have been poking fun at Hillary. Is it the way she is running he campaign? One remark was about how she is going to run this country was about, “

If you’re more sartorially oriented, grab the ‘No Way in Hellary’ shirt,
tastefully emblazoned with a red sketch of Clinton flicking out her forked
tongue” (Klein).

Some people are beginning to believe that her way is wrong now, relating her to a devil. If you follow her, its like following the devil, made by some critics. On the other side of the spectrum on that same place where they were selling those shirts there were ones that

“declares you a member of ‘Team Hillary’, complete with a membership logo etched
in a calming, light-blue script” (Klein).

By looking at this, there is a sense of a polarizing effect now. No one is beginning to stay in the gray area or lean Hillary or not lean Hillary. As the caucuses draw near people’s view on certain candidates are starting to blossom. You can’t just stay in the middle hoping that you’ll decide the best candidate when time comes. According to the last five USA Today/Gallup polls she

“has a 50.4% favorable rating and a 46.6% unfavorable rating compared to Obama’s
53.8% favorable and 30.2% unfavorable” (Klein).

With Hillary, it’s actually questionable now on if she should become the next president or the best possible democratic candidate for president. In my opinion, in the long run the polarizing effect on her is going to hurt her in the future because you don’t have all or some just leaning to one side. She has about half and half leaning against her and with her. She needs to do something drastic in order for her relieve this polarizing effect because Obama has caught up with her in polls. I believe right now, Obama has the upper hand now going as the underdog.

Works Cited: LA Times (The Polarizing Express by Ezra Klein)

Trekking to see Oprah – oh, and Obama

Obama has been trying desperately to get people’s attention. Guess what? Oprah is the answer. Oprah and Obama led a tour in Iowa hoping to gain support for the caucuses coming in January. Oprah tries to convince the people that Obama is the best candidate for president saying,

“I came here because I deeply believe in America…Let’s dream America anew again by
supporting Barrack Obama” (Roug and Mehta).

She explains that Obama is the best solution to the problem in America. They both believed that by doing this they can gain support of the people in Iowa, to benefit Obama in the caucus in January to help him recover the numbers he is losing according to polls. Although the rallies were believed to be a success some people still believed that it wasn’t enough. Some people believed that he needed to wait his turn considering how young his political profile was. One person said,

“just because Oprah is campaigning is not going to persuade my vote, same as
Barbara Streisand campaigning for Hillary…you can’t do things because a
celebrity says so” (Rough and Mehta).

She was seen as a person trying to flower up Obama, a person who desperately needs some support to catch up wtih Hillary.
I found this article interesting because some people believed that Obama was effective in having Oprah come along with him to campaign in Iowa, especially for the reason of gaining more supporters to help him the democratic caucus at Iowa in January. I personally thought it was effective to have Oprah with him, even with the joke that was made about having Oprah being the vice president for Obama as president. She helped people realize that he is the one. She made remarks about Hillary, to saying that she’s not asking people what to think but to think that Obama is the best candidate, and I personally agree too. Although some argue that he has very little experience, but I believe we need a change, maybe a new direction. Although some believe that this campaign was saw as Obama shadowing Oprah, she has helped people see what Obama truly stands for.

Forty Acres and a Gap in Wealth

There are still gaps between economic classes today as well of equality amongst Americans. The article states that,

“this class divide was predicted long ago, and nobody wanted to listen” (Gates).

The rich is still getting rich and the poor is getting poorer. I believe that we need another war on poverty in order to tackle on this issue. I don’t think it should be one of the major issues to consider about it but its up there because it does affect the country as a whole. Poverty is an issue that affects many citizens. If it doesn’t get resolved, the immediate money they receive will become a waste because they aren’t making anything out of their lives other than just doing drugs. It addresses the fact that there is a huge problem with poverty amongst black families. It states that "the gap between the black middle class and underlcass is not evident through the ending of discrimination. People who are well grounded come from families who actually live in a house and own it. People who are trapped in a tenancy tend to not have a “sense of ownership in their future and their society” (Gates). The civil rights movement won’t come into play until they find out the root of this problem of the cause of black suffering.
In my opinion I find it weird when I read the article because it said that politicans will not put forth programs aimed at the problems of poor blacks while their turnout remains so low. I actually kind of agree that ownership of property helps determine a person’s success. Without a stable roof, finding balance in one’s life can be quite hard.

Works Cited: NY Times: "Forty Acres and a Gap in Wealth" by Henry Louis Gates Jr

Obama's campaign has a new wrinkle

Obama to many people might be a new face considering his short term political profile. Some might say that he has very little experience in politics making him not the best nominee for president. Obama plans to gain the support of the seniors by abolishing the income tax of seniors who’s income is less than 50,000. He hopes to gain a little more support with this proposal. Although, despite Hillary’s lead amongst seniors, Obama is slowly gaining the lead of the seniors through his proposal. One commentator says that seniors as prone to be open to political change as young college students do. Obama does in fact have a lead against Hillary in polls with college students. His youth is sometimes a burden to his campaigning because of how people think of how inexperienced he his. Despite that fact, he is doubling his polls within seniors as he inevitably starts to target issues more like social security affecting the older crowd. One Polls puts it, "

In Iowa, an October Hawkeye Poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers found Obama
garnering support from 24% of those over 60, nearly double his August
showing” (Hook).

I believe Obama has the right intentions to help him gain a better stand on issues hoping to hook the seniors. Hillary, although still ahead of him for support of seniors, is winding down because I believe he actually is trying to win and target those big issues. His young political profile may not show true wisdom but I believe his maturity is evident within his campaigning.

Works Cited: LA Times "Obama's campaign has a new wrinkle" by Janet Hook

Abortion isn’t a religious issue or is it?

Does religion truly plays a role in abortion? Does it really state in the Christian Bible that abortion is bad? These are questions that are brought up as an opposition to the GOP presidential candidates. Many religious Christians believe that it breaks the fifth commandment, “Thou shall not kill”. Some made parallels amongst the Jewish people killed by the Germans during the Holocaust. It says that it’s different, that was actually killing persons compared to fetuses. Some people believe that killing fetuses does not measure up to killing persons, argued by the Evangelicals. Evangelicals according to polls,

“about 10% of evangelicals allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest”
(Wills).

The Catholic Church did not make a stand about abortion to prior to recent years. This causes a way that there not scriptural evidence saying that abortion is truly wrong and is killing someone. The author argues that,

“even popes have said that the question of abortion is a matter of natural law,
to be decided by natural reason, well the pope is not the arbiter of natural
law, natural reason is” (Wills).

This discredits other ways that it should be affiliated religiously. There is no sense of it being based on misconception that pro-life advocates or acts out of religious conviction. These have been a staple argument that still goes on in our world.
In my opinion, I personally am against abortion but only when it is truly needed such as a rape. I believe that once the egg is fertilized, there is life so when a woman is undergoing abortion, they are a killing a human life. In some cases rape is an outcome that does happen. Abortion should be last resort. If I was the father of the child, and the woman who is giving birth to my son at a young age should not have an abortion. There should be other alternatives such as adoption because saving a life would be the better scenario for me but this does not necessarily mean I am all with force against abortion. I don’t like it but it should be a choice if really needed. Now about the author, in a sense I disagree with him because I believe it does have a religious connection. Anything that is produced by humans that has living such as a fertilized egg becoming a baby is life. If someone were to have that abortion, it would be killing that life. God created this life and humans so I do believe that it has some religious connections. I found it weird how the Catholic Church actually took a stand on this in recent years and how that some popes acknowledge that this is based on natural reason. In a sense I agree with that statement because I am not fully against abortion, treated as a last resort. In my understanding, abortion is a hard topic to argue about because you will always have someone either one way, both, a little, etc.

works cited: LA Times: “Abortion isn’t a religious issue” by Garry Wills (Opinions).

U.S. mayors find it’s not easy to be Green

The article I found in LA Times talked about how it is hard to follow up the programs by staying green. The article opens up with,

“America’s mayors, responding to a growing sense of urgency over climate change,
are rapidly stepping up programs to weatherize buildings, capture methane gas
from landfills” (Roosevelt).

These climate changes we have had is not helping the cause. The urge to use non appropriate green related materials is getting quite hard to accomplish. They have realized the difficulty in changing

ways according to the Kyoto-like pact. To help mayors get a head start on
this project, Congress “has included block grants in energy legislation…up to $2
billion a year in a House Bill to jump start green jobs initiatives, training
low-income workers to retrofit buildings and install climate-friendly energy
systems” (Roosevelt).

This is all for the better, hoping that they will improve the U.S.’s carbon footprint. 728 mayors who make up a quarter of the nation’s population have actually signed up to help out in this Kyoto Protocol where they believe they should target a greenhouse gas emission to go below 7% 1990 levels by 2012, similar to the actual Kyoto target that the U.S. refused to sign. Some mayors are finding out that they are unable to live up to these standards. Some of them believe it is impossible considering the huge population their city holds. Mayors are still trying to find a way to live it up.
In my opinion, I like how the mayors have taken the responsibility to achieve this goal of being green. I still don’t agree with the idea that Bush denies anything that has to deal with global warming a form of trying to reduce our emissions by a lot in order to prevent his play on words, “climate change”. I thought Bush should have tackled this head on instead of just the municipalities trying to get a hold of this issue. Some mayors find it hard to control with a huge population to manage in the first place such as LA where Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says,

“just think about the need in my city: a million people go to work every day on
Wilshire Boulevard. It connects downtown with Santa Monica—to biggest
centers of jobs—and yet we don’t have a subway” (Roosevelt).

There are so many needs within the city of Los Angeles. He questions why we can’t have more efficient systems such as a subway. These obstacles need to be resolved in order to better our living style as polluting Americans, contributing to ‘global warming’. Mayors need to step up even further in order to tackle this issue head on because the Bush Administration won’t.

Works Cited: LA Times Sunday Edition by Margot Roosevelt

Dump Winner-Take-All

This article that I was reading in the LA Times this past sunday dealt with the issue of the way the elections are run in the U.S. in this particular case, the presidential elections. The article opens with, “

the effort by some California Republicans to alter the way the state’s electoral votes was distributed in presidential elections has been miraculously resurrected” (Keyssar).

They don’t agree with this idea of winner take all, basically the winning of the popular vote. Some Democrats argued that the Republicans responsible for this effort, are only power hungry, trying to push their odds of having an edge over the GOP. It is argued, that in most states, smaller elections are based on that idea of winner take all which enrages some Republican politicians. They believe that it should be wrong to impose a winner take all in a state to win the electoral votes of that one. All the efforts are imposed to make things fairer when it comes to elections because if they divided up the Electoral College it would it enhance it. There has been a bill hoping to get rid of the whole winner take all idea present in the states. Both parties argued about this issue.
In my opinion, I find this quite ridiculous. We should not be facing arguments about this type of cause at the moment. The article says,

“if both parties worked together on such legislation, jointly committing
themselves to remedy a design flaw in our Constitution, they might even succeed
in dissipating a bit of the cynicism that the electorate so frequently expresses
about political parties that seem far more interested in their own welfare than
the fate of the nation” (Keyssar).

I believe they should leave this issue at bay because we have other things to worry about than this. I believe the Electoral College is fine as it is right now. Sure, we the people don’t fully get represented but if we were given full representation it would be too hard and division between votes would cause too many discrepancies. This would cause other people opposed by this idea to stand causing a huge chaotic argument. There is this sense of being represented when it comes to wining the electoral votes of that state by winning the majority vote of that state. We shouldn’t linger on this topic.

Works Cited: LA Times Sunday Edition, “Dump Winner-take-all” (Opinions Section) by Alexander Keyssar

Obama courts Latino voters in L.A

Obama heads his attention to the people of East Los Angeles for campaigning. He was there to discuss inner-city education, immigration and diversity, in his luck, this basically targeted the Latino community here present on Southern California. He gained the support by, defending immigration reform

“and affirmative action and criticized Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto of a
measure to extend college scholarships to students in the country illegally”
(Decker).

He is trying to gain the care of the Latino community. He was in support of the Latinos considering some acts had been vetoed that were in favor of immigrants. To him diversity is a a great thing. Yes, we have an excessive amount of immigrants but trying to deport all those illegal immigrants would just take too much time and effort. We need to help them find a path way to citizenship or simply more funds or actions to help the immigrants of this nation. America is based on immigrants, basically, we need to help each other out. The California dream act was vetoed by the governor causing the immigrants to lose that opportunity of

“saying that he Cal Grant financial aid program and community college fee
waivers should be for legal residents, not illegal immigrant students” (Decker).

This opportunity could have been huge for the immigrants but that dream was quickly crushed with a veto. Obama tried to steer away from that connotation that he was there to take away their rights. He came there to show how much diversity is lively in our country and how this country thrives off diversity and without it, America would notbe what it is, the land of opportunity. Through his ways, he hoped to attain more supporters of his campaign by the end of his time spent in East Los Angeles. He wanted people to think that he was the most suitable Democratic nominee for president, to hopefully get ahead of Clinton.
In my opinion, I think what he’s doing is worthwhile. He is trying to reach out to people, in this case the Latino voters. He believes that Latinos in association with immigrants should have the opportunity to attain success through American Dream without the government interfering by labeling he/she an immigrant, making that person flawed for life because he/she is not an American citizen. He thought by coming to the west he also gets that mind set that Clinton will win the West. Within this campaigning in East Los Angeles, Obama started to address differences between Clinton and him, trying to gain support by conniving them to go on this side. He said,

“first of all, when you’re 46, you’re black and your name is Barack Obama,
you’re always the underdog, laughing, so nobody expected that this would be
easy” (Decker).

He portrays how determined he is to become the best possible candidate for president, by captivating his supporters into voting for him through his ways of reaching out to the people of America. The campaigning he did in California has proven to be a success through his powerful words of persuasion.

Works Cited: “Obama courts Latino voters in L.A.” (Front Section) by Cathleen Decker (LA Times Sunday Edition)

Bush Unveils Plan For Wounded Troops

The war has been an important topic to talk about since it started. The topic to talk about now is handling the wounded troops in the war. The article opens with,

"Calling the nation's system of caring for wounded troops an antiquated,
bureaucratic nightmare" (Gerstenzang).

I get this impression that the country doesn’t really want to help those wounded. Bush, although, came up to the plate and made a plan to benefit the families impacted by loved ones wounded. The responsibility has been shifting,

"those whose injuries prevent them from returning to active duty would be
assigned pensions and responsibility for their care would be quickly shifted
from the Pentagon to the Department of Veterans Affairs" (Gerstenzang).

Bush has proposed many new ways to help compensate those who are injured. It seems as if Bush is trying to clear his name. Bush as a Republican, does show much support to soldiers, so is this another way to just find ways to strengthen the troops because of the benefits they will receive if they were to get injured? He is calling for a new system to help care those injured and can no longer serve in the army. Bush only wants what’s best for the troops,

'Additional payments would be awarded to cover the losses of
potential earnings and quality of life as a result of service-related injuries"
(Gerstenzang).

I believe that, again, Bush is paying too much attention to the troops and its affecting everything else. Yes, I believe what he’s doing is a good thing but some that energy and effort could be put into other good uses such as Health Care towards children. We wouldn’t be in this situation of having many wounded soldiers if we have pulled out of the war sooner and stopped shipping more troops in the war.

Works Cited: LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-wounded17oct17,1,3587598.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Can Hugo Chavez help Americans?

The article that i found interesting was in the LA Times, titled "Can Hugo Chavez Help Americans?". The article dealt with how the President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela deals with the free American hostages in Colombia. Three of them are American defense

“contractors who were kidnapped in 2003 while working on an anti-drug program”
(Shifter).

There was an agreement between Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and Chavez on the issue of a hostage-prisoner exchange between governments. Chavez now has custody of the hostages and the major question is if he is going to release them to aid the other countries. If the negotiations don’t follow through, Uribe would look bad because he would be obstructing the peace. All this pressure falls on Chavez if he should do what he desires such as aiding the FARC or freeing the hostages. If the hostages are free there can be a possibility in gaining a peace agreement with the FARC. I found interesting on this topic how the Americans are relying on Hugo for the release of the American hostages. There is so much pressure put on Hugo and if he doesn’t make a right choice he would be seen as the one who faulted. He has the opportunity to make peace with FARC and if he doesn’t approve of it, more issue will arise and the hostages will never be free. Another interesting thought was that there was a also a French person held hostage. The FARC uses these hostages for bargaining tools in order to have their way of things. In my opinion that seems inhuman to do because bargaining with people’s lives is very unethical. It doesn’t give them the right to gamble with people’s lives. I believe that the Americans should not rely all their hopes on Hugo because the worst case scenario make be accomplished.

Works Cited: LA Times Sunday Edition, "Can Hugo Chavez help Americans?" by Michael Shifter

The White House vs. Mother’s Milk

The Bush Administration has been supporting the idea that breast feeding has an considerable affect on infants. They strongly encourage mothers to breast feed their infants because it supposedly prevents illnesses to spring out as the baby matures in life. According to researchers,

“numerous studies suggest that breast milk protects infants from developing
certain illnesses and that formula-feeding increase their health risks” (Orent).

Bush Administration has support on that finding because they want healthy living future informed citizens of America that will vote. They say a healthy child starts from home showing that the Bush Administration wants the overall health of the future leaders of this country to be on top shape. There had been ads promoting the breast feeding of infants to over emphasize how it is truly needed. They also posted ads showing what will happen to their babies if they don’t practice this. Statistics say that

“Type 1 or insulin-dependent, diabetes occurs at significantly lower rates—the
percentage ranges from 19% to 40% among breast fed babies” (Orent).

The nutrients that a child receives from being breast fed helps the infant gain an immune system to certain diseases, creating a healthy baby as the baby grows up. Researchers say that there is something in the breast feeding that contributes to that factor.
I found it interesting how politics got into this fiasco of breast feeding vs. formula based milk. The Bush administration is trying to show how much they care about the citizens of America through their actions of supporting breast feeding. They believe a healthy baby would become a healthy voting citizen in the future. My mom told me that I was a breast fed baby but I personally don’t a hundred percent agree that breast fed babies are healthier than babies fed by formula based milk. It was interesting to see how the media is trying to get a hold of this issue because they want to enforce this onto the citizens of America. The idea of breast feeding, helping an infant become immune to certain diseases amazes me. I don’t see anything wrong with a baby drinking a formula based milk because it does have some nutrients to help the health of the baby. People always say that children are the future and by having healthy infants we can increase the chances of having healthy leaders of America who will become inform citizens. I am amazed on how politicians are actually caring about this small issue.

Works Cited: LA Times article “The White House vs. mother’s milk” by Wendy Orent. Sunday Edition September 30, 2007

Candidates Aren't Going Negative, yet

LA Tiems outs that no candidates are throwing negative comments against each other yet. Some people believe that it's too early, considering how far we are from the elections in 2008. There have been arguments among the candidates but its lacking teh negative connotation it will have as the heat presses on within debates. A media analyst, Evan Tracey says that

"We've seen swiping ...the natural progression is to take that to the airwavesand
put it in an ad"

which shows how much candidates will do anything to win the elections legally (Barabak). We are waiting for the first person to step on that boat, because from that first blow comes many where the candidates will do anything to beat the other. Although there have been some lashes out with candidates Sen. Clinton (D) and former New York Giuliani (R) showing that there are some tensions building up through their opposing thoughts. Although Sen. Obama has been trying to rally against the

"Politics of negativity and division" (Barabak).

There haven't been true statements of negativity, only people rallying towards buildiing a stronger party to out beat the opposing party. "

On Wednesday, Romney begin airing a spot chastising fellow Republicans and
urging the GOP to put our own house in order"

rallying them together to beat the Democrats out of the elections of 2008 (Barabak). I personally think that mudslinging should not be a part of politics because it degrades the opponent, and that's not how a person should try to win. It only benefits the other. I may not be the best or even perefect person but I believe that candidates need to take in consideration how hard they hit and how hard the person will fall if given that negativity. The gloves will come out next year as the elections draw near. Candidates should took take in consideration of what is leaving their mouths because at times it may leave a mark on fellow canididates or opponents.

Works Cited: LA Times Sunday Edition September 23 2007 "Candidates aren't going negative, yet" By Barabak

Antiwar Protests present in the Capitol

The thought of the support towards the war in Iraq has been going down the tubes, runs in many Americans' minds today. People have been arguing if our time in Iraq has been proving anything. Some others believe that sending more troops will hurt our nation even more. As Bush prepares to withdraw the 5,700 soldiers, people become enraged for the fact that if their time in Iraq has been truely effective. He plans to even send another surge of troops during the summer of 2008. I think that's just plain sloppy. President Bush is going through this whole idea of trial and error, hoping that the more troops he sends will help gain success. Through Bush's actions there had been a series of protests at the Capitol last week focused especially on the war on Iraq. These antiwar protests have been triggered due to the many deaths from the war. People started to argue that

"the Iraqi people do not see us as peacemakers" (Macias).

We are forcing a unstructured goverment to change their standards to ours. We should not be playing "hero" and enforce democracy everywhere needed just because we think it is wrong. Several thousands of people gathered up to try to make a difference on Bush's decisions with the war on Iraq. Citizens have been arguing that staying in Iraq wouldn't prove anything other than we are a world power. At the Capitol many protesters were rallying against the war and Bush because of the total amount of deaths both from Americans and Iraqis. It was surprising to see how veterans were also present in the protests. This idea that veterans have been attending these protests show Bush is so far off from his point, where even his former soldiers don't support him anymore. I believe this war has been blown out of proportions. I, as a citizen, am against the war. I thought those protests were quite effective such as the "die in" effect. It was a organized group that memorialized the Iraqis and U.S. troops who have died since the invasion in Iraq. There were about 1,000 volunteers who signed up to lie down on the floor to portray the lives we have lost in this dreadful war. Although there were also antiprotesters in support of Bush and the war. There numbers were not as massive in comparison to the people against the war. Bush is losing his support fast. Which leads to the protesters wanting to impeach Bush. The impeachment was a great idea when it was early on his two terms at presidency. I believe its too late now because its term is almost ending. All hopes to resolving this problem seem to fall on the new president as he/she enters office in January of 2009. These protests say something about the people of America, that we need to end the War now!

Here's a video of theWashington D.C. 'Die In' Demonstration 9/15/07


Works Cited: LA Times Sunday Edition Sept. 16, 2007 "Antiwar protest caps a week focused on Iraq" by Tina Marie Macias and Jordy Yager

Cancer within Campaigning

It is safe to say that cancer is a huge epidemic that still lingers in our society today. It kills as much as 560,000 Americans and it is the biggest killer in lives of Americans under the age of 85. The LA Times states,

“Although cancer has touched the lives of several presidential candidates, few talk about it on the campaign trail”(Dallek).

Deaths such from cancer should become an issue to talk about in debates. Many politicians have gone through or known people who have gone through the whole cancer ordeal. People such as former Senator Edwards’ wife who had her breast cancer spread to her bones. This issue comes to mind as a huge epidemic that needs to be mentioned as an issue in need of solutions funded by the candidate. Debates from the citizens have been towards the politicians in hopes for them to establish a credible cancer policy. The people of America are deeply affected by this case because of how politicians aren't paying close attention to this issue as they run for office. In order to gain the votes of Americans they need to address the needs of people which includes this issue of cancer. Cases such as

“Edwards, Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Brownback and Huckabee participating in a forum on cancer sponsored by MSNBC and Lance Armstrong’s LiveStrong foundation” need to be administered more because there have been arguments of how deeply this issue is being addressed (Dallek).

People fear cancer more than terrorism because how it sweeps the nations with many deaths. President Bush has caused more uprising to this issue due to cutting the National Cancer Institute’s budget by a total of 12% in the last four years. As an informed citizen, I believe that we should take care of our home before we take care of the world and try being all heroes about it. Cancer kills many lives and the need for funds towards that issue or even to be addressed is needed. During the CNN’s YouTube Democratic debate

“a Long Island breast cancer survivor implied that fellow survivors and their families should make cancer prevention and treatment a key issue on which they cast their ballots” (Dallek).

This portrays how the issue of cancer does not come into play in campaigns more often than they need to. In the future if more millions are affected, the issue of terrorism will be directed somewhere else as a disease becomes a bigger issue due to the many affected by it such as cancer. It should be an issue talked more in campaigning due to its toll on the citizens of America.

Works Cited: LA Times Sunday issue Sept. 9 2007 , An issue on remission by Matthew Dallek (LA Times Opinion)