February 12, 2008

  • Believing in Change

    valign=top>

    I suppose it's a rare occurrence these days in
    US politics to be able to really support a particular candidate. And
    not just support because you think said candidate is the least-lousy
    option available. I mean really support someone, believe in what they
    say, in what they offer, in the kind of platform they have and their
    stance on the issues that are most important to you.

    Tomorrow (well, Tuesday, so today technically) is the day of
    the Virginia, DC, and Maryland primaries. It's pretty apparent now who
    I'm voting for, but now let me give you the why... In order of greatest
    importance, to me:

    src="http://x5e.xanga.com/1aec071b57231173221343/w131662646.jpg">

    Top 5 Reasons for href="http://www.barackobama.com/index.php" target="_new">Barack
    Obama

    1) Support of civil liberties

    I'm a racial and religious minority, and part of a religion that most
    Americans, honestly, have a serious amount of bias against. What I want
    is a candidate who is committed to doing what is
    right with protecting my rights, and my freedom of
    religion, even if there are a lot of other Americans out there who
    don't like the idea of me having my Constitutional rights. To that end,
    Obama:

    - has pledged to end racial profiling (a popular, yet
    horribly faulty and ineffective de facto measure)

    - has gone on record to combat voting inequalities

    - was a civil rights lawyer

    Because of how the last eight years have gone, particularly
    the earlier years while Ashcroft was still in office, there's been
    serious neglect of civil liberties. Important to me, this includes
    my civil liberties. It continues to piss me off how
    other folks who feel they have nothing to lose see nothing wrong with
    justifying things like roving warrantless wiretapping, when it's me and
    my community whose civil rights are at stake. I want
    a candidate who recognizes how important the rights of minority groups
    are; this is that candidate.

    2) Foreign policy which includes diplomacy

    We're in two wars right now. I don't like the idea of saber-rattling to
    get into a third with Iran, and I don't see how any sane person can
    actually support that. Obama is actually pledging for a phased
    withdrawal from Iraq, not just talking rhetoric about it.
    And, he understands the necessity
    of diplomacy with regards to Iran.

    Again, we're in two wars right now. How can any sane person
    want to rush headlong into a conflict that'll spark yet a
    third one? Obama is the only major candidate who
    seems to realize that fact, and knows that unless we really commit
    ourselves to diplomacy, we'll end up down a path that'll result in
    another several trillion dollars, tens of thousands of more deaths, and
    a bunch of shady government contracts handed out in a war-zone. On that
    note...

    3) Willing to address problems with lobbying groups and federal contracts

    The fact that Obama is a new face to the crowd is really refreshing.
    It's not only bringing younger voters to the polls. It's also a chance
    at a different approach to the way lobbying and contracts are dealt
    with.

    What I think is the lowest aspect of the Iraq War is all the
    quick contracts handed out. That is what stands to turn into an
    enduring negative legacy. Besides which, he supports ideas like
    this:

    "Google for Government: Americans have the right to
    know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been
    hidden from public view for too long. That's why Barack Obama and
    Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search
    engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants,
    contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "It
    would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is
    spent. It's a brilliant idea."
    "

    On the note of technology...

    4) Understands and supports technology/innovation

    Sounds like a strange issue to be up here. But, fact is, there's a lot
    of misunderstanding about how technology--particularly online
    technology--functions within the government. What that leads to is the
    people with the money controlling how that technology is allowed to
    operate. Since the internet itself is fundamentally
    a "bottom-up" creation, when it comes to content, news, information,
    and everything, letting the direction of the internet be dictated by
    corporations violates that spirit and will inevitably hinder
    progress.

    Oddly, Obama seems to be the only one who thinks this is important enough an issue to address:

    Barak Obama - Technology

    Just a few highlights, Obama:

    - will promote competition in internet/media services

    - understands that protecting children online begins with giving
    parents the right tools to do so, not with censoring content to begin
    with

    - (from the site): "Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law
    enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S.
    citizens are done only under the rule of law
    "

    Now that last point brings us back to reason-number-one yet
    again. You can see why I'm actually excited about this
    candidate.

    And besides, how can you do better technology-wise than an
    endorsement from Lawrence
    Lessig
    (founder of href="http://creativecommons.org/" target="_new">Creative Commons)
    and from href="http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/" target="_new">XKCD? I
    mean, he's just made of win there.

    5) (negative reason) Dubai Ports World

    I put this one last because it's a negative-issue, relating more so to Hillary.

    About two years ago, Dubai Ports World, a UAE-based company,
    was going to acquire management of six major US ports. Now, no one was
    going to be laid off, the only difference is that the top-end
    management would be different. (Even due to all the controversy, they
    agreed to have all security services handled by a US-only company,
    too.)

    Funnily enough, Hillary Clinton was a major opponent of the
    DPW deal. But, her reasoning was based on the fact that it was an Arab
    company. So... it was little more than assigning collective guilt based
    on lingering 9/11 fears. (What's even funnier is that Bill Clinton was
    actually advising DPW on how best to avoid controversies in the
    acquisition.)

    Though, according to the Wikipedia article on this, Obama also
    stated his opposition. So there's a reason why this is a minor point.
    Yet, how Hillary behaved, as the Senator for New
    York, is far more important in my mind.

    Anyway, this is the last point here, and the least important
    of this list. But, if Obama doesn't win, then this particular incident
    might end up weighing really heavily in my mind.

    Now Vote!

    That's all for now. Go out tomorrow and vote in the primaries.
    If you're a Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter (er, well, the
    Republican end is kind of straightforward at this point, so maybe...).
    This promises to be the most interesting election in a long time, and
    for once it's a chance for each of us to make some kind of difference,

    and maybe have the audacity to hope for positive change in the coming years. KF

Comments (2)

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories