I find it interesting that there might be resistance to this in Congress from the left and right, even though the amount is almost a drop in the bucket when compared to new spending.  I'm not contrary to new spending if it's a long-term investment, but . . . yeah, how to determine or accept what's a necessary expense anymore.  Kind of telling, actually:  when existing spending is asked to be cut, people are loath to do it, but it's okay to create new expenses. 

This isn't a liberal or conservative thing:  I think it's simply people being people.  Interesting how the nuts-and-bolts decisions the average family makes is reflected in a government. 

Obama moves to cut $17 billion from budget

Yes, another link, but I should post it since I'm a Saturn car owner from the good ol' days when the cars were *gasp*  ECONOMICAL (from 1998, the day before they were changed).  Video below if you haven't seen it already on ABC News.  I think I should buy a Saturn shirt for nostalgia. 

GM Plans More Cuts

I thought some of you might find this interesting.  He apparently also spoke at the Diplomatic Academy of Viet Nam yesterday.  The link to the article is below.  Interesting pictures, too.  Makes me want to read his autobiography. 

John McCain revisits jail where he was held for five years

This is actually what I hope he'd do after he stepped down as president.  I look forward to reading this when it comes out next year.  

George W. Bush to write memoir about 'decisions

What a nasty, nasty, nasty mess.  Hadn't heard the financial crisis laid out like this yet.   The article below makes the realities pretty stark and clear. 

David M. Smick - A Financial Black Hole - washingtonpost.com

Curious article about something I've wondered about for awhile.  Ends a bit leaning left, but, beyond that, interesting to see this is less about pragmatics and more about political ideology.  

Both parties love big government _ just different programs

This is actually encouraging to see take place on a local level.  Hopefully there will be other reports about what's happening on the local level in North Carolina and the US to show whether the stimulus has legs.  

Stimulus will preserve jobs, companies say | CITIZEN-TIMES.com | Asheville Citizen-Times

An article that does a pretty good job breaking things down on the nuts and bolts of the effects of the stimulus package.  Also note the image to the top-left that you can click on to show estimations in how states in the US may benefit from the stimulus.  Since it's now as good as signed, might as well see the projected outcome of it to judge whether it actually does what it's intended to do. 

How will the government stimulus plan affect you?

Like a lot of people, I'm sure, I've been reading a lot of different news articles about the stimulus plan now passed through Congress.  Of the ones I've read, this is only article that is actually written well.  My regret is, while the White House was pushing for bipartisanship, that broke down in Congress, namely epitomized in the following quote: 

After last November, guess who got their way?

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said flatly: "We won the election; we wrote the bill."

This kind of echoed on an article here that describes in simple terms the winners and losers from the stimulus, and putting Pelosi in the "Loser" category.  Bipartisanship may take awhile to achieve, but I understand the White House will continue to seek it if Pelosi doesn't.  Hopefully they will. 

The recovery plan: shock & awe for a shaken nation

With all the news articles commenting on the attacks, they really seem to minor on background and major on headlines.  The article below by Alan Dershowitz is a mighty under-represented view. 

Israel's actions are lawful and commendable - JPost.com | BlogCentral

I post this with love!  His plain-spokenness is something I've appreciated about him over the years and even despite the mistakes made.  Like it or not, he's human like the rest of us.  I can post this because I did in fact vote for him--twice. At that, enjoy the link below!

Bushisms over the years - Yahoo! News

I find the reality of this very, very disconcerting . . .

Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret - Yahoo! News

I knew NONE OF THIS about the Muslims in India.  I don't condone the behavior, but it raises a facet of it I hadn't known until now.

Behind the Mumbai Massacre: India's Muslims in Crisis - Yahoo! News

Now that I've finally sent in my official ballot, I feel a growing disinterest with the election.  It's still an important election, but I feel like my part of the deal has kind of been completed, so to speak.  I may even change my homepage on Firefox. 

Still, I hope people just don't vote deferentially, be that for one party/candidate or the other.  Neither party is at all perfect, but they can balance each other out.  With this being considered "a Democrat's year," though, that might not be the case. I'm not a fan of skewed views, be they Democrat or Republican. 

We shall see soon enough . . .

Sometimes I wonder if life would be easier during this time of the year if the US wasn't a democracy.  In Viet Nam, the people only vote for the officials at the lowest level of government, and there isn't nearly as many scandals (that I'm aware of).  Imagine a system where the people in the US would only vote for local government officials, then the local officials voted for the state government officials, and finally the state officials vote for the national government officials.  Wouldn't that be nice? 

But really though.  I've had some questions--some simple and some more complexly stated--about my response to the political situation at the present in the US.  I think those are good if they promote thinking on both sides.  The thing I struggle with, though, is elections are pretty basic for most people.  Their needs are pretty immediate whether it's election time or not, and there's no one way to approach those people.  During elections, those questions are more in the area of "how are the changes you intend to make going to help me?" or "why should I believe you?"  During everyday life, I honestly wonder whether those questions are about the same when you express care for someone who doesn't know you quite so well, but it's addressed much differently. 

That's where I kind of wonder about the place of government, really, and why society itself doesn't get more involved with each other.  Politicians won't be there when we're facing the down-and-out challenges of life, but those in our immediate vicinity are.  The question I return to is "but why aren't we?"  Being present, but absent.  I live in a foreign teacher guest house.  My neighbors are from different countries, barely a few feet away, but do I really care?  I wonder whether present problems, not merely social, are more of a result of a collective lack of compassion than any slippery notion of democracy or its failure. 

*Two versions of my title for this were "The right system," which I knew could have earned the response "you right-winger!," or the title "That slippery democratic system," which could have earned me "you liberal nut!" 

I'm posting a link to an entry I made a few weeks ago in light of recent concerns about how I look at politics.  I support Obama, but I'm not someone who's on his bandwagon.  Besides statistics and wanting to post links addressing misinformation--if I can help it, as it affects both sides--I try to keep my distance.  The last month of elections are things I hate the most. 

IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS, please contact me.  There's no reason we can't talk about these things.  Again, I've looked the most into Obama this campaign, but he's just "the candidate."  I'll adjust one or two things on my site, but I think the one with stats and polls addresses both sides. 

A view of politics and issues--unabridged

Below is an e-mail I received that I edited to make a less screamingly "partisan."  I really am only getting involved with this because I don't like elections getting reduced to misinformation on both sides.  Raising points are good from either side, but not when answers have already been given. 

Here’s the truth: the smear associating Barack to Ayers is “phony” according to the Washington Post. The Associated Press calls the attack “exaggerated at best, if not outright false.”

William Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, with whom Barack served on the board of a charitable anti-poverty organization in the mid-1990s. According to the Associated Press, they are not close: “No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago …”

Smear groups are trying to connect Obama to acts Ayers committed 40 years ago – when Barack was just eight years old. Here’s what the New York Times reported on the connection:

But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”

Barack has publicly denounced Ayers’ radical actions from the 1960’s:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.

Read the refutations from the news sources yourself:

· CNN: Palin’s Claim That Obama is Palling Around with Terrorists is “False.”

· AP: Obama And Ayers Relationship Is “Exaggerated At Best If Not Outright False”

· New York Times: Obama And Ayers “Do Not Appear To Have Been Close.”

· New York Times: Obama calls Ayers “Somebody Who Engaged in Detestable Acts 40 Years Ago, When I Was 8.”

· Detroit Free Press: Ayers Smear, Like Jerome Corsi’s Obama Nation, Is “A Tome Full of Fabrications, Half-Truths, and Delusions.”

· Chicago Sun-Times: Obama ‘‘deplored’’ what Ayers did in the 1960s and ‘‘by the time I met him, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois. We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education.”

Grounds the whole Main Street-Wall Street banter into reality. 

Mean St. replaces Main St. - Los Angeles Times

I got struck recently with the reality I'd touched on things political, largely in light of this election, but never really explained my reasons for the smattering of responses I've made up to this point.  In the event of any confusion or concerns, I thought it fair to sit and just share where I'm at with regards to politics. 

First, I need to give credit where credit's due to people I know who've challenged me along the way.  They are Ryan Chan, Avi Mechanic, Tom Boeger, and Robert Burns.  Guys, if by some random chance you stumble upon this post (I never know who really reads what I write), y'all have helped broaden my response to the issues.  Some has been through direct exchanges, and other from just hearing you articulate your views through blogs (Ryan, especially from you; thank you).  So, my gratitude to y'all.  You're all deserving a Facebook tag to this message after it gets imported.  Now, onto the mess . . .

The biggest thing to say is I don't like political parties or the ideologies espoused by them, meaning Democrats being "liberal" or Republicans being "conservative."  I've found neither very relevant to understanding the views of either party, and often seems more like a smoke screen to keep people focused on what such "liberalism" or "conservatism" means according to views of one or two issues.  That coincides with a practice I find unfruitful, and that is voting straight-ticket.  When that's done, it opens up the doors to more problems that accompany neglect of anything, namely either eventual discontentment or numbness to the nominees' accountability to all issues. 

From that is my view that issues need to be regarded according to their sum-implications, not simply the specific effect of one or two.  An example is that, as much as I wish McCain was less outspoken about the War in Iraq, that issue alone is not a morally-justifiable reason for me not to vote for him.  The greatest danger I've noticed to "politics as usual" has been an assumed moral ambiguity toward the lump-sum of the issues, with a tiny handful being relegated as "moral." 

Alongside that arises another form of neglect, but this time on the part of politicians.  Being "moral" about the "moral" issues does not imply that personal morality is informing the rest of a politician's political decisions.  Given how I consider people of all makes and models to be depraved in different ways--withstanding redemption--I cannot put anyone above accountability there.  I won't go into my views of the more overt moral issues, except that I feel like an involved and caring community is the best balm to heal societal wounds, not a politician or government.  The trouble in the US, though, is such interconnected community and fellowship have so cruelly deteriorated that anyone with a microphone has taken the role I think is better suited for a loving community.  At best, the levels of government need to make it possible for such a community to thrive, but not usurp that role. 

My final view of politics is what I look for in a politician, particularly one seeking to be elected.  I'll begin with what I don't look at:  race, ethnicity, sex, geographical region, political party, achievements, or a forgivable past.  What I do look for is a sense of vision for his/her constituency and country, willingness to learn, ease in communication, intelligence, a sense of community, demonstrates humility, servant leadership, and regard for the humanity of others--voter or rival politician/candidate alike.  I feel like those should be self-explanatory, so I won't insult your intelligence by describing why.  What I will say is I REALLY NEED to see all of those in a politician or I'll have serious hesitation about supporting that person.  The combined and frequent absence of those things has been the main source of distaste I have towards the game of politics. 

If any questions still arise, I don't know what else I could say since I already said much, but I'll do my best!  In a nutshell, that's me and politics. 

I've been wanting to get a better sense of where McCain had been in the past, and where he's at now.  I'd heard on both sides of the political fence through the news that he'd changed since 2000 and was less "maverick."  Below is the link to an article written by Elizabeth Drew, who wrote a book supporting him in 2002 called Citizen McCain.  This is me purely wanting to get a better perspective of where he was and where he's at.  She seems a little disappointed.  How McCain was described by her in 2000, I wouldn't have minded voting for him then.

How McCain lost me