One thing that has been on my mind over the past year or so is this: what is the measure of a man? What exactly does it take to become a man? Does age play a role? Is it just experience? Or maybe there’s something else.
Age must play some role in the measure of a man. Evidence of this lies in the age restrictions we have in place in our society. At the age of 16, it is legal to drive. At 18, you can go to war, get married, go to college, and are considered, for all legal intents and purposes, to be an adult; you don’t need your parents’ signatures or written permission for many things. At 21, you can legally consume alcohol. At 25, you can rent a car. At 35, you can run for President of the United States. There are several age restrictions in this country, but why? I suppose there is at least one irrefutable biological reason for one age restriction. The adolescent brain is still developing until the age of 21, thus the reason for the limitation on alcohol. The reasoning behind the other restrictions is something much more subjective. Lawmakers must be under the assumption that maturity comes with age; that an 18 year old is automatically more mature than a 15 year old; that an 18 year old can automatically make better decisions than a 15 year old. In general, there may be some merit to that solely based on the amount of life experience accrued over time, but don’t the age restrictions seem arbitrary? Perhaps an 18 year old, in general, is more mature than a 15 year old, but why is it ok for an 18 year old to die for his country and not a 15 year old? Is there really a single defining age where things just click? Maybe on the exact day of our 16th birthday, our “driving gene” suddenly kicks in and we’re instantly able to drive. At 18, maybe we’re suddenly able to get married and go to college on our own, but not yet able to drink responsibly for some reason. And at 25 you must be an excellent driver. The day you turn 35, you must have acquired all possible life experience necessary to run a country.
Although there are many, somewhat arbitrary, legal age restrictions, what about becoming a man? Is there a certain age for that as well when things just click? In the Jewish culture, a male is given a Bar Mitzvah when he is 13 and from then on is considered a man and given the responsibilities thereof. So is it possible to become a man before you can even drive?
Certainly it is absurd to think that on the morning of some random day exactly a certain number of years from our birth, we instantly acquire knowledge that was absent before 12 am. Age cannot be the driving force behind the measure of a man, but it is correlated with a much better gauge: life experience. In general, as people age, they acquire more wisdom from experience and life lessons. That is not the case for everyone, however. In scientific studies it is important to recognize the difference between correlation and causation. Just because life experience and age are correlated, doesn’t mean that age causes life experience. There are many 15 year olds that would be considered by most to be more mature than many 18 year olds. Unfortunately the best objective measure of life experience gathered is how many years you have spent on this earth. That’s why lawmakers have to rely on age, which can be a very inaccurate gauge.
So life experience and age are correlated and they seem to be a necessary requirement to become a man, but there must be something more.
Can a male in his 30s and picks pockets be considered a man? Maybe not. Can a male in his 40s, who has learned many life lessons, and just killed a person be considered a man? Probably not. Can a male in his 50s, who has learned many life lessons and has five decades of life experience, and beats his wife be considered a man?
Absolutely not.
So what is the missing element for the measure of a man? There are many interesting quotes that can be found by a simple google search that might help to explain this absent component.
“The measure of a man is what he does with power.”
- Plato
“The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.”
- Ann Landers
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
“The measure of a man is the way he bears up under misfortune.”
- Plutarch
“The measure of a man’s real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out.”
- Thomas Babington Macaulay
“If there be any truer measure of a man than by what he does, it must be by what he gives.”
- Robert South
“I would say that the surest measure of a man’s or woman’s maturity is the harmony, style, joy, and dignity he creates in his marriage, and the pleasure and inspiration he provides for his spouse.”
- Benjamin Spock
Clearly, there must be some moral component required to truly be considered a man; a component that doesn’t just automatically happen with life experience. You have to want it to happen; there must be an internal driving force, instilled by some powerful factor (law, religion, parents, etc.), that makes it very difficult to act immorally. This is probably the most important part of the measure of a man. For example, of the following two examples, which would you consider to be a man? The first is a young male, age 12, whose father left him, his mother, and his three younger sisters when he was only 5 years old. His mother has to work double shifts in order to just put food on the table and so this young male must raise his siblings. The second is the boy’s father.
A true man must be able to shoulder overwhelming burdens. A true man must be able to provide for his family. A true man must be able to overcome adversity. These are traits that cannot necessarily be taught, but they can be learned. You cannot teach a boy to overcome adversity, but through life experience (and as long as he has that internal driving force), he can learn methods to do so. So that is how this all ties together. Just as age was life experience in disguise, life experience is really moral strength in disguise. You gather life experience as you age, and you gather moral strength through life experience. What it comes down to, then, is not how many years you have been alive, or how many experiences you have had. What really matters is how you react to, and what you learn from, those experiences. That is the true measure of a man.
I recently picked up a bargain book at Barnes and Noble for like $5. The title sparked my interest: The Eight Pillars of Greek Wisdom by Stephen Bertman, Ph.D. After reading through the majority of it, I decided there was at least one thing I thought I could actually write about and would like to share with you guys. I would highly recommend you read the book yourself because it is pretty interesting (and only $5!). The following is the prologue of the book, which I included because it really sets the tone well and it gives good reasons to actually take the time to understand this stuff. After the prologue, I have my own comments about the third pillar: The Practice of Moderation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than fifty years ago, on the evening of July 4, 1947, an incident is said to have occurred in the desert near Roswell, New Mexico. According to some who claimed to have seen the wreckage, an aircraft crashed that was not of this world. Fragments were found of an extraordinarily light-weight metal that, after being crushed by the hand could spring back to its original shape. On one metal fragment an inscription was found written in a strange script unlike any other writing system on Earth. Survivors were found near the wreckage, but they were not human in form – survivors who would die soon after without telling their tale. What had crashed at Roswell was a spacecraft from another galaxy, or even from another dimension, an extraterrestrial vehicle that had taken an incredibly long voyage across both space and time. Of course, all of this is denied by official governmental sources.
But what if it all did happen? What if it was all true?
What might these aliens have taught us, these visitors from another world? What wisdom could they have conveyed about the universe, about life, perhaps even about ourselves?
Surely we would be fools not to listen, fools not to attempt a decipherment of the strange inscription, fools not to find and search the wreckage for more evidence of alien wisdom.
A Legacy That Waits
Such alien wisdom, however, is already available to us. Written in a strange script, it lies strewn through wreckage and has traveled thousands of years to reach our world. It is the alien wisdom of our own past that survives from a lost world that once existed on our own planet. It endures in the wreckage of buried cities and abandoned temples and in crumbling manuscripts that record a tongue last spoken more than twenty centuries ago. It is the wisdom of classical Greece.
Our mission, then, must be to recover the artifacts and literature of this lost civilization, to decipher the writing, interpret the words, and see if we can or should apply those antique teachings to our lives today.
But what is this supposed wisdom? And why is it “alien” to our world?
The Lessons of Greece
To begin, what are the teachings transmitted to us by the ancient Greeks? First, our lives are brief and fragile and, as such, too precious to waste. This lifetime is the only one we will ever have.
Second, we do not know who we are until we take time to discover who we can be. Hidden within us is unrealized potential. Hidden within us is a self we have yet to become. Next, we can only become that self with effort, with struggle. Each of us has a spiritual odyssey to undertake, a voyage across the sea of time.
We cannot undertake that voyage alone. We will need the help of others, the love of others, to reach port. And they will need our help and our love if they are to join us on the voyage.
There will be obstacles along the way and temptations – great obstacles and great temptations. There will be the temptation to give in to the current, to yield to the waves, to abandon our dreams. But the greatest obstacle, the greatest danger, will not lie outside us, but within: our willingness to remain who we are rather than become who we can yet be. Our greatest enemy is the enemy within, for hidden there are dark and destructive emotions. But also hidden there is the light of reason that can lead us to the dawn.
We must live with passion but beware of seduction. If forced to choose between a life of passionate commitment and a life of ease, we must elect passion over comfort. What matters most is not the gratification of our nerve endings but the nourishment of our soul. That is what separates us, and will always separate us, from the animals.
Worlds Apart
I have described this wisdom not simply as ancient, but alien. Why, then, is this so alien? Obviously, because it comes from a world that is not ours, a culture very different from our own. And since we have grown up in our culture, and live in it now, our conditioning prevents us from freely accepting these teachings as true. Instead, they seem foreign to our way of thinking, to the values our culture has taught us.
We live in a materialistic society with more plenty than any society has ever known. Here the emphasis is on power and possession, on things, not on something as invisible as the human spirit. We are told that we are what we own, that happiness derives from the acquisition, ownership, and use of things, and that the more things we own the happier we will be. We are told this in words by commercial advertising, but we are also told this worldlessly by the images that surround us and the examples of success that are held high.
We live in a technological society driven by speed. Because of this we lack the opportunity to think and reflect on the meaning and purpose of our lives. Indeed, speed discourages us from thought and reflection by denying us perspective. Instead it gives us the exhilaration of sensory stimulation. It would be economically counterproductive, in fact, even subversive, if too many of us examined the unquestioned premises upon which our society is built. Instead, we are kept moving, our velocity sustained by corporate interests that profit from our addiction to speed.
Though our computers are crammed with data, they are devoid of wisdom. We have all the answers we’ll ever need; it’s the questions that we lack, the missing questions that, if found, could lend meaning and purpose to all the empty facts we possess.
Material and technological progress teach us that what is old is obsolete and useless. So we avert our eyes from the past and thus turn away from the very countercultural lessons that could serve as the means to our personal and social liberation.
The Death of Permanence
We live in a hyperculture, a culture moving too fast for its own human good. We are governed by the power of now, the power of an insistent present, uncompromising and uncompromised by any other dimension of time. It is the now of swift and unfeeling electrons.
In such a society, few things last or were ever meant to last. Instead, we are surrounded by flux. In such an environment, there are no grounds for passionate commitment, for there is nothing permanent to be committed to. Rare is a sense of obligation to one another, or a sense of obligation to anything that lies beyond the transitory self.
What we are witnessing in our time is the death of permanence, the death of those permanent things that were a source of comfort to people in ages past and a source of moral direction for humanity.
Even the past itself is being forgotten as our remembrance of history steadily declines. Afflicted by this cultural amnesia, the social equivalent of Alzheimer’s disease, we are lost and confused among familiar surroundings.
Everywhere we go we are oppressed by urgency. But it is not a natural urgency to find our way again. Instead, it is an artificial urgency that impinges on our lives, an electronic urgency that requires us to respond at the speed of light to every external demand. And it is this same false urgency that is tearing at the fabric of our lives.
The Imperfect Greeks
The ancient Greeks did not have all the answers. They failed many times.
Neither they nor their world was perfect. The Greeks lacked most conveniences we know and many things we would regard today as necessities of life. And in those days life was more perilous and short than now.
Moreover, the Greeks often failed to live up to the very ideals they held high. Sometimes, in fact, they brought on tragedy in the blind pursuit of those ideals.
But the ancient Greeks asked questions – lots of them – and articulated those questions passionately in literature and art as has no other people. They took life seriously – not so seriously that they couldn’t laugh at life or themselves, but seriously enough to turn the power of critical intelligence upon themselves and their shortcomings. Their legacy to us is those enduring questions.
A Challenge from the Past
The Greek philosophers ask us in our hurried pace to stop and think before we lose ourselves in all our rush, before we lose sight of the selves we could otherwise become. They ask us to transform our frenzied hyperculture into a humane culture before it is too late. But if we cannot save the world, they add, then let us begin by saving ourselves and those we love, for it is from such small and incremental changes that a new world can be born.
Lastly, the ancient Greeks remind us they are not aliens, but human like us. They remind us that if they, with all their imperfections, could begin a Golden Age, so can we. They ask us to board their spacecraft and continue their journey to the stars.
The Eight Pillars of Greek Wisdom
Each morning in Athens at dawn, the rising sun illuminates the entrance to the Parthenon, the most famous monument of ancient Greece. Erected atop the Acropolis, almost twenty-five centuries ago, the marble temple celebrates “the glory that was Greece.”
Like the eight tall columns that still support the Parthenon’s entranceway, there are eight ideological pillars that held up the edifice of Greek civilization, eight principles that explain its creative and enduring power.
Separately, each principle represents a single, dynamic idea. Together, the eight principles constitute an outlook that can transform our lives.
These are the eight pillars of Greek wisdom and their message to us
Humanism:
“Be proud of your human abilities and believe in your capacity to achieve great things.”
The Pursuit of Excellence:
“Try to be more today than you were yesterday, more tomorrow than you were today.”
The Practice of Moderation:
“Beware of going to extremes, because in them lies danger.”
Self-Knowledge:
“Identify and understand your weaknesses and strengths.”
Rationalism:
“Search for the truth by using the power of your mind.”
Restless Curiosity:
“Seek to know what things really are, not merely what they seem to be.”
The Love of Freedom:
“Only if we are free can we find fulfillment.”
Individualism:
“Take pride in who you are as a unique individual.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to only write on the practice of moderation, for now at least, since it is the one that really struck a chord with me. The practice of moderation was so important to the Greeks that they inscribed the following message on the entrance of one of Greece’s most revered sanctuaries, the temple of the god Apollo at Delphi: Mêden ágan, “Nothing in excess.”
The author, Bertman, opens up discussion of the practice of moderation with some Greek myths. The first is probably the best: the myth of Icarus and Daedalus. I’m sure you’ve all heard of it, but just to refresh your memory, here’s a brief summary. Daedalus constructs wings out of feathers and wax for himself and his son Icarus to escape out of a window of a tall tower in which they were being detained. Daedalus warns his son “you must not fly too low, or else the salt spray will wet your wings and weigh down the feathers, making them too heavy to lift. Nor must you fly too high, or else the heat of the sun’s rays will melt the wax and the wings will come apart.” Well, Icarus of course ends up flying too high and the sun melts the wax and his wings come apart and he plunges into the sea and drowns. The lesson from this myth is simple: in our lives we must seek the safe middle between otherwise dangerous extremes. Moderation in all things is best.
The next myth Bertman discusses is from The Odyssey. In Ulysses’ adventure back home from Troy, he had to sail through a straight between two cliffs. On one cliff, there was a cave that contained a great monster, Scylla, and near the other cliff there was a huge whirlpool, Charybdis. The monster could snatch up a few men off the ship, while the whirlpool could swallow the entire ship whole. When sailing through the straight, Ulysses had to choose which side to sail closer to, and he chose the side of Scylla reasoning that it would be better to lose some of his crew than the entire ship and all his men. The lesson here is: sometimes we must choose the lesser danger and pray we make it through.
Bertman then brings up many other examples of Greek myths that are interesting and applicable, but I’ve decided to limit this discussion to those two. It is kind of cool to think about how even though they lived many centuries ago, we have many things in common with the ancient Greeks, including the need for moderation. I believe moderation is good for just about everything in life; from diet to work/play to politics.
How many times have you read or heard a news story about some new scientific study that some type of food is good for you, only to hear a couple months later that it causes cancer? It seems like any food in excess is bad for you, even ones that would otherwise be considered healthy in moderation. For example, there was a recent study that concluded beta-carotene had cancer and heart disease preventative benefits, but if you take a lot of it, your skin turns yellow! (http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/nutrition/supplements_8/) Or vitamin D; it’s been known to promote healthy bones and possibly prevent certain cancers, diabetes, high blood pressure, multiple sclerosis, and other conditions, but too much of it can lead to nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness, or more seriously: confusion and changes in heart rhythm (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vitamin-d/AN01864).
If there’s one thing you have to learn in college to be successful it’s how to balance work with play. Tipping the scales in either direction can be extremely harmful.
Politics. Let me explain. This brings up a crucial aspect of moderation that hasn’t been addressed yet. To practice moderation does not mean to have no opinion. I believe it is perfectly fine to have strong opinions about something, as long as you are able to understand each side of the issue. Moderation in this respect means to logically weigh all arguments before formulating an opinion, and to never stop questioning the opinion you reach. It is very easy to be blinded by strong opinions and to lose sight of logical thinking. For example, after you weigh all your options carefully and decide where you stand on all the issues, you may find you fit best with the Democrat label or perhaps the Republican label. As long as you logically deduced which party you most agree with, everything is ok, but to blindly vote down the ballot all one way or the other is not a good idea.
For example, the Greeks have many words that have entered the English language, however, “two of their words that have not entered our language are men and de, but they inform us about the Greek mind as few other words can. Men is best translated as ‘on the one hand,’ de as ‘on the other hand,’ and they function as a pair. Thus an ancient Greek might say, ‘On one hand (men), this man speaks eloquently, but on the other hand (de), what he says isn’t true.’ The fact that the Greeks used men and de frequently is instructive because it shows us they viewed reality not through one eye only but through both eyes at once. They looked at things from both sides (which may explain why the enjoyed debating so much), and therefore saw things in depth and with perspective.”
Those two words, men and de, represent two extremes and imply that the truth may lie somewhere in between. In the practice of moderation, it’s always best to identify the extremes first and then find the middle. This is similar to measuring a wall or a piece of paper. One interesting thing that the Greeks did in jury trials was after a guilty verdict would come down, the defendant and the accuser were instructed to each come up with their own alternative punishments. Knowing the jury would probably reject a too harsh or too lenient sentence, the accuser would have to be more lenient towards his enemy and the defendant would have to be harder on himself. The jury was then given the choice between two relatively moderate sentences to decide upon.
I’d like to end this with another section from the book.
“Moderation may not make your rich, but it can make you secure. If you dabble in stocks and bonds, the dullest style of investing is diversification, yet it is also the safest. Diversification means building a balanced portfolio based on the premise that what is doing well today may not do well tomorrow, and vice versa. Spreading your bets reduces your risk. But as every savvy investor knows, the greatest profits involve the greatest risks. If the ancient Greeks had had a stock market, they might have bet on some hot stocks occasionally (they were, after all, a race of risk takers), but they were also intimately familiar with the danger of losing everything. Moderation, then, in all things, including, perhaps, moderation itself!”
Based upon a request, which by the way I absolutely love to receive, I’ve decided to write about something that has been a long time coming: this very historical and dramatic election season. Let me first share my political view in general and how it has changed over the years. I began to get interested in elections around 8 years ago with the 2000 election. I remember watching the news about it and generally knowing what was happening, though I don’t think I actually supported one candidate over the other. It wasn’t until the 2004 election that I had realized I was 100% pro-Bush. I thought of myself as a conservative republican and believed that George Bush could do a much better job on matters of foreign policy specifically than John Kerry. It wasn’t until recently – as in over the past year or so – that I have begun to move closer to the center. Now I like to think of myself as a moderate since I can relate to many different aspects of each party. As for the reason for the move, (and I realize this is becoming quite fashionable to say these days) I attribute it to George Bush’s policies. Perhaps then, it would be more accurate to say I’m just anti-Bush rather than moderate. As to what my reasons are for being against Bush specifically, well that is a whole other topic and easily a whole other ramble entirely. So then why have I chosen to vote for Barack Obama? Well the short, and predictable, answer is: he represents change. Let me expand on that. Washington has become overrun by politicians who are owned by lobbyists. These lobbyists finance political campaigns based on the assumption that if elected, the candidate will create policies based on the beliefs and agendas of said lobbyists. This political hostage taking is chiefly responsible for the failed energy policy of the Bush administration. Over the past seven years, big oil companies (i.e. Exxon Mobile Corp., Conoco, Shell Oil Co., and BP America Inc.) have met behind closed doors with Dick Cheney and his energy task force in order to help create the Bush administration’s energy policy. A similar meeting happened only once with environmentalists. Yes, oil companies actually helped make the national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which in 2005 were still being debated. Maybe that’s the reason why over the last seven years we have continually seen record oil prices. On July 11, 2008 oil peaked at $142 per barrel and that is a 617% increase since 2001 when the average price per barrel was only $23 (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp). As of August 4, 2008 the McCain campaign had accepted $1.3 million from big oil companies (factcheck.org). So why mention all this? Lobbyists are constitutional, and in principle, they are the very essence of America. They are people that represent large groups of citizens and can effectively give many Americans a voice that would not normally have one in Washington D.C. However, this power is getting abused. Lobbyists should have a voice in Washington, not mind control. This is the chief reason why I am planning on voting for Barack Obama. Obama’s campaign has been a grassroots movement across America. Individual contributions have made up 100% of the money raised by the Obama campaign. 47% of the money has been from donations of $200 or less compared with only 26% of the money raised by the McCain campaign (factcheck.org). Obama has not accepted one penny from Special Interest Groups or Political Action Committees (a.k.a. lobbyists), unlike John McCain (and Hillary Clinton and most other politicians in the past 20 years). Obama does not have a single lobbyist employed in his campaign, unlike John McCain who has seven of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington employed, including his campaign advisor. Here are some very specific reasons why Obama is a good candidate for change. These were taken directly off his website under Barack Obama’s Blueprint for Change. I would highly encourage everyone to at least skim over that document and other bulleted points on his website in order to understand his stance on certain issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/). Also notice the points below on his record. BARACK OBAMA’s Plan Shine Light on Washington Lobbying Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format. Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated. Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system. Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a “contracts and influence” database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them. Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients – or tax earmarks – are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format. End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded. Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate. OBAMA’S RECORD Federal Ethics Reform Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the “gold standard” for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists’ bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, “The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet.” 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 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.” Illinois Reform In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations. A High Standard Unlike other candidates Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees. I also believe that it is time that America has some form of national health insurance policy. I believe health insurance is a fundamental right that should be provided by government just as fire and police protection. I do not offer a perfect solution, and the main reason why the general public opposes national health insurance is based on the example of other countries. In Canada for example, you do not get to pick your doctors and you have to wait a long time to see a specialist. In America we don’t have to base our policy off of other countries; we can have a truly unique American system. With that being said since John McCain offers no plan for national health insurance, I am forced to support Obama’s plan. It may not be perfect, but for the sake of the 45 million Americans that do not have health insurance, it is worth trying. Here are the basics of Obama’s plan outlined below. You can find the comprehensive version on his website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/). Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All The Obama-Biden Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama and Biden will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama-Biden plan will have the following features: Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met. National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public. So with that all said, hopefully I have made it obvious that I am a Barack Obama supporter. Also, it is worth stating again that although I support Obama, I do not consider myself to be a liberal or a democrat; I simply do not fully agree with either liberals or conservatives. Let me share one specific example that might make the case clear. I fully support stem cell research. It could lead to an untold wealth of medical knowledge that could greatly improve life for everyone. Unfortunately, the best form of stem cell research currently is embryonic stem cell research (there are other forms, but none have proven to be quite as remarkable as the embryonic type). Generally, I consider myself to be pro-life as well. Abortion should not simply be another form of birth control, yet I am not entirely against it. It should only be resorted to under extreme circumstances such as in cases of rape or incest, or if the mother’s health is in danger; in any other circumstances where the mother doesn’t think she is fit to raise a child then adoption is a much better option than abortion. If it is just the case that some high school teenager is embarrassed to walk around pregnant at her school, well sorry, but you should have thought about that earlier. So you can see my dilemma. With this particular issue, I do not neatly fall into either category of liberals or conservatives. Why do I bring this up? Well even though I plan to vote for a democrat, I am not the best person to ask how a leftist ideology will make America a better country, seeing as how I don’t necessarily believe it does. Large government has its pros and cons. The largest pro is that it (in theory) ensures at least decent living conditions for all Americans. Some of the best examples of this ideology are FDR’s New Deal programs. In the years of the Great Depression, specifically between 1933 and 1938, FDR initiated programs that took care of the unemployed (Works Progress Administration), brought electricity to distant areas (Rural Electrification Administration), helped many economically ravaged farmers regain prosperity (Agricultural Adjustment Administration), and guaranteed Americans that money in the bank was secure (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Two of the largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and Securities Exchange Commission (Wikipedia). It would be hard to argue that programs such as these are a bad idea, however, it can reach a point where creation of programs such as these goes too far. The largest con with the large government ideal is that it costs a lot of money, and taxes don’t usually go over well with anyone anywhere at anytime. I think the basic difference between left and right ideals is not that one cares more about the well being of all Americans over the other, but they simply have different philosophies about the approach to eventually meet that goal. The left believes it is better to ensure a good quality of life from the bottom up, offering help to those who need it most. The right believes it is better to ensure a good quality of life from the top down, offering help to those that are in a good position to help others below them. Neither philosophy is right nor wrong, however I think it has been painfully obvious that at least at this current time in American history, the trickle down theory of the George Bush administration simply has not worked. The short story is: America needs change. Yes, I realize how cliché that sounds, not only for an Obama supporter, but for any election year in general. Politicians always promise change – every politician, every election. No, I don’t think Barack Obama is the best thing since sliced bread. No, I don’t view Barack Obama as my Lord and Savior. No, I don’t even believe that half of what Barack Obama is promising will be done if he were elected. Why? Because at the end of the day he’s a politician. Barack Obama is not the answer to all our problems, but I do believe we have a better chance with him instead of John McCain. Check out this funny video from JibJab too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adc3MSS5Ydc
Based upon a request, which by the way I absolutely love to receive, I’ve decided to write about something that has been a long time coming: this very historical and dramatic election season.
Let me first share my political view in general and how it has changed over the years. I began to get interested in elections around 8 years ago with the 2000 election. I remember watching the news about it and generally knowing what was happening, though I don’t think I actually supported one candidate over the other. It wasn’t until the 2004 election that I had realized I was 100% pro-Bush. I thought of myself as a conservative republican and believed that George Bush could do a much better job on matters of foreign policy specifically than John Kerry.
It wasn’t until recently – as in over the past year or so – that I have begun to move closer to the center. Now I like to think of myself as a moderate since I can relate to many different aspects of each party. As for the reason for the move, (and I realize this is becoming quite fashionable to say these days) I attribute it to George Bush’s policies. Perhaps then, it would be more accurate to say I’m just anti-Bush rather than moderate. As to what my reasons are for being against Bush specifically, well that is a whole other topic and easily a whole other ramble entirely.
So then why have I chosen to vote for Barack Obama? Well the short, and predictable, answer is: he represents change. Let me expand on that. Washington has become overrun by politicians who are owned by lobbyists. These lobbyists finance political campaigns based on the assumption that if elected, the candidate will create policies based on the beliefs and agendas of said lobbyists. This political hostage taking is chiefly responsible for the failed energy policy of the Bush administration. Over the past seven years, big oil companies (i.e. Exxon Mobile Corp., Conoco, Shell Oil Co., and BP America Inc.) have met behind closed doors with Dick Cheney and his energy task force in order to help create the Bush administration’s energy policy. A similar meeting happened only once with environmentalists. Yes, oil companies actually helped make the national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which in 2005 were still being debated. Maybe that’s the reason why over the last seven years we have continually seen record oil prices. On July 11, 2008 oil peaked at $142 per barrel and that is a 617% increase since 2001 when the average price per barrel was only $23 (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp). As of August 4, 2008 the McCain campaign had accepted $1.3 million from big oil companies (factcheck.org). So why mention all this?
Lobbyists are constitutional, and in principle, they are the very essence of America. They are people that represent large groups of citizens and can effectively give many Americans a voice that would not normally have one in Washington D.C. However, this power is getting abused. Lobbyists should have a voice in Washington, not mind control.
This is the chief reason why I am planning on voting for Barack Obama. Obama’s campaign has been a grassroots movement across America. Individual contributions have made up 100% of the money raised by the Obama campaign. 47% of the money has been from donations of $200 or less compared with only 26% of the money raised by the McCain campaign (factcheck.org). Obama has not accepted one penny from Special Interest Groups or Political Action Committees (a.k.a. lobbyists), unlike John McCain (and Hillary Clinton and most other politicians in the past 20 years). Obama does not have a single lobbyist employed in his campaign, unlike John McCain who has seven of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington employed, including his campaign advisor.
Here are some very specific reasons why Obama is a good candidate for change. These were taken directly off his website under Barack Obama’s Blueprint for Change. I would highly encourage everyone to at least skim over that document and other bulleted points on his website in order to understand his stance on certain issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/). Also notice the points below on his record.
BARACK OBAMA’s Plan
Shine Light on Washington Lobbying
Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.
Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.
Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.
Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks
Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a “contracts and influence” database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.
Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients – or tax earmarks – are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.
End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.
Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.
OBAMA’S RECORD
Federal Ethics Reform
Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the “gold standard” for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists’ bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, “The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet.”
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 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.”
Illinois Reform
In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations.
A High Standard
Unlike other candidates Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.
I also believe that it is time that America has some form of national health insurance policy. I believe health insurance is a fundamental right that should be provided by government just as fire and police protection. I do not offer a perfect solution, and the main reason why the general public opposes national health insurance is based on the example of other countries. In Canada for example, you do not get to pick your doctors and you have to wait a long time to see a specialist. In America we don’t have to base our policy off of other countries; we can have a truly unique American system. With that being said since John McCain offers no plan for national health insurance, I am forced to support Obama’s plan. It may not be perfect, but for the sake of the 45 million Americans that do not have health insurance, it is worth trying. Here are the basics of Obama’s plan outlined below. You can find the comprehensive version on his website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/).
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
The Obama-Biden Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama and Biden will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama-Biden plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to
job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
So with that all said, hopefully I have made it obvious that I am a Barack Obama supporter. Also, it is worth stating again that although I support Obama, I do not consider myself to be a liberal or a democrat; I simply do not fully agree with either liberals or conservatives. Let me share one specific example that might make the case clear.
I fully support stem cell research. It could lead to an untold wealth of medical knowledge that could greatly improve life for everyone. Unfortunately, the best form of stem cell research currently is embryonic stem cell research (there are other forms, but none have proven to be quite as remarkable as the embryonic type). Generally, I consider myself to be pro-life as well. Abortion should not simply be another form of birth control, yet I am not entirely against it. It should only be resorted to under extreme circumstances such as in cases of rape or incest, or if the mother’s health is in danger; in any other circumstances where the mother doesn’t think she is fit to raise a child then adoption is a much better option than abortion. If it is just the case that some high school teenager is embarrassed to walk around pregnant at her school, well sorry, but you should have thought about that earlier. So you can see my dilemma. With this particular issue, I do not neatly fall into either category of liberals or conservatives.
Why do I bring this up? Well even though I plan to vote for a democrat, I am not the best person to ask how a leftist ideology will make America a better country, seeing as how I don’t necessarily believe it does. Large government has its pros and cons. The largest pro is that it (in theory) ensures at least decent living conditions for all Americans. Some of the best examples of this ideology are FDR’s New Deal programs. In the years of the Great Depression, specifically between 1933 and 1938, FDR initiated programs that took care of the unemployed (Works Progress Administration), brought electricity to distant areas (Rural Electrification Administration), helped many economically ravaged farmers regain prosperity (Agricultural Adjustment Administration), and guaranteed Americans that money in the bank was secure (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Two of the largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and Securities Exchange Commission (Wikipedia). It would be hard to argue that programs such as these are a bad idea, however, it can reach a point where creation of programs such as these goes too far. The largest con with the large government ideal is that it costs a lot of money, and taxes don’t usually go over well with anyone anywhere at anytime. I think the basic difference between left and right ideals is not that one cares more about the well being of all Americans over the other, but they simply have different philosophies about the approach to eventually meet that goal. The left believes it is better to ensure a good quality of life from the bottom up, offering help to those who need it most. The right believes it is better to ensure a good quality of life from the top down, offering help to those that are in a good position to help others below them. Neither philosophy is right nor wrong, however I think it has been painfully obvious that at least at this current time in American history, the trickle down theory of the George Bush administration simply has not worked.
The short story is: America needs change. Yes, I realize how cliché that sounds, not only for an Obama supporter, but for any election year in general. Politicians always promise change – every politician, every election. No, I don’t think Barack Obama is the best thing since sliced bread. No, I don’t view Barack Obama as my Lord and Savior. No, I don’t even believe that half of what Barack Obama is promising will be done if he were elected. Why? Because at the end of the day he’s a politician. Barack Obama is not the answer to all our problems, but I do believe we have a better chance with him instead of John McCain.
Check out this funny video from JibJab too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adc3MSS5Ydc
Get a
Free Blog Site at Freewebs.com!
