Election Snapshot
Although the final results are not all in, the 2006 midterm elections had a profound impact on the political landscape on Capitol Hill. As predicted, the Democrats are now in control of the U.S. House of Representatives. To gain a majority, Democrats needed to have a net gain of 15 Republican seats. As of right now, the Democrats have picked up 28 Republican seats, with ten races still undecided. That puts the House at 229 Democrats to 196 Republicans. Giving the Democrats, and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), control of the house for the first time sine 1994.
One of those 196 Republican seats is still in question though. In Florida’s 13th district, Republican Vern Buchanan appears to have beaten Democrat Christine Jennings by 373 votes. Although Democratic lawyers are attempting to force another recount, Buchanan has stated his intention to be in Washington, D.C. on Monday for new member orientation.
Regarding the other 10 seats in question, Louisiana’s 2nd district, and Texas’ 23rd district will have to wait until run off elections in December to declare a winner. In Louisiana, Rep. William Jefferson (D) led the twelve other candidates in the single ballot election with 30% of the votes. However, Louisiana law requires the winner to have a clear majority, so Jefferson will have to race in a run off election with Democrat Karen Carter, who received 22% of the vote. Regardless of the outcome, the seat will stay in Democratic hands.
In Texas, incumbent Henry Bonilla (R) finished ahead of the pack on the single ballot with 48% of the vote. Bonilla has to face former Congressmen Ciro Rodriguez (D), who received 20% of the general vote, in the December Runoff. The strong Hispanic population in the 23rd district may prove too much for Bonilla to overcome now that Rodriguez is the only Democrat on the ballot.
Of the remaining eight races, seven incumbents, five Republicans and two Democrats, are leading in the polls. However, in Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional district, Democratic challenger Joseph Courtney is leading Republic incumbent Rob Simmons by 170 votes. As close as the races are, we can expect a lot of recounts across the country, leaving official results unavailable until late November or early December. If the numbers stay as they are, the Democrats will have gained a total of 29 Republican seats making it 232 Democrats to 203 Republicans. However, the run off election in Texas may show yet another shit, making it a 233-202 Democrat majority, giving the Democrats a gain of 30 Republican seats.
In the Senate, the Democrats needed a net gain of 6 seats, and that is exactly what they got. The Democrats now have a 51-49 majority for the first time in 12 years. The six seats the Republicans lost were Pennsylvania (Rick Santorum), Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee), Ohio (Mike DeWine), Missouri (Jim Talent), Montana (Conrad Burns), and Virginia (George Allen). Virginia was the last race in the Senate to declare a winner. On Thursday, Republican George Allen conceded to Democrat Jim Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy.
Democrats now have a majority over both Houses of Congress. With a Republican President who has two years left in office, history says we will see two years of gridlock, until both parties attempt to retain or gain control of both the Executive and the Legislature. President Bush has met with soon to be Speaker Pelosi and the next Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Both sides are promising to work in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the country. Time will tell if this honeymoon can last for at least two years.
Leadership Changes
The political shift in Congress brings a shift in leadership for the 110th Congress. Current House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has already been named the next Speaker of the House, replacing Dennis Hastert (R-IL) as the top House official. Current minority whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is already facing competition to become the new House majority leader in Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Murtha had stated his intention to challenge Hoyer earlier this year, but backed down when party leaders thought it was to early to begin dividing party loyalties. Now that the elections are over, Murtha has restarted his leadership campaign. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) might challenge Caucus Chairman James E. Clyburn (D-SC) for the No. 3 job of majority whip. If Emmanuel decides not to run, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) may enter the race.
For the Republicans, Hastert has stated his intention not to vie for the minority leader position. Current House majority leader John Boehner (R-OH) appears to already have challengers to lead the GOP in the 110th Congress. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) stated his intention to run for the minority leader position in January and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has also expressed interest in running. John Shadegg (R-AZ) intends to run for the Republican whip, against the current majority whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), who lost his bid for majority leader to Boehner last winter.
In the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV) will continue his leadership role as the majority leader in the 110th Congress. Dick Durbin will continue as Democratic whip. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the current majority whip is expected to run for the GOP Leadership position, to replace outgoing leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who did not seek reelection this year.
The current ranking member in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, George Miller (D-CA), will replace Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) as chairman of the committee. In the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), the current ranking member on the Committee, will likely take over as the new Committee Chairman. As for the subcommittees, leadership meeting are being held next week, so we do not expect to hear much new before then.
Political Shifts in the New Congress
The 110th Congress is looking much more centered then previous Congresses. In the House, the election of candidates like Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) and former NFL Quarterback Heath Shuler (D-NC) show that voters were looking for much more moderate candidates.
Ellsworth has been described as a “conservative democrat,” who favors gun rights, supports enforcement-oriented immigration reform, opposes abortion rights and is against setting a withdrawal date from Iraq. But he also favors allowing prescription drug re-importation from Canada, backs implementing all recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission, and opposes allowing private investment of Social Security funds.
Shuler, a devout Christian, is more conservative than the average Democrat. He opposes abortion rights and gun control, and he plans to fight for balanced budgets. He believes, however, in the power of an active government and plans to push for greater funding for children's health care and for research into alternative energy sources. It will be interesting to see how more “conservative” democrats interact with the more liberal party leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD).
In the Senate, perhaps the most telling sign that voters are looking for more moderate representation comes in the reelection of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Lieberman was defeated in the Democratic primaries because of his choice to stand with the President in regards to the war in Iraq. Connecticut Democrats tried to paint Lieberman, who ran as an Independent candidate, as too conservative and too willing to compromise with the Administration.
Those aspects of his voting record are what got him reelected, mainly by Connecticut Republicans and Independents. Lieberman has stated his intention to caucus with the Democrats, but considering 23% of his voters were Republicans, it is likely he will toe the line as often as possible, so as to not alienate his conservative supporters. With relations strained from a lack of support in the elections, it is important that the new majority leaders not alienate Lieberman, especially if they wish to keep him caucusing with their side.
Also in the Senate, incoming Senators like Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Bob Casey (D-PA) are all considered much more moderate then the senior Senators like Reid, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Charles Schumer (D-NY). With such a close majority in the Senate (51-49), it is imperative for the Democratic leaders to keep the moderate freshmen in line if they want to use that majority to their advantage.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
2006 Elections
I. The Balance of Power
Thirty-four specific races for seats in the House and nine races in the Senate will determine the control of Congress. The Democratic Party needs to win an additional 15 seats to take control of the House and 6 seats in the Senate. Of the key races, many are too close to call but most lean toward the Democrats.
The sense in Washington, DC is that the Democrats will end up with the necessary victories to take control of the House and possibly the Senate. Lobbying firms and interest groups have long begun the process of hiring new Democratic staff and cementing ties to Democratic leaders in anticipation of the power-shift. Republican staffers have been working on their resumes and revisiting former employer contacts. However, if history has taught us anything, it is that anything can happen on Election Day. After the election, we will provide a memo that analyzes the outcome and considers the implication of those results on education policy and legislation.
II. The Latest Snapshot
The USA Today/Gallup poll released their final polls before the midterm elections this weekend. When asked: “If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district?” respondents favored a Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate 51% to 44%. That gap, however, is down 6 points from last month and down 16 percentage points from two weeks before that. This declining GOP gap is consistent among most recent polls, but it is also consistent across most elections as Election Day nears.
In the House, Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats if they hope to wrestle control away from the Republicans. Of the 35 most hotly contested races, three races are leaning Republican, 12 are leaning Democrat, while 20 are a statistical toss up, and are too close to call. In the Senate, Democrats need to net a gain of six seats in order take control from the Republicans. Thirty-three seats are up for reelection, with nine seats seen as key races. Of those nine seats, five are leaning Democrat while four of them are virtual toss-ups.
There are many tight races to monitor on the House side. According to the National Journal, the most hotly contested races include Arizona’s 8th district where Randy Graf (R) and Gabrielle Giffords (D) are locked in a dead heat race. In Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon (R) seeks to extend his 20-year Congressional career, but faces strong opposition from Joe Sestak (D). As in many of these House races, the Republicans are trying to make the issues local, but the national backlash against entrenched GOP power makes this hard to do. Many local campaigns simply identify the Republican candidate with the number of deaths of U.S. Troops in Iraq, with President Bush or with disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the likes of former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
On the Senate side, the two races that are drawing national attention are in Virginia and Tennessee. In Virginia, incumbent George Allen (R) is currently suffering from his close ties to President Bush and the White House agenda. His opponent, former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (D) has made the election about supporting the Administration, which seriously works to his advantage, since the President’s approval rating is currently between 35-37%. Gallup showed Sen. Allen ahead of Webb 49% to 46%, while Mason-Dixon had Webb in the lead 46% to 45%.
In Tennessee, current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) is leaving his seat in order to run for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination and Rep. Harold Ford (D) is running against Bob Corker (R), the former Mayor of Chattanooga to fill the gap. That race has become decidedly nasty, with attacks from both sides on each candidates ethical, moral, as well as political background. Gallup gave Corker a slim 49% to 46% margin over Rep. Ford, while in the Mason-Dixon survey Corker enjoyed a much wider 50% to 38% lead. If the current Majority Leader’s seat changes party hands, it will provide a devastating blow to the majority party.
The Democrat and Republican focus on the last day is to make sure that registered voters get to the polls. Both parties have initiated intense campaigns on their voters to try to ensure a victory at the polls. Democrats are reassuring their voters that the shrinking margin of victory is only a sign of a few more Republican voters offering their opinions, while the Republicans are trying to convince their voters that they will continue to make up lost ground and will continue to control Congress.
III. After The Elections
If you go by the polling data it appears that the 110th Congress will be split – a Republican Senate and a Democratic House. This creates a big problem for the Bush Administration, who was having trouble this year working with a Congress controlled by his own party. His chance of getting anything passed through a divided Congress seems less likely, which raises questions about the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
NCLB is scheduled to be reauthorized in 2007, but Democrats will not likely allow a Republican victory on NCLB prior to the 2008 Presidential elections. At the same time, Republicans may not wish to compromise with a Democratic House Majority before the 2008 Presidential election and, therefore, may hold off until after the 2008 election. That, however, is a question that can wait until Wednesday, when the political landscape for the next Congress is clearer.
Thirty-four specific races for seats in the House and nine races in the Senate will determine the control of Congress. The Democratic Party needs to win an additional 15 seats to take control of the House and 6 seats in the Senate. Of the key races, many are too close to call but most lean toward the Democrats.
The sense in Washington, DC is that the Democrats will end up with the necessary victories to take control of the House and possibly the Senate. Lobbying firms and interest groups have long begun the process of hiring new Democratic staff and cementing ties to Democratic leaders in anticipation of the power-shift. Republican staffers have been working on their resumes and revisiting former employer contacts. However, if history has taught us anything, it is that anything can happen on Election Day. After the election, we will provide a memo that analyzes the outcome and considers the implication of those results on education policy and legislation.
II. The Latest Snapshot
The USA Today/Gallup poll released their final polls before the midterm elections this weekend. When asked: “If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district?” respondents favored a Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate 51% to 44%. That gap, however, is down 6 points from last month and down 16 percentage points from two weeks before that. This declining GOP gap is consistent among most recent polls, but it is also consistent across most elections as Election Day nears.
In the House, Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats if they hope to wrestle control away from the Republicans. Of the 35 most hotly contested races, three races are leaning Republican, 12 are leaning Democrat, while 20 are a statistical toss up, and are too close to call. In the Senate, Democrats need to net a gain of six seats in order take control from the Republicans. Thirty-three seats are up for reelection, with nine seats seen as key races. Of those nine seats, five are leaning Democrat while four of them are virtual toss-ups.
There are many tight races to monitor on the House side. According to the National Journal, the most hotly contested races include Arizona’s 8th district where Randy Graf (R) and Gabrielle Giffords (D) are locked in a dead heat race. In Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon (R) seeks to extend his 20-year Congressional career, but faces strong opposition from Joe Sestak (D). As in many of these House races, the Republicans are trying to make the issues local, but the national backlash against entrenched GOP power makes this hard to do. Many local campaigns simply identify the Republican candidate with the number of deaths of U.S. Troops in Iraq, with President Bush or with disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the likes of former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
On the Senate side, the two races that are drawing national attention are in Virginia and Tennessee. In Virginia, incumbent George Allen (R) is currently suffering from his close ties to President Bush and the White House agenda. His opponent, former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (D) has made the election about supporting the Administration, which seriously works to his advantage, since the President’s approval rating is currently between 35-37%. Gallup showed Sen. Allen ahead of Webb 49% to 46%, while Mason-Dixon had Webb in the lead 46% to 45%.
In Tennessee, current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) is leaving his seat in order to run for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination and Rep. Harold Ford (D) is running against Bob Corker (R), the former Mayor of Chattanooga to fill the gap. That race has become decidedly nasty, with attacks from both sides on each candidates ethical, moral, as well as political background. Gallup gave Corker a slim 49% to 46% margin over Rep. Ford, while in the Mason-Dixon survey Corker enjoyed a much wider 50% to 38% lead. If the current Majority Leader’s seat changes party hands, it will provide a devastating blow to the majority party.
The Democrat and Republican focus on the last day is to make sure that registered voters get to the polls. Both parties have initiated intense campaigns on their voters to try to ensure a victory at the polls. Democrats are reassuring their voters that the shrinking margin of victory is only a sign of a few more Republican voters offering their opinions, while the Republicans are trying to convince their voters that they will continue to make up lost ground and will continue to control Congress.
III. After The Elections
If you go by the polling data it appears that the 110th Congress will be split – a Republican Senate and a Democratic House. This creates a big problem for the Bush Administration, who was having trouble this year working with a Congress controlled by his own party. His chance of getting anything passed through a divided Congress seems less likely, which raises questions about the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
NCLB is scheduled to be reauthorized in 2007, but Democrats will not likely allow a Republican victory on NCLB prior to the 2008 Presidential elections. At the same time, Republicans may not wish to compromise with a Democratic House Majority before the 2008 Presidential election and, therefore, may hold off until after the 2008 election. That, however, is a question that can wait until Wednesday, when the political landscape for the next Congress is clearer.
Monday, October 23, 2006
World Series Prediction
Okay, so here is my prediction for the World Series. If the Tigers do not win in 6 games, the Cardinals will win in 7. My heart says the Cards can win in 5, sweeping the Tigers for all three games in St. Louis, but my head almost always outweighs whatever my heart thinks. Looking at it by the numbers, if Carpenter and Suppan win games 3 and 4 respectively, I see it as the Cardinals in 7. Keep in mind, I know anything can happen in the Fall Classic. The Cards could lose all three at home too, no one ever really knows. I have based my prediction off of the numbers and past performances. Here is my reasoning.
Game 3: Nate Robertson @ Chris Carpenter. Robertson is 1-1 in the Postseason with a 5.91 ERA. Robertson has started both of his post season games on the road. losing in New York, but working out of tough spots to win in Oakland. During the regular season, Robertson was 13-13, 3.84 ERA and 137 strikeouts. At the same time, Chris Carpenter is 2-1 this postseason with a 3.70 ERA. Carpenter has won 6 of his 7 career postseason starts, though this will be his first World Series appearance, since he was injured when the Cardinals went to the Series in 2004. During the regular season, Carpenter went 15-8 with a 3.09 ERA (3rd in MLB) and 184 strikeouts (tied for 9th in MLB). Taking all this into consideration, the Cardinals have the pitching advantage. Add in the fact that the game is in Busch Stadium, and the Cardinals should be able to take a 2-1 Series lead.
Game 4: Jeremy Bonderman @ Jeff Suppan. Bonderman is 1-0 in the postseaon with a 3.08 ERA. In the regular season, he was 14-8 with a 4.08 ERA. All of this looks good, but both starts Bonderman has made this postseaon have been in Detroit. Bonderman has never pitched in the New Busch Stadium. He is also 0 for 19 at the plate in his career. Jeff Suppan is 2-1 this postseason with a 1.86 ERA. In the regular season, Suppan was 12-7, with a 4.12 ERA. The most important stat is that Suppan only lost two games in Busch Stadium all year. Suppan, MVP of the League Championship Series is coming off an amazing outing to win Game 7 of the NLCS, and he hit his first career home run in Game 3 of the NLCS. The two pitchers are pretty evenly matched, but Suppan is the one with all the momentum, and the extra edge of playing at home. The Cardinals should take a 3-1 Series lead.
Game 5 will likely have a repeat match of Game 1: Justin Verlander @ Anthony Reyes. Verlander was 1-0 this postseason coming into the Series, with a 5.91 ERA. He lost Game 1 of the Series, giving up 7 runs (6 earned runs). During the regular season, Verlander went 17-9, with a 3.63 ERA. In all likelihood, Verlander will end up getting the AL Rookie of the Year award for his performance this year. Reyes had a less then stellar record leading into the Series. He only pitched one game this postseason, receiving a no-decision, giving up 2 runs in 4 innings, giving himself a 4.50 ERA. During the regular season, Reyes went 5-8 with a 5.06 ERA. These numbers definitely give the advantage to Verlander, but Reyes is coming off of a beautiful start in Game 1, where he went 8 innings, giving up 2 runs on 4 hits with 4 strikeouts. Reyes has the momentum, and the Cardinals should be able to keep their team momentum going to win the Series 4-1. However, I believe Verlander will return to form and the Tigers will get one game back on the Cards, bringing the series to 3-2. This game could go either way, but I think the advantage is with the Tigers.
Game 6: Likely Starters: Jeff Weaver @ Kenny Rogers . Weaver was 2-1 in the postseason with a 2.16 ERA coming into the Series. He went 5 innings letting up 3 runs on 9 hits. Starting the season in Anaheim. Weaver went 8-14 with a 5.76 ERA this year (5-4 as a Cardinal). Roger is now 3-0 this postseason with a 0.00 ERA. In Game 2, he pitched 8 shutout innings giving up only two hits. During the regular season, Rogers was 17-8 with a 3.84 ERA. Prior to this season, neither Weaver nor Rogers had good postseason stats, but both have pitched solid innings in this postseason, though Rogers has the advantage. The numbers say Rogers will pull out another win. However, it is a distinct possibility that we will see a classic Rogers postseason Blunder, allowing the Cardinals to win the series 4-2. However, I think that Weaver will have his worst outing of the postseason, letting up at least two more runs then Rogers. Tigers force a Game 7.
Game 7: probable Starters: Chris Carpenter @ Nate Robertson. I have already given the stats for these two. But this is what it comes down to. The Reigning NL Cy Young Award winner and the Cardinals' Ace vs. Nate Robertson who went 13-13 in the regular season. Pitching advantage goes to the Cardinals, who win Game 7 in Detroit, winning their 10th World Series Championship, and their first since 1982. Go Cardinals!!!!
Game 3: Nate Robertson @ Chris Carpenter. Robertson is 1-1 in the Postseason with a 5.91 ERA. Robertson has started both of his post season games on the road. losing in New York, but working out of tough spots to win in Oakland. During the regular season, Robertson was 13-13, 3.84 ERA and 137 strikeouts. At the same time, Chris Carpenter is 2-1 this postseason with a 3.70 ERA. Carpenter has won 6 of his 7 career postseason starts, though this will be his first World Series appearance, since he was injured when the Cardinals went to the Series in 2004. During the regular season, Carpenter went 15-8 with a 3.09 ERA (3rd in MLB) and 184 strikeouts (tied for 9th in MLB). Taking all this into consideration, the Cardinals have the pitching advantage. Add in the fact that the game is in Busch Stadium, and the Cardinals should be able to take a 2-1 Series lead.
Game 4: Jeremy Bonderman @ Jeff Suppan. Bonderman is 1-0 in the postseaon with a 3.08 ERA. In the regular season, he was 14-8 with a 4.08 ERA. All of this looks good, but both starts Bonderman has made this postseaon have been in Detroit. Bonderman has never pitched in the New Busch Stadium. He is also 0 for 19 at the plate in his career. Jeff Suppan is 2-1 this postseason with a 1.86 ERA. In the regular season, Suppan was 12-7, with a 4.12 ERA. The most important stat is that Suppan only lost two games in Busch Stadium all year. Suppan, MVP of the League Championship Series is coming off an amazing outing to win Game 7 of the NLCS, and he hit his first career home run in Game 3 of the NLCS. The two pitchers are pretty evenly matched, but Suppan is the one with all the momentum, and the extra edge of playing at home. The Cardinals should take a 3-1 Series lead.
Game 5 will likely have a repeat match of Game 1: Justin Verlander @ Anthony Reyes. Verlander was 1-0 this postseason coming into the Series, with a 5.91 ERA. He lost Game 1 of the Series, giving up 7 runs (6 earned runs). During the regular season, Verlander went 17-9, with a 3.63 ERA. In all likelihood, Verlander will end up getting the AL Rookie of the Year award for his performance this year. Reyes had a less then stellar record leading into the Series. He only pitched one game this postseason, receiving a no-decision, giving up 2 runs in 4 innings, giving himself a 4.50 ERA. During the regular season, Reyes went 5-8 with a 5.06 ERA. These numbers definitely give the advantage to Verlander, but Reyes is coming off of a beautiful start in Game 1, where he went 8 innings, giving up 2 runs on 4 hits with 4 strikeouts. Reyes has the momentum, and the Cardinals should be able to keep their team momentum going to win the Series 4-1. However, I believe Verlander will return to form and the Tigers will get one game back on the Cards, bringing the series to 3-2. This game could go either way, but I think the advantage is with the Tigers.
Game 6: Likely Starters: Jeff Weaver @ Kenny Rogers . Weaver was 2-1 in the postseason with a 2.16 ERA coming into the Series. He went 5 innings letting up 3 runs on 9 hits. Starting the season in Anaheim. Weaver went 8-14 with a 5.76 ERA this year (5-4 as a Cardinal). Roger is now 3-0 this postseason with a 0.00 ERA. In Game 2, he pitched 8 shutout innings giving up only two hits. During the regular season, Rogers was 17-8 with a 3.84 ERA. Prior to this season, neither Weaver nor Rogers had good postseason stats, but both have pitched solid innings in this postseason, though Rogers has the advantage. The numbers say Rogers will pull out another win. However, it is a distinct possibility that we will see a classic Rogers postseason Blunder, allowing the Cardinals to win the series 4-2. However, I think that Weaver will have his worst outing of the postseason, letting up at least two more runs then Rogers. Tigers force a Game 7.
Game 7: probable Starters: Chris Carpenter @ Nate Robertson. I have already given the stats for these two. But this is what it comes down to. The Reigning NL Cy Young Award winner and the Cardinals' Ace vs. Nate Robertson who went 13-13 in the regular season. Pitching advantage goes to the Cardinals, who win Game 7 in Detroit, winning their 10th World Series Championship, and their first since 1982. Go Cardinals!!!!
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Let's Try this again
Well, okay, the last attempt to get back into the swing of this did not pan out, so hopefully this time we will be more successful. Look for a new post sometime this weekend. Keep your fingers crossed.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Road Map
I apologize for lack of input here for awhile. However, following the brief absence, I intend to quickly cover a large variety of issues in the coming weeks. I have a list of intended topics, in no particular order:
Immigration
Tax Cuts
FY2007 Budget and Appropriations
2006 Congressional Elections
Iran Nuclear Showdown
The Jerusalem Barrier
NSA Wiretaps
If there are any other topics you are interested in discussing, feel free to let me know. I am looking forward to diving back into these topics.
Immigration
Tax Cuts
FY2007 Budget and Appropriations
2006 Congressional Elections
Iran Nuclear Showdown
The Jerusalem Barrier
NSA Wiretaps
If there are any other topics you are interested in discussing, feel free to let me know. I am looking forward to diving back into these topics.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Tolerance and Truth
As a Christian, I often find my views on many different subjects at odds with growing cultural norms. Recently, after reading two specific articles in the LA Times, I have started to really think about one in particular. Some of what I am going to say may offend you, but this is what I believe to be true.
There is a growing debate over homosexuality and the way it is seen by Christians. Other religions do not condone homosexuality, but, for some reason, Christians are the ones who get blamed the most for being intolerant. Now, my problem with this issue actually rests on both sides of the debate. First off, let me be completely upfront about my beliefs. I believe homosexuality is a sin. It is called a sin in the Bible, and I believe the Bible to be God’s word. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” – 2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version). Even though those who do not take the Bible to be the Word of God would not see this as a viable argument, allow me to please explain where and how the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin.
Leviticus 18:22 says, “Do not practice homosexuality, it is a detestable sin (New Living Translation).” That right there leaves no room for argument that God does not condone homosexuality. God specifically names it as a sin. In other parts of the Bible, consequences are named for those who practice homosexuality. In Genesis Chapters 18-19, The Lord tells Abraham that the outcry against the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, that He is sending his angels to go down and see the sinfulness for themselves. Once there, Lot, Abraham’s brother, takes the Angels into his house as guests. A mob of angry men (and it specifically says men, and makes no mention of women) forms outside of the house, and they demand that Lot send out his guests, so that they may have sex with them. The Angels then strike the mob with blindness, and evacuate Lot and his family from the city, and then Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. Now, I am certain there were many other grievous since committed in that city (rape, murder, corruption), but the final straw is when a mob of men wants to have sex with the two guests in Lot’s house.
More, slightly less direct proof lies in the guidance God gives for sex and marriage. Mark 10: 6-9 (NLT) reads, “But God's plan was seen from the beginning of creation, for He made them male and female. This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Since they are no longer two but one, let no one separate them, for God has joined them together.” Ephesians 5:31-33 (NLT) also says, “As the Scriptures say, "A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” Twice, marriage is referred to as the union of a man and a woman. You can trace this back to the first Commandment God gave to humanity in Genesis 1:28 (NLT), “God blessed them and told them, ‘Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals’." This if often described as, “be fruitful and multiply.” Homosexuals cannot multiply. In order to birth a new generation, the union of a man and a woman is necessary. Even with modern medical sciences, where the base ingredients can be mixed and implanted into a woman, the process still requires the use of materials from both men and women. That is the way God intended it.
Now, on the other side of the issue, too many Christians today approach this topic in the wrong way as well. Too many Christians go on about how evil homosexuality is. They demonize homosexuals, and condemn any and all who practice that way of life. That is not the kind of love and tolerance God has called us to. One key fact that too many Christians have forgotten is in Romans 3:23 (NIV), “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” We are all sinners. And in case you were wondering, while their may be degrees of sin to people here on Earth, there are no degrees of sin in Heaven. Sin is sin, and the punishment is the same for every sin. Romans 6:23 (NIV) says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” There it is, in black and white, the penalty for sin id death. And, as descried in multiple passages, there are two deaths. There is the physical death all humans experience, and then there is spiritual death, where your soul is not allowed access to heaven. That is the death this passage is speaking of. So, homosexuality is no worse then the greed, lying, or lust a heterosexual gives into. It is all sin. Now, here comes the important part. There is a way that we are forgiven of our sins. This is a popular verse that most every child learns in Sunday School, John 3:16 (NIV), “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” There it is. Christ sacrificed himself so his blood would wash away our sins. And that includes all sin. If a Christian can receive forgiveness, so can everyone else. The key here is recognizing your sin, and asking forgiveness for it. This is where the real division comes in.
The only reason such a divisive line is drawn between most Christians and homosexuals, is that most homosexuals do not see their lifestyle as sinful. For whatever reason (and I say it that way because I have always believed it to be a sin, so I cannot comment on the thoughts and feelings of those who do not with any sort of credibility), an open homosexual sees his or her life as a natural way of living. While I do not agree, my opinion is not likely to change the way another human being thinks and feels. This is why such a line is drawn on this issue. For someone who lives a heterosexually promiscuous lifestyle, they might recognize their sin, but lack the will or desire to change. Both are sinful ways of life, but only one is recognized. I do believe that a homosexual can be a Christian, which is an unpopular idea amongst many Christians these days. All this means is that this particular person is struggling with a particular sin in their life. As long as the recognize that it is a sin, and begin working to change their lifestyle (especially by praying for God’s help), then they are no different from a heterosexual Christian who is struggling with any other sin in their own life. Our problem is that too many Christians attack the homosexual lifestyle, rather then attempting to show tolerance. Now, I am by no means suggesting accepting the homosexual lifestyle as perfectly allowable. What I am suggesting is that you love those in that community as you are called to love all people. Show tolerance while stating the truth that God does not condone their particular lifestyle. Too often, Christians forget about love. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV) says, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” This means that it is our job as Christians to teach others of the truth, and not to be too filled with pride to believe we are any better then anyone else.
Now, the two articles I referenced at the beginning of this post we both on this particular topic. The first article tells of a group of gay rights activists who traveled to a Baptist College to preach tolerance. I have no problem with this. As a former student, I firmly believe in the pursuit of knowledge, and from hearing from all sides. There was nothing too controversial in the article. It simply talked about how students would debate with the activists. I actually found this article encouraging, because both sides remained respectful and open-minded. That gives me some hope for the future. The second article was about a lawsuit in Georgia where a Christian college is student is taking her college to court over her right to speak out against homosexuality. My two issues with the article were this girl’s methods, and the language the article used. The article consistently talked about Christians arguing against tolerance. That alone shows the bias of the reporter, which should never come out in a straight news story. A reporter should remain objective unless writing an opinion or editorial column. If they want to express their personal views, they should do what I did and create a blog. At the same time, I do not know If I agree with the methods this young woman’s choice of venue for her own views. I agree that Christians should not be forced to pretend to be okay with the homosexual lifestyle, but I am not sure suing your school is the way to change things. Despite the fact that I work for a law firm, I am not overly fond of the legal system. I believe that to affect real change, you have to reach the hearts and minds of people…not go to court. In the end, it is up to the individual person making their own choices about their own life. One of the greatest gifts god gave man was free will. You choose your destiny. God may know what you are going to do before you do it, but He still allows you to make the choice on your own.
Now, to add a personal disclaimer, I do not condone the homosexual life style. At the same time, I do not condemn homosexuals either. It is not my place to judge. It is my place to love others as God commanded, and to do what I can to teach the truth. Hate and condemnation are not the tools I am trained in. I personally have friends who are openly gay. I love them just the same as I do all my heterosexual friends. Some of them know my stance on this issue, others do not (probably because I am still often too afraid to rock the boat by bringing the issue up). The fact is, I firmly believe God loves all people, heterosexual or homosexual, God does not discriminate, so neither should I. I may not agree with the lifestyle, and I may try to convince them to change, but I will continue to love these people regardless of what time brings. As usual, if you have a comment o make, please do so, but try and keep it as respectful as I have. Thank you.
LA Times Articles:
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-christians10apr10,1,6354986.story?coll=la-news-learning
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-ride5apr05,1,6914715.story?coll=la-news-learning
There is a growing debate over homosexuality and the way it is seen by Christians. Other religions do not condone homosexuality, but, for some reason, Christians are the ones who get blamed the most for being intolerant. Now, my problem with this issue actually rests on both sides of the debate. First off, let me be completely upfront about my beliefs. I believe homosexuality is a sin. It is called a sin in the Bible, and I believe the Bible to be God’s word. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” – 2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version). Even though those who do not take the Bible to be the Word of God would not see this as a viable argument, allow me to please explain where and how the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin.
Leviticus 18:22 says, “Do not practice homosexuality, it is a detestable sin (New Living Translation).” That right there leaves no room for argument that God does not condone homosexuality. God specifically names it as a sin. In other parts of the Bible, consequences are named for those who practice homosexuality. In Genesis Chapters 18-19, The Lord tells Abraham that the outcry against the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, that He is sending his angels to go down and see the sinfulness for themselves. Once there, Lot, Abraham’s brother, takes the Angels into his house as guests. A mob of angry men (and it specifically says men, and makes no mention of women) forms outside of the house, and they demand that Lot send out his guests, so that they may have sex with them. The Angels then strike the mob with blindness, and evacuate Lot and his family from the city, and then Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. Now, I am certain there were many other grievous since committed in that city (rape, murder, corruption), but the final straw is when a mob of men wants to have sex with the two guests in Lot’s house.
More, slightly less direct proof lies in the guidance God gives for sex and marriage. Mark 10: 6-9 (NLT) reads, “But God's plan was seen from the beginning of creation, for He made them male and female. This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Since they are no longer two but one, let no one separate them, for God has joined them together.” Ephesians 5:31-33 (NLT) also says, “As the Scriptures say, "A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” Twice, marriage is referred to as the union of a man and a woman. You can trace this back to the first Commandment God gave to humanity in Genesis 1:28 (NLT), “God blessed them and told them, ‘Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals’." This if often described as, “be fruitful and multiply.” Homosexuals cannot multiply. In order to birth a new generation, the union of a man and a woman is necessary. Even with modern medical sciences, where the base ingredients can be mixed and implanted into a woman, the process still requires the use of materials from both men and women. That is the way God intended it.
Now, on the other side of the issue, too many Christians today approach this topic in the wrong way as well. Too many Christians go on about how evil homosexuality is. They demonize homosexuals, and condemn any and all who practice that way of life. That is not the kind of love and tolerance God has called us to. One key fact that too many Christians have forgotten is in Romans 3:23 (NIV), “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” We are all sinners. And in case you were wondering, while their may be degrees of sin to people here on Earth, there are no degrees of sin in Heaven. Sin is sin, and the punishment is the same for every sin. Romans 6:23 (NIV) says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” There it is, in black and white, the penalty for sin id death. And, as descried in multiple passages, there are two deaths. There is the physical death all humans experience, and then there is spiritual death, where your soul is not allowed access to heaven. That is the death this passage is speaking of. So, homosexuality is no worse then the greed, lying, or lust a heterosexual gives into. It is all sin. Now, here comes the important part. There is a way that we are forgiven of our sins. This is a popular verse that most every child learns in Sunday School, John 3:16 (NIV), “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” There it is. Christ sacrificed himself so his blood would wash away our sins. And that includes all sin. If a Christian can receive forgiveness, so can everyone else. The key here is recognizing your sin, and asking forgiveness for it. This is where the real division comes in.
The only reason such a divisive line is drawn between most Christians and homosexuals, is that most homosexuals do not see their lifestyle as sinful. For whatever reason (and I say it that way because I have always believed it to be a sin, so I cannot comment on the thoughts and feelings of those who do not with any sort of credibility), an open homosexual sees his or her life as a natural way of living. While I do not agree, my opinion is not likely to change the way another human being thinks and feels. This is why such a line is drawn on this issue. For someone who lives a heterosexually promiscuous lifestyle, they might recognize their sin, but lack the will or desire to change. Both are sinful ways of life, but only one is recognized. I do believe that a homosexual can be a Christian, which is an unpopular idea amongst many Christians these days. All this means is that this particular person is struggling with a particular sin in their life. As long as the recognize that it is a sin, and begin working to change their lifestyle (especially by praying for God’s help), then they are no different from a heterosexual Christian who is struggling with any other sin in their own life. Our problem is that too many Christians attack the homosexual lifestyle, rather then attempting to show tolerance. Now, I am by no means suggesting accepting the homosexual lifestyle as perfectly allowable. What I am suggesting is that you love those in that community as you are called to love all people. Show tolerance while stating the truth that God does not condone their particular lifestyle. Too often, Christians forget about love. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV) says, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” This means that it is our job as Christians to teach others of the truth, and not to be too filled with pride to believe we are any better then anyone else.
Now, the two articles I referenced at the beginning of this post we both on this particular topic. The first article tells of a group of gay rights activists who traveled to a Baptist College to preach tolerance. I have no problem with this. As a former student, I firmly believe in the pursuit of knowledge, and from hearing from all sides. There was nothing too controversial in the article. It simply talked about how students would debate with the activists. I actually found this article encouraging, because both sides remained respectful and open-minded. That gives me some hope for the future. The second article was about a lawsuit in Georgia where a Christian college is student is taking her college to court over her right to speak out against homosexuality. My two issues with the article were this girl’s methods, and the language the article used. The article consistently talked about Christians arguing against tolerance. That alone shows the bias of the reporter, which should never come out in a straight news story. A reporter should remain objective unless writing an opinion or editorial column. If they want to express their personal views, they should do what I did and create a blog. At the same time, I do not know If I agree with the methods this young woman’s choice of venue for her own views. I agree that Christians should not be forced to pretend to be okay with the homosexual lifestyle, but I am not sure suing your school is the way to change things. Despite the fact that I work for a law firm, I am not overly fond of the legal system. I believe that to affect real change, you have to reach the hearts and minds of people…not go to court. In the end, it is up to the individual person making their own choices about their own life. One of the greatest gifts god gave man was free will. You choose your destiny. God may know what you are going to do before you do it, but He still allows you to make the choice on your own.
Now, to add a personal disclaimer, I do not condone the homosexual life style. At the same time, I do not condemn homosexuals either. It is not my place to judge. It is my place to love others as God commanded, and to do what I can to teach the truth. Hate and condemnation are not the tools I am trained in. I personally have friends who are openly gay. I love them just the same as I do all my heterosexual friends. Some of them know my stance on this issue, others do not (probably because I am still often too afraid to rock the boat by bringing the issue up). The fact is, I firmly believe God loves all people, heterosexual or homosexual, God does not discriminate, so neither should I. I may not agree with the lifestyle, and I may try to convince them to change, but I will continue to love these people regardless of what time brings. As usual, if you have a comment o make, please do so, but try and keep it as respectful as I have. Thank you.
LA Times Articles:
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-christians10apr10,1,6354986.story?coll=la-news-learning
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-ride5apr05,1,6914715.story?coll=la-news-learning
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Troubles in France
At my current job, part of my position requires me to monitor media sources. So, at times, the television in front of my desk is tuned into Fox News Channel. Now, twice in the last few weeks, I have sat there and watched French “protests” turn violent. Now, the violence has really been mostly trivial, with people throwing rocks and bottles at Police and Photographers. Nothing too serious has happened. The point being that, even though the violence is only being caused by certain troublemakers who hide in with serious protestors, I find the whole situation nothing short of hilarious. I have never been a very big fan of the French in general. Even when I was younger, I did not care for the French. Through their travels, both of my parents had been to France, and, as Americans, had not been treated very well. If there is only one definite way to earn my contempt, it is by treating my parents in a disrespectful manner. So, after constant negative sentiments by the French leading up to the Iraq War, I loved it when people began jumping on the French-bashing bandwagon. Nothing in recent history has shown how incredibly idiotic and overly prideful French citizens can be then these recent labor disputes.
For the first time in years, I actually side with the French government on this issue. In 2005, France had a 10% unemployment rate (according to the CIA World Fact Book). Now, that is actually down from 11% at the turn of the century. To give you an idea of how bad this statistic is, the U.S., U.K., and Japan all boasted unemployment rates 4.3 – 5.1, with Japan having the lowest rate. So, France, which is supposed to be among the greatest nations in the world, should not be dealing with an unemployment rate that is about twice as high as the U.S. and Japan. The problem lies in the business practices of the European nation, and their unwillingness to change accordingly. As time has shown, specifically in China and Russia, socialist-style economies simply do not work. As with many other political and economic theories, they look wonderful on paper, but they rarely meet with success. As such, the fact that France has existed in a socialist economic state for a somewhat extended period is starting to come around top bite them. Therefore, in an unusually bold, and intelligent move on the part of the government, Prime Minister Dominique De Villepin has attempted to fight this unemployment epidemic by instituting a new policy.
The new labor law stipulates that an employer can fire/layoff an employee under the age of 26 any time in the first two year of employment. This was done with the youth’s best interest in mind. Now, I do not know the exact statistic, but I believe the unemployment rate for young people in France is about 40%. That is mind-blowing. The problem is that labor laws in France do not make it easy to fire/layoff employees. In fact, it is nearly impossible. Therefore, in light of economic downturns, employers are not willing to risk hiring people they cannot let go of in times of financial crisis. The purpose of the new pro-business law is to encourage employers to take the risk of hiring new workers, knowing that, if in that initial 2-year period, the company experiences hard times, that person can be let go. Therefore, the French government is actually attempting to help young workers by giving employers incentives to hire new people. And how do the youth of France show their appreciation? They organize mass protests. It is evidence that people within a socialist society become too complacent and dependent on the government. There is little incentive to work hard, because there is little chance that you will be fired. The government is there to make sure you keep your job. This is something that most Americans do not understand.
Especially in a time where workers can be brought in from other nations, to work for less money, Americans have to put forth all their effort to ensure that their employer will not let them go. It is a constant teaching in America to make yourself invaluable at your job, that way the incentive to keep you around is increased productivity. We do not have the same safety net that France has, so it encourages Americans to work harder. Another reason this is an issue that many Americans cannot relate to, is that in modern times, we have seen a shift in longevity of employment. As a recent college graduate, I only plan to stay at my current employment for year or two. That has become the mindset of most American college grads. You go to school, maybe have a few internships, then you get a job. Once you gain experience and learn what you can, you move on to something new and hopefully better. That is not how things work in France. Most young workers in France know that once they get a job, that is where they will be for the rest of their employed life. That is how things used to be here in the United States. However, times changed, so did employment practices.
Now, I will admit, I do get a sad sort of satisfaction at seeing France in such disarray, primarily because of their constant criticism of the United States. However, at the same time, many of our grandfathers fought and died so that France could be free. We have an invested interest in their survival and growth. I hate seeing our efforts wasted by such stupidity. Workers are unhappy because they are unemployed, but then they don’t want the government to try and execute sound economic principles in order to solve the problem. My hope is that De Villepin stays strong and does not cave in.
If you want to see the numbers for yourself, go to:http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html#Govt
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Introductions
Well, I have been thinking of creating this for a while now. This will be a space for me to voice my opinions on different political, religious, and social issues. Unlike my personal blogs, this will be a bit more formal, trying to take a more intelligent perspective on things. However, I warn you now, I have never been good at being politically correct or objective. I am bound to say something that will offend you, and I encourage replies. However, all I ask is that we keep things respectful and friendly. Hopefully, we can all use this experience to broaden out minds and grow spiritually and intellectually.
Allow me to give you a short introduction to my life. I am a 22 year old male. I currently work as a Legislative Assistant at a law firm in Washington, DC. I was born in Southern Illinois, just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, MO. I graduated from American University in D.C. in 2005 with a degree in Political Science. I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and I became a Christian when I was thirteen years old. There is a lot more to me then that, but the basics will do for now. Details of my life will come out in my posts. Welcome.
Allow me to give you a short introduction to my life. I am a 22 year old male. I currently work as a Legislative Assistant at a law firm in Washington, DC. I was born in Southern Illinois, just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, MO. I graduated from American University in D.C. in 2005 with a degree in Political Science. I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and I became a Christian when I was thirteen years old. There is a lot more to me then that, but the basics will do for now. Details of my life will come out in my posts. Welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
