My Take, Ohio House of Representatives 20th District Race

This is an easier post to write than the last "My Take," mostly because of the absence of a strong 3rd party candidate.  It looks like the Lawrence Binsky campaign completely ran out of steam after getting it's candidacy certified on May 4th.  While I'm sure there's passion, good ideas, and thought-out positions in the person of Binsky, I have no way of knowing it.  This is exactly the sort of performance that leads major media to not even pay attention to most third party candidates.  At this point, I wouldn't even consider voting for Binsky.

Nancy Garland is the incumbent, and I'm not really fond of any Ohio Legislature member right now.  That being said, they can't ALL be a part of the problem, and I'm inclined to think Garland as a freshman legislator was more part of the solution.  I also like the "No" vote on transition funds...which seemed rather appropriate, given the context.  On the whole, I'm leaning towards giving Garland another shot at the Statehouse.

Matt Carle seems to be an extremely capable, accomplished person with a long history of political experience, albeit behind the scenes.  I'm sure his background would definitely enable him to be a successful legislator...but I'm not in favor of that happening, on an ideological level.  His experience working with so many prominent GOP candidates over the years just indicates to me a person who's values do not ideally match with mine, not to mention I've rarely agreed with a candidate endorsed by a Right to Life group on most social issues.  I really don't anticipate voting for Carle.

Governor's Race: My Take

I had no real intentions of swapping horses it mid stream, as it were.  We're facing the worst economic climate in a generation or two (or three, or four...) and on the whole, I feel Ted Strickland has done an exemplary job with the cards he'd been dealt.  I remember the first State of the State address, and how lofty his vision was.  I've listened to the local news about just how much he's had to adjust that aim in the face of budget restrictions and looming unemployment.  Is Ohio in tip-top shape?  Nope.  But then again, the economic crisis didn't really peak until two years ago, maybe less.  You can't step on board an airplane about to crash, live through the crash, and then take off again all in the same day.  I plan on giving Ted my vote for another term to continue working on the foundation he's started to lay for Ohio's recovery.


And if this was my opinion before looking at John Kasich's website...I saw nothing there to make me change my mind.  If anything, I felt repulsed by the man's positions on several issues, including:


The Ohio Budget.  Kasich webpage: 


"The Problem:
By any measure, Ted Strickland has been a disaster for Ohio’s budget. Because of his incompetence, mismanagement and wasteful spending, next year Ohio’s governor will face an estimated $8 billion deficit."

...and the drop in revenue, and increase in unemployment benefits has nothing to do with that deficit, I'm assuming. Silly me.

"Take the politics out of budgeting. Every program and agency must go under the microscope. Special interests must stop saying how Ohio taxpayers’ money is spent."

I sat in horror on the edge of my seat to hear whether or not the Columbus Metro Library was going to have to start shutting branches and laying off vital staff because of state funding going away.  I listen to my recently-graduated friends with education majors who can't get an interview in their field because of "Budget reasons."  I'm not sure what agencies and programs are getting the gravy here, since some of the most popular ones sure aren't.

On Taxes:

"According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, under Ted Strickland, Ohio ranks 7th in the nation in total tax burden."

As one expects from every candidate from office, only part of the complex picture is presented here.  This tax burden is also based on local taxes, which in many cases are raised in response to falling state and federal aid.  Cut the state budget, but the money still needs to come from somewhere...

The over-arching message:

"Reduce spending so we can start reducing taxes."

I found this to be a fairly inappropriate bullet point to see under "Education Reform."  In the Columbus area alone, continued under-funding means school districts are having to levy their own property taxes just to keep enough teachers on payroll, or to replace aging buildings.  I don't like paying taxes any more than you do, but I also recognize that if we cut taxes willy-nilly we're going to wake up one of these days without public education, without roads, without the services we've come to associate with the developed world.

There's a couple other points that I took issue with, but you get the idea.  It's a philosophical difference for the most part...this is why I identify on the left side of the spectrum.  I firmly believe the government HAS a place in our lives, because history has proven time and time again laissez faire does not work.  But I suppose this is what free and fair elections are for, eh?

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes: Part 2

While I agree with the concept of taxes, I don't necessarily think they're ALL well and good. I think a lot of tax dollars are spent on stupid stuff. Even more money is spent inefficiently. While government shouldn't and couldn't be run like a business, the idea of such waste and corruption (however minor it may be in some cases) being accepted is total crap. I think we can ditch quite a bit of spending, especially at the Federal level.

I'm also not a huge fan of income tax. I realize it's easy. It's guaranteed income for the government. But...why? Why automatically tax me for making a living and being productive? I don't agree with the concept. Property taxes make the most sense to me, because money from those taxes go to protect and serve the property. Property taxes cover the fire department that keeps my home safe; property taxes go to the school that teaches my children. By all means, tax my property.

Sales/transaction taxes also make a lot of sense. When I want to use that money I can understand taxing certain transactions. When I buy a new car, or bottle of Jack Daniels. When I buy or sell stock. Maybe an account tax, on savings or CD accounts. It's a choice to use my money, and I can choose to not buy some luxury or "sin" item or even to not expand my wealth on the stock market. I agree with that much more than taxing income indiscriminately...I can't NOT have a job, but I can NOT buy a new car.

So there's the downsides of taxes as I see it. We're spending too much in too many bad ways and not getting good results, and the income tax rubs me the wrong way. Anyone feel like looking into this, or are we too busy pointing fingers and yelling "Fat cat Republican" and "Filthy Liberal" at each other?

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes: Part 1

This isn't your standard tax season post. Oh no. See, I don't believe that taxes are inherently evil. I get quite a bit in return for my tax dollars. A government with enough funds to operate services is what separates our country from that of the third world.

A few things funded by my tax dollars:

• Roads
• Education
• Libraries
• Medical research
• Museums
• Support for Artists
• Law and Order
• Fire Protection
• Building Codes
• Military Protection
• Emergency Medical
• History Preservation
• Trash Removal
• Sewage Systems
• Drinking Water
• Food and Product Regulation

There are quite a few things that would be difficult or impossible for me to do as an individual, things I take for granted on a daily basis. How in the hell could I drive to work without roads, or traffic laws? There's no way I could fund a university to train doctors and research cures. I can't put out fires. I can't break up gangs or catch burglars.

But pool my money with money from my neighbors? Pretty soon you're talking serious cash. And with a pile of cash comes the ability to do things like hire cops and lay roads. Now this money has to be spent intelligently...but that's another post for another day.

My Take: Israel, Palestine, and the Never Ending Story

I don't know about you, but I really, really liked the "Never Ending Story." I was at the perfect age for a sort of fantastic tale that involved getting sucked into books, fighting evil monsters, and that had a touch of sexuality that appealed to my nearly-pubescent self.

The never ending story in the Middle East is...well, nothing at all like that. No redeeming qualities.

In the face of continuing rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, Israel began a bombing campaign. It didn't stop the rocket attacks (as we all knew it wouldn't). It did, however, kill hundreds of people. Only some of them could be called terrorists. The targeting isn't quite as discriminatory as one would wish...I heard one NPR report state the Arab University received a good beating from the Israeli airforce.

This hasn't stopped the rockets in the past. How many times have Israeli tanks and planes attack Gaza? And...still, the rockets fly? Does anyone in the Knesset really think this latest offensive will do more than stir the pot?

The only way to stop the attacks from Gaza extremists is to make their message irrelevant. By giving the Palestinians an alternative to violence. As long as Israel kills, maims, starves, and freezes the population of Gaza, the militants are relevant. Their message is the truth. Israel proves with each air strike, with each ground incursion, the worst propaganda Hamas can tell the people.

How can the average Palestinian believe in a peace process when the Israelis behave like this? How can they possibly be expected to make friends with the people who do this?

Maybe it's because I grew up with three sisters, but I learned that when someone is fighting with you, you don't win just by fighting back harder. You just make the situation worse. Israel may fool itself into thinking that each tank, each missile, each platoon they use in Gaza will make them safer.

In reality, they're just sowing the seeds for another generation of brutal, inhuman conflict.

Merry Christmas!

And by saying that, I'm not telling you to be a Christian. To be totally honest, I don't really identify myself as such. I've yet to find a religion that rings all of my bells, so I'd choose "unaffiliated" in my box.

That being said, I do hope you have/had a Merry Christmas, regardless of whether or not you celebrated a certain baby's birth. Growing up, the only really religious signs of the holiday was the old nativity scene my mother has...and really, let's be honest: those things are more dolls than anything else. Fun to play with and position.

Christmas was about going to see family we probably hadn't seen since (maybe) my sister and I's October birthdays. It was about presents. And the excitement of those presents. It was about eggnog, and cookies, and one year it was ALL about making chocolate candies. It was about a couple of days of the family just hanging out together.

So if it really offends you that I'm wishing that on you...well hell, I'm sorry. I'm not sure why, but I am.

And if it offends someone else that I'm not mention midnight mass, or praying to the Son, or however one is supposed to render proper respects, please remember that's your bag, not mine.

My Take: Obama's Centrist Moves

As Obama stopped campaigning, and started getting down to the business of running the country (I mean, someone has to...) it's become somewhat obvious he's not quite the socialist, nationalizing commie he's been made out to be by the right wing.

Likewise, he's not quite the champion of the progressive movement who will bring peace and happiness to all, as the left wing has promised.

To me, that's a damned good thing. My rule of thumb is when the extreme ends of the spectrum are BOTH mad at you, you're smack dab where you want to be.

I've been watching the nominations and the leaks of nominations. I've listened to the news conferences, and the analysis of those conferences. And all this seems to be adding up to is the man is making some calculated steps in the direction of sound governance.

I know, it's been such a foreign concept for the last decade. While it's a little annoying ("What do you mean, he's not promising to shut down Gitmo by February???") it's also the sign of a mature mind. You can't argue very well against the desire to have something in place before knocking down the old regime.

Really, I think all we can expect from Obama right now is to set up a solid, well rounded team...and to tackle this pesky economic crisis. Really, that's all we should have on our minds right now, because unless our house is in order...we can't even think about landscaping the lawn.

I can wait for Gitmo to be closed. I can wait for education reform. I can wait for taxes to be made sensible again. I can wait for healthcare and social security to be worked out. Because you need the little things, before the bigger things. Obama seems to understand that very clearly, and is setting up people who think the same way.

And really, that's how a moderate works. That's how someone who thinks about the issues operates. So all in all, I feel quite good.

And that's more than enough rambling for this Tuesday. You folks have fun.

Water Rights Ammendment

Remember when I said I had no idea what Ohio Issue 3 was all about, about water rights?

Well, I found out. Apparantly, it's not clearly spelled out that Ohioans have reasonable access rights to ground water on their property, as well as lakes and running water. Issue 3 is about changing that, and creating water rights for property owners.

This apparantly stemmed out of the Great Lakes Basin Compact. Evidently there were concerns that Ohio was sorta screwing it's own property holders by making agreements with other states before our own state was settled.

Makes sense to me.

Voting Strategy This Fall

My voting strategy, without specific endorsements (because A: I haven't researched and B: What's my endorsement matter, anyhew?) boils down to Change.

I'm not happy with anyone in Congress, with a handful of the usual exceptions (Ted Kennedy's kept his eye on the ball, for instance. Russ Feingold. John Conyers. Patrick Leahy.) I'd like to name some Republicans on that parenthetical list, but...I'm having trouble thinking of any. Which is sad, because I know there are some. They just don't get the attention.

I'm truly disgusted with Harry Reid. As the Senate Majority Leader, he's been directly responsible for some of the worst legislative compromises of the 110th Congress. He's allowed the Republican party to make a mockery of the process, to stonewall process...and he's done it without so much as a whimper.

GOP: "We are SOOOO gonna filibuster that bill if you try and vote it."

Reid: "Fine, fine...we'll do it the way you want."

I'm paraphrasing and exaggerating...but not by much, sadly.

The long and short? If there's an encumbant, I'm half-tempted to just vote for the opponent out of principle, regardless of party lines.

...I won't do that, however. There are too many issues I worry about--mostly the creep of conservative Christian values into government--to let some guy in to write laws because "They're New." That's not responsible citizenship.

But...it will factor. I'll be giving the candidates a harder look this year, and not necessarily stopping at party affiliation or a single issue. I want people who will govern in Washington, and keep politics to a minimum.

Perez Musharraf

So rather than be impeached (and prolly destroy the country in civil war right after, given what we've seen out of him) Pervez Musharraf has resigned. Much like Nixon, no?

You've probably already heard the stats. Took over in a coup in 1999. Has been head of state (and head of the army) since. You could call him a military dictator, but one who has flirted quite a bit with democracy, much in the fashion of English monarchs ("You're doing what I like, so I'll let you keep doing what I like. But the minute you change to what I don't like...").

Any guy who will simply dissolve the supreme court in order to avoid hearing, "Yep, you broke the law, Pervez" probably doesn't need to be running a democracy. That's really the only judgement I have on this situation. He's gone; and it's a good thing.

Now what to do with him?

I'm gonna be Gerald Ford crazy here, and say pardon him. It's time to move on and fry bigger fish. And you can argue the fact that without Musharraf, for better and worse things would not be what they are today in Pakistan. They're a strong nation, nuclear armed, a player in the world game, poised to launch a full blown democracy.

Would this have happened without 9 years of military rule? Probably. But now that he's paved the way for a new President (and era) in Pakistan with his resignation, I say we start with a fresh slate and leave him alone to finish off his life, reliving the glory years.

But really, what does my opinion matter? I'm an American. That's Pakistan. I rightly have no say in the process...something we should remember a little more often since some of us have pissed away the moral highground.

Moving, Part 2

We're still moving. So it's not a real post...another fluffy one.

I was at a birthday party today for a 4 year old boy in the family (another reason why there aren't any as many good posts this week). There was a Veggie Tales albums playing for ambiance.

I kept hearing all the little tips of pithy advice, such as "Do the right thing so God knows you love him" and "You can never never be separated from God's love." It was alternately soothing and irritating.

I don't know how I feel about religious teaching that young. I see both sides of the issue. Whattya think?

Moving, Part 1

By the time this posts, I'll already be moved and mostly settled in. But it still means no real post. Why?

Because of the fact I write my posts up on Saturday. And I was busy unpacking/resting, instead of my usual routine.

I do want to post a thought though...what makes us gravitate towards the neighborhoods we do? What makes you, when driving through a different part of town, think to yourself "What a nice place to live!"

I've been giving it a lot of thought, and I think what's nice about this particular place we moved to is the fact drugs aren't openly sold in the parking lots. That says a lot, about many things, right there.

Right Vs Responsible

I had an epiphany the other day. It wasn't so much a sudden blinding flash of the obvious but the sheet finally falling away from the obvious. Something I wasn't aware of all at once, but something I've been gradually becoming aware of.

It's the simple fact that following the rules doesn't necessarily make one responsible.

A classic real world example of this is calling in "sick" to work. (Note the quotes...I'm all in favor of not working when sick, but simply taking the day off should be a far rarer occurance.) While the rules will probably allow you to not show up, leave early, come late, for many many shifts and get away with it...that doesn't make it ok.

Just because the rules state, "It's ok to be late/absent/leave after an hour with appropriate notice," it doesn't stop your coworkers from getting the shaft. They counted on your coverage they can't replace now. You may be ok in the eyes of the law, so to speak, but you fail at being a responsible person.

On the flip side, sometimes breaking the rules is the responsible option. For instance...you're not supposed to work in another department right now because of the way labor hours are allocated. But they're completely swamped, and the big order isn't going to get out in time without extra help.

The rules in this case would condemn a person from lending a much appreciated hand on a project that ultimately makes money for the company. Following the rules would mean sitting by and watching things go to hell, and last time I checked that's not a responsible action.

How does the apply to news and politics? Well lets think...maybe because the Bush Administration (and multitudes of others in Washington on both sides of the aisle) has alternately taken one or the other approach on their so-called war on terror.

• When the rules clearly wouldn't allow the Administration to do what they wanted with detainees, they set up the prison camp outside jurisdiction of law.


• They tried to rewrite the rules on tribunals in order to make things seem kosher, because if the rules say it's ok then it's ok, right? Ditto on the DOJ memo's authorizing torture.


• The Administration was careful to make sure they followed all the rules to authorize the carnage in Iraq, even though the basis was a net of lies and the aim questionable.

And it goes on and on.

Basically, it takes some good judgement to know when to follow and when to break the rules. It's a sign of growth, of maturity, of wisdom. Time and again, the Bush Administration has failed to make the right call. Now...the nation, and the world, is in one of the worst situations ever for peace and stability.

So now we'll see if the American voter has noticed. We'll see if they've learned. We get to watch in November as they decide the fate of Congressmen and Senators who failed in their duties to oversee the President and provide a check and balance. We get to see if they've learned to cut through the political foam that comes from a candidate's mouth and determine their real character.

We get to find out if we the people will again be represented in Washington. If responsibility will again take precedence over being "right."

Welfare State?

Taxes piss me off as much as the next person. At least income tax...taxing money before I can use it is just offensive to me. It sucks my income. Tax my property, my transactions...but let me USE my whole earnings, please.

And it does grate on me to think people are living off my tax dollars, when they could just go out and work.

But...I actually employed those people. The types who worked at a breakneck pace all day long serving ungrateful people, just to get $352.80 every two weeks. Do the math...that's $705.60 each month.

I pay about $400 for rent on my apartment, on the edge of the sketchy part of town. That'd leave $305 for car payments, gas, food, utilities, etc...

Try raising two or three kids on that.

And yeah, I know..."If you can't afford kids, DON'T HAVE THEM." I know. And it sounds great on paper.

But what about the family that got started when Mom and Dad were making $18/hr at the sock factory? Did they become bad people when the factory moved to Honduras, and the only open job was a closer at Wendy's for $7/hr?

Black and white arguments scare the hell out of me, and all the arguments against Welfare and other assistance are black and white.

I was reading this post and comment thread from the archives of Scalzi.com on what it means to be poor...and it reminded me that no matter how hard you try to prevent the lowest common factor from cheating a system, all you really do is screw the honest people. Cheaters will always find a way.

So...I support Welfare, within limits. I think some key policies can be used to protect our investments in those down on their luck, who deserve a chance to get over their troubles and without being screwed for life.

...And Now for Some News...

"No Country for Old Men" Wins Four Oscars, from NPR (it WAS a good flick)

Ruling to Shut Down Leak Website Called Censorship, from NPR

Russia Pledges Support to Serbia, from BBC (I Paraphrase Billy Joel: Haven't they Heard we Won the Cold War?)

Pakistan's Top Army Medic Killed in Bombing, from BBC

Bringing Back Streetcars Discussed in Cincinnati, from WVXU

Only Two Key Issues Being Worked in Columbus, from WVXU

To Vote or Not to Vote

So the issue is voting in the primary. Because of the Ohio voting laws, I can vote as an independent but will be affiliated with the party I vote with. For example, I want to vote for Obama for the Democratic nomination. That's fine, I can do that. But it makes my party affiliation "Democrat."

My dilemma is I don't want to BE affiliated with a party. Even for the nomination process. My girlfriend made the point today that if I don't vote, I can't complain about who's on the slate.

I usually feel ok complaining, because it's wrapped up long before I could even think about this problem. However, with the way this years race is going Ohio is a key state for the Democratic campaign. Huckabee is still hanging in there, and you should all know my thoughts on Huckabee.

While normally I'm all about the "JUST FRIGGEN VOTE" position, I can't reconcile that with becoming affiliated with a party. I do not want to support a two party system that discourages compromise.

So...I don't know. Part of me wants to vote, since Hilary seems to be making a stand here. Or maybe for McCain, just to make sure it isn't just the Evangelicals in the state (think Gay Marriage Ban) voting.

But there's another part of me that says I don't wanna affiliate with a party, because it's not what I'm all about.

We'll see how these things play out by next Tuesday. Also, now that somehow an "O" in my last name became an "A," I'm not sure I could vote if I wanted to. Meh!

...And Now for Some News...

Mourning for Sugary Refinery Victims, from NPR

Turkish Troops Enter Iraq, from BBC

Ohio Battling Emerald Ash Borer, from WCBE

Electronic Voting

So Cuyahoga County has an idea where it will have everyone fill out a ballot card, collect them at all precincts, then send them into a central location for scanning and counting. That's all a result of the issues they've had in the past w/ the on-site machines being FUBARed.

The ACLU is against this idea basically because it doesn't allow voters a chance to correct their ballots if they mess up. They suggest scanning them immediately at the voting site. That's how I've voted in the past...fill out the paper ballot w/ ink, then feed it into the scanning machine. That provides the paper trail AND the ease of electronic votes.

I think the ACLU has a good point. I'd hate to find out (or not, rather would be the case) that I'd messed up my ink job and lost my vote. Revolutions have started over things like that. The best solution is probably for Cuyahoga to get on the ball like the rest of the state, give up their touch screens, and scan the ballots at the voting stations.

Some people just don't like the idea at all...they don't trust the machines, the software, any of it. They think the old punch cards work better. Personally, I think the electronic ones DO pose a slightly higher risk for fraud (look at "Man of the Year") but then again, paper ballots let George Bush steal the election.

It's like anything else electronic, in my opinion. People assume the worst, that never happens.

...And Now for Some News...

Wisconsin Next Battle Ground for Hillary and Barack, from NPR

911 turned 40 Sunday, from NPR

Pakistan Parliamentary Elections Today, from BBC

EU to Meet in Response to Kosovo Independence, from BBC

Ohio a Do-or-Die State for Clinton, from Ohio NPR via WCBE

Cincinnati Fire Dept Accredited to Train Paramedics In-House, from WVXU

My Ideal Candidate

Now that we're in the same year as the election, I'm taking a harder look at who could be President. I've made my picks for each party. But really, I feel like they're just compromise positions.

That's partly because they're career politicians. Someone who makes government a living doesn't really know me and my life. I'd be happier with a business man or a doctor or a lawyer or even a machinist taking time out of his life to serve.

It's also partly because they're all chosen by the same old republican system. No, this is not a conspiracy theory...that's Hilary's thing. I mean "as in a republic."

The way the nomination process works thru party delegates allows the party machines (and thus) big money to have a bigger say in things than any number of votes. Let's look at the debates, how only "viable" candidates are allowed to participate (Where was Mike Gravel??). Let's look at a thousand other ways candidates not ahead in the polls get zero media coverage.

My ideal candidate would be elected by me. Or my neighbor. From start to finish. I don't want that candidate to be nominated by Iowa. I don't want them financed by the local party machine. I don't want them chosen by professional political junkies for me.

My candidate would elected, not pre-approved.

...and Now for Some News...

Cuban Migration Spikes, from NPR

Archivist Arrested for Stealing Documents, from NPR (Yet another reminder to NOT DO ILLEGAL STUFF ONLINE).

Columbians Protest the Farc, from BBC

High Heels Equal Better Sex Life?, from BBC

Sherrod Brown Working to Secure Federal Dollars for Utility Upgrades, from WCBE

Parts of Old St. George Church to Come Down, from WVXU

My Take on the Candidates

Sorry 'bout the late, LATE post. We got a cat yesterday, and I forgot to put this up in all the excitement.

Things have solidified quite a bit since the start of the Primary hoopla. We've really narrowed it down to a few solid candidates ahead of Super Tuesday. Here are my picks for both major Parties:

John McCain, an Arizona Congressman from 1982-1986 and a Senator from 1986-present, is a former naval aviator and POW. He's been consistently for the war in Iraq, and staying there, and was one of the 12 Senators who staged a "revolt" over Bush's bill on detainees in 2006, because it did not provide protections against torture. Senate Page

Barack Obama, a 1st term Senator from Illinois who also spent 8 years as a state Senator. He's been a civil rights attorney and a community organizer. His time in the Senate hasn't been glorious, per se, but you do see his name around an awful lot of bipartisan efforts. I'd love to put more in here, but to be honest he hasn't been too much in the public eye until the primary race started up. Senate Page.

And why...

John McCain may be old. And he may be Republican. And he may have spent much of the last 8 years pandering to the far right wing. But on the whole, his efforts on campaign finance reform, the way his campaign in 2000 was run, his personal history, and how he has stuck to his guns on the Iraq issue when EVERYONE was jumping ship all impress me. I feel he is a straight talker, and while I disagree with some of the positions he has (like Iraq), I agree with others (like immigration, which he's also taken fire for and stuck to). I could definitely see myself voting for John McCain in a general election.

Barack Obama is young. He's fresh. He has a back ground in the grass roots and in civil rights. He's spent time in the state legislature, where the real business of the country happens. I don't get a vibe that it will be business as usual with Obama, and I like the way people react to him. The vibrancy around his campaign is something I haven't noticed in politics in my lifetime (short, granted, but I campaigned for Clinton in 1996 at school, fool. I've been watching these things). He also has a lot of the liberal ideas I like, without some of the dumber ones that Rush Limbagh likes to mock. I can see an Obama presidency being a good thing, and thus I can definitely see myself voting for him.

Let's see who survives Super Tuesday, hm?

...And Now for Some News...

No news today...I'm running late as it is.

Separation of Church and State

Mike Huckabee has some good points. The weight loss thing is impressive. I've heard his tax plan is actually on the level. Anyone who can be an executive of a state has to be a capable, functioning human being, and I respect that.

But.

This little blurb on his website says it all. "My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them."

Huckabee says a lot of things on that page that are hard to disagree with. He throws in a line about being a steward of the earth. He talks about how the 1st Amendment says religion shouldn't be preferred or prohibited. But the fact he talks about religion and politics mixing at all fills me with a dull dread.

I am not comfortable with a Christian President, just as I wouldn't be comfortable with an Islamic President. Nor would I be comfortable with an Atheist President. Historically speaking, heads of state who make state decisions based on the Bible have really made a mess of things. We are a secular nation of secular laws (mostly. Why can't I buy beer on Sunday morning?). I don't want anyone's faith being allowed to change that.

Jimmy Carter is an incredibly religious Southern Baptist. I didn't know that for years. I admired him as a President and for his work post-Presidency without ever having religion enter into it. Did his faith factor into decisions made as President? Of course! Did he take instructions from the Bible and other Christian teachings? I don't think so.

The fact Huckabee is so popular among heavily Christian voters is a mark against him in my book. Those were the same people who voted Bush into office. The fact he is running on a platform that implies faith-based governance offends me.

Separation of Church and State. It's the concept that makes us not Iran.

...And Now For Some News...

Bush's Final State of the Union Address Tonight, from NPR.

Mormon Leader Dies at Age 97, from NPR.

New Unrest in western Kenya, from BBC.

Egypt Tries New Tactics to Seal Gaza Border, from BBC.

AC Units Not Safe From Scrap Thieves, from WCBE.

Busy Week for Ohio Legislaters, from WVXU.