Favorite Holiday Memory!

So my favorite holiday memory kind of goes hand-in-hand with my birthday (December 17). 

About eight years ago, my mom found these chocolate mushrooms at some chocolate shop and decided to get them for me for my birthday. They're really not for popping them in your mouth when you feel like eating chocolate--kind of like baking chocolate-- they're for decoration for these French holiday cakes called a Buche de Noel. (Thanks for judging, by the way!) But anyway, in my household we kind of eat chocolate like regular food, so it's not like we cared; it gets eaten really quickly all the same. 

SO ANYWAY, there are eight of these tiny chocolate mushrooms in one box, and there are eight days between my birthday and Christmas, so it turned into this tradition to eat one mushroom a day until Christmas. And this has been a tradition forever. 

Kinda strange. But they're yummy. 

Political Cartoon #4:

1. Randall Enos drew this cartoon.

2. Key objects:

• Mitt Romney and seven arms: This cartoon plays off of Romney's "$10,000 Bet" to Rick Perry in the debate on December 10, 2011. Perry made accusations against Romney for supporting mandates (based off of the first edition of Romney's book), and Romney responded with this $10,000 bet to "prove" that it's not true. The cartoon is meant to highlight Romney's desperations as he sinks lower in the polls, perhaps relying on his vast sums of money that the other candidates lack.

3.  The cartoon uses caricature to show Romney's desperation, with his arms flailing at everyone to

try to help him out. 

4. The cartoon addresses Romney's $10,000 bet to Perry. The situation was entirely overblown, though many felt that Romney's quick ability to just hand over $10,000 left him out of touch with the average Iowan (who probably makes that much in a year). 

5. The cartoon is showing Romney's desperation, and also shows how he's trying to buy his way out of tough situations. 

6. The cartoonist is definitely anti-Romney. 

Political Cartoon #3:

1. Rick Mckee drew this cartoon for the Augusta Chronicle.
2. Key objects:

• Santa Claus: It's Santa. Self-evident. 
• An elf: One of Santa's helpers. Also evident. 
• A USPS worker: With the proliferation of computer-based communication and cell phones, the use for snail mail has declined. With it, the USPS has lost more and more revenue each year. However, because it's a government corporation, it's miraculously not bankrupt yet! Even so, the government is looking to find ways to save money, and thinking about cutting mail deliveries on certain days of the week. This cartoon satirizes the situation by showing that cutting mail days will, in fact, have an impact on the mail system. 

3.  The cartoon satirizes the situation by showing that in cutting mail, the most serious thing affected is that children can't get their letters to Santa on time. 4. The cartoon deals with the decline of snail mail and the USPS. 
5. The cartoon's message is that the USPS isn't entirely necessary. 
6. The cartoon demonstrates that the USPS isn't an integral part of everyday life-- the most serious thing that could happen is that during the holidays, letters won't be delivered to Santa on time. (Who, gasp, doesn't actually exist. Sorry for that spoiler.)

http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/cartoons/2011-12-09/rick-mckee-editorial-cartoon

The Obama Update (Question #3)

In terms of job approval, Obama has 43% of the population in support, while 50% disapprove. Not too great when the majority of the population doesn't approve of the president's efforts. Although he was not responsible for the economic downturn, many feel that he's not doing enough to reverse the recession. While Republicans control the House, Obama has run into several roadblocks in trying to pass legislation to stimulate the economy. Many also are torn about his controversial healthcare plans, thinking that the economy is an issue that is more important to focus on than healthcare.

Of the recent Gallup polls, Obama is tied with Romney, the GOP frontrunner, for the 2012 election results. However, as Gingrich gains momentum, there's a possibility these numbers could change. Right now it's difficult to tell if Obama will be reelected because there's no one GOP candidate. Once a candidate is nominated, then there might be a greater chance that Obama won't win reelection. When Perry was the frontrunner, Obama's poll results showed that he would win reelection. As of right now, I would say that Obama has a fair chance in winning reelection.

Political Cartoon #2:

1. Tom Toles drew this political cartoon for the Washington Post. 
2.  

• An elephant dressed up as Santa Claus: the GOP
• A man sitting on the elephant's lap: Mitt Romney   

     3. Tom Toles satirizes Mitt Romney's flip-flopping and pandering by making him appear childlike (placing him in "Santa's" lap) to show his juvenile voting tactics. His dialogue, "What would YOU like me to ask for?" also satirizes the situation. 

     4. The cartoon deals with the ongoing GOP nomination, in which Romney is falling behind in. It also was drawn when the Union Leader endorsed Newt Gingrich, highlighting his tactics of sucking up to voters and the GOP. 

     5. The cartoon was drawn to criticize Romney's political tactics- that he plays up to voters' desires to gain votes, regardless of whether he agrees with these beliefs or not. 

    6. The cartoonist doesn't seem to be favorable towards Romney (obviously, because he's criticizing him).




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tom-toles-draws-republicans/2011/10/18/gIQAcv6qxL_gallery.html#photo=2

Mitt Romney for the Republican Nomination

    Although Mitt Romney has been leading in the polls, it's beginning to become questionable as to whether he will gain the Republican nomination. Until now, he has been the forerunning candidate, but now seems to be head to head with Newt Gingrich, who was quite behind up until the last few weeks.
    I think that Romney has the potential to win the presidential election (he has such a broad set of beliefs), but at the moment, has little hope of even gaining the Republican nomination. Many claim that he's wishy-washy with his politics, and is really much more liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning. As governor of Massachusetts, one would expect him to gain the popular support of the northeastern region, but after New Hampshire's Union Leader endorsed Newt Gingrich, support for Romney isn't looking too good. The Union Leader claimed that it would rather endorse a candidate that it doesn't agree completely with, than a candidate who changes beliefs to gain popular support; and I'm sure that many people agree with this same belief.
   Luckily, unlike his counterparts, Romney hasn't made too many huge social gaffs, but then again, he also took himself off the radar in the last couple of debates, saying little, and therefore has nothing to be used against him. However, lying low has seem to hurt his reputation as well.

Question of the Week #1: Is there hope for Rick Perry?

     Although GOP candidate Rick Perry has been the forerunner in election polling in the past couple of months, the support has severely dwindled. At this point, he doesn't seem as if he stands a chance against any of the candidates: certainly not Romney, but even Cain and Gingrich have rallied up support despite their recent political scandals.
     However, one thing is true, and it's that Rick Perry is incredibly charismatic. He's relatively attractive, he's tall, he has that southern Texan twang. During the past Republican debates, he's also been a little sassy, which I'm sure some (myself included) find annoying, but many find that it's amusing, genuine, and make him more relatable. In addition, he's the governor of Texas. Although the residents of Texas are majority conservative, the state is gigantic, meaning that he has a lot of support just by being from that state.
     His policies are rather average; there's nothing incredibly appealing except his proposal on a flat tax. However, lately he has received  much criticism about how he's a more moderate Republican, based on his immigration policies. On other issues, he's incredibly conservative. This wishy-washiness is not a good start at getting a nomination- he should have stuck to one set of political ideologies till he was chosen as the GOP presidential candidate, then he could probably afford to branch out in beliefs.

Political Cartoon #1:

1. Tom Toles drew this cartoon for the Washington Post.
2. Key objects:

• Two Chinese men: The one with the label that reads "China" is most likely Hu Jintao, the president of the People's Republic of China. The other man is most likely an advisor. Evidently, both men represent China. 
• A kangaroo with boxing gloves: The kangaroo represents Australia, where President Obama recently established a military presence to keep tags on China. The kangaroo reads, "Australia Military Base."
• President Obama: The man in the pouch of the kangaroo is clearly President Obama. He is extending his arm out towards the Chinese men as a sign of peace, despite the fact that there is a kangaroo with boxing gloves (a sign that it could attack) and underneath, someone commanding to "Release the platypuses!" Obama is putting on a front of peace, but at the same time, he's putting up his guard against a possible threat of China. 

3. Tom Toles uses caricature to exaggerate all the motions of Obama (an extremely outstretched arm) showing that the action is forced and not entirely genuine.
4. The cartoon deals with Obama's recent decision to establish a military presence on Australia to keep China in check.
5. The cartoon's message is that we're openly being suck-ups to China.
6. The cartoon doesn't contain any evident bias, though it seems as if Toles is over-exaggerating the actions of Obama to show that the friendship with China is forced and not entirely genuine. He doesn't seem overtly critical of either country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tom-toles-cartoons-for-november-2011/2011/10/17/gIQA1iutZM_gallery.html#photo=1

Question of the Week #4: Virginia's Issue with Transportation

The biggest current political issue facing the state of Virginia is probably transportation. In the last decade, there has been a constant battle between Northern Virginia and southern Virginia in the state legislature.

Evidently, Northern Virginia has grown exponentially in the past twenty years, especially within the last ten. After 9/11, defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman) quickly relocated to Northern Virginia to take advantage of the proximity to the national government and the highly affluent, highly educated cohort of young, working-age Americans. With this relocation, more people moved to Northern Virginia to take advantage of the job opportunities. It's cyclical. With more people, communities grew larger and larger, and branched out farther and farther.

As a result, Northern Virginia provides a huge tax base for the Virginia state government. Not only are there hundreds of thousands of habitants who pay taxes to the state of Virginia, but there also thousands of profitable companies that contribute to this tax base as well. However, the tax allocation for transportation and infrastructure has hardly been proportional. Transportation hasn't kept up with the rapid growth and expansion of Northern Virginia. Gridlock and general traffic are huge problems. Roads are in need of repair. With all the contributing taxpayers, one would think that these problems could be taken care of with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, and the rest of the state has little sympathy for Northern Virginia. Despite the inordinate amount of taxes coming from NoVa, the money is being unequally distributed to the whole state; it's not exactly fair when rural Virginia is receiving the same amount of transportation funding when there are so few people.

Although there has been success with the funding of the incoming Silver Line of the Metro system in the Dulles Corridor, for the most past, there is still huge controversy over how taxpayer money should be allocated. As of now, it is still fairly unresolved.

"Cut, Balance and Grow"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-calls-for-major-spending-and-tax-cuts/2011/10/25/gIQAu7OUEM_story.html

On Tuesday, major GOP candidate Rick Perry released his economic plan, filled with (unsurprisingly) conservative fiscal goals. The plan calls for a dramatic reduction of taxes (lowering the current 35 percent to 20 percent). He argues that the tax cuts will encourage economic prosperity by allowing wealthy individuals and companies to expand business in a more favorable economic climate. However, with the tax cuts, the federal deficit will drastically increase if other methods of spending reduction are not found.

In addition to tax cuts, Perry has also formally proposed the idea of privatizing Social Security, allowing younger generations to put aside retirement money in separate, private savings accounts. Although the plan seems like it would work, it's a little too idealistic- it's already difficult enough to get young people to start 401Ks if they're younger than 40. Social Security will probably need more reform than simply allowing the option of privatization.

The proposed economic plan also happens to put Perry more right than his opponent, Mitt Romney; a clever tactic especially after criticism of being "too liberal" with immigration policies and the granting of in-state college tuition to children of illegal immigrants. It appears as if Perry is trying to win over ultra-conservative Tea Party members who were reluctant to back Romney. Perry seems to be taking the "anything you can do, I can do better" approach with his opponent. While Romney calls for 25% corporate tax cuts, Perry calls for 20. With the capping of federal spending: Romney plans for 20% of GDP, while Perry calls for 18%.

As the Republican primaries and caucuses move closer and closer, the GOP candidates are campaigning in earnest.

Current Event #3: Obama plans to turn anti-Wall Street anger on Mitt Romney and Republicans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-plans-to-turn-anti-wall-street-anger-on-mitt-romney-republicans/2011/10/14/gIQAZfiwkL_story.html


As the Occupy Wall Street protests gain momentum, President Obama is taking the opportunity to attack his leading GOP opponent, Mitt Romney. Although Romney is praised by supporters for his experience as a high-ranking investment executive, political scientists are thinking that this sets Romney under Obama's potential line of fire for his reelection campaign ("portraying him as a wealthy Wall Street sympathizer").


Obama seems to be becoming more desperate as the election year draws close. With poor approval ratings, he's upped the snarky political commentary in an attempt to target the opposition's flaws and gain support. Recently, the Wall Street Protests are being used as leverage. 


Perhaps Obama might think that this tactic is effective, but I think that the majority of people can tell that it's nothing more than a tactic. Both parties are at fault here, and partisan political squabbles aren't going to gain votes, they'll just cause frustration (for party lines and for voters). 

Obama's Report Card:

Health Care- B

Although I am a huge advocate of free or reduced universal healthcare and I support the Affordable Care Act, I just don't feel too confident in how Obama dealt with the whole healthcare situation. I have no idea how one would respond if one were in his place, but I just don't think that the Care Act will be entirely successful. Most likely the plan will be found unconstitutional, and I don't think that there's enough support for the Act to pass. I feel like he had good intentions, though. 

Dealing with the Economic Downturn- C

His plans haven't made much progress, but we haven't lost too much either. C. Big, fat average. The state of the  economy isn't a result of his presidency, but his efforts to improve it have been mediocre at best. The bureaucracy is partly to blame for this- if it were more efficient and less indecisive, we might be in a better state right now. 

War on Terror- A-

I applaud Obama's efforts to remove troops and end the war in Iraq. It's getting to the point where we've overstayed our welcome. Obama inherited the war, and he's done a pretty good job in cleaning the mess up. And he killed Osama Bin Laden. Pretty freaking awesome. 

Reelection Bid- B-

Even though I'll probably end up supporting Obama in the next election, I'm not too convinced that he's going to win; other democrats feel this way too, and it's not a good thing. Obviously if he was running against someone like Bachmann, I wouldn't be worried at all, but with all the publicity GOP candidates have been getting, he definitely should be worried. It's going to be a close race. He's raise tons of money for his reelection campaign, but his approval ratings are terrible. 

Question of the Week #2:

So. A political issue I'm interested in.

As evidenced from my previous post, I am a huge, huge, HUGE proponent of education reform. I know that this isn't exactly an issue that's incredibly controversial and is making headlining news at the moment, but the education system in this country is something that should be making news.

It's not as if the education system in the United States is terrible. Compared to a lot of countries, it's pretty darn good. I personally think it's average, occasionally bordering on mediocre. But I feel like it has so much potential to be better.

Great way to commence the de-sucking process? Early childhood education. It is SO vital that children start the education process at a young age- especially for children in poverty. Academic success is proven to come more readily when children start schooling at a younger age. Unfortunately, opposition comes from the fact that establishing early childhood education programs will cost billions of dollars in taxpayer money. However, if you educate these kids earlier, they'll consequently be smarter, graduate from high school, graduate from college, and then go get a successful, well-paying, tertiary job in which they can pay all those tax dollars right back. You get a highly-trained working class, and you have an educated population. Win-win, right?

Second way to de-suck the education system: pay teachers more and get rid of labor unions. We're already lacking qualified teachers, and a huge reason as to why this is happening is because people are hesitant about taking on a job that's going to pay crap. If we focus tax-payer money on education instead of questionable projects (such as funding those dinky rural airports), we can pay teachers more so they actually feel appreciated and consequently do a better job. And while we're at it, we can get rid of teacher labor unions. Ever wonder why that terrible teacher was never fired despite millions of parent and student complaints? Yeah, he/she is in a labor union. Honestly, if you're good at what you do, why do need a labor union to protect you?

Third way to de-suck our schools: stop coddling all the stupid kids. Not just the No Child Left Behind program, just stop coddling in general. It is the most annoying thing ever when I read in the paper how another county has had parents complaining that their son received a D- and now the school board is changing the grading scale so that it is now impossible to fail. I honestly think that the majority of crappy grades come from laziness- not that the kid is stupid. And sometimes, the only way to carry across the message that a kid is lazy is to let them fail. Really no way around it. If we keep on devising ways to "leave no child behind", we're subsequently holding back the children who are capable of excelling. Standards of Learning are stupid. If we accept mediocrity, that's what we're going to receive. Set the standards higher, and people will aim higher. It's not an impossible task.

There are honestly so many other ways to improve our education system, but there's really just one flaw: there's no money. So I recognize that. People would rather have money spent on other things, whatever.

And I apologize on how informal the writing in this post was. Kind of going against my own beliefs.

Current Event #2: Rick Perry Fumbles... Again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-iowa-perry-dogged-by-immigration-questions/2011/10/08/gIQALclCWL_story.html

The Republican GOP contender, Rick Perry, ran into several campaign troubles while making appearances in Iowa this past weekend. Many Republican Iowans were concerned over Perry's acknowledgement that while governor, he granted in-state tuition rates to the children of illegal immigrants. Perry responded to this  by calling those who opposed his legislation as "heartless", but then later admitted his mistake.

Despite his apology, many voters are still concerned that Perry might not be as adamantly right-wing as he claims to be. However, Perry seems to be paying absolutely no heed to this, and is still standing firmly by his policy. Perry claims that granting in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants is creating “taxpayers, not tax-wasters.” Republican voters are not convinced. 

I, however, am thrilled not only because Perry is fumbling, but also because I actually agree with Perry on this one. Granting in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants is doing exactly what Perry claims it's doing- creating a group of educated, taxpaying, young Americans. It sounds totally cheesy, but so-called "dream students" will actually have the opportunity to receive a college education. And it's not as if Perry is waiving college tuition fees altogether, he's just creating equal opportunities for Americans. Education should be an inherent right for citizens and should be the number one priority for the nation. Already, the United States has fallen behind in the number of educated, intelligent college graduates compared to other nations. We're not regressing to a less-developed country, but educating the population would solve a lot of the nation's problems.

Current Event #1: Constitutionality of the Extent of Federal Power?

(Hopefully) Pretty much everyone in America is aware of the ongoing national debate on the extent of the federal government's power. Obamacare, or nationalized healthcare, is really the biggest issue in this debate, especially among Tea Party Republicans, and of course, Obama.

Monday, the Supreme Court will be reconvening to address this specific issue- should the federal government take control of issues that have historically been delegated to the states? A lot of the subjects up for debate do seem to be approaching unconstitutionality (10th amendment rights) if given to the federal government. In addition to the healthcare debate, immigration, affirmative action, and gay rights are all issues that the Supreme Court will be tackling.

Although the Supreme Court is supposed to be completely impartial to politics, many are skeptical of whether the justices can leave their personal beliefs out of their decisions. Conservatives are questioning Justice Kagan's previous affiliation with legal defense of Obamacare. Likewise, liberal groups are questioning Justice Thomas' failure to report his wife's work with conservative organizations in opposition to the healthcare law.

It'll be interesting to hear the Court's decisions, especially since it's so right-leaning. It's great that the court is finally getting to these issues, although the political ramifications of the Court's decisions make me a little nervous, especially if the 2003 affirmative action case comes back up. It's also good that the Court is deciding on the constitutionality of Obamacare now, therefore the Obama administration will have to recover if it's so needed (which I feel it probably will).

Read more! http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-term-will-include-cases-highlighting-extent-of-federal-power/2011/09/29/gIQA3lbXDL_story.html

Question of the Week: What political party am I aligned with?

I've already gone into this a little bit in a previous post, but just to reiterate...

After taking four political typology quizzes, I've found that I'm liberal. I've always associated myself with the Democratic party, so this wasn't too much of a surprise. However, based on the typology quizzes, I was quite surprised when I found out that I'm more moderate-leaning than I thought I was.

On the other hand, if I do think about it closely, it's not too surprising after all. My dad is quite liberal (also surprising, he comes from an ultra-conservative, mid-west, Irish Catholic family), but my mom, who claims to be moderate, has historically been pretty right-leaning. (She voted for Bush. Twice.) So I suppose that somewhere along the line, some of her right-wing propaganda somehow rubbed off on me. At home, we don't really discuss politics very often, and if we do, it's mainly my dad complaining about the bureaucracy. However, my parents are both entrenched in Washington politics daily; my dad used to work for The Washington Post and now works for Pew Research Center, my mom used to work for U.S. News and World Report (ha, no one even knows what this is anymore) and now freelances for The Washington Post. So even though politics is rarely discussed in the household, we're all incredibly politically-conscious.

Like the majority of my 18-24 cohort, I believe that social agenda should be priority. (Realistically, no, it shouldn't, the country has other problems. However, like many others, it's the basis of my political beliefs.) Socially, I'm quite liberal. Gay rights? Definitely. Abortion? Pro-choice. Legalizing marijuana? Yes, but with strict government enforcement. Economically, I'm pretty liberal too. National healthcare is good. Politically? I'm a pacifist, disputes should be settled with diplomacy.

What makes me more moderate is that I actually don't have too many qualms with the government. For the most part, it does a pretty good job.  The only liberal social belief that I vehemently oppose is affirmative action. America is a melting pot of cultures, and therefore everyone should be treated equally.  I have nothing against civil rights, yet I think we hurdled that issue . We've come to the point where equality should actually mean true equality, no reverse discrimination. I'm all for immigration.

My general outlook in life is that people can believe whatever they wish to believe, just please, don't force those beliefs on others. To each his own. I'm pretty accepting if you can provide legitimate evidence as to why you believe a certain way.

So I was getting a little scared there when I did the Pew Research Political Typology quiz (props to Papa Keegan) and it told me I was a Post-Modern. But then I took the other three and I'm still a filthy liberal, so THANK GOD for that.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a Post-Modern. Seriously though, HARDCORE LIBERAL. Well except for a couple of things. But I don't really want to be associated with people who can't make up their mind.
Which I can. I think.

ahahaha
The photograph of the washing machines in the background is ironic commentary on how most Americans, contrary to popular belief, are not of the middle class and that most are living below poverty level.
We have to do something about the social inequities! Start by educating America.


...sarcasm.