September 23rd, 2009 :: Permalink
Ms. Bean launched her political career using the standard playbook of many successful Republicans. This strategy includes an intense "anti-tax" platform and hypocritical demands to "return government back to the people." Bean claims our current system is "unjust" yet champions a conservative philosophy that exploded our national debt to nearly $11 trillion (2008). While America's MOST rich received trillions in tax reduction, and in many cases pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than you or I, our children and grandchildren have been saddled with debt they had no hand (or vote) in creating ... justice? How do these policies return government to the people?
Vilifying taxation may be a popular strategy, but it is neither just nor patriotic. Ms. Bean will likely claim she is a "compassionate conservative," as an honest conservative would specify how many and how harshly various social programs would be cut to balance budgets with less tax revenue. The MOST rich do not suffer when such drastic cuts are made - it is simply the Middle Class that falls further behind.
While Bean may believe thousands feel the issue of civil unions should be tabled, our national character demands this injustice be remedied. Marriage is an issue of religion and government has no business meddling in these agreements. Yet the First Amendment, specifically stated in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), determined that each of us are "free to associate" as we please. The First Amendment protects religion from government but concurrently protects us from religion. The establishment clause of the amendment restricts the government from imposing a particular national religion on citizens.
If two men (or two women) wish to form an association for life, there is no justice in America if thousands of people are allowed to open their respective religious texts and demand they cannot share love. God, in my opinion, does not care who we love - she just demands THAT we love!
Second Post: September 23rd, 2009 at 12:19pm
Aloha hipoli ~
While I agree with many things you wrote, I am disappointed by some of your comments. You wrote, "And by pathetic I not only mean that her lack of qualifications are pathetic beyond belief - because come on - a waitress?"
I believe it is extremely bad form in a democracy to criticize a person based on their profession - past or present. Law is an excellent background for politics, but many lawyers have violated our trust. I believe we should respect Ms. Bean's past work history - she served America in her way. Let's focus on who she is now. She gives us sufficient reason to vote for the other candidate without belittling waitresses, stewardesses or flight attendants. I personally extend MAHALO to ALL these people who work harder each day than I ever do.
Second, you wrote you consider Ms. Bean pathetic, "because she carries a bible." Again this is highly childish analysis. Our current president carries a bible; as did the many former ones. They swear an oath to defend our Constitution and nation using a bible. I am not a Christian, but will break lau lau with any person who follows the teachings of Jesus. If you are willing to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, aid the sick and needy, you may not earn my vote for public office on these points alone, yet I surely hold you in high esteem ...
Third Post: September 24th, 2009 at 10:42am
Aloha "hipoli" ~
You wrote, "TNB handed out juice boxes, showed the airplane exits, and maintained her required airline weight - and now she believes shes had sufficient experience to be a state leader?"
Yes, comments like this disappoint me. You have offered many valid and educated reasons why not to support TNB. You were winning the day. Why fall into the gutter?
If TNB did as you say, yet has her "pulse" on working people (obviously NOT for a Republican candidate, so let's say she has a good mind for business operations) maybe she could represent her constituency well.
Remember, we elect representatives. These people are - in theory- there to stand up for us in the legislative body. A waitress may be a better judge of character and social conditions than a gifted lawyer from a well-to-do family.
The bottom line is when we use broad strokes, saying that a "flight attendant" can't be good in politics, we have become bigots. This is no different from men who might claim women don't belong in politics ... or White people who say Blacks or Polynesians aren't suitable for politics.
I also believe bright people like you must follow our Hawaiian principles of aloha and kuleana. We have rights in democracy but corresponding responsibilities (a brief example of kuleana) and our dedication to aloha requires us to be gracious in our activities.
Fourth Post: September 24th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Aloha Ken Conklin ~
Nice essay on the issue of gay marriage. I hope everyone reads this and please continue your excellent work. This is a pragmatic and humane solution to a highly emotional issue. With such an approach, we could put an end to the misery seen on both sides. Mahalo for your efforts!
I recommend all of us read and further Ken's work: