Politics

How Important are Endorsements/Relationships when considering those running for office?

To me, endorsements and / or relationships are not that important. I think this apathetic view stems from a disregard for most celebrity crazes as well as the fact that I am not even close to being eligible to vote. I think that the idea of celebrity endorsement is unnecessary. When leaders such as Colin Powell back Barack Obama, that is something noteworthy. However, if Brad Pitt were to say that John McCain is the way to go, I would consider that to not only be less substantial, but also arrogant. This idea that media figures believe that they should have a say in the direction of the election process is conceited and out of line.
The term relationships is ambiguous though. If one were to say relationships in the context of personal friendships, I would say that has some bearing on the character of a person; while maybe not guilty by association, questions can be raised about the company with which one keeps. However, another sort of relationship exists; with entities such as the EPA, the Roman Catholic Church, etc. Those relationships are undoubtedly important to many voters; the other week, Bishop Thomas Olmstead sent out a video calling parishioners to action and to vote Yes on Proposition 102. This act, which I saw as outrageous, would substantiate the claim that relationships do have some part in the voting process. While maybe not directly supporting a candidate, entites will often point voters in the direction with statements such as, "The Catholic Church believes this...can you guess what candidate does as well?"

A Matter of Principles

What principles should define the new America?

In my opinion, multiple principles should define America. I think that we should have an economy that has a mix of both regulation and laissez-faire policy. Regulation will make sure that business' are kept in line with their practices; for example, making sure that they are adhering to environmental regulations and laws. However, I think that laissez-faire should be incorporated as well so that a free market may endure. People believe that the 80 billion dollar loan to AIG is a violation of this; however, most do not realize that the money was only promised, and that in fact the deal is to allow the government to buy stock, up to 80%. Socially, I think that there needs to be a shift towards a moderate thinking. The pervasiveness of immorality is irritating, and is only getting worse. Children are growing up with confusing messages about issues such as sex, and thus this will almost definitely negatively affect them. In foreign policy, I think we need to be a bit more introverted; I'm not suggesting we completely pull out of world policy, but we should not be so brash. This might, in my opinion, cause less of a negative perception of America; leaders like Hugo Chavez might not be so quick to judge the United States then.

Centralization versus Decentralization

What do you believe the government's role to be when tragedy strikes the United States, such as the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the South?

I believe that the government in general should have a centralized role in how the United States operates. Hurricane Katrina is an example of why. The State of Louisiana could not have rescued all the people, assessed damages, or rebuilt homes without the government directing and supporting it. People argue that such dependency gives to much power to the federal government, and thus undermines democracy, but they do not realize that we do not live in a democracy. If the federal government did not have to power to enact legislature providing financial aid, then no doubt the situation in Louisiana would have been much more dire. Even programs such as FEMA are government run organizations designed to promote pluralism and thus spread the power of the government among many. Thus, when disasters occur, such as Katrina or the terrorists attacks of September 11th, we all need to pitch in. Citizens, local, state, and federal government need to work together in order to cope with the tragedy. Otherwise, chaos will follow; the different levels will inevitably conflict if not unified.
Essentially, if one feels that I have gone on a tangent above, I believe that the federal government should send monetary aid, troops, relief workers, and whatever else it can do in order to help.

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

Paul Newman's death offers an opportunity to look at a life that accomplished so much both from an entertainment and from an outreach or justice perspective. Much seems admirable about the life he lived, both from an "accomplished what he set out to do" angle and from a "gave something relevant and tangible to others" angle. Turning inward, we get an opportunity to look ahead, reflect, and finish the thought in ten or more sentences: "By the time I die, I would like to have...

By the time I die, I would like to have done something internationally recognizable. I use the phrase internationally recognizable because I'm not seeking fame; I don't really want to be another Michael Phelps (as awesome as that would be). In my current imagination, something internationally recognizable is in the context of athletic achievement. My hope is to qualify for the 2012 Olympics in Rowing. I also wish to compete for the United States at the FISA (Federation de Societies d'Aviron) Rowing World Championships. While I might not necessarily gain international fame, it is essentially something recognizable on an international level.
However, there are other things that I think I would like to do before I do. I would like to have raised a family that, while not perfect, survives and works well. I would like to have been able to provide above and beyond for them.
Overall, as long as my life is productive and without great tragedy, I will be content at the end. Unless that end is very painful.