This is an article I've already written for my campus newspaper called The Vanguard. You can see the Vanguard here.
At 12:00 am on Tuesday Sept. 20, theDon’t Ask Don’t Tell policy of the United States military officially expiredfollowing a repeal after Congressional, Executive and military approval lastDecember.
Since the Obama administration waselected, there have been significant victories for the gay equality movement:government extension of benefits to gay couples, U.S. Census 2020 introductionof counting same-sex marriages, and probe into housing discrimination towardgay couples.
In addition, passport parental genderneutrality was introduced to the State Department and now gay soldiers canserve openly and proudly in the military. Finally, the Justice Department willno longer support the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage between aman and woman.
On the state level, over the past 4years Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York have all passed legislation orcourts have decided that marriage discrimination is immoral and should beillegal (although these victories are not attributable to the Obamaadministration).
These changes represent the momentumthat the movement is gaining especially as the majority of Americans (a slimone) support gay marriage.
The most recent state to passmarriage equality was New York which did so rather half-handedly. Today the lawthat was passed is being hailed as a possible framework for a national law onthe issue. This, one must solidly reject.
The main concession by pro-gay rightspoliticians was to allow an exemption for religious institutions andorganizations whereby they could discriminate against gays in job placement inorder to protect their religious beliefs.
This brings to light the religiousnature of the largest aggressors against gay equality. Since no respectablescientist would denounce homosexuality (the evidence is overwhelmingly in thefavor of gay rights advocates), religious protection is the only stance left totake.
It is also important to realize thatthe fight isn’t just related to marriage. We live in a country where it isstill legal to discriminate against someone in an interview based on theirsexual orientation, and the list goes on.
With this stance, deniers argue thatyou can’t force a church to accept a gay couple, or a religious organization tohire a gay person because their religious beliefs teach them that homosexualityis immoral.
It bears the question that alwaysfosters circumlocution by opponents of gay equality: Is religious hatred morejustified than secular hatred? To this, the answer is undeniably: No.
A fundamental aspect of ourconstitution, moral system, and judicial precedent holds that everyone isentitled to their own freedoms, so long as they don’t infringe on the freedomsof others; that is where the line is drawn. In this case, this is where it mustbe drawn.
If a religious book teaches someoneto hate or discriminate, it is immoral to apply it beyond the breadth of yourmind and unconstitutional to institutionalize it through personaldiscrimination.You are allowed your religiousconvictions so long as they don’t restrict the rights of others.
The EEOC should be suing an employeror even a priest if he won’t hire a gay person into his religious organizationbecause of the applicant’s sexual orientation. Religious homophobia should beas quickly denounced as secular anti-Semitism.
Marriages today only have a 50%chance of lasting, and yet we find millions of people across this countryfighting for just that; fighting equity in marriage, what straight people haveas an option and throw away ½ the time.
This fight for marriage and jobequality as well as suicide prevention and couple benefits is cemented in thefoundations of this country. In a world of innumerable one night stands and theJersey Shore, gays and allies are fighting for nothing less than love.
Love for themselves to preventsuicide, love to each other to be recognized by the government, and love for expressingtheir passion through a job. If that sounds corny, the so be it.
Gay equality is inevitable, andopponents are rejecting what is bound to come. The poetic lyrics of Bob Dylancome to mind: “Then you better start swimmin’, or you’ll sink like a stone, Forthe times they are a-changin.” This time around, the river is colored withstreaks of the rainbow.
You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!
This is an article I've already written for my campus newspaper called The Vanguard. You can see the Vanguard here.
The backbone wasone of the greatest evolutionary mutations in the Earth’s history. Without it,the composition of every animal you can name or think of would be starklydifferent. If anything the most familiar animals we know wouldn’t be the same:Humans.
Imagine usmoving around as alien blobs with our nervous system randomly floating around.It seems that for the evolutionary development of humanity, a backbone isnecessitated. With such obvious reasoning for the backbone, it strikes me tofind that our President, Barack Obama, doesn’t seem to have one.
From the start,the former professor sought a very professorial technique to getting thingsdone: Allow “the students” to begin discussions and only guide them in theright direction. This was his approach to the healthcare debate some years agoby allowing Congress to start the debate.
More recently,he’s chosen to be more compromising to his executive leadership against aRepublican influenced Congress. When the Bush Tax cuts were set to expire, he“compromised” on a key political promise by extending them because the newlyelected Republicans were feeling powerful.
When thegovernment was on the brink of shutdown, Republicans refused to let groundagain, and the President compromised. When the U.S. Treasury was set to nolonger be able to pay its dues in full, Republican staunchness was mostpronounced; here, the President buckled as well.
The unwaveringRepublicans were even so eager to reject any compromise by the President that,for the first time in history, a Presidential request to address a JointSession of Congress late this summer was rejected by the Speaker of the House.
The eagerness ofRepublicans to regain political prowess after the Bush administration shouldn’tbe laughed at because it is only reasonable. What should be laughed at is aPresident who promised to be a compromising and understanding leader and bring about fundamental change.
The two areincompatible when juxtaposed to each other. To bring about fundamental changemeans to push your ideals as strongly as you can in the face of opposition. Tocompromise to is break from your fundamental ideals in order to resolve theissue.
Today, we seeRepublicans that are illogically uncompromising and a President that isillogically knee-buckling. The poison of our political discussions (discussionsthat shouldn’t be the norm) have saturated the bed of the President so much itseems he has no fight left in him.
In his bid toseem more presidential, reasonable, and responsible (all of which he shouldbe), he has given up too much for too little. The Bush Tax Cuts shouldn’t havebeen extended in full (thankfully they will soon expire) and the healthcaredebate should have been led from the start by the President.
A governmentshutdown would have looked bad for the President but no one is ignorant of thefact that the Tea Party is the extreme right wing driving force pushing theRepublicans to take illogical stances. The blame would have fallen both waysbut then again, government could always be fixed.
Finally, BarackObama was responsible not to let the government miss its financial obligations,however, Republicans were just as nervous of bad press as the President was.Here, he should have been more forceful on increasing taxes.
Discussing thedate of his speech would bear no purpose than to steep to the disgusting lowerdens of radical tea party extremists. A date? What’s in a day? It was justanother slap in the face of a President they don’t like because they couldn’tprove he wasn’t a citizen of the United States.
With every newConservative victory came another crack at the spine of our President and withevery new swing it becomes more difficult to regrow. Extreme conservatism canonly be fought by liberalism that is ground in firm, and when necessitated,staunch reasoning.
Obama’s speechto Congress was the right start, not in content (that is debatable), but intone and forcefulness. For the sake of this country, for the sake of ourfuture, and for the sake of basic reasoning, let us pray he grows a backbonesoon.
You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!
I haven't been able to post anything on the blog lately because I have been attending the Harvard National Model United Nations (HNMUN) Conference in the Park Plaza Hotel.
I'm part of a team representing Bentley University at the conference. My partner and I are specifically placed in in the General Assembly and in the Disarmament and and International Security Committee (DISEC). Bentley University has been delegated to represent Finland (What the heck!!! I wanted China! no offense to the Finnish).
DISEC is comprised of several dozens of delegates, I'd estimate at least 150 people in the single committee. The issues we were given was to address the Taliban in Afghanistan or Cyberwarfare (This happened on Thursday). The way the committee works is the begin debate by debating what to debate (confused already?). We have to choose which subject to discuss (which is more important).
Although Afghanistan is a large issue there was a substantial push (including by Finland) to discuss Cyberwarfare (the terrorism of the future). The measure failed after several HOURS of debating which one to talk about. When the vote decided to discuss Afghanistan, time was essentially up and just a few nations, including Finland, spoke on the issue in front of the other delegates.
Today there has been extensive work on addressing the issue of the Taliban. Different UN blocs have united forces such as the EU, African Union, etc coming up with their own proposals for a resolution. Many of the different European blocs have begun to merge their different proposals into a central one that provides a comprehensive solution.
Some of the issues to address with Afghanistan have been:
Opium trade
Afghan military training
Government corruption
Education
Infrastructure
Afghan economy
and more. Many of these issues are intertwined and can easily affect one another. To address some of these issues there have been many solutions:
Opium trade -- provide incentives for other crops, push for larger specific use of melons, pomegranates and hemp given the Afghan climate to move farmers away from the Taliban drug trade.
Afghan military training -- maintain current troops and live up to the 2014 guideline to begin decreasing troops (Finland already has begun the decrease of its forces) but enhance training for Afghan forces.
Government corruption-- Create an international oversight committee to keep track of different aspects of the government (no enforcement powers) but would publicly call out on corrupt leaders for public reaction and pressure for change.
Education-- Develop a larger push in the country to decrease illiteracy rates across the country, teach children more about afghan history, and some have even suggested expanding teaching material in local tribal maddrassas.
Infrastructure-- Some have proposed hiring local afghans to build their own homes, providing jobs and infrastructure creation across the country.
Afghan economy-- This is tied to the infrastructure I mentioned above and also to the opium trade by developing alternatives to poppy growth for the country's farmers.
There are all still very traditional solutions and while impressive in their detail, I've found to be difficult to do because NATO forces and UN efforts have been trying to do many of these for years.
There were also many other ideas that we simply couldn't accept, and therefore resolutions we couldn't endorse. For example, some nations proposed re-establishing the Afghan army by gathering all tribal fighters into it. This is surely impractical since many of the tribes have fought each other for decades if not hundreds of years. Others have suggested completely banning all maddrassas (Muslim religious schools). Not only is this a repression of freedom of religion, it is also impractical and would garner much opposition by the Afghan people.
My partner and I had so many ideas we considered developing our own resolution however we realized we were better off traveling to the different country blocs and trying to push our ideas into ALL the resolutions, that way we can feel confident in endorse any of them (unless they includes articles like the ones I mentioned in the last paragraph).
Our beliefs to best address key problems in Afghanistan (in addition to the traditional initiatives) are these:
Micro-financing for women: International statistics on Micro fianancing efforts have shown that men are FAR more likely to spend the money they get from such programs on drugs, alcohol, gambling and other bad uses. Women are almost perfectly likely to re invest the money into a business endeavor that reaps benefits to their children, husband and community. After proposing it to many groups, we gained acceptance of including the micro finance article, however, not specifically for women. We have more work in the next two days and we will be pushing for it specific to women, otherwise we are just throwing away money.
Afghan natural resources: The U.S D.O.D. estimates that there is 1 trillion dollars worth of oil, gas, and minerals in Afghanistan. We believe more research and development should be done to allow for Afghanistan to take advantage of it, and build its economic backbone. To do so we've proposed to allow different companies of bidding for the research in different areas as well as development, however, we want to keep it highly regulated. Companies that win their bids MUST train and higher local Afghan workers and accept the government tax on their profits. The UN could subsidies the initial costs of research.
Improve information channels: For this Finland (us!) understands that no proposal initiative or endeavor will be successful without proper information. There is a horribly low amount of information about the Afghan demographic which needs to be improved upon. Only with enough and/or accurate information will ANY international or local initiative be successful. We have proposed that two things: (1) The expansion of the national radio system into rural areas that don't have access to media or live news; the more access of information they have, the better they will be and the more they feel connected to a larger nation. (2) The creation of a central "hub" of statistical information about everything from public health to education to environmental issues. This hub, although accessible to anyone with an internet connection, is mainly targeted toward international organizations working in Afghanistan, NGOs as well as the Afghan government. With more accurate information they will be able to do their jobs much more effectively.
These have been the points that we have been pushing in so far. Many of the people are hard headed, however, we have gotten many of these ideas into many of the proposals. My partner and I have been VERY effective, especially for first year students at this conference for the first time. :)
There is a particular proposal by the United Kingdom that is great. The delegates were VERY open minded and took in everything we suggested and all our ideas, placing them into their proposal. For now, Finland will push for the UK proposal. As time has gone by, Finland has gone into collaboration with the UK, Germany, France and other nations at developing this promising piece to hopefully pass the committee. Many of the other ones institute too larger of a western bias, impose on religious freedoms, or are just not practical.
With that I must go on,
Wish us luck!
Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!
In my previous post I had written about Obama's State of the Union, dubbed by myself as the "State of Our World" (as well as all State of the Unions since the 1950s till today). This is a continuation of that post for analysis of the criticism and support that has already built up. I also want to take a look at the Republican response and the "Tea Party" response. To read that post first, just scroll down to it or click here.
For further analysis of the President's speech, here are 5 political analysts that state their opinion in very short messages. Convenient if you aren't big on time right now, if you are, click below to read more!
We've already gone over the content and tone of the Presidents' State of the Union, so let's look at the Republican response given by Rep. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin and the Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Here he is in his own words, in the 11 min response (click here for the full transcript):
Like anyone, the Representative spent the first minute on giving his hope and prayer on Rep. "Gabby" Giffords. I've never seen this guy before and my first impression was that he looked a bit like Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation (Star Trek fans?). The Rep. makes good points about his intent to work with the President to restrain federal government spending (this shows he is bipartisan). He also uses a smart speaking tactic of relating the spending to his children and by referring to himself as "a father." This helps him build a connection with any and all parents watching (a lot of people). He then calmly attacks the president of over spending and under-presenting (not enough bang for the bucks, or return on massive government investment).
He makes a smart remark by highlighting that no one is really happy with either party and so tells us the Republican beliefs on the role of government. However, I do see a lot of his speech on the size of government as just ideological talk and not anything really substantive. Yes government is huge and spending is out of control, but the vagueness of his words don't hold much ground with me. Give me a bit more details not broad visions (Obama did the same except he gave a bit more details). Understandably, he only has a 10 min window to talk while the President had 60 mins, so perhaps I shouldn't hold them to the same standard in which case, we will have to wait to see in the next few months where Republicans lead by turning those vague ideals to finer details.
In what is probably a sign of the times, or just a joke, Rep. Michele Bachmann delivered the Tea Party response. I already have heard the Representative talk, and stubbornly so, so I already had an idea of what's she'd say. Here it is in a short 7 min response (here's the transcript):
Interestingly, one of the first things she established was that the point of her response was not to challenge the official Republican response. This addresses the much hyped question of whether the Tea Party is part of the Republican fabric or a strand of its own; we see that the former is true. In her remarks, she's implying that the "spike" (it was a decline not spike) in economy recession in the past 2 years was the result of the spending and/or Obama, which of course isn't true. I also noticed that the camera angle was a bit annoying; she was reading of text in the back, but it doesn't really look like she is looking at the viewer (just an observation!).
To be honest, I barely got through the entire thing. She is so idealistic and unpractical. Her argument is that, we either have to repeal the health care law (since it apparently has no benefits) or we die. I was also surprised that she characterized us as the nation with the "finest" health care in the world!!!! Statistically, that isn't true. Yes we are in the top of the world, but we are far from the "finest." I'm actually questioning whether this woman is sane, or whether her speechwriter was puffing the magic dragon when they wrote this. The vagueness isn't what gets me, at one point, she compares the struggle against a totalitarian government in Europe to the fight they have today, and the only separative statement? "That's a little different." I pray for this country and the Republicans that doesn't become the leader of their party, or anything really.
The Representative may not have intended to overshadow the Republicans, but her response gained most of the media attention online and in the news. For better or worse, she was the face of the conservative movement.
Now I'm not one to usually post Bill O'Reilly, however I do follow him sometimes and I didn't find this Talking Points to be that bad. Yes I disagree with his conclusion of the role of government, or at least with his more extreme side, but this 3 min video is worth watching because it points out some important points and highlights the differences in vision.
Interesting point to remember: Today, on Jan 27th, the President will be having a live Youtube interview by answering questions sent by readers (questions are chosen based on the number of "thumbs up" they get. The top liked questions are then asked to the President). Speaking of interviews, on Sunday Feb. 6th, Obama will be having an interview with Bill O'Reilly! This should be interesting because the two obviously oppose each other politically but have never sat down for an interview! Put it on your calendars!
The reason why I decided to title this as the "State of Our World" is because the State of the Union doesn't just map out the Presidents' plan for the next year while reviewing past successes and failures, it maps out the Presidents' plans and intentions across the world. Since the U.S. has become a global superpower, anything the U.S. does, economically, financially, militarily, socially, and politically affects billions of people (for better or worse). Today the U.S. does all these together and is constantly reshaping the world regardless of whether you agree or disagree.
The Iraq War changed the dynamic of the Middle East, The Afghan War affected the geopolitics of Pakistan and Iran. The U.S. economic meltdown had massive repercussions to the rest of the world but especially our trade allies. Over the past 6 years (2 of which was under Obama) the U.S. has borrowed ridiculous amounts of money which has pulled in lenders from around the world. While social changes like the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will create new challenges for the U.S. military on how to deal with gays and lesbians serving in countries where being a homosexual has the consequences of imprisonment and even death( if not murder by the people).
This isn't necessarily new, I believe that the "State of Our World" concept (that I came up with, thank you very much) has applied since even before the Cold War, but may have been strengthened in its importance by President Ronald Reagan.
This isn't to say that the world will just follow along. The President could outline a path for the future and have little support for it. However, any outline that the U.S. envisions for the future is something that is taken into consideration by all world leaders and how it affects them. Here is where the latest State of Our World comes in by President Barack Obama. Here is an interactive Youtube video of the speech to hear it for yourself in case you haven't already. Note: the first 5 mins are clapping, so skip over them and if you don't like the tiny screen, just click on the video and it should take you to the youtube video for a large screen.
If you don't want to watch, you can find the full transcript of the speech here.
As usual, the President struck a great tone by congratulating the new members of Congress and especially the new Speaker of the House John Boehner, not to mention his mentioning of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who was shot recently by a mentally ill ma (as well as other victims). A very telling picture was seeing former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sitting in the seats rather than next to Vice President Biden. His speech is as inspirational as you would expect of this gifted orator, but let's focus on the content.
He began by discussing what they've accomplished so far and among those accomplishments he listed:
Payroll Tax Benefit that added $1000 tax benefits to the average family
Small business tax cuts for employing more workers.
He also said that "we need to take responsibility for our deficit" which is kind of hard to take seriously with so much spending that went on with his signature. That's not to say that I don't support a lot of what he's pushed in Congress, because I do, and that's not to say that there wasn't a lot of "pork" on the bills and backroom deals, but fact is, we spent a hell of a lot of money (for better or worse) and it has hit our long term debt and affected our annual deficit.
Next he proposed steps for leading the world to make peoples' lives better. The first thing he mentioned was inspiring innovation. I have no doubt that government research grants are completely worth it because every single major development in U.S. history has been either funded or invented by the government (mostly the military, i.e. internet, highway system, and more). My only issue is that you can't really spark innovation or force creativity; it will come on its own. All you can do is create a fund so that the creativity doesn't go unfunded. Our problem with energy won't be solved by "independent enterprise," it will be solved when the U.S. military finally discovers that a military running on oil is not an efficient military at all with a vulnerable point; in other words, the U.S. energy crisis is a matter of national security! Get the military on it! They have a strong history of advancing the country!
So I'm not necessarily against helping the private sector develop the technology, but the research and funding would be much stronger and faster coming from the military because profits aren't considered and there is just more manpower that can be applied. Don't spend the money for incentives, redirect it to military research on energy (when they finally "discover" the solution/s, it will be free for ALL private industries to use, benefiting the entire country). If we don't want more spending, we should just tight or cut aside certain spending in the military budget to increase research in the area. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is more important than energy independence, it will determine who wins wars in the future (who is the least strapped to natural resources) and determine who gets involved with them in the first place.
After that he concentrates on a personal favorite: education! The President has already done some things for education by started the Race to the Top Funds (of which Massachusetts won) for it's government and high schools introducing innovative teaching systems and techniques to help increase student learning, participation, attendance, and scoring (My high school is getting some money for a specific program: New Bedford Leadership Academy). The "Race" has inspired 40 states to increase their teaching standards. I've also noticed the President has a smart focus sciences and technology since the world is relying more and more on those subjects. He follows these up by reasserting his belief in government grants and funding for students to attend college as "the right thing to do."
As a college student that receives overwhelming amounts of money from the federal government, I recognize (especially during my college application process) that I wouldn't decide where I went to college; the money would. Without the funds from the government I wouldn't be going to Bentley University. However, I also realize that because of government grants, schools tuition rates have increased faster than inflation since schools have little incentive to keep prices low when the government helps them fun so many possible students. I don't know how to solve this problem because I and others like me, are dependent on Federal and state aid to gain the opportunities we have in higher education, but colleges are taking advantage of the system by raising their tuition and costs to make higher profits. I will leave this one to the "experts".
And finally! We get to my favorite topic, and one that will saturate the news for the rest of the year: Illegal Immigration! A brief mention, but still a mention! Let's get it on! More, when the legislative push comes.
Following his stress on technology, the President outlines his concerns about the country's infrastructures as well as national internet networks.
On health care, he made an interesting cost, that "economists" predict that repealing the law would add a quarter a trillion dollars to our deficit. This puts deficit hawks weary about repealing it because it would make them look like they are adding to the deficit when their goal is to do the opposite; a subtle, but important comment.One final point he makes of domestic policy is simplifying the tax code, I really like the idea since it would help close tax loopholes and abuse and help even the playing fields in between classes.
Finally, the President turned to foreign policy by highlighting the removal of 100,000 soldiers from Iraq as it slowly stabilizes (though some argue it hasn't really addressed its main problems), minor improvements in Afghanistan (and plans for the future with troop removal beginning this July). Obama also mentioned his New Start Treaty with Russia on nuclear power while also addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions.
All together the President's State of the Union was what I expected, but nothing spectacular in my opinion. He concentrated on all the right points, but this speech is as political as it gets and it has been for decades. Inspirational yes, but it won't accurately depict the "battle" going on as the year goes on as everyone looks forward to the next election of Congress and the Presidency. More will concentrate on bashing each other, than doing what is right. More will be influenced by lobbyist than serve the general interest. Unfortunately, because of the massive influence of the U.S., these interests will mean more than just negatively affecting the U.S. and its people, all will suffer unless the fundamental problem of government isn't addressed: unnecessary influence by interest groups (whether domestic or foreign). This isn't just a "State of the Union" it will determine the "State of the World."
(I'll post up a follow up with further analysis soon on responses and more!)
So, it isn't officially two years, we still have a bit more than a month to go, but I might as well just put this up since New Years is coming along. Many are probably wondering what the heck has President Barack Obama accomplished since he's taken office. If you think he hasn't done anything, then you aren't paying attention. Important note before we go over this: This is a list of his accomplishments regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Although not a complete list and clearly by a pro-Obama democrat I was able to find this youtube video going over much of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z90SeYwK_Q&feature=player_embedded
If you don't want to watch the video here is a list I compiled. I raked the entire internet and every list I came by was either by Left Wing Larry who celebrated the smallest things such as 'Obama ordering departments to recommend cuts in spending' or Right Wing Ronnie who refused to acknowledge any successes while labeling him a Muslim Communist, so I compiled my own list (random):
Wall Street Reform
Healthcare reform
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Second Stimulus (forget what they called it)
Tobacco regulation
Ended Iraq War
Refocused on Afghanistan-- surges
New Start Treaty
DADT repealed
Credit Card Reform
New Sanctions against Iran (AFTER talking to them)
Mathew Shephard Hate Act
Student Loan Reform
Education Reform
Banned Torture and signed executive order to close Guantanamo (but still open, in process)
Got both his Supreme Court picks onto court.
This list doesn't count important things like how he's improved relations with most of the world, including Muslim World, or his signature that greatly expanded conservatory efforts or his expansion of SCHIP. The listed are just what I consider to be his greatest successes in his first to years.
Just for context, they may just be listed here and not seem that much, but these are his largest legislative and political victories (or at least in my opinion). I may be missing a few, feel free to suggest, however, their importance should never be understated. Regardless of whether you agree with the policies or not, the amount he has accomplished is truly amazing because all these laws have such massive effects in and of themselves; compiling them together to a reader that understands their impact is world changing. My history may be shaky, but I don't believe I've seen a more progressive first two years in anytime in the past 40-50 years for a president of the U.S. (if you feel that's an overstatement, prove me wrong.) He is also greatly admired.
If you are wondering why the old picture instead of one when he's president; I just say, why not?
