The Song Remains the Same

I blog about music A LOT. But, I am not going to stop blogging about music in relation to politics, because I think it is very important. Music forms a major thread in the fabric of our culture. It allows for the expression of ideas, the use of metaphors and other literary devices to convey a point. It is often short, to the point, and readily accessible- easier than, say, a book of poems or a 500-page novel. As well, music has been used in U.S. political campaigns for at least 150 years, if not more. Campaign songs are nothing new. Neither are songs that attack politicians. This campaign's songs have not been finalized yet, but chances are there will be some wacky choices. Currently, the only official one is Celine Dion's You and I for Hillary's campaign.
Originally, campaign songs were simple affairs, or written with the candidate in mind. Both Teddy Roosevelt, for his 1912 independent campaign, and Dwight D. Eisenhower had songs specifically about them. Here is a nice list of older campaign songs Other presidential hopefuls, such as JFK, used optimistic songs-i.e. "High Hopes." Candidates also have been known to mis-step when choosing a song- most notably Ronald Reagan's attempted use of the anti-war "Born in the U.S.A."
Campaign songs, though they may seem frivolous, are often an integral part of the presidential campaign. They will probably play a huge role in raising the emotional stakes in an already emotional race. Music will also play a huge role in defining the candidates' images, especially following a president that was viciously attacked by musicians. Whichever songs the campaigns choose, they will have to be poignant and powerful.
As a parting thought, below is a song that should be considered the people's campaign song in choosing a candidate and president.

Obama Rakes It In

Obama has taken the lead in the Democratic field for the number of campaign donors, acquiring 93,000 new ones and raking in $20 million this last quarter. Though Hilary has yet to release the amount of funds she's raised and she's the fore-runner of the Democratic candidates, Obama has out raised her. Some of the donations have been as little as $5, but that doesn't seem to matter when you've had 352,000 donors. Five dollar donations seem to suggest that Obama is reaching out to more "everyday people", not just your big business people looking out for themselves in the future. He has had large fundraisers just like the other presidential candidates including a "$3 million fundraiser with talk-show mogul Oprah Winfrey, an event with mega-investor Warren Buffet and a low-dollar match program where the campaign united small donors with people who matched the amount the smaller donor could give", according to an article by the Washington Times, but he does have the most donors, a sure sign of popularity.

I thought this cartoon was a perfect representation!

Campaigning for Cash

The fundamental question of the day is, what would you do if you had $265,098,330? If you're fuzzy at reading reeeaally big numbers, let me spell it out for you. What would you do with more than one quarter of a billion dollars? The answer, you might be surprised or just saddened to hear, is finance the eighteen front runners is the 2008 presidential bid. At least, up until June 30, 2007 according to the link to a Washington Post Article above.

That's right, 16 months before the fateful day in November still more than a year away; the candidates had raised sufficient funds to send 1,506 people to American University for all four years, free of charge. Go ahead, do the math. Realize that the entire incoming freshman class could be here on a full ride for all four years with that money, and there would still be cash to spare. Better yet, with that money you could shack up 1,767,322 homeless people in a $150 dollar hotel room for a night with that cash.

Of course, there are other and probably better uses of 17.6 times the value of the Louisiana purchase, but the fact remains that the candidates raised what is to me at least, an absolutely incomprehensible amount of money, a full year and a third before the election. If that isn't mind boggling enough, according to http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp, it's projected that the eventual nominees will round up half a billion dollars a piece for their presidential bids.

Can you imagine the kind of good that could be done with a billion dollars? The lives that could be saved, the futures that could be brightened, here and abroad. Presidential elections and U.S. elections in general, cost too much money. Newt Gingrich, conservative that he is, brought up an excellent point. Elections have metamorphosed from campaigns of ideas to campaigns of ideas for fundraising. Perhaps there is in fact a relationship, but to me at least there seems to be little relevance between the ability to raise more money than most people will ever fathom, and running a country. It’s no longer the best candidate but instead the best fundraiser.

I don't know how a less gluttonous presidential election could be held, but I do know that there are far better ways to spent hundreds of millions of dollars. Roll the phrase around on your tongue: hundreds of millions of dollars. Who do you think would do more good with that money, a presidential committee or a nonprofit organization?

Truth in Humor

Today, (in fact as I type this) “Aliens in America” is debuting on The CW. Much to my surprise, the show is not about aliens such as E.T. & company. It’s about an immigrant. The show takes place in Medora, Wisconsin, and chronicles the Justin Toluchuk’s awkward high school plight, as he tries to navigate his way through the social scene. His family is not much help either, from his well-meaning mom and idealistic dad to his overtly popular sister. Hoping to find a remedy to her son’s social situation, Justin’s mother, Franny, signs the family up for the school’s international exchange student program.

“Picturing an athletic, brilliant Nordic teen, Franny is sure this new friendship will bestow instant coolness on her outsider son. However, when the Tolchuck's exchange student arrives, he turns out to be Raja Musharaff a 16-year-old Muslim from a small village in Pakistan…While the rest of the family is slightly freaked out by the Muslim in their midst, Gary is comforted by the fact that the host family receives a monthly check to help with expenses.”

Freaked out by the Muslin in their midst? He’s Muslim. Not a charging rhinoceros. The kid is named Raja, though, which is the same name as Jasmine’s pet tiger in “Aladdin.” Something still tells me that the family is not freaked out by the “Aladdin” connection. In fact, it’s very clear that the reason why the family freaked out is solely because of Raja’s religious identity. It’s his skin color. The initial reaction upon the family’s faces when they first see Raja (prior to learning of his faith) is one of utter shock with a surprising lingering sense of disappointment.

What The CW has in its hands is a golden opportunity to explore culture clash in the realm of high school America. It could also present a sobering satirical examination of American fears regarding Muslims. It could chronicle Raja’s Americanization. The worst thing that “Aliens in America” could do is do nothing and just present American fear with little analysis.

This show could even pick up with 2005’s “Crash” left off. Heralded as an essential study of race in America, “Crash” went onto win the Academy Award for Best Picture. What “Crash” strove to achieve was indeed admirable, yet flatly presenting the thesis that everyone(regardless of whether we’re honest with ourselves about it) is racist to a degree does not really change much. I mean, racists I know are not going to magically realize the error of their ways after Paul Haggis bangs his argument over their heads. Especially with a screenplay that horrendous.

People respond differently to humor, though. There is something more appealing about being told that you are doing something wrong in funny manner. So who knows: “Aliens in America” really does have the potential to do something great. As to whether or not the writers will pursue this opportunity to the degree they should…that’s a different story. The worst thing that could happen would be if Raja ends up being a token plot device who exercises his Muslim traditions as a means to generate tired, empty jokes.

So Why Does He Still Have a Job?

On tonight's Countdown with Keith Olberman, Olberman had a segment about Bill O'Reilly's radio show and his comments he made last week about a resturant in New York City. In the segment, Olberman teaches us, the American public, how to defend ourselves from an O'Reilly attack. Last week, O'Reilly continued to stir and justifiy his statements about the Harlem resturant.

I have been listening to pundits back and forth about O'Reilly and his comments and I just ask myself, why do we still let Bill O'Reilly have a job when so many people can not stand what he says? Granted, O'Reilly gets paid to say these very controversial things. It's really frustrating that O'Reilly gets so much press and he seems to be a detriment to the idea of better discussion. It's a real shame that we let someone like O'Reilly continue to speak about things that really should not be mentioned. O'Reilly does not bring anything useful to the table. Why don't we do the best thing we can do against this type of speech: not listen to it. We shouldn't feed into these kinds of people. We can only hope...

History of Presidential Debates

We've been having plenty of discussion on presidential debates, but we haven't really discussed the history of presidential debates, outside of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
On September 26, 1960 the first general presidential debate was held between candidates Richard Nixon, and John F. Kennedy. This debate was also the first televised debate, previously debates had been broadcast over the radio, or were printed in major newspapers. Those who listened to the debate on radio believed Nixon to be the winner, however, those who watched the debate on television viewed JFK as the victor of the debate. On screen JFK appeared relaxed, comfortable, and generally in his element. Nixon on the other hand, had been hospitalized earlier in September and appeared sick and exhausted on-screen.
A connection can be drawn between Nixon's unpreparedness for the medium of television and the refusal of candidates today to utilize Youtube. Gradually more and more presidential candidates are beginning to see the advantage of using youtube to reach out to a younger generation but the certainly took their own sweet time, and as James Kotecki has shown, the majority of the candidates do not use youtube to the best of their advantage.
Although the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate was the first official presidential debate, there are several other debates which served as forerunners to our current conception of today's presidential debates. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 are a prime example. Although no television or radio existed at the time to broadcast the debates, newspapers printed the debates, and many people took a serious interest in the debates.
Following the presidential debates of there were no debates held for 1964, 1968, and 1972. The election of 1976 saw televised presidential debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Since 1976 every presidential election has had at least one presidential debate, the majority of elections have had more than one debate.
A problem now rises from reading this history. Although we believe that there has been a long history of presidential debate, these debates have only been around since 1960 elections. There are other debates which do set some precedent as the Lincoln-Douglas debate did, but in reality there is little for us to compare today's presidential debates to.

There are some things money can't buy; for everything else, there's American ignorance!

Oh, Newt. While I'd like to think you took my advice last week and realized that raising $30 million in 3 weeks was impractical, I'm sure that was not the case. I won't argue the importance of your political action committee, American Solutions, or the difficulty of obtaining funds this late in the race...

...ut I can use your reluctance as an example of what I think is most disturbing about American politics.

Take, for instance, CNN's most prized headline this chilly evening, which (perhaps discretely) applauds Sen. Barack Obama's $20 million (and possibly more) fundraising blitz this quarter. The not-so-shocking amount puts the not-so-inexperienced senator at about $74.9 million this election cycle.

For anyone interested in the math, that amount would cover nearly 44,600 AU students' financial tabs... yea, tell me about it...

Anyway, the amount, in my mind, really forces us to reconsider the age old question: to whom are the candidates most accountable or responsible? Sure, we'd like to believe in the merits of basic democratic theory, that our electoral system only allows the most qualified and (or) popular candidates to assume office. But what about the thousands of interest groups, PACs (like Gingrich's) and businesses who donate the most money to presidential candidates? It's true; the larger one's coffers, the better one's chances at securing success in the primaries.

I mean, this isn't always the case; Howard Dean and John McCain, in their earlier runs for their respective party's nomination, far outdid their competition. But for the most part, donations produce votes. Fundraised dollars means advertisements and canvassings, appearances and stump speeches, bigger staffs and more ambitious goals; more showiness, more political grandeur, more pageantry, all of which is uncharacteristic of real grass roots democracy.

And when the media hypes earnings, they give the impression that the candidate with the most money is indeed the most popular. Granted, this is sometimes true (or near true), as a recent CBS poll of the Democratic field would demonstrate. But any publicity is good publicity. Why would an able minded middle or low income American donate a large sum of money to a candidate (who perceivably promised adequate representation of their demographic) the media depicts as losing or already lost? It's paradoxical, to say the least.

So when I hear the big guys like Gingrich and Obama lambasting the political system while fretting over much-needed campaign dollars, I start to wonder whether this whole "we're going to change American politics as we know it!" scheme is nothing more than an excellent sound byte. You can't change America's election structure if the most contact you have with the country is the random debate and the occasional thousand-per-head dinner. It's about time someone realized that...

Licoln vs. Douglas 'The Smackdown' Pt. 2

The Lincoln Douglas debates rotated around the concept of slavery and it's expansion, or lack there of, into new territories.
It was Douglas who first helped to instate the Kansas-Nebraska Act which was used to repeal the Missouri Compromise and instead promoted the idea of popular sovereignty. These basically means that first the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska were both established and designated a specific area to occupy. Originally the Missouri Compromise banned slavery in all the former Louisiana Territories, except for Missouri, however the Kansas-Nebraska Act changed that so that the residents of both Kansas and Nebraska can vote and decide if they would like to allow slavery to expand to their territories.

This heated issue was one of the main topics of their debates since Douglas claimed that a democracy must be balanced with the idea of popular sovereignty citing the Compromise of 1850 as his prime example. Lincoln contested this idea by claiming that the national policy was to limit the spread of slavery which started with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Between all the legislation that either allows or bans slavery in the different areas and territories it is easy to see how the separation between the free and the slave states only continued to grow as time wore on. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were not what sparked this controversy but they certainly helped bring the controversy into the public spotlight.

you down with GLB? yea, you know me....

There are those who think we queers are overly ambitious in our pursuit of gay civil rights. Calm down, I’ve heard. Blacks campaigned for civil rights for decades after centuries of enslavement… it’s a long process.

But why?

Sure, the African-American Civil Rights Movement and the enfranchisement of women took decades and decades of struggle (and arguably the effects of racial and sexist subordination are still felt today), but aren’t we a different society than we were in 1865 or 1920, or –hell- even 1973 (when the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM)? Hasn’t the inclusion of women and blacks into Club Citizen taught us anything about marginalizing friends, colleagues and family members into categories of queer “untouchables”?

It’s 2007 and I have less agency than most of the people reading this blog. Fred Thompson suggests ammending the constitution to prevent court judges from legalizing same-sex marriage, but leaves that power open to each state legislature -a pretty moderate viewpoint for his party, and one that will certainly win him fringe votes should he gain the nomination. Hillary Clinton says she doesn't currently support same-sex marriage but wants to understand and work more for the cause.

With supporters like this in political power, with a more informed, mobilized and capable generation of gays than either women or blacks had available to them during their decades- and centuries-long struggle, with more ways of diseminating information and raising awareness than ever before, why should we be content to wait another 60 or 80 years for an ammendment guaranteeing our right to be equal citizens with our heterosexual friends and neighbors?

Why not now?

To blog or not to blog.... and my temporary political apathy

I must say, there are some days where I just flat out could not care less about politics. I look at all of the different politicians and candidates and I wonder if it is really worth the effort of getting to know about the various candidates and their views simply to mark a few boxes on a ballot next election year.

I was one of those kids who always enjoyed knowing about politics. My mom worked for a state senator, taught high school government, and has campaigned since before I was born. Growing up in my household, it was very easy to know what was going on in politics, which made some classes in high school a bit easier, and I really enjoyed knowing about current events. Sometimes my friends’ parents would ask me who to vote for because they figured I was better informed than they were. It was always easy to find my house during election season because we would be the house with six signs supporting different candidates in the front yard.

Then I come American University, which last year was the most politically active campus but now has gone down to sixth. And I was politically active last year. I campaigned, I voted absentee, and I followed the news.

And then the 2008 election started. In 2006. I think the reason I don't really care about this upcoming election is that it has been going on so long with nothing really changing. It’s like seeing advertisements for Christmas at Halloween. It’s too much.

Now being back at college for my sophomore year, I don’t really care. I am not really impressed by any of the candidates and I do not really feel the need to actively support any of them on either side. Other than a couple pet issues, I am really taking a step back from politics.

However, I think that if I really saw a candidate do really well in a debate, I might be swayed. My political apathy phase might end and I would remember again why being active in democracy is a good idea. I could be passionate about the future of our government again. So hopefully the new debate structure we want will allow the candidates to be impassioned and inspiring so that we as voters can remember why we vote.

The YouTube Generation

You hear it all the time, "the younger generation doesn't care about politics." Apparently our generation is filled with people who care little about the world around them and simply play with electronics all day. Is that true? I would say definitely not!
For those who don't believe me, why not look at blogs like Liberal College Kid in which students discuss political issues? Or how about watching some of the hundreds of political video blogs by people like James Kotecki or Bryan Barton? College students all over the country participate in protests about the war, abortion, and gay rights. They stand up for their views, begin groups like the Young Republicans and Young Democrats. How about the issue with Karl Rove which occured on American University's campus last year? Those who say that students have become apathetic should look again.
Just ask the gods of political satire Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert where their largest following comes from. I'm pretty sure they will tell you that their popularity and support is largely rooted in the younger generation. Lewis Black and the members of Capitol Steps would most likely agree. College students are tremendously involved in politics!
In fact, it seems as though those politicians are simply not trying to reach out to the group. Many don't try to understand the new voting group. Which politicians are gaining the most support with this generation? Easy answer, the ones who reach out to them! Obama Girl and Giuliani Girl follow their candidates for a reason! The Democrats and Republicans who actually try to rally support from the new voting group do in fact win it!

The Burmese Aside

In delivering his speech at annual meeting of the General Assembly, President George W. Bush* highlighted a country that few Americans could find on a map - Myanmar, better known to the Western world as Burma. Burma's plight has been the subject of little popular discussion beyond MTV's favorite political prisoner - An Sang Su Chi, a young woman who has been under house arrest on and off for over a decade. Over the past few weeks however, the plight of the Burmese people has come under the spotlight of Western news outlets. The outbreak of rioting and civil disobedience, encouraged by populist has brought the country to the brink of implosion.

It takes the abominable harassment of monks for mainstream media to turn its eye on a problem that's been going on for far too long. This illustrates that the reason that there is no real, deep political discussion in American today perhaps is as much the fault of a complacent and enabling media as it does with the candidates.




*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7017369.stm

is hillary really an advocate for gay rights?

in a recent issue of the gay issues magazine, the advocate, hillary clinton danced around the question of gay rights... she was clear about her position on marriage equality: she won't have it. and yet she seems much more sympathetic to the cause than her husband, the man wee all have to thank for DADT. i get a sense that while hillary may not support marriage equality now, she's earnestly trying to wrap her brain around the Queer Question, as i'll call it.... as long as heterosexuals have rights that i do not have, i will remain a second-class citizen and as long as hillary remains transparent and open to the cause, she'll remain as my pick for the democratic nomination

Promising Polls

Here is the link for the current polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

It showing Hilary Clinton in the lead currently, which is interesting news. This shows that America maybe finally ready for a woman president. However, I have a feeling that the polls will change.

The democratic party have the lead, which I was expecting. However electing a new president is always different. With Bush finally leaving the White House, our next president has a lot of work to do.

Taking Politics Into Our Own Hands

If only I could raise $30 million in three weeks...

According to CNN's Political Ticker, Newt Gingrich announced Monday that he would enter the campaign if donors contributed "at least $30 million... over a three-week period starting Monday and ending Oct. 21."

But before you all experience a euphoria-induced blog-o-seizure, let's think about Gingrich's chances should he enter the 'invisible primary.'

As most of you have probably noticed, a couple battleground political states are waging a rather subtle yet important war. Each vying to overtake New Hampshire for the title of 'first primary,' preliminary elections are moving closer and closer to the beginning of 2008. I've even heard CNN refer to what was known as 'Super Tuesday' as 'Super Duper Tuesday' (thanks, Wolf...) because the primaries now resemble a sort of national referendum on the candidates.

That effectively leaves Gingrich four months to campaign; a hurdle that underlies the effects of unequal media (in)exposure during the primary process.

And let's not forget Gingrich's $30 million challenge. As of June 30, 2007, the top two candidate in terms of fund raising, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, campaigned for nearly $35 million and $33 million, respectively.

In other words, Gingrich hopes to do in three months what the current candidates have been doing for well over six. That's a little too idealist for me.

I mean, I, like anyone else, want to see a competent man or woman elected to the office of the president in 2008. I, again like the rest of this Web site's bloggers, hope the person who makes the grade does so fairly and openly with as much discourse as possible. But there is a fine line between idealism and pragmatism. Gingrich should run, but he needs to tone down his expectations if he wants to be successful; expectations are usually the reasons candidates fail. And he has to remember that despite his criticism, the system is what it is. He can hate the present state of political discourse and lambaste the insular primary or donor systems all to the approval of voter applause, but he has to play and rely on the system if he wishes to fix it. Tis the irony of politics.

The political clock is ticking, Newt.

Slate readers get thinking about debates

I was looking around on Slate.com earlier. Apparently a few months ago the online publication asked its readers for their opinions on how to improve the current presidential debates. There are some suggestions from the Slate readers that are definatly worth looking at, and a few that are a bit “out there.” Here’s a rundown of some of the more noteable points:

Fact Checking During the Debates: “In a first round, journalists would question the candidates. Those answers would then be fact-checked by a panel. During the fact-checking, candidates would be allowed to say whatever they wanted in a second round. (This free gab period would be a sweetener that might entice them to participate.) In the third round, the fact-checking panel would make candidates defend their distortions, ask for clarifications, or point out which questions the candidates had ducked altogether.”
Give the audience control: We saw this type thing with the CNN/Youtube debates, but several Slate readers suggested a different take on it inspired by shows like American Idol and Survivor. The audience would have the power to vote candidates off the stage who’s answers were no good. And if a candidate began to ramble, his microphone could be cut off.
Let the candidates question each other: Candidates sparring against one another on various topics may be more entertaining and yield better debate than the standard panel of journalists and academics asking questions.

To read some of the other ideas from the Slate.com readership, here’s the link the article: http://slate.com/id/2166144/

Candidate Calculator

So I found this via the usual annoying spam sent to me by my aunt. It's for those of you who are too lazy to think for yourselves, too lazy to watch any of the debates, and definitely too lazy to pick up a newspaper and read anything about the 2008 Presidential candidates. It's the Candidate Calculator! The very sophisticated calculator asks you "yes" or "no" questions about whether you support certain issues, like the Iraq war, abortion rights, and immigration policy. It then allows you to label the issue as one of low, medium, or high importance creating an accurate and fine-tuned calculation. In the results it displays the Presidential candidate that is your number one match, as well as candidates that are close matches, and your least compatible choices.

While this is funny, and obviously not a real way to choose a candidate, I wonder if it is not a more short-winded version of picking a candidate than watching Presidential debates, or reading about their opinions on issues in newspapers. Particularly today, candidates don't go into depth about their stances regarding certain matters. The public doesn't really know much more than the neutral and glossed-over version that is fed to us after much instruction from their PR person. So perhaps we should give up and just use the trusty Candidate Calculator.

Also, my mother I were talking, and she told me she did her calcuation just for fun, and she, an avid Hillary supporter, found that her political views, in fact, lined up more with Denis Kucinich's politics. This to me is an expression of the limited realistic options faced by those who are very leftist. Obviously Kucinich is not going to get the nomination, and most likely I will end up voting for the more moderate nominee. Sometimes its very frustrating for me, because it sucks to have to settle!

(Not) Taking a Stance

In response to mschellentrager’s most recent post:

Although disappointing, it comes as no surprise to me that the Democratic presidential candidates did not take a stronger stance on bringing our troops home from Iraq. It is no longer common for candidates to take such strong and definite stands during debates, partially because the strict structure does not encourage candidates to. The small time frame given to answer questions and respond is hardly long enough to explain a plan to withdraw troops.

This has been the topic I have continually revisited these past three weeks. Although other people in the class might not realize it, they are connecting present day politics to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, as “mschellentrager” did. Many people have a problem with the way debates are run and the information that the American public receives from them. Debates are no longer used as a platform to introduce all of a candidate’s plans if elected. There are additional television interviews, newspaper stories, even Wikipedia entries. I lump the debates into the same category as all of these.

Debates have lost their prominence in the United States. Candidates do not feel the need to take firm stands on issues, just stay in the middle ground. Debate structure needs to be revamped before we will see politicians stating their opinions more authoritatively.

Monikers and How to Shed Them

Bob Dylan is in town tomorrow with Elvis Costello. Bruce Springsteen will be in town in mid-November. Being me, I began ruminating on something that concerns all three of these musicians: the use of a moniker. Robert Zimmerman, more commonly known as Bob Dylan, lent his voice and penned lyrics to a generation of the disenfranchised and politically active. In doing so, he immortalized the name Bob Dylan, and lent it to the public a moniker to bestow on budding folk musicians. Since the late 1970s, new singers with even a small resemblance to Bob Dylan have been branded as "the NEXT BOB DYLAN" Elvis Costello, Bruce Springsteen, John Wesley Harding, and many others. John Wesley harding was doomed from the start- he named himself after a Dylan song. But both Springsteen and Costello managed to escape the "NEXT BOD DYLAN" title and emerge into the spotlight themselves.
By now you're probably wondering what the hell this musical commentary has to do with politicians and debate. A lot. It is just an example of a disturbing trend in our society to label the next big thing with something from the past. In politics, we keep looking for the next Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, or Ronald Reagan. This labeling seems to be seriously en vogue this presidential race. Republicans are looking for a turn to Reaganism, a candidate like Reagan who brought the Republican Party back into the limelight after the corruption of the Nixon years. The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to be searching for a candidate that is both radical and extremely popular, a la Franklin Roosevelt. But this trend worries me. If we continue to label and look for the next anything, are we not dooming ourselves to re-living the past and the mistakes that were made. We can't think of these new politicians in the same way we thought of the old ones. We have to expect them, and encourage them, to turn into something new and unique. Incorporate elements of the past, but don't simply emulate it. Both Springsteen and Costello were thought to be simple copies of Bob Dylan, but instead turned into great musicians in their own rights. That is what we need politicians to do. We can't misconstrue today's candidates with presidents from the past. We have to listen instead to what they are saying, and not diluting it with what we want to see and hear.

Quotable Quotes

I was having a hell of a time today, trying to write this blog. So, I decided to veer a bit off topic and post some quotes about politics and debate and attempt to analyze them or apply them to 'today's' world.

1) Debate and divergence of views can only enrich our history and culture.
-Ibrahim Babangida

I wasn't sure who the author of this first quote was, so I looked Babangida up on Wikipedia. He was the 8th president of Nigeria, in power from 1985 until 1993. Although he did not necessarily utilize this quote in his regime, I still think it to be a fitting quotation for our discussions on politics. If debate and divergence can only enrich our history and culture, than why is it politicians so desperately avoid any real debate or divergence of opinion?

2) A politician's goal is always to manipulate public debate. I think there are some politicians with higher goals. But all of them get corrupted by power.
-Dean Koontz

Dean Koontz, as many know is a fiction writer, generally of mystery/suspense novels. One of the major problems with modern political debates is the lack of any sincerity. As Koontz says, politicians are always trying to manipulate public debate; they are constantly spinning stories, rephrasing and backtracking so as to appeal to all voters. The quotation continues to say Koontz believes there exist some politicians who have higher aims than simply to win votes, but in the end all our corrupted by power, I statement I tend to agree with.

3) After last night's debate, the reputation of Messieurs Lincoln and Douglas is secure.
-Edward R. Murrow

This quotation was my personal favorite, possibly because I'm a big fan of Edward Murrow, or possible because of its implications. If in the 1950s political debates were poor enough for Murrow to make this statement then to what levels have sunk to today, fifty years later?

In short, these are just a few of many thousands of quotes on politics, debate, and the state of the nation, but they three which I liked and felt had some relevance to our course and blog.

Here are the links for the wikipedia pages of the three authors of the quotations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Babangida
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Koontz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Murrow

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones…

By now, I am sure that most of you have heard about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s little visit to Columbia University. This past Monday, Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs invited President Ahmadinejad to speak at the World Leaders Forum. This was a gutsy move on Columbia’s part, and many were hesitant to even invite the President, yet what happened during the forum was a sight to see.

Usually when introducing a guest speaker, one does not usually resort to calling them names. Surprisingly, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger took this approach while introducing President Ahmadinejad, setting the maturity precedence for a truly amateurish forum. Sure, President Ahmadinejad has said some truly tactless, insensitive comments, and it had to be tempting for Bollinger to call Ahmadinejad out for his controversial comments on the holocaust, yet by saying what he did, Bollinger ultimately sunk down to Ahmadinejad’s maturity level:

“Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator, and so I ask you, why have womenmembers of the Bahá' í Faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?"

Come on, Bollinger. Not calling your guest a petty and cruel dictator is something you should have learned in debutant training school. After Bollinger threw out his zinger at Ahmadinejad, the audience began to applaud. I couldn’t help but feel as though I was watching an episode of Maury where some disgruntled housewife called out her unfaithful husband –- and had the paternity test results to back it up. Maturity clearly was not anyone’s prerogative at the forum. On the other hand, though, the forum’s rampant immaturity did bring about something hilarious. In response to Bollinger’s incessant questions relating to Iran’s treatment of homosexuals, President Ahmadinejad’s acidic – if petty and cruel – tongue unleashed one of the finer quotes of 2007:

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who has told you that we have it."

In the wise words of Kathy Griffin, “Where my gays at?!” It would not surprise me that there aren’t many out homosexuals in Iran because the legal consequences they would face are somewhat daunting. As stipulated by Iranian law, sodomy is a crime and if two consenting adults are caught in the act, they could face death. Consenting adult lesbians caught in the act are subjected to 100 lashings. I suppose it’s no wonder why Ahmadinejad can’t find any homosexuals in Iran.

As ridiculous as Ahmadinejad may be at times, Bollinger’s juvenile tactics were somewhat uncalled for. But then again, Bollinger did get Ahmadinejad to claim that there aren’t any homosexuals in Iran.

Making the blogosphere a little bigger...

I feel like we're in a bubble. A "blogobubble," if you will.

We're never going to accomplish the goal of this blog if we don't communicate with actual people. I mean, writing articles and all is fun, but I feel like we're just writing it for the sake of writing something to turn in. I realize this is a class assignment and we are getting a grade on it, but we need to make sure that this is more fun than anything. And that it actually has a purpose that transcends the requirements for our class.

This week, as I was looking over other blogs, I have noticed that other blogs actually tackle the issues and do it in a matter that is interactive and innovative. We should try to be more like that... Instead of bringing up a whole different topic, write a blog post adding more to someone has already brought up, or disagree with another post and write about that.

Wouldn't it be cool if we turned into a huge political debate that got some actual attention from big wigs? I think that should be our ultimate goal. Let's create enough stir so that people actually come to us, comment on our posts, and use us as a source for their blog posts.

So, let's try and become part of the blogosphere and get out of our blogobubble. Let's get some debate going on! That's what this is for, right?

Anyways, here's a blog for you to look at: http://technorati.com/blogs/www.foxattacks.com. Yay for blogs!

How Long Should Troops Stay In Iraq?

The Iraq war is a very divisive political issue. Many credit the war and the Bush administration’s mishandled involvement in the Middle East as the catalyst for Democrats regaining the majority in Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

In a debate last night in New Hampshire, the Democratic presidential hopefuls were asked about American soldiers in Iraq and none of them would commit to withdrawing all of the troops, even by 2013. I was very surprised by this statement, especially since House Democrats have been pushing legislation with a timeline that would bring troops home before Labor Day 2008. For the presidential candidates to say that America would continue to have an influential presence in Iraq for another six years is conflicting with what the majority of the electorate thinks.

A nationwide CBS News poll conducted on September 14-16 asked participants what the United States should do in Iraq, 29% responded that all troops should be removed immediately and 39% responded that the troop levels should decrease. Clearly the majority of our country would not agree with keeping our soldiers in Iraq for six more years and the Democratic presidential candidates should reexamine their stances.

South Park and Politics

The other day I was watching an old episode of South Park and, surprisingly, began relating it to what we're talking about in class. The episode, entitled "I'm a little bit country," is about the people in South Park protesting the war. The boys all get a class project to find out what the founding fathers would've thought about the war in Iraq. While Kyle struggles to do the work, Cartman 'travels back in time' and is transported to 1776 America. He bumps into the founding fathers debating the constitution and is privy to their debate. While debating the war, all of the things the men are saying sound eerily similar to the same criticisms of the Iraq war. Finally, Ben Franklin comes in and gives a speech in favor of going to war and in favor of dissenting the war. According to Ben Franklin, the trick in America is "saying one thing and doing another."
While this is funny in the context of South Park, this is the exact reason I've grown so sick of politics. It's always the same arguments and everyone making them is a hypocrite. This election is shaping up to be more honest than the last, but as 2008 approaches, my skepticism grows. While the Bush administration is being systematically fired for their lies and deceit, a new group of politicians is preparing to convince the American people that they are somehow better. I hope the creators of South Park aren't right and there is such a thing as an honest politician.
You can watch the episode at: http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/121970/South_Park_I_m_A_Little_Bit_Country.html

Clinton changes her position on torture in New Hampshire

After reading several articles on the NH debate, critics and political analysts alike believe Sen. Hillary Clinton
has changed her position on whether or not a presidential exception should be allowed to use torture in order to prevent an imminent terror attack.
At the debate Wednesday night moderator Tim Russert asked Clinton, "This is the number three man in Al Qaeda. We know there's a bomb about to go off, and we have three days, and we know this guy knows where it is. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?"

Clinton responded, "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period. I met with those same three-and four-star retired generals, and their principal point--in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit-- is that there is very little evidence that it works. Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies, but these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone."

In an interview last October, however, Clinton's answer was different. Last October when she was asked about a presidential exception by the New York Daily News editorial board she told the paper, "I have said that those are very rare but if they occur, there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that. And, again, I think the president has to take some responsibility. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it is some reporting within a top secret context. But that shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule. And that if we deviate in the first instance from very disciplined interrogation methods, that are clearly lined out, and that have validation evaluation that goes forward."

Clinton's camp says the change is not significant. Phil Singer, a spokesman of Clinton's, said, “Upon reflection and after meeting with former generals and others, Sen. Clinton does not believe that we should be making narrow exceptions to this policy based on hypothetical scenarios.” Since the October interview Clinton has talked to interrogators from CIA, FBI, military backgrounds who are all skeptical about using terror, saying the best way to get information is to bribe people. This is undoubtedly the reason why Clinton changed her mind on this issue.

As Newt Gingrich said, it shows great maturity and experience that Clinton has changed her mind. "Flop-flopper" should not be a term with negative connotation. After further research and understanding Clinton now has a more informed and secure position on the issue.


P.S.- The blog site straight2thecandidates that I talked about in my first post will begin running on Monday, October 1, 2007. The creators have notified all the presidential candidates and have sent out numerous press releases. Hopefully they get noticed!

Abortions & Order

In the democratic system the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important, chambers: the House of Representatives that has a close relationship with the constituents, and the Senators who are more deliberative. These are their stories. BUM! BUM! Fred Thompson, or District Attorney Arthur Branch, as many people know him as has a very interesting view on abortion. In March he told Fox News Sunday that he “is ‘pro-life’ and that he believes Roe v. Wade was based on ‘bad law and bad medical science.’” I’m sorry, but it seems as though I forgot that a women performing an abortion on herself with a hanger was good medical science.

We all know that conservatives are waiting for the day Roe v. Wade is over turned. Most Republican candidates oppose abortion rights, but Mr. Thompson’s comments are particularly disturbing. Abortions can be done safely and with little risk to women. Countless lives are saved every year because women have this choice. I understand both sides of the issue, but before Mr. Thompson condemns abortion so viscously he should, and this goes for candidates on both side of the aisle, increase services for young mothers including adoptions options, finical support plans, and emotional help. Because right now it is the lack of support and options that make so many women turn to abortion.

When I Grow Up, I'm Going to Be the President of the United States

Today, when I sat down to relentlessly scour through the internet in search of political fuss, I decided to start at the most obvious place – The Washington Post. To my delight, I stumbled upon a handful of interesting clips from several Democratic Presidential Candidate debates (and by “interesting” I mean they were sub par as far as entertainment goes). The clips were, however, very informative, and it is always fascinating to me how candidates interact with each other during a debate. Sometimes, you could cut the tension with a knife. And when they disagree with each other, or discuss the way their plan of action severely deviates from that of the person to their right, I can’t help but laugh. They are forced with the awareness of onlookers to go about doing it ever so politely, almost through gritted teeth.
What I found most interesting about the debates that I watched, and something that I hadn’t noticed before, was each and every candidate’s tendency to discuss their future in the White House as if it was a definite. Using phrases like “when I am in office” and “when I am inaugurated in January of 2009,” they each made it seem as if they had already been elected. At one point in one of the videos, the candidates were discussing their intended approach for exiting Iraq if elected, former Senator John Edwards began to say “if I am elected in 2009” but quickly corrected himself and stated “when” instead. Is this some sort of strategy that I’m missing the point of? One could argue that they’re attempting to exude confidence, but honestly, I think it’s rather distracting when I’m trying to learn about their objectives for my nation’s future. Give the self-assurance a rest and focus on trying to convince me that you deserve my vote.

Gingrich in the Race?

After our discussion last class of Newt Gingrich and the possibility of him running for President in the 2008 Election, I was interested to learn more. Surprisingly, I found a website already in tact dedicated to drafting Gingrich as a political candidate for the 2008 Election. The website DraftNewt.org is a comprehensive website with lots of information on why Gingrich should run for President, how to raise awareness, become involved, etc. The headline at the top of the home page reads: "Draft Newt '08; The 21st Century Demands a New Contract with America"and latest article on the page is entitled "Newt Gingrich: The only individual worthy of the GOP and America". They've also included the script from Gingrich's appearance on FOX News Sunday and his discussion of what it would take to get him to run in the 2008 Election. E Even more interesting is that they include a way to contribute to the "campaign". Their fundraising campaign is Twelve dollars. Two weeks and 2 million people campaign. Where exactly is the money going? They are "Not affiliated or authorized by any candidate, party or party committee," it states at the bottom of the website. They do not list when it was created either, so I've emailed the creators in an attempt to learn more about it and find out if there has been any response from Newt Gingrich, himself, about the website and campaign draft. Hopefully there will be more to come on this topic.

Living in a failing world...

Currently we are living in a failing world but no one is talking about it, not even the candidates that want to be the next leader of our country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw

In the video above Newt Gingrich makes the comparison of FedEx and the government bureaucracy.

In the world that is working we can track a package MOVING in real time but in the world that is failing the government cannot find 7 MILLION people here illegally that ARE NOT moving. See the problem? What do the candidates have to say about that? Nothing! Because they speak on platforms surrounded by people with "likish" minds instead of surrounding themselves with people who will challenge their views and force them to give REAL answers.

I'll leave you with this quote from Newt Gingrich, "So send a package to every person who is here illegally, FedEx & UPS delivers and we track them on the computer..."

Debates

The MSNBC Democratic Debate just finished, and aside from my monumental disappointment in Chris Dodd for being a Red Sox fan, there was a great deal that the candidates left to be desired. The debate, to which the link provided is a synopsis posted by MSNBC, featured discussions predominantly concerning the Iraq War and healthcare. It was around those subjects that the candidates seem to be taking ballet lessons.

While some questions were answered directly and honestly, a host of questions were either skipped over, used as a pulpit by which to preach a wholly different issue, or in one notable instance, refused completely. Senator Clinton flatly refused to say whether or not Israel would be justified in attacking Iran if it found that the Iranians possessed nuclear weapons and would potentially use them on Israel. A number of other questions received similar treatment, although rarely as overtly. When the candidates did answer the question, they often devolved into ranting diatribes about "my contribution, my experience." Either that, or they evaded the question completely, speaking of B when the question was actually about A.

What seems to be lost on the candidates is that the people who are watching the debates this early in the election are nerdy enough to spot the maneuvers and BS. People who are watching these debates don't need the candidates experience, that is information they either already know or can look up themselves. What is important is how the candidates feel and how they would address the issues, we don't watch the debates to see how deftly politicians can get out of answering a question they don't want to answer and deliver a totally unrelated diatribe. They're politicians, we're well aware that they're capable of such maneuvering already, it's in their blood, or at least the blood they've sucked (I'm sure you don't need an explanation on the joke of the definition of "politics").

No Homosexuals in Iran

As I'm sure everyone is aware of, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rapped up his trip to America yesterday. It was a peaceful trip, full of sight seeing and picture taking. Well, actually, it was a trip filled with heated debate and controversy (not to say that pres. Ahmadinejad didn't snap a few pictures while he was here). For starters, President MA (has he will from no on be referred to) wanted to make it a point of his trip to visit Ground Zero, as if nobody here would take issue with that. After being denied this harmless request (HA!), he proceed to Colombia University to give an enilightened speech on topics ranging from women's rights, the holocaust, and the myth of homosexuality.

“In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it.”

"Given this historical event [Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it."


I submit to you all that this man is a product of his surroundings, just as we all are. By no means am I supporting the man, I just acknowledge that he truly believes this nonsense and he should have the forum to speak just as we all do. His problem is that he is not in Iran. He is not even in other sympathetic Middle East regions. He is in the liberal East. While he automatically assumes the right of free speech when he arrived on our shore, he must be aware that his ideas and beliefs must be backed by facts, not strong diction or a powerful tone. That doesn't (usually) fly here in America.
He is approaching his backwards and immoral personal stances and beliefs from what he calls an 'academic' perspective. He is taking radical views and veiling them as academia. I personally believe that it was a mistake for Columbia to host him, especially after hearing his introduction by Columbia President Lee Bollinger where he reffered to Pres. MA as a "petty and cruel dictator"

He goes on to confront Pres. MA even further by saying "Mr. President. I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions." Bollinger hit is right on the head...

Welcome to America Mahmoud, enjoy yourself and have a good time, but expect ZERO respect!

Why I Distrust the Police.

A previous post about the tasering of a University of Florida student got me thinking about all of the police abuse I've witnessed or heard about growing up in Gainesville. To be honest this incident is only remarkable because it actually made the news. From causing minor annoyances to killing innocent people I can't really think of a time where there wasn't anything other then hatred for the UFPD and its citywide counterpart GPD. I was pleasantly surprised when arriving at AU I found out how kind and gentle our public safety officers were, and for that matter the DC metro police as a whole.

Since the seventh grade it had been standard practice for our teachers to tell their students at least once a year to never talk to a police officer without a lawyer, even if you didn't do anything wrong. My first personal experience with UFPD came on July 27, 2004. I remember it well because it just happened to be the very first day I had my driver's license. After playing pool at the university rec center I was driving home with a friend of mine when I was pulled over on campus for what I would later find out was suspicion of a stolen vehicle. After being spread eagled on the front of the officer's patrol car, patted down and having my car searched for almost an hour the officer laughed at me for being pulled over on my first day and sent me on my way. This was the first of seven such incidents. Each time I was let off without so much as a warning. I have been pulled over by Gainesville police for everything from suspicion of illegal U-turn to having out of date tags on my license when in fact they were in date. Each time I was verbally abused and patted down. After the first time I wised up and no longer permitted any kind of attempt to search my car. If I added all of my friend's stories this blog would run on forever.

These are only petty grievances, something to complain about to your friends but nothing worst then a sprained wrist or a weekend in jail. The reason I wrote this post was for two incidents far more serious then even last weeks tazing.

The first is a 2003 incident that sadly was never given its full day in the media spotlight because the victim was far too ashamed to come forward. A nineteen year old University of Florida student was raped in the Alachua County Jail by his fellow inmate. While prison rape is not uncommon, this particular incident stood out for several reasons. The kid was serving his first of four weekend sentences for attempting to distribute marijuana. He was placed in a cell with Randolph Jackson, a thirty-five year old convicted rapist who had also been accused of raping three previous cellmates. After placing him in his cell the cops simply walked away, having to know what was going to happen. Jackson, who is HIV positive, quickly forced a ballpoint pen to the kid's throat. In the aftermath the kid required several stitches in his rectum. Of course nothing ever happened to the officer's involved as the whole episode was said to have been a simple fault of jail overcrowding.

Corey Rice is a name some of you may foggily remember hearing about several years ago. This happened on one of my favorite streets in Gainesville, known for countless late night adventures. Around 1 am on June 30, 2001 thirty year old Corey Rice, an architecture grad student, was pulled over for failing to stop at a stop sign by Officer Jimmy Hecksel. As the officer approached his window Rice slowly backed up, and then began pulling away. Claiming Rice was trying to run him over, Officer Hecksel unleashes seven shots with his forty caliber, hitting Rice three times. Rice would die several hours later in the hospital. While I could not find the video itself, stills from the video show that it looked like at no point was Officer Hecksel in danger.

While countless pages have been given to the tasing, little was made about these previous incidents. As a result I was only able to find small press releases about this incident. Police Brutality Prison Rape Corey Rice

Ahmadinejad visits America

Something that has been in the news recently is Iranian president Ahmadinejad's visit to America. People are upset about this because Ahmadinejad has been pretty vocal about his negative feelings toward the West and America.

Leave it to John Stewart on the Daily Show to put a comic spin on this:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml


Personally, I don't understand why Ahmadinejad would want to come here. His entire visit here has incited so much anger and hurt, especially because he wants to visit Ground Zero and he is scheduled to speak at Columbia University. It makes me sad because I know many Iranians who do not feel the same way Ahmadinejad does. His extreme views of the world are highlighted because they are different, but the majority of Muslims do not believe in killing all Americans or wiping out Israel. I think that his visit here is only going to cause more problems and more people to be angry and upset.

A woman president?

As discussed in a previous blog post, the topic of a woman president is something that many journalists and media talkingheads have taken a liking to. Recently, I ran across a magazine that really pissed me off. In the September 17 issue of Newsweek, the front page reads "What kind of Decider would she be?" After reading the article, I became less infuriated, but the headline still irked me. Hillary Clinton has been in politics longer than George Bush, Barack Obama, or most of the other politicians out there. The only reason her 'decision-making' is being called into question is because she's a woman. And isn't indecisiveness one of the most stereotypical traits of being a woman? God knows what will happen if you let a woman make important decisions--I mean what if she's on her period? It's not like women are rational, thoughtful people. The media unknowingly reinforces the sexist ideology that has made its way into the very fabric of our society and, through doing so, holds us back. Maybe Ameria isn't ready for a woman president.