The Panacea

Republican Hypocrisy

2010-03-02T18:16:00.006-06:00

It's amazing how much $hit the Republicans get away each year and this year is shaping up to be no exception. Whether the issue at hand is the stimulus bill, current recession or health care reform, the GOPs are doing everything they can to take credit where credit was not earned, place the blame on anyone but themselves and block legislation for political gain. These choices may be good politics, but they're not good leadership, and it won't be long before the American people realize this.

Republicans strongly opposed President Obama's stimulus package last fall and plan to make this opposition one of the centerpieces of their 2010 campaigns. However, just earlier this month it was announced that 65 Republican members of Congress have proudly claimed credit for the stimulus dollars that have flowed into their own states. In other words, the Republicans are now trying to take credit for what has resulted from a bill they voted against.

Another thing that Republicans have been doing lately is trying to blame the recession and the slow economic recovery on the Obama Administration, when they should really place the blame on themselves and George W. Bush. Before Obama was even elected, we were in a deep recession party because of the lack of government regulation in the financial sector, so if we feel the need to blame a public leader for the recession, we should blame President Bush, who didn't force the Fed to raise interest rates when spending was at a high in 2004, which led to the creation of the housing bubble, and didn't intervene in the financial sector until several banks came close to collapse.
The above chart shows the amount of jobs lost in the U.S. each month during the last year of Bush's presidency and the first year of Obama's presidency. As the chart shows, we are losing fewer and fewer jobs each month. This is because we've hit the trough of this recession and are now beginning to recover. One of the reasons why we're beginning to recover because the stimulus package was passed soon enough to save and create jobs. It should also be noted that the stimulus package extended unemployment benefits; people who still have unemployment benefits still have them because of Obama.

Lastly, the most pathetic Republican hypocrisy relates to health care.

How can members of Congress say that the government can't intervene with health insurance and the private sector when they receive government insurance themselves?

Tax cuts may a panacea for the GOP, but not for the rest of us

2010-02-11T19:59:00.011-06:00

Senator Max Baucus and good ol' Senator Chuck Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee released the Senate's first jobs bill this morning. Putting together the bill was very much a bipartisan effort, with a top-ranking Republican Senator being a cosponsor and all, so it received loads of praise from the media ...until people realized that most of the bill's components wouldn't actually create jobs.

In order to gain the support of the Republican camp, the Democrats gave into to the Republican cure-all that really doesn't cure anything: tax cuts.

Harry Reid put his foot down regarding the bill shortly after it was introduced and proposed to write a bill focused solely on job creation. But, because Republicans are so convinced that tax cuts can solve any economic problem, and because Reid killed a (weak) bill with bipartisan support in favor of a (better) bill that Republicans are less likely to support, two huge problems remain: Republicans are as misled as ever and Dems are going to take a blow for being "uncooperative".

The idea that economic growth is most likely to be achieved by granting tax cuts to suppliers originated in the 1970's. Supply side economics was adopted by the Republican Party during Ronald Reagan's presidency. In 1983, Arthur Laffer developed the Laffer Curve which suggests that a decrease in taxes can actually lead to an increase in tax revenue because there is more of an incentive for people to work and earn money if they can keep more of it.

At the end of Reagan's presidency, because of a decrease in taxes and an increase in spending, the federal deficit was over $200 billion. So, you know, following Laffer's advice worked out really nicely.

I'm not completely opposed to supply side economics, but I do think that demand side economics make much more since. Tax cuts can help people and businesses in the short run. But, in order to really create jobs and pull an economy out of recession, the government needs to invest in infrastructure and other programs in addition to providing tax cuts.

Obama's First SOTU

2010-01-30T11:14:00.006-06:00

Obama was at the top of his game as he delivered his first State of the Union address on Wednesday night. He showed no signs of nervousness and appeared to be confident, funny, likable and on top of the world, in a way. To quote Erza Klein of the Washington Post, 'Towards the end, you expected him to say, 'thanks, folks, I'll be here all term!' and then give Joe Biden a chest bump on his way off stage."

The content of the speech was also excellent. If a Martian had watched the address, he or she would've thought that Obama accomplished more in one year than any US president previously. He did a great job selling the policies he hopes to focus on 2010 and reselling the policies he focused on in 2009. Obama made his distaste of the partisan politics that have crippled our country for years well known and did as much as he could to appeal to the middle class.

I was happy with the speech because it was well written, well executed and will hopefully help Obama accomplish his goals with proper follow through. On the flip side, I wasn't happy with the speech because it definitely signified Obama's move to a centrist. I'm not exactly against Obama moving away from the left and partisan politics, but I'm not exactly comfortable with it, either.

I think that governing as a centrist will ultimately be good for the Obama Administration, our country and our political system. But at the moment, I don't feel this way at all. Instead, I feel more like my voice is being ignored and that I've been snubbed by Obama and the Democratic Party. How else would you expect a very liberal Democrat to respond to a Democratic president's approval of nuclear power, offshore drilling and a spending freeze?

'The Geography of a Recession'

2009-12-21T17:44:00.004-06:00

I saw this on Andrew Sullivan's blog a few weeks ago and have been meaning to post it ever since. This video shows how the unemployment rates have skyrocketed in basically every county in the US since 2007. Pretty unbelievable.

Republicans, how do you propose to fix our health care system?

2009-12-21T15:33:00.004-06:00

At 1 a.m. this morning, the Senate passed a cloture motion regarding its health care reform bill, 60-40. Yes, 60-40, meaning that not a single Republican voted to end debate on the bill.

I've spent a lot of time pondering why this might be, but the only answer I've come up with is that Republicans are self-serving, whiny politicians with inferiority complexes. After months of complaining about small things in the bill that have all been removed by now, they don't want to give in and vote for a piece of legislation that the Democrats wrote, and are therefore willing to do everything in their power to make sure that the Democrats fail in their effort to pass health care reform. Hell, I think this may be going too far, but something also tells me that they also secretly want America to fail.

As Joe Biden said of Republicans at this year's JJ Dinner, "I sure as Hell know what they're against, but I have no idea what they're for."

If opening up the health care market across lines, making it illegal for insurance companies not to cover someone if they have pre-existing conditions, etc., are not the ways to fix the health care system, then what are? What do you suggest, my conservative friends? Do you have any ideas? Any at all?

Health Care Reform: Let's Get Er Done

2009-12-20T14:38:00.007-06:00

Thanks to Senator Ben Nelson, it looks like the Senate will pass its health care reform bill before Christmas Day.

Nelson was the last member of the Democratic caucus, which has 60 participants, to declare his/her support of the bill. This means that the Republicans cannot use a filibuster to further block the bill and are therefore out of stalling options, since we all know they don't have any proposed solutions of their own.

So what's in the bill?

Well, not a public option or single payer program like I and many other progressives had hoped for. But, really, that's okay because there are a lot of good other things in the bill. If passed, it really would provide the foundation needed to fix our health care system.

The bill requires every American to purchase basic health care insurance, makes denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions illegal, allows people to purchase insurance plans from any state in the US, provides subsidies for those who can't afford insurance, requires that all businesses pay at least half of the cost of a basic insurance policy for their workers and the workers' immediate families, taxes extravagant plans, includes malpractice reform and allows children to remain on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26.

The Senate bill is supposed to reduce the federal debt by $132 billion by 2019, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

I'd love to see a public option in the bill and, after conference committee between the House and Senate, there very well could be a public option. However, if it comes to taking the list of reforms above or not taking anything at all because the public option is too unpopular in the Senate, I'd rather take the bill as it is with a few changes.

We've come too far over the past few months to scrap everything.

(The Iowa Independent and Washington Post have good articles on this sentiment).

Can you explain the public option?

2009-12-14T17:14:00.001-06:00

According to a new Vanity Fair poll, two-thirds of Americans are unable to explain the public option.

If you fall into this category, shoot me a message because we need to talk.

A Step Sideways

2009-12-03T22:13:00.002-06:00

As you may have already heard by now, the New York State Senate rejected same-sex marriage yesterday. I think that there really were enough supporters of same-sex marriage in the NY Senate for the bill to pass, but too many, especially Republicans and Senators from rural areas of NY, voted no for political reasons, so the news is disappointing. I wish politicians would use their consciences to vote instead of their approval ratings in their respective districts.

Despite my disappointment, I don't see this loss as a step backwards in the national fight for marriage equality. I think that every time a vote is brought up for same-sex marriage, every time same-sex marriage is discussed in a public setting, is a step forward, even if the official result is a loss. The majority of people's views toward same-sex marriage will continue to change, and so will our laws.

So I'm hopeful. And if you support same-sex marriage, I think you should be hopeful, too.

The New Jersey Senate will vote on same-sex marriage next week, and New York will legalize same-sex marriage in the near future, because a recent poll shows that 51 percent of voters support same-sex marriage.

Senator Diane Savino's speech before the failed vote yesterday

Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Possible in New York

2009-12-01T19:53:00.002-06:00

If there are enough votes in the State Senate, it's very likely that New York will become the fifth state in the US to legalize same-sex marriage. I haven't heard very much about the same-sex marriage debate lately, probably because most state legislatures are spending all of their time on economic issues, so I was really excited to hear this news.

From the Record:

ALBANY (AP) - Gov. David Paterson says the way is now clear for a state Senate vote on legalizing same-sex marriage in New York.

Some key legislators have tied the long awaited vote to passing a deficit reduction plan. That’s now expected to be done this week.

While the bill was passed months ago by the Assembly and has the governor’s backing, its prospects in the Senate remain uncertain.

Paterson says Tuesday he’s confident it will pass, but he wants a debate and vote in any case to advance the cause.

Opponents like Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz say they remain ready to fight the measure and don’t think a vote is imminent.

Democrats have a 32-30 majority in the Senate. But about a half-dozen Democrats oppose the bill. So Republican votes would be needed to reach the 32 required for approval.

Tea for Two! Two for Tea!

2009-11-26T15:52:00.004-06:00

Sarah Palin and Representative Michele Bachman will both speak at the First National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee this February. Tickets for the event are on sale for $549, plus the price of hotel lodging, which starts at $436 for three nights! Wow, what a bargain! I'm so glad that the Tea Party Nation, whose members are supposedly advocates for fewer taxes and impositions on the middle class, has made this event accessible to average, hardworking, real Americans like myself! And I'm glad that the TPN picked out two lovely, intelligent, humble and giving keynote speakers!

Atta Boy, Joe

2009-11-25T16:25:00.006-06:00

"Progress in this country has never been produced by yelling and saying no."

-Vice President Biden at the 2009 Iowa JJ

"Yes, I'd like to say Iowa is where the Obama presidency began, but I don't want to confuse the 'birthers'."

-Biden, also at the JJ

The Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

2009-11-25T14:08:00.006-06:00

I attended my first Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, an annual event that serves as the main political fundraiser for the Iowa Democratic Party, on Saturday night. The food was substandard, but the people there and Vice President Joe Biden, who gave the keynote address, made the evening worthwhile.

Most people don't know this, but Biden is an excellent speaker, both in regards to style and content, and Saturday was no exception. At the JJ, Biden was congenial, funny, honest and authentic and he was successful in exciting the audience and getting all of his points across. Biden reminded me why I fought so hard to make sure Obama was elected, and also of all of the fighting I and other like-minded people will have to do in order to bring about the change we seek.

Yes, Biden's speech was very much a rallying cry for the IDP's biggest supporters, who are the JJ's main attendees, but I could also see it appealing to people who support Democratic reforms but don't support them enough to pay $100 to attend the event. This is because one of his speech's main themes, as the Iowa Independent accurately reported, was: "Biden: 'Don't tell me we're not making progress'". Biden cited the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor, progress on health care reform, signing of the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act and the economy's signs of improvement as accomplishments of the Obama-Biden Administration thus far.

After the event, I was able to meet Biden backstage after the event in a room with some other campaign volunteers, some VIPs and at least a dozen members of the Secret Service. My actual one-on-one time with Biden was very short, but I enjoyed meeting him again. I also feel honored that I was chosen to meet him out of the event's 1,500 attendees.

Overall, I enjoyed the JJ and I'm glad I was able to attend this year. It really made me realize that everything we fought for during the campaign last fall is still worth fighting for.

The Bow

2009-11-17T18:23:00.003-06:00

For the last half-century, when visiting other countries, American leaders have attempted to put themselves above foreign leaders. This has gone over well in the United States, since we like to think that we're better than other people and deserve respect, but it hasn't helped advance diplomatic relations.

This is why, even though basically every political commenter on television viewed Barack Obama's bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito unfavorably, I think Obama's decision to adhere to Japanese tradition and show respect to Akihito was a fine one.

Besides, don't we have better things to talk about??

How can some people be so full of hate?

2009-11-09T14:59:00.006-06:00

Via a post by Andrew Sullivan:
Protesters from Westboro Baptist Church were spotted protesting this morning across the street from Sasha and Malia Obama's school, Sidwell Friends.

"Quakers?!" a church member wrote on the church's website, in an explanation for the protest at the Obama girls' school, which happens to be Quaker. "Are you frigging kidding me? You pretend to be all non-violent, and you allow the most bloody, deceitful, evil, murderous bastard and his shemale sidekick to place their satanic spawn within your four walls?"

Uploaded on Twitter by Megan Phelps

There's so much more I could say about the Westboro Baptist Church, which is led by the Phelps family, who has become famous for protesting soldiers' funerals, and for saying that war and tragic events like 9/11 are God's punishment for our acceptance of homosexuality, but I think I'll refrain from now. Thinking about the Phelps kind of makes me want to vomit.

Joe, Joe, Joe. What're we going to do with you?

2009-11-08T14:10:00.005-06:00

As many of you have probably heard, last night at 11:15 pm, the House of Representatives passed its health care reform bill, 215-210.

This is really great step health care reform, but what's not so great is that there's no way the same bill will pass in the Senate and be signed into law because it contains a public option. The best case scenario would be that the Senate would pass its own version of the bill and the House and Senate would come together in conference committee.

One of the reasons why a bill containing a public option won't pass in the Senate is Senator Joe Lieberman's existence.

Yes, Lieberman, the goon who broke from the Democrats during the last election cycle to support John McCain and almost lost his leadership position because of it, has threatend to join a Republican filibuster to block any health care plan with a public option.

In an interview with the POLITICO, Lieberman said, "I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company."

In an interview with CNN, Lieberman said, "If the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote."

This is terrible, terrible news for people like me who really think a public option is essential to real health care reform, because, since Lieberman is the 60th member of the Democratic caucus, and no Republicans support a public option in the Senate, the Democrats wouldn't have the minimum 60 votes to overturn the filibuster.

Oh, Lieberman, I hope you enjoy pissing everyone off and your 40 percent approval rating among your Connecticut constituents.

Why Health Care Reform hasn't Passed

2009-11-06T15:00:00.014-06:00

According to an article published by the POLITICO today, 237, or 44 percent, of Congress' 535 members are worth more than one million dollars.

Are you Surprised? Upset? Infuriated?

Well, here's the real kick: Only one percent of all Americans are millionaires.

Representative Darrell Issa, the wealthiest member of Congress, has an estimated net worth of $251 million.

I've always known that members of Congress are much more educated and wealthy than their own constituents, but I never expected that the near majority of legislators in both houses were millionaires, so this POLITICO article really disgusted me. It made me realize that, while the Untied States' political system has become more inclusive and diverse during the last few decades, for the most part, things here are still controlled by the same rich men.

The fact that members of Congress are so well-to-do is a major problem, especially in the Senate, because it has made Congressman shallow and out of touch, which has resulted in unfair policies. Some of these policies include the deregulation our financial systems, which caused the US to slip into a nasty recession, Congress' slow response to the recession and the bailout of Wall Street businesses during George W. Bush's presidency. As much as they might try to claim otherwise, most members of Congress are still very interested in serving their own interests.

I never thought about this when Obama was elected last year, but, in order for real change in the United States to occur, the composition of Congress must also change. There's no way progressive policies that will benefit the majority of Americans, like health care reform, for example, will pass otherwise.

'By the People' and Old Memories

2009-11-03T22:49:00.007-06:00

I have chills right now. Chills, I tell you, chills!

Not only does today mark the one year anniversary of Barack Obama's election, but I just got home from a viewing party of the HBO documentary By the People: The Election of Barack Obama at CSPS.

I really loved the By the People, even though all of the memories that it brought out made me a little sad and a little uncomfortable.

The documentary, first of all, did a good job of showing what political campaigns and elections are like. Obama's campaign regularly attracted positive attention last year because of its superior organization and volunteers, but in the documentary the campaign isn't dressed up at all. By the People is completely raw, which means that it's also messy, stress-filled and extremely beautiful. The documentary, secondly, chronicles the events of the 2008 election very well.

I also really loved getting to see and talk with everyone from the Cedar Rapids campaign office again, especially my old field organizer, Megan. I don't think I'll ever forget the CR crew. No matter how much time goes by from our visits with each other, I always feel a very strong connection with my fellow campaigners when I see them.

In case this blog didn't make it obvious, being a part of Obama '08 is definitely the one thing in my life so far that I've enjoyed the most, and the one thing in my life that I'm the most proud of. Since last November, I've had a lot of trouble letting go of the campaign and watching the documentary and seeing all of my old campaign friends, whether good or bad, made Obama '08 feel so much closer. I can't believe one year has passed since Obama was elected. I remember everything from last fall very clearly.

And these memories give me chills! Chills!

The Video that Should've Won the VMA

2009-09-14T18:33:00.006-05:00

And no, it's not "Single Ladies."

I Remember 9/11/01

2009-09-11T17:05:00.004-05:00

As I sit in my family's dining room, just beginning to type a short post on my new laptop, I'm having a hard time believing that eight years have passed since September 11, 2001. A lot has changed since then, but in many ways, I still feel the same way that I did eight years ago. I feel like a scared, confused and hurt little kid, who knows very little about the world.

My earliest memory from 9/11/01 is seeing my elementary school teacher walk into the classroom crying. Immediately, someone asked her what was wrong, but she didn't say anything, and, even when she finally spoke, she didn't really explain what was up. Instead, she said that something terrible had happened this morning, and that we were going to take a silent walk around our school trail and think of all of the good things about being American as a class.

I didn't know what was going on, and neither did any of my classmates. I spent my walk around the trail thinking of all of the terrible things that could've gone wrong, but I couldn't think of anything terrible enough cause Mrs. Dwyer to act the way she was acting. At the end of our silent walk, my friend walked over by me and said, "I wish she would just tell us what happened. I don't see why she thinks that our parents should tell us."

"Yeah, I agree," I said.

But I didn't really agree. If whatever happened made Mrs. Dwyer, usually a very composed, fun, confident woman, cry in front of us all, I didn't want to have anything to do with it.

Sooner or later that day, though, I found out what happened earlier, but I wasn't able to understand it. When I got home from school, I lied down on the living room floor, and my dad came over by me and explained the events as best as he could. I interrupted him and one point and asked, "Dad, what is a terrorist?" For the first time in my life, he didn't reply.

I can't remember a time during my life when a national event made me feel more than I did on September 11, 2001. I was sad, confused, hurt, angry and very afraid of the kind of world I was growing up in. Many of these feelings are still with me today. I don't understand, for example, why people can't love and understand each other more easily. I don't understand why there are so many barriers in the world. I don't understand how people can harbor so much violence and hate within them. Finally, I don't understand what the American military is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I don't know if I ever will.

We Should've Paid More Attention

2009-09-10T10:48:00.004-05:00

Because so much drama and discussion preceded Obama's address to students, I assumed that most people would be interested in what the president had to say when the speech finally started. This wasn't the case - at least not in my third hour class, where very few people actually paid attention to the speech. Instead, almost everyone around me was working on or talking about something else, only pausing every few minutes to get a general idea of what was going on. I tried to listen attentively, but I just kept getting distracted, which was not only annoying, but also disappointing.

After Obama finished speaking, our teacher asked all of us why we chose not to pay attention and why we thought what we were doing was more important. A few people responded, and they all said they didn't think it was worth listening because they've been hearing what Obama said for years.

I appreciated the honesty of my classmates, but I really didn't appreciate their answers for a few reasons.

First of all, how would anyone in my 3rd hour class have known what exactly Obama talked about if they didn't even pay attention?

Second, sure we're told to work hard in school everyday, but isn't it different to be told to work hard by the President of the United States?

And third, when anyone as important as Obama takes time out of his schedule to connect and talk directly with students, which is something that few politicians and world leaders actually bother to do, isn't it important for us to listen?

I know that a lot of high school students just don't find politics very interesting, and that's certainly alright, but it's not enough of an excuse to take a back seat to what's going on in our world. It's not a good enough excuse to ignore what's needed of us to help mankind prosper. Because, in only a few years, or a few months, we'll be real people with real jobs and real lives. We'll be the ones determining the world's future, not our parents or grandparents, so we've got to start paying attention.

If you didn't watch Obama's address during school, please take a few minutes to do so now.

I couldn't have said it better myself

2009-09-08T16:24:00.005-05:00

I was going to write a blog post on how ridiculous the criticism of President Obama's "Back to School" address was, but then I realized that I couldn't have made the points I wanted to make better than the New York Times did in their staff editorial entitled "Respect Your Children."

Go ahead, read it yourself.

If you believe that students can make their own judgments regarding politics and life in general and that Obama's speech was unfairly criticized because, really, it wasn't partisan, divisive and indoctrinating at all, you'll really enjoy the editorial.

A Few Words on the Health Care Debate

2009-09-03T10:33:00.011-05:00

I've refrained from blogging for quite a while now, but the recent debate over health care reform (if you can even call it that), and the publicity I've received from Ayers, has made me realize that it's time to speak up.

I hope some people out there are still reading.

Okay, so, about health care...let's just say things are gettin' messy. And people like me, who would love to see a reform plan like the public option pass, are getting pretty darn frustrated.

The biggest cause of my health care-related frustration hasn't been the plans circulating in Congress or the series of protests, but the lack of leadership from President Obama and members of the media. This lack of leadership is what has caused so many lies about the proposed plans to circulate.

For example:

Have you heard about the government death panels who will decide who gets to live and die?

What about illegal immigrants? Have you been told they'll receive health care?

Did you know that abortions will be paid in full by the government?

These are all false rumors that have been spreading during the past few weeks because no one with legitimacy has bothered to speak up. Well, no one except Newsweek. This is why I'm really looking forward to Obama's address to Congress next Wednesday because I hope that he'll clarify a lot of the misconceptions on health care and get Congress back on track.

And I'm looking forward to seeing health care legislation that will allow for a more efficient and beneficial industry even more.

(If you'd like to learn more about health care reform plans like the public option and all of the lies that have been circulating, click yourself over to the White House website and Factcheck.org)

Why 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince' Disappointed Me

2009-07-16T11:15:00.008-05:00

Saw the newest Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, when it premiered at 12 AM on Wednesday. It's a pretty good film. It has incredible special effects/videography, the best acting of any of the films (especially from Daniel Radcliffe, who played a surprisingly funny Harry at times), a good balance between drama and suspense and comedy, and a fairly good storyline (after all, it's loosely based on what is, in my opinion, the second best book of the HP series).

Yet I walked out of the movie theater without feeling completely satisfied with the film. In fact, I actually felt a little disappointed. I felt this disappointment because the movie never really gets to the meat that the sixth HP book tells so well.

I honestly think that, for someone who has never read the HP books, but is familiar with Harry's story because of the movies, The Half-Blood Prince will be an enjoyable film. It does, after all, pick up where the last installment of Harry Potter, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, left off (Voldemort's growing stronger, Hogwarts is becoming more affected, Dumbledore and others are forcing Harry to deal with the fact that he was chosen to destroy Voldemort), and it builds suspense for the final undertaking Harry, Hermione and Ron take together in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. And it does both of these things well enough. Like I said, the special effects and acting are awesome.

However, I think that people who have read all of the HP books and have a pretty clear recollection of them will find this movie more troubling. For example, only a half hour into the movie, I became so wrapped up in what was left out from the sixth book that I stopped enjoying the movie.

I know, I know, of course scenes and details and characters are left out of the HP movies! If they weren't , then the movies would all be much longer than anyone, even the most devoted HP fans, would want to sit through.

This is why the exclusion of certain parts of the sixth book didn't bother me at first. But, as the movie went on, it started to. I began to notice that the filmmakers left out more than just little details and I began to feel like the exclusion of key conversations, key characters, key events and key developments was weakening the quality of the movie. People who haven't read the HP books of course don't notice these differences, but they certainly do suffer the consequences from what they don't know. At one point, I even started to wonder how people who walked into the theater without reading the sixth book even understood what was going on because there were so many gaps.

Note: some spoilers below

I don't really want to detail the all of the differences I noticed between the book Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and the movie, but I will go over the ones I thought had the biggest negative impact on the movie.

First of the all, the climatic Astronomy Tower scene during which Malfoy admits what he's been up to all year and Snape kills Dumbledore was, well, anti climatic. In the book, there's this huge battle that takes place at Hogwarts between the Death Eaters Malfoy lets in the castle and the Order of Phoenix members who are able to get there in time. Harry and Dumbledore arrive in Hogesmeade while this is going on, where they meet the cursed owner of Three Broomsticks who sends Dumbledore into his death trap by saying that there's trouble at the school. Upon arriving on top of the astronomy tower, Dumbledore sends Harry to find Professor Snape under his invisibility cloak. Then Malfoy shows up, trying to be a badass of course, and Dumbledore kind of paralyzes Harry so he's unable to do anything. Malfoy and Dumbledore have this little stand-off, during which Malfoy tells of everything he's done this past year in his to kill Dumbledore, which was an assignment Voldemort gave him. But as Malfoy spills everything he becomes scared shitless and just can't kill Dumbledore. Then Snape shows up and kills Dumbledore himself with the Killing Curse.

Very dramatic stuff. I bawled my little middle school eyes out when I read that part in the sixth book.

In the movie, though, the same drama, the same tension that JK Rowling created is not there. Dumbledore isn't "tricked" to return to Hogwarts, there's no battle, and the scene between Dumbledore and Malfoy just doesn't have the same pop to it. Also, Harry stands helplessly on a level below Dumbledore and Malfoy and all of the Death Eaters in the Astronomy Tower. It probably would have been hard to have him use his invisibility cloake in the movie but the directors could have at least had Dumbledore paralyze him or something.

Because of that scene and the God awful ending (which didn't include Dumbledore's funeral or the meaningful conversation with Ginny), I had a hard time feeling sad that Dumbledore just died, even though I really wanted to.

Also, when I was watching the movie, I didn't even get the sense that there was a real war going on. In the book, Harry is under a lot of pressure - from the Minister of Magic, to Dumbledore, to his fellow students - to take action against Voldemort. The book also includes much more information on the affect of Voldemort's actions, with students being taken out of Hogwarts, loads of deaths and disappearances, damage in the Muggle world, and an overall climate of fear.

The movie also didn't go in-depth enough about Voldemort's background and ambitions, which is the whole point of the book, besides the one memory about Horcruxes with Slughorn. The hunt for Horcruxes is also not explained in the movie.

This movie is in no way bad. I mean, it certainly covers Harry's sixth year at Hogwarts, but it just doesn't go deep enough for how deep of a year and book the sixth one was. The movie is too rushed and altered and the mood is all wrong, so, during certain scenes, it's hard to experience the kind of emotions you experience when reading the book. The filmmakers just went too far in making the book into a movie that would be enjoyable and popular in the box office, when they should have been more concerned in representing the dark tones of the sixth HP book.

Back in the States

2009-06-30T18:03:00.005-05:00

I loved my trip to China, but it's pretty nice to be home again. It's also nice to use uncensored Internet. I couldn't even log onto Blogger while I was in China, for goodness sake!

On My Mind

2009-05-28T11:56:00.012-05:00

"The brick walls are not there to keep us out. The brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something. The brick walls are there to stop the people who don’t want it badly enough."

-The Late Randy Pausch, "Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams"

Recent events keep bringing this great quote to my attention, and I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I know most of you won't know what events I'm referring to or how this quote has helped me deal, but I hope you'll be able to identify it as a good piece of advice and apply it to your lives. Props to Pausch.

The 'Big Conversation' and Other Reflections on Blogging

2009-05-25T16:48:00.020-05:00

For anyone who was here at the beginning, or anyone who doesn't know I guess, I started my blog, the Panacea, as an assignment for my language arts class this past fall. That was back in October. At the time, I was intrigued by the idea of using blogs in school and new media in general, but I didn't really have a clue as to what I was doing. So I did was I was trained to do on my blog - write columns and newspaper-like summaries of events. I chose to focus these columns and short articles on politics partly because politics interests me, but mainly because the only other blogs I'd ever read were about politics.

Looking back now, I think it was a good choice to start a blog about politics. I mean, it wasn't that good of a choice at first because I didn't know what I was doing, but once I learned more about blogging and became more comfortable with it by reading other blogs and going over the post count, it was because the way I blogged changed. I found that instead of writing vague columns that, while they were about different events during the presidential campaign, pretty much came to the same conclusions, or summaries (another example here) of other people's ideas, I was writing original thoughts down with authority, might I add. I was actually analyzing and discussing and reminiscing and arguing. Sure, I'd look to other blogs as starting points, but what I ultimately wrote here was my own.

This is where things started to get interesting.

As I talked about economics, blogging, torture, gay marriage, homosexuality, speeches, administrative decisions, local political efforts and so many other topics in somewhat original ways, I started to enjoy blogging even more. Other people started to enjoy and take interest in my blog, too. People left comments on my posts, wrote responses on their blogs to what I had to say, answered the poll questions at the side of my blog and engaged in conversation with me in person about a current issue we both shared concern for or something on the Onion. I, too, left comments on other blogs, wrote responses to posts, and made blog-related or blog-sparked conversation with people in real life.

This, I think, is what blogging is all about. Blogging is about creating a dialogue that wouldn't normally occur between different people with different ideas, in an attempt to help both sides make better sense of an issue, a game, a candidate, or whatever. Like Ayers wrote a while back in a column for the Torch, it's about being a part of the Big Conversation.

At first, I wasn't able to be a part of the Big Conversation because I didn't have anything of my own to contribute. Now, I do have things to contribute and am very much apart of the Big Conversation, which is really cool.

This is why, even though I've hit some rough patches with blogging as an assigned project, I'm happy to have had the opportunity to start and maintain this blog during the past few months. I've even decided to continue writing on the Panacea this summer and perhaps into next year, since I really want to market my blog more and attract a bigger audience, as well as continue to learn about myself and the world around me.

So thanks Mr. Ayers for introducing me to blogging, and also for being one of the coolest teachers I've ever had, taking interest in my thoughts/ideas, and running a very enjoyable and thought-provoking class. It's been fun.

And thanks to everyone who's followed my blog during this school year. Please feel free to check back here as often as you like and post a comment. As I said before, I plan on keeping the blog running for as long as I can.

Re: Liberty U's Banning of Democratic Club

2009-05-25T15:11:00.024-05:00

On Friday, the Liberty University administration announced that they will no longer recognize the campus Democrats club, or support them in any way, because their ideas and values contradict those of Liberty. Vice President of Student Affairs Mark Hine elaborated:

The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)

The president expressed a view slightly different than Hine's later. He said that the club of about 30 kids will still be able to meet in certain rooms on campus, and expressed the hope for the club to find "a pro-life family organization to affiliate with so they can be endorsed by Liberty again."

I guess you could say the president's statement was a little better, but even that's not saying a lot. The idea that people have to change and compromise their values to fit in or even be affiliated with Liberty is ridiculous, contradictory to the university's goals and message, and absolute bull shit. The fact that Liberty is a private university and therefore can do whatever the hell it wants doesn't change that.

There are a few reasons why I think Liberty has stepped out of bounds with this decision.

First of all, not all Democrats are pro-choice, in favor of stem cell research, or gay rights activists for that matter. By belittling the Democratic Party and politics to these three issues, Liberty has overlooked the fact that liberals support ending and preventing the spread HIV/AIDs, poverty and global warming, and traditionally support organized labor with benefits, public education, affordable health care, less government spending (despite common belief), regulation to prevent companies from forming monopolies and protect consumers, and fair pay. I can see why an evangelical Christian university might have reservations endorsing a pro-choice, pro-stem cell research and pro-gay rights group. But I can't see why anyone would have issues endorsing a group that wants to stop poverty, disease, unfair policy and unequal distribution, as these are ideas that could all be supported by Christian teachings of loving and accepting others.

Second, Liberty University doesn't have to endorse the policies of this particular student group in order to allow it to exist. The administration just has to find it in their hearts, er, Bibles to tolerate divergent viewpoints.

Third, the decision to ban a political organization from campus that was not acting inappropriately or breaking the law in any way is wrong because it restricts free speech and discourages students from participating in the political process. I don't understand why any university would want to do this.

Fourth, universities, whether they receive state money or not, should serve as a place where students are encouraged to intelligently question the values that they grew up with. Even churches encourage their parishioners to challenge their faith because that will make it stronger, so why does Liberty have to be different? Why doesn't Liberty trust its students enough to give them the freedom to not only question their values, but explore new ones.

And finally fifth, supporting a woman's right to chose or research that could potentially save someone dying from cancer or suffering from diabetes doesn't make anyone less of a Christian. Liberty, as the president of the Democratic club of controversy said, has basically came to the conclusion that you can't be a Democrat and a Christian. But, if this logic would be extended, wouldn't supporting a political party that traditionally opposed civil rights advancements, equal pay for equal work, diplomacy, and avoiding war at all costs and now opposes extending marriage rights to same-sex couples also make you less of a Christian? I could easily say this and even justify it with verses from the Bible that stress the loving nature of God and importance of good deeds.

A Little Late...Obama's Commencement Speech at Notre Dame

2009-05-25T15:00:00.005-05:00

After Obama's inauguration, I started to prepare myself for the first day he'd truly disappoint me as president, the day when I'd start to like him a lot less. Even though I might criticize his decisions on this blog from time to time, the truth is that this day has not come yet. In fact, I think I can safely say that, in his days in office, Obama has actually grown on me. Recent events have made me realize how much he has impressed me as a person, public speaker and politician.

This past weekend's graduation ceremony at Notre Dame University, for which Obama was chosen to give the main address, was one of those events. Father James Martin of America Magazine, who worked as a commenter for CNN before and after the address, said, "While there were those who disagreed with Notre Dame's decision to honor the president, the president honored Notre Dame with his speech", and I couldn't agree more. If you haven't watched the speech or read the transcript, and have nothing else to do today, I recommend for you to take care of that.

The main theme of Obama's speech was the need for common ground, dialogue and mutual respect between people who possess different viewpoints, and how Notre Dame can be a part of leading us to becoming "a human family". He repeatably referred to or recited the phrase "Open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words". Though some people at Notre Dame may hate to admit it, that phrase and those ideas are heavily preached in the Catholic (especially Jesuit) tradition. This has been interesting for me to think about, since I neglected Catholicism a few years ago and the rest of my family still attends church regularly. The idea that there is a common ground on each issue is also very attractive politically.

Beyond the angle Obama used to address the issues of stem cell research and especially abortion, I was impressed by how he conducted himself and responded to his environment. There was controversy surrounding ND inviting a pro-choice Democratic political leader to be its commencement speaker even before Obama set a foot on campus. Some students decided not to go to commencement at all. This irritated me, as I see nothing wrong with a university choosing the President (!!!!) of the United States give its commencement speech, and, like my local newspaper, the Gazette, see it as a good opportunity opposing sides to understand each other better in this particular case.

Obama, however, didn't seem to be fazed at all. Even during his speech, when a few people interrupted by chanting "Stop killing our children", he responded maturely, calmly and politely. Obama said, after people begun to boo the protesters and chant "yes we can", "It's fine, we don't shy away from what's uncomfortable." The protesters were then escorted from the ceremony, and Obama continued like nothing had happened. Just as I was impressed by his demeanor during the campaign when he responded to Palin's comment that she was glad to be in "real" America, I was impressed by his demeanor at Notre Dame.

Overall, Obama's speech was great because of its content and because he was able to conduct himself appropriately, maintain his cool, intelligent demeanor and speak clearly and passionately under less than ideal circumstances. I know that I can expect similar displays of excellent statesmanship from the president in the years to come.

An Observation

2009-05-20T16:33:00.005-05:00

In Cedar Rapids, the district office of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) has a huge American flag outside of its front door hanging on a flag pole, while district office of Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), which is located only a few feet away, doesn't have a flag. Yet there are some people who insist that Democrats are elitist and unpatriotic.

My Trip to China

2009-05-15T21:31:00.005-05:00

This summer, I will be traveling to China for a little less than two weeks. There are a lot of preparations required for my trip and I'm just starting to take care of these, which has made me become even more excited. Last week, I was vaccinated for polio and prescribed medicine from my doctor that will prevent malaria and typhoid, and another that will treat infections. This week, I finally got around to making copies of my passport. Next week, I plan to buy new luggage.

I'm going to China with a group from school. We will fly from Cedar Rapids to Chicago and then to Shanghai, where we'll stay for a few hours to take a walking tour. After the walking tour in Shanghai, we're flying south and west to a smaller city near the China-Myanmar border. We're going to chill there for a few days and do stuff, then fly to Beijing for the last part of the trip, where we'll see the Great Wall, Tienanmen Square and the Forbidden City. I think we're also taking a bus from Beijing to see the Terra Cotta soldiers a few hours away in Xian.

I'm excited for the trip because I'm very interested in Chinese culture and history. Last year when I took world history, I really enjoyed learning about China and found how advanced the country was to be amazing. It will be really neat to see the Silk Road, Terra Cotta soldiers, Great Wall, Tienanmen Square, Forbidden City and tons of other places that I remember reading about during class. It will also be really neat to see how much China has developed during recent years. I think we'll be able to see this even in the more rural areas because tourism is a new industry there.

This will definitely the best trip I've ever been on.

Stuff White People Like

2009-05-14T15:43:00.015-05:00

I discovered the website-turned-book Stuff White People Like about a year ago, and it seriously changed my life. Okay, so it might not have changed my life, but it has provided me with a few laughs and my fill of brilliant satire, while causing me to examine how trends evolve from the white suburban culture.

For those of you who have never visited Stuff White People Like, well, you should get on that right now. It's a blog on which each post explains something that white people like - ranging from products, ideas, cultures, popular culture icons and food. With clever and well polished posts like, "Having Gay Friends", "Music Black People Don't Listen to Anymore" and "Religions that their Parents Don't Belong to," Stuff White People Like is a must-read.

However, I have discovered that the posts are more than just funny; there is a lot of truth in what the bloggers of the site are trying to say. The way in which they are able to identify and examine facets of mainstream culture is remarkable, really.

I think the blog specifically focuses on one part of white culture - the young, liberal college-educated population interested in traveling, different cultures, making a difference and rebelling. On the surface, this kind of person doesn't sound bad at all, but, as Stuff White People suggests, it's hard to tell if this sense of responsibility, activism and rejection of pop culture is genuine. Stuff White People Like's author Lander said in a CNN interview:

[The blog's] an update on this idea of a yuppie. In the '80s, the idea of the yuppie was really about just consumerism: I have an expensive BMW, I have these things, and it's buying, buying, buying. I think that that attitude is still there, but the materials changed into where it's "My carbon footprint's lower, my music taste is better, I visited more countries than you." The quest for status is still there.

Lander speaks the truth. In certain circles of white people, proving oneself to be more culturally aware, environmentally friendly, intellectual and politically active is commonplace. People who think they fit into this new stereotype expect other white people to as well and, if they don't, they ignore them. People that are so dedicated to becoming unique that they end up acting the same. Since I've started to read the blog, it has become very clear that I'm like this - that I'm subconsciously interested in obtaining the status Lander describes - that my interests aren't drastically different from other people's. I think I knew this beforehand; I just didn't really want to admit it.

But I'm perfectly okay with admitting the quest for status and contradictions that come with the liberal ideology now. This is partly from reading Lander's blog, partly from maturing and becoming a little more self-aware, and partly from interacting with people different from myself, which helped me realize that not all of their actions and decisions are terrible. This isn't to say that I've completely given up on filling the mold Lander fills and makes fun of, but I've become a lot more comfortable with myself and more aware of my behavior.

Because I've been able to make these changes in my thought process, I'm truly able to enjoy the blog Stuff White People Like.

I'm also able to proudly identify the things that I, a white person, likes.

Promising to Learn a New Language

America (published on November 4, 2008)
Humus
The Onion
Facebook
Unpaid Internships
Sweaters
Children's Games as Adults
Free Health Care
Having Gay Friends
Shorts
T-shirts
The Idea of Soccer
Multilingual Children
Study Abroad
Being the Only White Person Around
Recycling
Irony
Arts Degrees
The Sunday New York Times
Public Radio
Plays
Sushi
The Daily Show/the Colbert Report
Vegan/Vegetarianism
David Sedaris
Traveling
Awareness
Having Black Friends
Tea
Barack Obama
Diversity
Religions that their parents don't belong to

Cheney, Lieberman, Miss CA: People I'm Not Fond of This Week

2009-05-13T22:03:00.002-05:00

Dick Cheney: The silent and low key vice president America came to know during the Bush Administration is long gone. Just this week, Cheney once again criticized Obama by saying that his decisions on matters of national security have made our country "less safe." This is false, ridiculous and damaging to the Republican Party and our entire political system. It's also interesting that he has an idea of how to handle Guantanamo detainees now, but pretty much ignored them during his time in office.

Joe Lieberman: Lieberman broke with the Democratic Party in the early stages of the last presidential election because he didn't think the party was strong enough on national security, and, once Obama was nominated by the Dems, Lieberman continued to rip at his party and plans. So I was really suprised to see Lieberman actually defend Obama this week. In response to Cheney's claims that America is less safe now than it was only a few months ago, Lieberman said, "We're not less safe. Our guard is up. In fact, I'd say that when it came to Afghanistan, obviously, this Obama administration has put more resources into the fight against terrorism than had previously been the case."

To me, this seems more than a little fishy. I understand that Lieberman's words could be taken as a compliment, since he has been an opponent of the Democrat's security plans and is now saying that they're not bad. But my pessimistic side is causing me to think otherwise. With low approval ratings in his home state and little respect from other politicians, I think Lieberman's comments were made as an attempt to save his reputation. What else would motivate Lieberman to endorse policy he put his entire political career on the line to oppose only a few months ago?

Miss California: When asked why she spoke out against gay marriage during the Miss America Pageant, Carrie Prejean said:

I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking me this question. And then God was in my head and in my heart saying, "Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for me and you need to share with all these people . . . you need to witness to them and you need to show that you're not willing to compromise that for this title of Miss USA."

And I knew right here that it wasn't about winning. It was about being true to my convictions.

This would have been a nice answer... if she wasn't currently under investigation for topless photos that could cause her to lose her title. I really don't understand how Satan can tempt an individual into answering a question on gay marriage, but isn't involved in tempting an indivdual to take morally compromising photos.

Also, people aren't gay because they chose to be gay, Carrie.

2012 Predictions

2009-05-13T19:38:00.018-05:00

It's probably too early to make predictions for the 2012 presidential election, and I'm probably in no way qualified to make predictions, but I've been reading up on politics and thinking about the merits of murmured candidates a lot lately, so I'm going to give this a shot. For clarification, I'm writing explicitly about possible Republican candidates because, unless something absolutely terrible happens, no one will run against Barack. Also for clarification, this is a very rough list of possible candidates. In the next few weeks, I plan to write more posts exploring, discussing and analyzing the merits/electability of each person listed.

First of all, these are the people I think will definitely run, with the possible exception of one person:

Mitt Romney - Romney definitely has the $$$, arrogance and motivation needed for another presidential run, but not the credentials. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney flip-flopped on so many issues, and people generally don't trust his faith, making it difficult for him to position himself as a social conservative. Still, we can't underestimate the power of money; because Romney has it, he'll run the show in the early stages of primary season.
Mike Huckabee - Huckabee, I think has very good chances going into the 2012 election. He's seen as the third favorite contender, shortly behind Romney and Palin, according to a Gallup poll. But polls comparing Huckabee and Obama put him in a much better position. Huckabee's main draw, to be completely honest, is his populist appeal, and humor. Huckabee is definitely not the master of words and doesn't appeal to everyone, though. A recent interview, during which Huckabee said, "People that are social conservatives are also economic conservatives. But a lot of the economic conservatives are not social conservatives," and demonstrated a deep religious influence, showed this. I also think it should be noted that Huck doesn't believe in evolution, definitely a negative in today's world. He's definitely serious about running since he wrote a memoir and visited Iowa.
Sarah Palin - If Palin wins the Republican nomination in 2012, I really think that the Mayan's theory of the world ending in that year will come true. I mean, come on, Palin proved her insanity and ignorance during the past election, with her down-home rhetoric and positions most Americans don't agree with. Also, Palin is likely to become less popular in her homestate because of the declining price of oil per barrel, which will make it hard for her to balance the budget, which will make it hard for her to deliever checks to all Alaska's residents. I think Palin will do well in the primaries because of their generally more conservative participants but lose the nomination. Like Huckabee and Romney, I think Palin is serious about running and is being conditioned to do so. Why else would her book be coming out in spring of 2010, right before midterm elections and primary season?
Bobby Jindal - I thought Jindal had a lot of potential for the Republican nomination, until he opened his mouth and gave Republican response to Obama's State of the Nation Address. By 2012, he might be able to overcome this moment because of his very young age, popularity in his home state and minority status. Again, like the politicians listed above, Jindal's views may not coincide with most.
Newt Gingrich - I don't know very much about Gingrich, but just about everyone is saying that he's a solid candidate because of his leadership, status within the Republican Party and experience, so I thought I'd include him in my list, too. I don't know how committed he is to running, but from interviews I've heard, it definitely is something he's thought about. He's considering running because he feels like it's his responsibility to step in and save the country. If he does run and can sell that idea, Gingrich could have a shot. Though I think this feeling is dependent on Obama's success.

These are the people who I think might run, and I think that probably two to four people from this list will actually run. I decided not to write detailed information about each person in this list because it's really not worth the time, as most don't have the name recognition to do well in a national race. They're more like Richardson and Dodd.

Rudy Giuliani
Charlie Christ - Christ, the governor or Florida, would be a strong candidate, possibly the strongest candidate from this set. However, it doesn't seem like he wants to run because he's content with Obama's presidency and happy where he is.
Tim Pawlenty
Mitch Daniels
Fred Thomson
John Huntsman - a viable contendor because of his "outsider" status, and support for the economic stimulus bill and civil unions. Also seems like a decent guy.
Ron Paul
Mark Sanford
Haley Barbour

Extremely unlikely to run for president, but their candidacy would make things interesting:

Dick Cheney - I would be curious to see Cheney make a run for the White House, though I know this is extremely unlikely. I only am bringing him up because has had more to say during the past month than during eight years as vice president.
Michelle Bachmann...no - Like Cheney, I only bring up Bachmann for a few laughs because she's just so crazy. But for some reason she's always on Larry King...whyyyyy?
Colin Powell - I am confident saying that Powell definitely will not run for president, but I kind of wish he would. I think he's a very admirable figure and has very good ethics and a very good idea of how politics should be approached. But, yeah, he definitely won't run against Barack and doesn't seem interested, anyway.

Final contenders for nomination:

Mike Huckabee
Sarah Palin
John Huntsman
Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney - he definitely won't be nominated by the GOP, but he'll stay in the election because he has a lot of money

The Republicans should nominate: Huntsman or Gingrich
The Republicans will nominate: Huckabee

Again, I'm just getting started with 2012 predictions. More detailed analysis to come.

Obama to Steele: 'Republican Party Does Not Qualify for a Bailout'

2009-05-13T16:52:00.011-05:00

I don't think Obama's routine at the White House Correspondent Dinner was as funny as some people have been saying, mainly because he pushed things too far and tried too hard to be cool. I also think that Obama's remarks aren't appealing to people who aren't Washington insiders. But, as vain and lame I thought parts were, I will say that his speech did have its moments. Personally, I'm a fan of his lines directed toward Michael Steele.

At one point, Obama said:

Michael Steele is in the house tonight. Or as he would say, "in the heezy." What's up? Where is Michael? Michael, for the last time, the Republican Party does not qualify for a bailout. Rush Limbaugh does not count as a troubled asset, I'm sorry.

Now that is quality material. I also enjoyed this:

I would like to welcome you all to the 10-day anniversary of my first 100 days. I am Barack Obama. Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me. Apologies to the Fox table. They're — where are they? I have to confess I really did not want to be here tonight, but I knew I had to come — just one more problem that I've inherited from George W. Bush.

And this:

In the next 100 days I will learn to go off the prompter, and Joe Biden will learn to stay on the prompter.

Obama's 'Swagga'

2009-05-10T20:41:00.007-05:00

There are moments when I seriously question the necessity of CNN and other cable news networks. One of those moments was on Obama's 100th in office, when anchors Kyra Phillips and TJ Holmes sat down to assess his swagga.

Now, I won't say that Obama doesn't possesses swagger sine he's totally a rockstar president. But I don't think it is something that should be covered on CNN because, on the surface, a person's persona isn't a newsworthy topic. I think the segment could have worked if the anchors would have pulled through, added the needed substance and engaged in a mature discussion over how Obama's personal characteristics differ from those of past presidents and how this will affect us. But this didn't happen. The anchors (Phillips especially) did a terrible job with the story. Phillips was really over the top and honestly seemed excited to say the words "swagga" and "flava" and talk about black people. Holmes was a little better since he was the one to define the main point of the little segment, but that wasn't enough. Overall, Holmes and Phillips basically said: yeah, Obama's tight, people like him.

Really, it's dissapointing that this was handeled poorly. I think discussion of Obama's swagger could potentially segway into topics of race and stereotypes that our country needs to address and discuss thoughtfully.

Joe Biden is Thugged Out

2009-05-09T22:28:00.000-05:00

I think these screen shots represent how quickly fictitious information can spread on the Internet. Except for the auto result "Joe Biden is... thugged out", as that statement is obviously true. I mean, come on, just look at this picture.

Why I'm Not Going to Major in Political Science

2009-05-09T21:43:00.005-05:00

Because of my activities, the question I'm most often asked when talking about the future is if I will major in political science or journalism in college. Whenever this happens, I say that I'm not sure what I want to study yet, but am considering both areas. I only say that to prevent people from giving advice and questioning me further because it's far from the truth. I already know one thing I'm not majoring in (besides all things math/science-related), and that is political science.

There are two reasons why I'm no longer considering majoring in political science.

First of all, there's something fishy about the people.

For some reason, almost every person I've met who is planning on majoring in political science, is majoring in political science or did major in political science has not made a very good impression on me. The people I've talked to while on college visits, during campaigns (keep in mind that most Obama staffers didn't major in poli sci), and at leadership conferences/camps aren't interested in poli sci because they want to see a greater level of awareness and participation in the political process. They are interested in poli sci as a stepping stone for law school, their campaign for Representative/Senator/Governor/President, appointment to cabinet/State Dept/ambassador positions, or to become the next David Plouffe.

For example, one kid I met at a leadership camp a few years back has basically planned his entire life out from when he finishes a BA in poli sci. He will graduate from Iowa (because graduating from a local public university increases electability) by 2014, graduate from law school by 2018, become a public defender, then partner in an office that works with low income clients by 2030, run for Representative or Senator (depending on which seat is more available) by 2038, and eventually run for president. Other people I've met want to be ambassadors to the United Nations or China, or be appointed as Secretary of State.

It wouldn't be that bad if students wished to obtain these positions because they believed it was how they were meant to change the world/have a small impact on history. But, for the most part, this is not the case, as the impression I've gotten is that being a politician is attractive for the money and recognition. I know I'm speaking from a small sample and probably exaggerating, but, come on....If I've met this many people who are interested in obtaining important positions in a short amount of time, I assume there are others like this. And that really bothers me. I'm honestly afraid and put off by the idea of being surrounded by kids who all want to be president all of the time.

Second, the actual academic subject doesn't interest me as much as it should.

For some reason, poli sci just doesn't appeal to me, and I don't see it matching up with my aspirations and goals. I think I would be better served by majoring in history because I'm much more interested in the subject and studying history has helped me develop my ideas more than anything else.

As far as careers go, I don't think majoring in poli sci would give me some kind of edge. I don't plan on running for public office ever because, while I think I'd make a decent politician, I don't think I could pull it off and it's not the best way for me to contribute to society. I don't plan on going to law school, either, and even if I was, history or English or just about anything else with an emphasis on writing and critical thinking would be an okay major.

I am kind of interested in political organization/consulting. I don't think majoring in poli sci is necessary for that, though, because I read somewhere that the Obama campaign actually avoided hiring poli sci majors and looked for people of different academic and career backgrounds instead. So, as long as I'm able to maintain and gain new connections as well as experience, I think I'll be fine.

So, yeah, because I don't want to be surrounded by annoying and arrogant kids and because it won't help me and because I'm disinterested, I'm not majoring in political science.

My NCYL Essay

2009-05-03T16:48:00.007-05:00

I was nominated by my school to apply for the National Council on Youth Leadership, or NCYL. When I first heard that I had been nominated, I was proud of myself and even excited...until I found out that I had to fill out an application and write an essay. I became even more irritated when I read the essay prompt. It was really boring and I assumed that my essay would end up being boring as well. But I surprised myself. Somehow, I really made this essay my own by taking my own spin on the prompt, and I found that I actually had a few interesting things to say about leadership. So I thought I might as well share my essay with the half dozen readers of my blog. Here it is:

Because I love to study history, I’m often asked during which time period I’d live if I had the choice. I’ve spent a lot of time pondering this question, ultimately to come to the same conclusion Martin Luther King, Jr., shared one day before his assassination: I’m happy to live in the present. My reasoning is similar to King’s. As he said in 1968, “Something is happening in our world.” There are many differences between 1968, which was arguably the most turbulent year in modern American history, and the present, but I believe that the general feeling of something happening in the world is relevant today.

Let the word go forth, from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. -JFK

What is happening is the emergence of a new generation, a generation ready to solve and prevent problems caused by misunderstanding, our world’s changing structure and apathy – from the 75 deaths in Waco, September 11th attacks, and genocide in Darfur to poverty, disease, hunger, and energy shortages. To actually tackle these problems and establish “a more perfect union,” my generation will need to possess the desire to better the world, as well as talents in leadership and communication. I think that we already have the necessary desire, as I have seen and talked to people my age that are not individualistic and inward-thinking at all. However, we are yet to develop the necessary skill sets. This is why leadership and leadership training – now more than ever – are important.

I feel as though I possess many of qualities of a good leader. I am friendly, compassionate, open-minded and easygoing, which means that I am able to work well with others, even if the situation we are in is not ideal. I am also very perceptive of people’s needs and always consider them. This has helped me become a successful mediator of conflict and someone who can push a group in the right direction. In addition, I am mature, responsible, hardworking, engaged and passionate about whatever task is at hand, and possess an “out-of-the-box” style of thinking. I think my compassion for others and commitment to social justice are my strongest leadership qualities.

In the future, I hope to use my leadership skills to, as cheesy as it may sound, change the world, and fit into my generation’s move toward improvement. Specifically, I hope to use leadership skills that I already possess and develop new ones in order to work efficiently on teams, organize grass-roots projects, and generate solutions to the problems our world faces. More importantly, I hope to help others develop leadership skills, and inspire people of all ages to become engaged in the political process, volunteering, and multicultural learning.

As MLK said just over 40 years ago, something is happening, the masses are rising up, and we will make it to the Promised Land.

Will Obama's Presidency Mirror Carter's?

2009-04-30T14:49:00.014-05:00

As Barack Obama completed his 100th day in office yesterday, I started to think of how his presidency will be viewed in 20 years. Obviously, it's hard to make predictions like this now because he has only been in office for a few months and because so much depends on the economy. It's still interesting to think about, though.

I originally saw Obama being remembered as the Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy of his time because there are many comparisons that can be made between the present day and those time periods, and between Obama's personal qualities and talents to those of Lincoln, FDR and JFK. Recent events and articles have caused me to think differently. It turns out there is another president with similar personal qualities and talents who was in power during a similar time period. This president is Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter, the governor of Georgia and former farmer, was elected as the US's 39th president because of his "outsider" status. America had just seen the bad side of government officials and was growing generally distrustful toward government. So Carter's disconnection to Washington D.C., friendly and optimistic personality, and campaign line about never lying to Americans worked in his favor. Important issues at the time included ethics, economics because of a looming recession, energy and the environment, and foreign affairs.

Carter was able to make crucial advancements in all of those policy areas, but these advancements weren't enough with the consideration of set-backs. With environmental regulations and standards, came oil and natural gas shortages because of OPEC's embargo (put in place during Nixon's presidency). With the first peace talks between Israel and Egypt at Camp David came the Iranian Hostage Crisis. With strives for humanitarian work came the assassination of El Salvador's Archbishop because he criticized his country's poor human rights standards. Also, policy advocating tighter regulation was not enough to stop inflation, high interest rates, unemployment and slow economic growth, much of which was brought on by Richard Nixon's economic policies.

Despite these negatives and others that are generally associated with Carter, I still like the guy and think that he was a good president. He has just been unfairly criticized since he left office. Especially when you consider the favorable support Reagan received with a $200 billion deficit, increasing gaps between income levels and the Iran-Contra Affair, and all of the factors that worked against Carter. Plus I think Carter had the right idea of how politics should be handled in an ideal world, and for trying to achieve this ideal, he deserves some credit.

This brings me to why I think there is a possibility that Obama will leave office as Carter did...

There are many links between Obama and Carter as people, like their optimism, idealism, "outsider" status, "inexperience" and high level of initial support. There are also many links between the time periods during which both were elected, like an unpopular president leaving office, economic stagnation, and conflicts in the Middle East as well as just about everywhere else. And there are many links between what both presidents valued, like high ethical standards, serving your country and community, peaceful negotiations and environmental advancements.

Right now, we cannot tell if there will be links between the actual events of Obama's presidency, Obama's handling of these events and the public's response, and the events of Carter's presidency, Carter's handling of those events and the public's response. I feel like the actual events that took place during Carter's presidency will be similar to what will take place during Obama's presidency. There will most likely be, and there already have been, energy shortages, foreign threats and economic crises during Obama's presidency.

However, I don't know if Obama will handle these events in a similar manner as Carter did. To me, it seems unlikely that Barack would engage in such a chaotic and erratic policy path, but you never now. I also don't know if the public's support of Obama will able to be sustained, or if people will start to turn on him as they did with Carter. I certainly hope not.

The First 100 Days, and Torture

2009-04-30T07:36:00.016-05:00

If 100 days is enough time to measure the performance of an elected official, I think Barack Obama has done very well, especially considering the circumstances. There are people who do not agree with me at all. But, while they are loud and obnoxious, they really don't bother me. This is because these extreme dissenters only make themselves sound stupid by doing stupid things, like criticizing spending when they looked the other way only a few months ago.

Even though I am a huge fan of Obama's, want him to succeed, think he has performed well so far and think that some people have been unfairly harsh, I have to be honest and say that I'm not okay with all of his decisions. Obama has done things that I disagree with, and he has done many things that concern me. His recent decisions on torture, for example, have caused me to worry.

Guantanamo Bay

On Obama's second day of office, he signed an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay and an executive order that defined and banned torture. I was incredibly glad to see this. However I was not incredibly glad to see Obama's stance against torture recently undermined by his flip-flop on the prosecution of Bush-era officials, officials who gave the president legal guidelines on torture. At first, it looked like Obama was going to move toward prosecuting those involved. Obama released of four Justice Department memos outlining "enhanced interrogation techniques". But then, only a day later (after chaos from both the Right and the Left erupted), Obama said that the Attorney General Eric Holder and Congress were the ones responsible from determining if the actions taken by former officials were illegal. This was a mistake and honestly made Obama appear weak.

In the future, Obama needs to trust his judgments more (because he has excellent judgment), stay true to himself and always appear confident. These are usually qualities that characterize the president, so I'm not entirely sure why torture caused a problem, but I think it might have something to do with his desire to be well-liked by everyone. This isn't going to work and he sooner Obama realizes this, the sooner he will be able to fully commit to his own plans. The sooner Obama commits to his own plans, the sooner we will all be better off.

Overall, I think Obama has shown his capabilities and prowess as Commander-in-Chief. He has taken significant action to fix the economy (even FOX agrees), end combat in Iraq, end torture and bring tax cuts to 95 percent of American families. Also, as we learned after G-20, he is a rock star. But I just want to take the opportunity to bring up what I think are valid complaints suggestions from time to time. I hope that other people are also doing this, and that Obama is listening. After all, its his ability to learn from his mistake and accept the feedback from others that will ultimately differentiate Obama from previous and future presidents.

We'll see what the second 100 days bring.

In the News: Recommended Articles on Gay Marriage in Iowa

2009-04-28T23:19:00.008-05:00

Monica Davey of the New York Times writes that the legalization of gay marriage defies stereotypical image of Iowa. I definitely don't agree with the overall angle of the article, as I think it only fuels the stereotypes and the east coast view of Iowa, but it brings up a few interesting points.

The Chicago Tribune runs an article asking why everyone is so surprised on the gay marriage decision since Iowa has a long history of civil rights advancements. This is something I agree with much, much more than Davey's piece in the NYT. Well done, Rex Huppke.

The right for same-sex couples to legally marry, which is something that Trish and Kate Varnum fought for five years for, will become a normal/accepted part of life, Todd Dorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette explains in a recent column.

Danny Mindlin and Alex Small love each other, but not enough to move to Iowa to be legally married. Only on the Onion...

Witnessing History: Gay Marriage in Iowa

2009-04-28T20:33:00.036-05:00

At about 6:50 p.m. yesterday, I pulled up to a strange house, on a strange street, in a strange neighborhood.

I had been invited to the house for a party for the 35 Cedar Rapids same-sex couples who filed for marriage licenses yesterday, the first day they were able to do so. I accepted the invitation in a heartbeat because the party seemed like it would be a good opportunity to interview people for the newspaper story I'm working on and celebrate an important day in the advancement of civil rights. But by the time I arrived at the event, I wasn't so sure. I was starting to feel nervous, and I was starting to question why I was there.

Eight minutes after I parked my car outside of the house, Justine, a friend from newspaper, pulled up behind me. I got out of the car and smiled awkwardly at her. We walked toward the house's door, knocked and waited. After an amount of time that seemed to be too short, a nice, middle-aged man, who I assumed was the house's owner, answered the door. He let us into his living-room, and I went from feeling nervous to feeling completely uncomfortable.

As expected, Justine and I were the only students there, and we didn't know anyone. This didn't stop other guests from interacting with us, though. After standing in the house's living-room for only 10 seconds, people just started coming up and introducing themselves....in a way that suggested that they thought we were a same-sex couple. The introductions only made things more awkward. But, because we weren't exactly sure how to handle the situation, Justine and I went along with everything.

I shook a bunch of hands and repeated my name a bunch of times, and then I pulled my reporter's notebook out of my back pocket. This movement was noticed immediately.

"Are you going to take notes tonight?" a strange woman asked, with a look of bemusement on her face.

"Actually, I'm doing a little reporting for my high school newspaper," I said.

"ooohhhh. Ooooh yeah, that makes sense."

I nodded sheepishly, and the woman walked away from me.

Justine and I then moved into the kitchen and stood there for several minutes. I personally hoped that someone would approach us and volunteer to be interviewed or volunteer to introduce us to potential interviewees. But this wasn't going to happen and, as soon as I (and Justine) realized that, we went off by ourselves. Justine began to take pictures, and I began to look for the person who had invited me to the event, a field organizer from One Iowa.

I found the One Iowa staffer and talked to her for a few minutes. It was a nice talk and everything, but we didn't talk about exactly what I wanted to talk about, and that was introductions and interviews. And I ended up in the kitchen with Justine again. Justine, however, was having better luck than I was. She had taken a few pictures already and spoke to several people. She started to tell me about a couple she had just met, but was interrupted when a man who was probably in his early 30's approached us. He handed Justine a business card and said, "Will you send pictures?"

"Definitely," Justine said.

We started to talk to this guy socially, and he actually ended up being my first interviewee, so we talked even more. I found out that he had lived in Florida for several years and just moved to Iowa in November, and that he works as a web/computer designer and programmer, and edits a LGBT magazine. I asked him about the magazine, his reaction to the Supreme Court ruling/the day's events, future implications of gay marriage's legalization in Iowa, plans for him and his partner, and what marriage really meant. His answer's were genuine, insightful and showed a great deal of passion.

I noticed that, as we talked, I started to relax and feel very comfortable, and everything started to become more fun and interesting. This was true with just about everyone I talked to yesterday night.

I also noticed that I began to share in the excitement. There was just something about listening to normal people tell me about their relationships, families and hopes that brought a close connection. Whether it was a couple for 20 or 5 years, or even a straight guest, everyone spoke passionately about the universal right of marriage, citing the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and even the works of Thoreau. Also, an interview with two men who filed for their license yesterday and will be married in May, during which they teared up when asked about what their relationship being legally recognized meant, confirmed a rumor I've always heard: only those who've gone long without basic rights or had their rights taken away truly appreciate them.

By the time I was ready to leave the house party, I spent a good 10 minutes saying goodbye to everyone I had met and developed loose friendships with. I was sad to leave, but I knew that I had accomplished the first part of what I was sent to the house to do. And that was this: gain a deeper understanding of homosexuality and gay marriage, and make invaluable connections to many couples waiting to get married. Doing this confirmed that what same-sex couples want isn't any different from what everyone else wants, and that ignoring these wants would be a terrible injustice and mistake.

The next part of what I was sent to do is sharing what I learned with others, which is what I tried to do with this blog post.

When Bullying Goes Too Far

2009-04-26T22:19:00.019-05:00

In our culture, the words "fag", "fagot", "homo" and "gay" are tossed around by people all of the time, under all kinds of circumstances. When someone uses these words to make fun of or bash someone else, it's not even seen as a big deal. It's usually seen as humorous. But events this month have led me to believe this is all about to change.

Just a few weeks ago, an 11-year-old boy from Massachusetts named Carl Walker-Hoover committed suicide because he was repeatedly called "gay."

And, just this week, an 11-year-old boy named Jaheem Herrera, who had just moved to Atlanta, committed suicide because he was repeatedly called "gay."

Neither boy was actually gay.

Still laughing?

The stories of these two young men are absolutely tragic, and I hope that no other school, parent, or community will ever have to experience something like this again.

More than being tragic, the stories are hard to understand.

Jaheem and Carl were both nice, normal, happy kids, who had just happened to change schools. At their new schools, Jaheem and Carl were mercilessly teased. They were called gay, locked in bathrooms and ganged up on in the hallways, for no real reason besides that they had just moved to the school and were easy targets. Their parents complained to their schools multiple times, but no action was taken, and the bullying only got worse. It finally became to much for Carl and Jaheem, and they both committed suicide.

Even after reading a lot about Jaheem and Carl, I still don't know what to make out of all of this. It just throws me for a complete loop. I guess I hope that the deaths of Carl and Jaheem will serve as kind of a walk up call to parents, lawmakers administrators and students, and even a call to action.

Whatever programs and polices that are in place now to combat bullying, most of which exclude protection based on sexual orientation, obviously aren't working when two 11-year-olds decide life isn't worth living. The existing attitudes of students, however, are what need to change the most. Not just on homosexuality, but on accepting newcomers and people of all backgrounds.

Signs that Obama Never Left Iowa

2009-04-22T23:59:00.003-05:00

President Barack Obama returned to Iowa today for the first time since the election to speak at an energy plant in Newton. Of course it was nice to see Obama back in the state, but I don't think his presence made a huge impact. Even though over six months have passed since the election of 2008 and Obama's last visit, I (and many, many others) feel like Obama has never left Iowa.

It's a hard feeling to explain for those of you who've never experienced it before, but it ultimately comes down to this: Obama's values, ideas and rhetoric have affected the majority of Iowans just as much as Iowa affected him. We might just not know it yet.

I think that people here in Iowa have a lot of faith in Obama and want him to do well, especially since we saw the whole fairytale that was Obama '08 up-close. And I'm not just gargling out liberal propaganda; Obama enjoys a 64 percent approval rating in Iowa.

Approval isn't the only thing that his high, though. The level of activism and belief that people can work together toward solutions is as well. I've written about this subject - how Obama has affected my life and forced me to think about things bigger than myself - multiple times on this blog (here's a few quick examples: 1, 2, 3, 4...yeah, I think you get the point). And I've recently realized that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Obama volunteers still meet for social purposes, of course, but also for organizing fundraisers, events, neighborhood meetings and campaigns to pass sales tax initiatives. The sayings "Respect, Include, Empower", a goal the campaign held from the beginning, "Yes we can", and "Ordinary people can do extraordinary things" are central to all endeavors undertaken.

Another sign of how much Barack loves Iowa and how much Iowa loves Barack is how fast Organizing for America is moving in the state. Currently, the Iowa staff is in the process of a 17-stop listening tour across the state.

Tuesday's stop was in Cedar Rapids, and I was lucky enough to be there.

Organizing for America is a group that was put together by the Obama campaign late in November, and is currently run by many former Obama-staffers. The group is still getting off the ground, which is why the listening tours are being held, but it looks like its goals are to continue to educate and promote Obama's agenda, while also organizing service opportunities. There will only be a paid staffers in each state, so OFA will rely highly on volunteers.

Before Tuesday, I wasn't sure if I even wanted to get involved with OFA because, but shortly after the meeting I was reluctant to attend I knew I wanted to be one of those volunteers. There was the same feeling of drive toward a common goal that had attracted me to the Obama campaign. I know this will sound corny, but it was magical.

I'm excited to get involved in OFA because I see this as an opportunity to be a part of bringing pieces of the campaign together in pursuit of the change it originally sought out, and preparing for 2012. I'm even more excited to continue to watch Barack and the responses of Iowans.

Remembering and Reflecting on Columbine

2009-04-20T22:53:00.006-05:00

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the Columbine shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. On that day, the lives of 12 students and one teacher were taken away by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold before they both committed suicide. Twenty-three people were injured.

I'm not old enough to remember Columbine, or the media coverage and events that followed. But I am aware of the discrepancies of the event's details, especially involving the background and motivations of Harris and Klebold. Shortly after the shootings, the two boys were depicted as goth, Trench-coat-wearing Mafia activists "taking revenge against the bullies who had made school miserable for them." They were supposedly influenced by violent video games, movies and music.

Despite everything the media did to promote this ideal, it really wasn't truthful.

The record now shows Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold hadn't been bullied — in fact, they had bragged in diaries about picking on freshmen and "fags."

"These are not ordinary kids who were bullied into retaliation," psychologist Peter Langman writes in his new book, Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. "These are not ordinary kids who played too many video games. These are not ordinary kids who just wanted to be famous. These are simply not ordinary kids. These are kids with serious psychological problems."

-USA Today

There's also speculation that the United States' gun culture motivated Harris and Klebold, but I don't know enough about this. I think that the psychological disturbances the two boys suffered from are the likeliest cause to the violence they created. But, like I said earlier, this view didn't come out until several years after the shootings.

Why did the fact that Klebold and Harris were mentally disturbed take so long to surface? I think there are a few reasons. First of all, people (including myself) have trouble believing that two teenagers would hateful enough to set out on a killing spree. Second, psychological problems are a lot harder to come up with solutions to than environmental problems (like bullying, video games, etc.). This explains why elected officials and administrators would want to stray away from saying they were just crazy. You can put restrictions on video games and campaign against bullying, but dealing with mental problems is a different story entirely.

However, this hasn't stopped schools from tackling school security, as Columbine did result in more security regulations. To me, it seems unlikely that these regulations would be enough to stop future attacks. I do really hope that they have had some impact, but I think we as a society need to be looking at other ways to prevent shootings and destructive behavoir in general. Especially as it becomes clear that the causes of Columbine were much more complex than the news media's original analysis suggested.

Anne Marie Hochhalter, who was paralyzed from the waist down as a result of the Columbine shootings, is pictured in her living room. Hochhalter shared her incredible story of recovery on NPR today.

Props to Grassley

2009-04-20T11:54:00.000-05:00

Though I may give him a lot of crap, most recently about his obsessive Twitter use, I've got to hand it to Senator Chuck Grassley for his quick replies to constituents. I've recently realized (because I've sent stuff to my legislators before and know others who have) that his office always replies to emails promptly, even if they are insulting, even if they're not from someone in his district. Usually this is not the case with legislators. For example, electronic replies from Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Dave Loebsack are rare, and their letters take forever to arrive. So Grassley is different. And for that this 70-some-year-old-man deserves some credit.

Yes, I did write this post because I couldn't think of anything else.

Susan Boyle

2009-04-20T07:29:00.001-05:00

By now everyone's heard of Susan Boyle's astonishing performance on Britain's Got Talent, but very few have heard that she's actually cousins with Jay Leno.

See for yourself:

Who Ever Said the United States was on Top of the World?

2009-04-19T19:53:00.012-05:00

I always hoped someone would make one of these when I was a kid and now it's finally here...the Upside-Down World Map. It's interesting to look at, but even more interesting to think about.

Ever since the question of why world maps weren't printed upside down was posed by a teacher a few years ago, I've been intrigued by cartography. The most common map projections make North America and Europe look like they're much larger than other countries. In fact, there's one projection that shows Greenland as big as the entire continent of Africa (I wish I could name the specific projection, as I did take a class that covered this in great detail, but I can't). Why is this? Certainly, it's not because of population, or area, or resources, or educational systems. It's because of history, and tradition, and the idea that the West is comprised of the strongest and most influential countries in the world.

When I first set my eyes on a globe, I might have bought that last sentence. But not anymore.

Throughout middle and high school, it has become clear to me that the United States does not sit on top of the world and that it was never intended to. One country's legacy and influence cannot last forever. Also, as far as I'm concerned, no one country is more important than another.

This is why I was so excited to see a map that represented these ideas. But, for some reason, seeing the Upside-Down Map didn't reinforce my thinking. It threw me for a loop instead. I guess that - deep down - I still cling to some of the ideas named in the second paragraph. Hopefully not for long, though.

Glenn Beck is a G and Cutie

2009-04-16T11:26:00.008-05:00

Inspired by the work of Mixmaster Mack and with the help of tween-friendly website Blingee, I pimped-out and glamorized a brilliant journalist, who just yesterday reported on a new age of American tea parties in a fair, calm and accurate manner. Of course, I'm talking about Glenn Beck. What resulted was two images more painful and annoying to watch than Beck's own television show.

Here they are.

Da Boss of FOX:

Myspace Glitter Graphics

Da Boss of FOX II:

Myspace Glitter Graphics

Pretty Princess:

Myspace Glitter Graphics

On Today's 'Tea Parties'

2009-04-15T11:29:00.021-05:00

When patriots dumped British tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxation 236 years ago, they actually had a valid reason beyond wanting to save a few dollars: they were being taxed unfairly by a ruling body thousands of miles away. Thus, the slogan of the protesters was not only "no taxation," but "no taxation without representation."

A lot has changed in those 236 years. First of all, Americans, despite what a few lunatics are saying, have a representative government. Second, they don't paying taxes for another country's profit, but for their own schools, fire departments, police departments, roads, bridges, and military. And third, the taxes aren't ridiculously high; 95 percent of Americans will actually pay lower taxes this year and the wealthiest one percent of Americans won't pay higher taxes until 2011.

So, since we've established that the political and social climate is defiantly different from that of the American Revolution, why are Fox News cronies and right-wingers hosting tea parties across the country today?

I really don't know. I thought it was originally to protest government debt, but then attendees and organizers proposed abolishing several kinds of taxes all together. So I'm very confused now.

My friend, Paul Begegla, is rightfully confused too.

In a commentary for CNN published today, he said:

That a bunch of overpaid media millionaires would lead a faux-populist revolt is comical. They somehow held their populist instincts in check as George W. Bush and the Republicans cut taxes on the idle rich and put the screws to the working stiffs.

Bush's tax policies were a godsend to the Paris Hilton class, but they sent the country on the road to bankruptcy and helped ruin the economy. But now that we the people have decided to set things right, now that we've hired Obama to fix the mess conservatives created, now they're protesting?

Give me a break. Instead of tossing tea bags for the cameras, the Fox phonies ought to go to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. There they would find better, braver men who have truly sacrificed for their country. They deserve nothing but the best -- not the shameful and shoddy conditions they endured during the Bush administration.

I honestly couldn't agree more with Begela, both in the passage quoted above in which he argues that Bush spent much more recklessly than Obama has been, and throughout his entire column.

I think it's completely reasonable for people to be concerned about spending and the deficit. But I also think that the way the tea baggers are going about expressing the concern is all wrong. Instead of articulating an actual solution for gaining control of our debt without raising taxes, those involved have cast a shadow of shame on their cause.

The hosting of tea parties makes participants (mostly Republicans, but they are "non-partisan" protests) look stupid because they all have an elected US Representative, Senator and President, not to mention state and local government officers. Whether or not they agree with their elected officials is a different thing entirely. As Begela said, "The goofballs tossing tea bags today have representation. They voted in the election; they lost."

Participants also seem a little selfish. Sure, nobody likes paying taxes. But I'm pretty sure almost everyone can appreicate good public schools, good public universities, roads and bridges, the military, the VA, cancer research, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which are just a few of the things that taxes pay for.

So, yeah, tea parties are ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as this video:

That tea party, however, looks like so much more fun than the ones I saw on the news yesterday.

Respecting the Gay Marriage Law (Torch column)

2009-04-14T21:28:00.003-05:00

On April 3, Iowa became the third state to legalize same-sex marriage. Just one week later, a vote in the Iowa House tried to change that. However, the measure failed to pass by a ten-point margin, signaling that the new law of the land will not have the chance to change until 2012, if ever.

Because it’s clear that same-sex marriage will be legal for at least three more years, I think now is an appropriate time to share my advice to its opponents: respond maturely, choose your fights wisely and accept defeat gracefully.

I heard news of the Iowa Supreme Court’s April 3 decision about halfway through the school day while walking to lunch. There were two girls behind me yakking away about how much they couldn’t believe something. I wasn’t really listening, but a certain sentence caught my attention, and it then became clear that they were expressing their strong disapproval of gay marriage by saying it was gross, disgusting and just, well…different.

Now, I only heard these remarks in passing, so, for all I know, the two females could very well have engaged in a substantive and reflective debate over gay marriage later. But I highly doubt that. In the following few days, I heard many similar, disappointing conversations.

These conversations disappointed because they showed the insistence that if you bash something you don’t agree with, it eventually becomes wrong. Normally, this ideology wouldn’t bother me, as it’s something I’m accustomed to, but in light of recent events I found it to be completely inappropriate and distasteful. Gay marriage may be difficult for some students to accept. It should not be difficult, however, for students to carefully and politely discuss.

Comments poorly arguing against gay marriage not only draw negative attention to the students directly involved, but to the entire Kennedy community and state of Iowa. This is because Iowa is one of the first states to legalize gay marriage, so, after noting this course of action, people across the country have begun to show interest in how we would respond.

Besides being more careful of what they say, opponents of gay marriage will need to decide whether or not re-enacting a constitutional ban is worth the fight. Some people certainly will say this is the case, but others may decide that focusing their energy on other matters is more important. With an unstable economy, war overseas and pending flood recovery, the state government may decide that an ugly three-year fight is not worth the time, either.

While dissenters might stall time, they will ultimately find that Iowa’s long process to amend the constitution, commitment to civil rights and equality and the need to focus on less divisive issues are too strong. And, to a lesser extent, they will find that comments showing a limited understanding of homosexuality and our legal system are too weak.

Iowa's Equal Protection Clause

2009-04-12T10:43:00.006-05:00

I finally got around to reading the Iowa Supreme Court's official ruling on the Varnum v. Brien case. Yeah, it's 63 pages long and has lots of legal language, so it wasn't fun to read at all. BUT it was totally worth it because reading the ruling confirmed a few rumors I've heard in the past week. The biggest of these was about how much it relied on Iowa's Equal Protection Clause.

Iowa, like pretty much every other state, added an Equal Protection Clause to its constitution. This clause guarantees equal rights and protection to every resident of the state, no matter what a person's religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation is.

The judges said that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it directly violates the Equal Protection Clause.

This is a very, very important for keeping gay marriage legal in Iowa. Because if legislators continue to move to ban gay marriage in the constitution, they will find that this cannot be done without removing the Equal Protection Clause. And, in case you couldn't guess, removing the Equal Protection Clause completely wouldn't go over very well.

New Media Trends I Don't Understand: Twitter

2009-04-10T19:44:00.012-05:00

If Twitter is what is going to cause newspapers across the country to fold, I'm honestly ashamed to have always been a newspaper person.

Twitter is a free service that was established in 2006. It allows members to maintain their own page where they post 140 character "tweets" detailing what they're doing, their thoughts, etc. etc. On the surface, Twitter sounds like a neat website that would provide a neat and easy way to keep in touch with people. But once you actually read a fair amount of tweets or even open an account for yourself like I did, your opinion will change. Personally, I've found Twitter to be annoying and kind of pointless. If you don't like someone enough to tell them about your life in person, then you shouldn't even bother telling them about it online. Especially on a website sexual predators and creepers can easily view and "follow."

Though as much as I like to bash Twitter, I really don't have a problem with young adults, college students and teenagers who use it. For them, it's probably just a fad that coincides with their short attention spans and need to narrate their awesome little lives to other people. What I do have a problem with, however, is legislators who use Twitter on a regular basis. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good for politicians to have accounts so they can share news directly to constituents over what's really going on, but I think some take this idea too far. I don't care to hear (0r read in this case) about the details of their lives. And I think Twitter can distract from the work legislators were elected and are being paid for to do, especially when used during speeches, committee meetings, hearings, and votes.

The first legislator I was ever aware of who uses Twitter was Chuck Grassley, a long-time Republican senator from Iowa (here's the link to Grassley's page).

Grassley tweets anywhere between one and half a dozen times each day. He is one of the most well-known and prominent politicians on Twitter. Upon viewing his page for the first time, I immediately noticed that Grassley uses a lot of abbreviated words in his tweets, and I'm talking about more than the usual Internet shorthand. Grassley shortens every other word basically and, when there's not an abbreviation for what he wants to say, he makes one up. For example, his latest update is this:

Had a v. good mtg in Mason City tklg health care rfrm. Iowans gve me lts of fdbck. Thanky AARP and SEIU and NFIB.

The post before that is:

Great trnout in Titonka. Twn hall was in beautifl new libr. More outrage ovr 2 much fed spend, govt intrusn.

About a month ago, I was exposed to even more politicians using Twitter when President Obama delivered his State of the Nation Address. Leonard Pitts (my favorite columnist) of the Miami Herald said in a recent column:

It turns out that, as the leader of the free world was addressing them on matters of urgent national importance, some of our elected representatives were hunched over their handheld devices madly tweeting, like 5th graders passing notes in the back of the class.
For instance, The Washington Post reported that Republican Rep. Robert Wittman tweeted the following urgent observation: ``I am sitting behind Sens Graham and McCain.''
''Place is on fire,'' said Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican from Montana.

Vote Brother Nem in 2010

2009-04-08T16:57:00.008-05:00

I decided that my dad is running for State House in 2010, and I'm going to be his campaign manager, and we will win, and it will be awesome...He just doesn't know it yet.

But really, my dad has to run. Our current state representative is kind of crazy and unqualified, and she only won our district by 12 votes, which hopefully means it will be tough for her to get re-elected against a decent competitor. I think my dad will be able to be this competitor. He has taught high school government for 35 years and served during the Vietnam War. He is social, articulate, has tons of friends/contacts from being an educator and is extremely well-liked by just about everyone.

I've been thinking about the campaign and issues that will come up, and I feel like I've already developed a fairly solid platform and campaign strategy.

The main issues our campaign will focus on are education, flood relief and expanding the use of wind and also hydro-kinetic energy. Also, as much as I think this will hurt my dad's chances because we live in a more conservative neighborhood, he's going to proclaim his support of the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. But, to do this, he can say something about the need for mutual respect in our society. That will probably work.

Like I said before, my dad is very social and good with people, so our campaign strategy will be to get him as much exposure as possible. He'll work the phones and knock on every door in our district (with me, of course). From our experience on past campaigns, I think we'll be able to execute this strategy well and get in contact with as many voters as possible. I've also been toying around with the idea of holding weekly after-church brunches at Hy-Vee for concerned citizens to ask questions. And informal "soap box" debates at our local park will probably take place regularly.

I haven't thought of a campaign slogan yet, but I have thought of an animal that will be on every piece of campaign material, and that is a prong-horned antelope. This one was actually my dad's idea. I asked him what his yard signs would look like if he ever chose to run for public office. He said the yard signs would have to prong-horned antelopes on them.

"Why?" I asked.

"Well, because prong-horned antelopes are the fastest land animal in North America!" he said, like his choice had been obvious.

I think my dad would be an excellent and efficient legislator, and I'm not just saying this because he's my dad and I love him...I really mean it. But I don't know if he'll go for my idea. I say this because, since his retirement, he hasn't expressed interest in doing much of anything. He basically just chills at home and watches an ungodly amount of CNN/MSNBC/Weather Channel. I also don't think he'd like to live in the state capitol by himself for part of the year.

No matter what my dad says when I ask him, I don't regret taking some time to plan out a run for state house. I developed his issue positions and our strategy much more than I talked about above, and it was actually really fun. Hmmm. Perhaps I should re-consider a career in political organization, after all.

Vermont!

2009-04-07T18:32:00.000-05:00

Vermont legislators legalized gay marriage today by overriding their governor's veto.

Four states down, 46 more to go.

Semi-related side note: It will be interesting to see how these rulings will affect the 2010 elections.

Iowa Gov. on Gay Marriage

2009-04-07T11:46:00.004-05:00

I have carefully reviewed the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision on civil marriage and discussed it with the Attorney General.

Let me begin by saying that I recognize that the issue of same-gender civil marriage is one that evokes strongly held beliefs and strong emotions both for and against. These beliefs and feelings need to be respected. I hope that the views of those on all sides will be treated respectfully and will not be subjected to name-calling or fear-mongering, but instead will lead to rational discussion.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that the question before the Iowa Supreme Court was one of civil marriage only – a state-recognized legal status constituting a civil contract. Civil marriage always has been, and will continue to be, separate from religious marriage that takes place in churches and places of worship.

As I have stated before, I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a tenet of my personal faith. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision has, in fact, reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision does not require that churches recognize marriages between persons of the same gender or officiate over such unions. The Court does not have, nor should any court ever have, that kind of power over our religious lives. Our churches and places of worship are free to decide for themselves, as they were before, who may enter the sacred covenant of marriage. As the Supreme Court’s decision states, ‘The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past.’

Yet, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.

As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.

I urge Iowans who hold beliefs on all sides of this issue to exhibit respect and good will. Our state faces many serious challenges. We are in the midst of a serious economic recession. Tens of thousands of our fellow Iowans are without work. We have suffered the worst natural disasters and most difficult recovery our state has ever faced. We must join together and redouble our efforts to work toward solutions that will help Iowans in this time of uncertainty. That is where, I believe, my focus and energies should lie.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all Iowans, all neighbors, united in the promise and faith of a brighter future for our state. Let us all work together toward that common goal.
-Governor Chet Culver (D-IA)

So he's not wildly enthusiastic about gay marriage's legalization, but he released a nice and insightful statement. I actually think that what Culver said, when compared past statements in which he made it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, was positive. Because, while he wasn't excited about gay marriage, he wasn't totally against it, either. And that's a victory.

Iowa Politicians on Gay Marriage Ruling

2009-04-07T11:20:00.003-05:00

U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA):

My personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept. But I also fundamentally believe that same sex couples in a civil union should be entitled to all the basic legal protections and benefits of marriage. The Court found that it is necessary to afford same sex couples the ability to marry in order to allow them those legal protections and benefits. I will respect and support that decision and I hope that other Iowans can do the same. I know that this decision will be very hard for many to accept but I also know that it will provide many committed same sex couples and families important rights, as well as an important sense of recognition and belonging.

U.S. Congressman Dave Loebsack (D-IA):

Today is an important day for many Iowa families. The beliefs of every Iowan should be respected and I understand that many people have strong opinions regarding this issue. The unanimous Supreme Court decision should be respected as a continuation of Iowa’s long standing national leadership in ending discrimination and protecting the rights of all of our citizens.

Matt Strawn, chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa:

The sad and simple fact is this decision could have been avoided. Once clear that Iowa’s marriage law was under attack by the courts and outside interest groups, majority Democrats had every opportunity to advance legislation removing the politics from protecting marriage and placing the decision directly in the hands of Iowa voters.

Instead, this is yet another example of majority Democrats dodging the tough decisions that responsible legislating requires. Whether it’s unsustainable budgets, job-killing labor legislation, punishing tax increases through elimination of federal deductibility, or failing to lead on defining marriage, Governor Culver and legislative Democrats continue to demonstrate they are completely out of touch with the values of Iowans.

U.S. Representative Steve King (R-IA):

This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench.

Now it is the Iowa legislature’s responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.

I'm going to post Governor Chet Culver's decision in a separate post because it's so long.

Re: 'Gay Marriage and Christianity' / Why Gay Marriage in IA is Here to Stay

2009-04-04T16:08:00.015-05:00

My friend Matt recently wrote something on his blog entitled Gay Marriage and Christianity. This post, which I promised to write days ago, is intended to respond to Matt's.

Now, before I get in to my actual response to his post, I think it's appropriate to mention that Matt supports gay marriage, is in favor of the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling legalizing it in the state and, as he said in his post, is dating a girl who identifies herself as bisexual. So Matt's post was not one against the gay marriage, but one that questioned the ruling's legitimacy. In only three years, Matt said, a proposal to institute a constitutional ban on gay marriage will have passed through the Iowa legislature and OK-ed by the voters of Iowa as a special ballot measure. And gay marriage will once again be illegal.

While I think the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa will (and already has been) met with some resistance, I don't think it will be ruled unconstitutional. I think gay marriage is here to stay.

Here's why I think so.

1) It's no cake-walk to put gay marriage on the ballot

In order for the issue of instituting a constitutional ban on gay marriage to appear on the ballot, it has to be passed in the Iowa legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions. The current legislative session is expected to end in a matter of weeks, which means the measure will not be introduced this year, which means the earliest the it could be voted on would be 2012, and that's only if it passes in both sessions (it's important to remember that there is a Democratic majority...). So, logistically speaking, moving to have the people vote on amending the Iowa constitution is difficult.

2) Sustained interest isn't there

Not only does there appear to be a lack of interest by the majority of Iowa legislators to override the ruling, but also a lack of interest among the majority of Iowans. I think this interest would continue to decrease after three years. That's a long time to keep people interested/angry about any issue, especially when there are more significant problems that our country faces. Interest will also hopefully decrease as people see that granting equal rights to same-sex couples won't destroy the world/family life as we know it.

3) 26.2% of Iowans support gay marriage and 27.9% oppose gay marriage but support civil unions. Enough said.

(These numbers are from a University of Iowa poll conducted last month. In addition to being polled on their current view, Respondents were asked if they would support gay marriage if it was legalized in Iowa. Interestingly enough, the percent supporting gay marriage jumped from 26 to 30. Also, there was a 6-9% increase among "independents, ideological moderates and moderate church attendees" favoring gay marriage.)

4) Iowans are accepting and forward-thinking people

After all, the Iowa Supreme Court banned slavery (1839), ended segregation of schools (1868) and public places (1873), allowed women to practice law (1869) and legalized inter-racial marriages DECADES before the United States Supreme Court did. And we overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama. Twice. These milestones make me believe that Iowans will (and already have) choose to lead our country forward on marriage equality.

5) Nate Silverof 538 says that ballot initiatives are becoming harder to pass and bans on gay marriage lose 2% of their support each year.

...

As I said before, there is dissent to the Supreme Court's ruling, but the dissenters will soon find that they are only fighting against the inevitable - that they are standing on the wrong side of history. They will find that throwing money and scare tactics in an attempt to change the hearts of a state of smart, loving, genuine people will not work. Just because the complaints of who Matt called the Religious Right are loud, does not mean they are representative of Iowa, or even Iowa's GOP.

Anyway, those are just a few of my thoughts on this issue. I will probably think more about this and find even more things to say... I also welcome response from anyone who is interested.

Once Again, Iowa Chooses to Lead our Country Forward

2009-04-03T16:45:00.003-05:00

I have never been more proud to be an Iowan. And after Barack winning the caucuses and the state during the general election by 100,000 votes, that's really saying something. Really.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest that you watch the video below or read these news stories: 1, 2, 3.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I knew the ban on gay marriage would be ruled unconstitutional, but I never thought this ruling would be unanimous (That's right, 7-0). I'm really glad that it was a unanimous decision instead of being a 5-2 or 5-3 vote because this shows Iowa's high level of commitment to human rights and progressive politics. Hopefully more states will follow, as they have with past measures in free speech rights for students and civil rights before, after and during Reconstruction.

There's so much more that I want to write more about this topic. I want to write about why I support gay marriage, this ruling's implications, changes in accepting people of different sexual orientations that I've seen from my parents generation to mine and what other rulings I see on the horizon. But I just can't find the words right now, so I'll just say one more thing: I love Iowa.

Macalester College

2009-04-01T17:12:00.000-05:00

When I visited Macalester College, there was a protest on campus, much like the one shown above, and they served black bean curry in the cafeteria. Let's just say I immediately wanted to go there.

Macalester, as I just said in my previous post, is located in St. Paul, Minnesota. Leading into my visit, this location was my main concern. I thought that the city experience would be too much for me and take away from the offering's on campus. However, this wasn't the case. As I learned during my visit, St. Paul is more of a quiet and relaxed city, and the surrounding area of Mac is a historic residential neighborhood. Mac also has a small, yet very well defined campus, so you wouldn't even know you were in a city unless you left campus and walked a few blocks. This kind of location sounds absolutely perfect. Northfield (the town where Carleton is) was nice and everything, but I couldn't see myself living in a town of 17,000 people for four years. I could, however, see myself in St. Paul at a college isolated enough to have a strong campus community, but close enough to the resources of a capitol city to be exciting.

As much as I liked Mac's location, that really wasn't what made me instantly want to matriculate at the college. I was more blown away by its students, faculty and educational objectives. I felt this vibe of activism and civic engagement everywhere I went on campus, which was really great. The students were very friendly; several stopped me and asked where I was from, what schools I was looking at, what I wanted to major in, etc. The anthropology class I sat-in on was interesting and engaging.

Overall, I can't wait to apply to Mac, and I hope I get in.

Two Articles Worth Reading

2009-03-30T19:04:00.014-05:00

1) "Leave My President Alone"

Alan Colmes, former contributor to Hannity & Colmes (he was the liberal guy who was always yelled at and told that he was stupid/crazy/a Marxist), returned to FOX to write about why people to need to, well, leave Obama alone. It was an interesting piece to read, and it sums up my feelings perfectly. Colmes focuses on the fact that Obama has only been in office for 70 days, is facing major problems and doing the best that he can.

Side note: I'm surprised Colmes actually looks happy in that photo because this is what he usually looked like on FOX...

2) "Obama's Nobel Headache"

This is the cover story in the latest edition of Newsweek. I don't really feel like giving a summary, so here is the lead-in the magazine used: "Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. He's deeply skeptical about the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. Why the establishment worries he may be right."

Though I've been disappointed by Newsweek lately, mainly because its size decreases with every issue, I have to say that this was a very interesting article, especially since I've read a lot of stuff by Krugman. I'm not sure if I agree with what he has been saying lately, but it has forced me to re-think and evaluate my positions on Obama's latest policy. I would write more in this post about his arguments, but I'm too lazy to look for specific columns/blog posts. Plus I'm not going to argue with a Nobel Laureate.

If you're interested, you should check out both of those articles. It would definitely be worth your time, and the piece by Colmes is short, so it hardly takes any time to read, so you can't even use time as an excuse.

St. Paul Plus the Land of Cows, Colleges and Contentment

2009-03-30T10:06:00.001-05:00

Two days ago, I returned home after my first round of college visits in the Twin Cities area. I stayed with family in the Minneapolis 'burbs so I could do a tour and information session at Carleton College in Northfield (about 40 minutes away) and a tour, info session and class visit at Macalester College in St. Paul. Both of my visits went well and gave me a better idea of the schools. I think I would be very happy at either Carleton or Mac, even though the schools have clear differences.

To keep track of these differences and my feelings toward the colleges I'm looking at, I'm going to blog about each of my visits. I visited Carleton first, so I'm going to talk about my time on campus there first. I'm working on a separate post on Mac, but I don't know if I'm going to finish it. I did like Mac better, though.

Carleton is located in the idealistic, cutesy, historic town of Northfield, which also happens to be the home of Saint Olaf College and Malt-O-Meal. Surrounding Northfield is miles and miles of farmland. That was kinda nice. Inside the town, there are a lot of restaurants, coffee shops and speciality stores that are obviously geared toward college students, and that was also nice. I chose to stop at Goodbye Blue Monday, only because it is named after the alternative title to Breakfast of Champions. So, all in all, the location of Carleton appeared to be nice.

The campus was great as well. The facilities were really nice and well-maintained, and there seemed to be a few sustainability projects in the works, which was of high interest to me. Currently, 40 percent of campus power is provided by a wind turbine the school purchased. So, yeah, I was glad to see that Carleton students and faculty are also interested in activism as well as academics.

There also seemed to be an international focus. I wasn't expecting this because I thought Mac was more geared toward that kind of thing, and Carleton was more of a traditional small college. I mean, Carleton was definitely more of a traditional small college than Mac but there was some emphasis on international understanding (an ungodly amount of students study abroad), which was appealing to me. I talked to one of the admissions deans about Chinese and studying abroad in China and he very willingly explained programs run through Carleton there.

Now, there were no students on Carleton's campus (it was spring break), but from what I heard from a few people from admissions and our tour guide, I could almost picture the kind of students that would be there. The Carleton-type seemed well-defined: non-competitive, adventurous, quirky, friendly, accepting. At least that's the type I was sold on during the 20 minute long promotional video. I think I would fit in well with those kinds of people.

yeah, so overall, Carleton was nice and would be an neat place to spend four years, assuming I can get in. I'm just unsure if the more traditional educational experience in a small town is what I'm looking for.

Remember Hoovervilles?

2009-03-29T02:32:00.005-05:00

Well, they may be back... Tent cities bearing a striking resemblance to the shanty towns of the Great Depression are appearing in cities like Reno, Sacramento, and Fresno. These areas are populated by people who have lost their homes and jobs due to the economic down-turn, and have nowhere else to go. It's sad, really, and one of the wildest and most troubling bits of news I've heard in a while.

Here's Brian Williams on NBC with the story (Yes, the link above is old, but this is from last night):

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Even more troubling than the actual news itself is the response of some people, particularly those who have nothing better to do than write stupid anonymous comments online. I've found people saying that it's the homeless fault that they're homeless to the more frequent response that Obama should be impeached or something silly like that. This makes me think that the posters on the boards I'm referring aren't representative, or stupid, or insensitive, or stupid, insensitive and not representative of our country.

Because I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about capitalism/free market ideology vs. socialism vs. the idea of a welfare state vs. whatever else this late (or early), I'll tackle the comments toward Obama. Now, most of the country is still very supportive of Obama and his administration, so people making comments about him are a minority, but that doesn't mean it's okay that such comments are being made.

Obama has only been in office for two months and, in that time, he has already addressed a lot of major issues our country faces. And, out of this time, most of it has spent addressing the current economic situation. Obama is well aware of all of the problems and the importance of tackling them. At the same time, he can't just snap his fingers and end a recession that has been in the making since the Clinton Administration. Plus, even if Obama COULD snap his fingers to fix the economy, that might not even be the best decision. The way I see it, because we are in uncharted territory, it's best for him to act cautiously and rationally. There really are no shortcuts.

So, to everyone gawking and brawling all over YouTube, MSNBC and NBC, chill out.

And to everyone who is living day-to-day in a tent, best wishes.

This I Believe: Ordinary People Can Do Extraordinary Things

2009-03-25T15:15:00.012-05:00

I have been a fan of NPR's essay series This I Believe ever since one of my teachers told me about it last year. This I Believe, like so many other features NPR runs, is really neat, and appeals to me for multiple reasons. For those of you unfamiliar with the project, here's how its website explained it:

This I Believe is an international project engaging people in writing, sharing, and discussing the core values that guide their daily lives. These short statements of belief, written by people from all walks of life, are archived here and featured on public radio in the United States, as well as in regular broadcasts on NPR. The project is based on the popular 1950s radio series of the same name hosted by Edward R. Murrow.

It has always been a goal of mine to write my own essay on one of my beliefs. And today, after hearing that the series will end in April, I did just that. I wrote my essay and submitted it to NPR with the title "Ordinary People Can Do Extraordinary Things." Unfortunately, I found out after submission that an essay with the title "When Ordinary People Achieve Extraordinary Things" was published only in January. My essay is different from that essay, but it's a still a bummer that our title's are so similar. Oh well.

I was originally proud of my essay, but after reading through it now, I'm not so sure. I had fun writing about it and the words came very naturally. The essay practically wrote itself. Also, with the completion of my essay, I felt a sense of satisfaction and a greater understanding of my belief in synergy. So all of that stuff is good. All of my not so good feelings are coming as I write this post and am finding "problems" with the piece, eg - the initial experience doesn't fit as well with the statement of belief, the flow is off, the end doesn't provide sufficient examples, etc., etc. This bothers me. Again, oh well. As my dad has always said, "the journey's more important than the destination."

And this brings me to my actual essay, which I wanted to share with the half a dozen people or so who bother to look at blog.

Here it is:

Is all of this my responsibility to organize?" I asked Megan, a field organizer for Barack Obama’s campaign, while pointing to the map before me.

She was looking down at me, smiling. "Only the shaded area," she said.

Seeing that I was still unsure, Megan gave me a huge, encouraging smile again. She even rubbed my back a little bit. "I wouldn’t have given this to you if I didn’t think you could do it. Really, you’ll be great."

I felt slightly surer of myself. I started fumbling through the Precinct Captain Training Manual, and its first page reminded me why I was compelled to volunteer. On the first page, there was this quote: "We need you to stand with us, and work with us, and help us prove that, together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things." –Barack Obama

Five months after the Election of 2008, Obama’s words – the words that caused me to become a precinct captain and believe that anything was possible – are still with me. In fact, they have even found their way into my core beliefs. I believe that ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things when working together. I believe in the power of synergy, the idea of a group of people working toward a common goal.

While my belief in synergy is new, I’ve known the word’s definition for quite some time. I learned it almost three years ago at a leadership institute I attended. At that time, to me, synergy was only an idea, but in years since, I’ve come to see synergy as something much more powerful. I’ve come to see synergy as a mechanism for change, progress and productivity.

One of the experiences that formed my belief began in August when I became a field intern with Barack Obama’s Iowa Campaign for Change. In only the early stages of my involvement, I realized that if there was one perfect example of synergy, the campaign would have to be it.

Almost everyday, I made phone calls in the local office or went door-knocking in strange neighborhoods, attempting to persuade as many people as I could to vote for Obama. Both phone banking and canvassing were exhausting and frustrating. I found that it was difficult to stay focused after likely voters hung up on me and turned me away at their doorsteps, yet I never seriously thought of quitting. This was because I knew that volunteers all over the country were matching my efforts. One hundred phone calls made after school couldn’t win the election, but 100 million could, and 100 million did.

Since the campaign, I haven’t tested synergy on a large scale, but I have seen it work in everyday situations – when producing an issue of the school newspaper, for example, or when collecting canned food with friends. I also know that, when I’m ready, and others are ready, to resume working toward the change we seek, synergy will be on our side. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things....

Genius

2009-03-19T17:48:00.011-05:00

I was very pleased to see this week's edition of the New Yorker arrive at my house today. Well, I was mainly pleased to see the cover.

"OctoRush" by Barry Blitt

If anyone thinks this cover is a little too harsh, I will argue with them until my face turns blue. Seriously, Rush Limbaugh deserves all of the ridicule we can give him after whining for the past three months. I mean, here's a quote from Limbaugh's radio show only a few days before the Inauguration:

I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

As John McCain might say, let it go, my friend. Let it go.

And again, props to Blitt and the New Yorker for another brilliant cover. I actually hope that Limbaugh will buy an issue for himself.

Stewart vs. Cramer?

2009-03-19T07:16:00.008-05:00

It was to be one of Jon Stewart's shining moments: a showdown with Jim Cramer of CNBC's Mad Money that had been built-up over eight days, even attracting a spot on the front page of USA Today.

And, as far as many bloggers are concerned, it was one of Stewart's shining moments.

I am not one of those bloggers.

I mean, it's clear that Stewart won the sparing match over Cramer, but I don't consider it one of his best performances on the show. Even a week later, I don't understand what all of the hype, both before and after the fact, was about.

For those of you who haven't seen the interview, here are the three unedited parts (And because they are "unedited," the videos contain explicit language that would be bleeped out on the show, just a warning):

Part I

Part II

Part III

Yeah, maybe after you watched the interview you'll understand what I'm talking about. Or maybe not. I don't know. Like I said, Stewart definitely came out on top, but I didn't find the episode very exciting. It seemed a little staged and forced. Cramer took everything Stewart said way too easily and Stewart also seemed to be trying really hard to insult someone who he didn't really care in to insult in the first place. I also had trouble swallowing the actual content of the dialogue because I can't see how a comedian can criticize another comedian for offering erratic financial advice.

This little debate was nothing to impromptu ones Stewart has had with Mike Huckabee (Part I, Part II) and other conservative figures. In those interviews, Stewart was much more lively and passionate about the topic at hand and, because of this, a steamed debate followed. For example, in the Huckabee one, Stewart tears Huck apart on the issues of gay marriage and smaller government and he wasn't even trying to.

I don't really know how to explain this further. So I'll end this little post with bits from other bloggers. Out of everything I've read on the subject, I found that my opinion most relates to something I found on the New York Time's online edition.

Here's the first paragraph:

It wasn’t “Brawl Street” or a thrilla in vanilla. It wasn’t a “Daily Show” friendly feud or even much of a discussion. Mostly, the much-hyped Thursday night showdown between the comedian Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer, the mercurial host of “Mad Money” on CNBC, felt like a Senate subcommittee hearing.

Ta-Neishi Coates also had a similar view to mine on this:

Something about it all didn't sit quite right with me. Stewart rightly attacked CNBC for not doing their job, and then he attacked Cramer for "throwing plastic cows through his legs." But I couldn't stop wondering the sort of nation takes its most crucial advice from a guy who throws cows through his legs?

In all of this, I find myself unsatisfied by the critique.

More From the Troch: 'Stanford President to Give Each Freshman $1 Billion'

2009-03-17T12:51:00.007-05:00

If you haven't checked out the other blog I co-author, the Troch, you should really change that. Right now. This story was posted last Friday.

Believers of the idea that your choice of undergraduate institution does not affect your level of wealth and success were proven wrong yesterday.

In spite of a bleak economic forecast, Stanford University announced its intent to give each freshman one million dollars on the date they step on campus. The plan introduced by President John Hennessey is designed to increase applications from talented and untalented high school students alike, while also showing Stanford’s superiority over all other post-secondary academic institutions as their endowments and student bodies shrink. The reimbursement will go into effect for the class of 2014.

At a press conference yesterday on campus, Hennessey stressed the beginning of a new era for Stanford. “We’re very excited to see what the next decade brings in terms of the work of our students and faculty,” he said. “I personally have no doubt that we will continue to set high expectations for everyone associated with the university, and not only meet these expectations, but shatter them.”

Hennessey also explained how the reimbursement will fit in with Stanford’s new goals. He said, “The reimbursement will attract better minds who will then be motivated to work harder, which will then attract better faculty members, who will then conduct groundbreaking research. The money also says that, if you come to Stanford, all of your dreams will come true. Now, try to name one other research university where achieving your dreams so quickly is even possible.”

While the president appeared confident and optimistic, very few other people are. The main argument is that giving students one million dollars before they begin classes will in no way help the university, as it doesn’t even make sense.

Marilyn Conklin, a tenured biology professor, said, “We’ve been trying to figure out what President Hennessey is up to with this deal because it makes no sense to me. I think he has lost it.”

Other faculty agree with Conklin’s notion to question the state of Hennessey’s mental health.

There has also been a rise among Stanford’s most powerful and wealthy alums, who feel as if the money they generously donated to the university will be misused.

An anonymous operative said, “In my day, the administration never pulled stunts like this. Not only is this a stupid way to improve a college, but it also isn’t financially feasible. What the fuck was that son of a bitch thinking?”

Only time will tell if the plan is actually implemented.

More Stuff I'm Planning on Doing During My Life

2009-03-16T14:03:00.002-05:00

In my last post, I introduced the idea of living abroad once I'm done with college. More specifically, living abroad in Cape Town, South Africa. I still feel confident that I'd like to do this, but as I've thought about it further, other plans have become clear to me. So I decided to fulfill one blog post requirement sharing these plans. They're pretty cool and make me really excited about life.

The criteria for making this list was pretty straightforward. Some of the things on the list are specific jobs, while others are life goals. But they all will allow me to be independent, creative, help others, and experience new things. Those qualities are very important to me. I don't want to waste my time doing things that I hate and will leave me unfulfilled, since I've done that for most of my life already.

Here's the list in some form of chronological order:

Go to college...duh
Work as a field organizer on Barack Obama's 2012 campaign
Attend a presidential inauguration and inaugural ball, preferably Barack's
Meet Barack
Join the Peace Corps, then possibly Americorps
Move to Cape Town, South Africa, to work as some kind of community organizer
Teach in third world countries or other impoverished areas
Live on/visit every continent
Write columns
Write magazine articles
Write for The Onion
Write books, both fiction and non-fiction (Specifically, I'd like to travel to conflict-ridden places like Darfur and Tibet and interview people and stuff, then write books about it)
Write in general
Work on more campaigns
Go to grad school to obtain a PhD in Int'l Human Rights (Currently, a family friend is studying in this area)
Become a human rights historian, and write more books about that
Possibly become a professor
Possibly run for public office
Enjoy a chillaxed retirement spent traveling, volunteering and writing

EDIT: I just found that one of my friends, Mixmaster Mack, recently wrote a post with the same idea in mind as this one. I agree with a lot of what she had to say, especially this line:

I hope that I don't end up slaving away in a cubicle somewhere, because I feel like I have way more potential and inventive energy than that...there is no way I could ever do that and feel like I've satisfied myself as far as achievement and success are concerned.

Right on.

America after all it is you and I who are not the next world.

2009-03-13T00:03:00.013-05:00

Recently, living abroad once I'm done with school has begun to appeal to me more and more. I came up with the idea of joining the Peace Corps after college a long time ago, and that is still something I'd like to do. But I'm starting to think about why I wouldn't just make a move overseas permanent.

There are so many reasons for me to live abroad. I'm interested in seeing cities that I've read about in history, experiencing new cultures, learning more languages and challenging myself to erase stereotypes I possess. Basically, I want to understand the world better and become a global citizen.

I also think that living abroad will be beneficial toward my career. I'm not exactly sure what I want to do, but I know helping people and advocating social justice will have to be a part of each job I seriously consider. I'm not willing to fudge on that because, as cheesy as it sounds, I wanna change the world. I actually feel like I've been called to change the world. If I don't do all that I can to accomplish this goal, I'll be left unfufilled.

As I've been told several times, there are many ways to bring about social change. And you don't need to live in a specific place to make a difference by any means. However, the direct involvement I crave in teaching and community organizing can best be found overseas.

Yesterday, when I came home from school during my sixth hour release, I shared my new plans with my dad, who was also home because he has nothing better to do with his life. I was quickly asked where I would like to live, if not the United States. The first city that came to mind was Cape Town, South Africa.

At the time, I had just thrown out Cape Town to get my dad off my back. He was trying to crush all of my dreams by calling me a "former American" who's read one too many Vonnegut books, or analyzed one too many Ginsberg poems. This was kind of annoying. So, like I said, I randomly said I was going to live in Cape Town. But, after doing a little research and thinking about this further, Cape Town actually sounds perfect.

What makes Cape Town so appealing is its diversity and beauty, and also its extreme poverty. It's shocking to see that, away from a modern city center and water front, there are people like you and me living in slums without toilets and electricity. It's heartbreaking, really. But these black ghettos have also attracted me in unexplainable ways to Cape Town. There are so many possibilities...Oh, and everyone speaks English. Hoorayyyyy for British imperialism.

I might explain my infatuation further in a later post, but for now, I need sleep. My god.

The Siege of Leningrad

2009-03-10T18:02:00.001-05:00

I found the link to the partial collection of artwork below on Andrew Sullivan's blog a few weeks ago. It's one of the coolest and most thought-provoking collections that I've seen in a while, and I recommend that you give it a close look. What the artist Sergei Larenkov did was take images of Saint Petersburg, Russia (formerly Leningrad, Vladimir Lenin's namesake city) and mix them with images of the unsuccessful Axis attempt to siege the city during WWII.

I found the images to be very striking, particularly the one right below this block of text. They took me back to watching a short documentary in world history last year on how terrible conditions were on the Eastern Front during WWII. Believe me, times were pretty terrible, and bloody, too. In fact, the battle on the Eastern Front has come to be known as the war of extermination. This is because two regimes (Bolsheviks and Nazis), both of which were willing to commit great atrocities to their people, falsely stir public opinion and put civilians in danger, were going directly at each other over a large amount of land.

It's really amazing how well Larenkov captured the struggles people endured during the 900-day attempted siege, which, while long, destructive and bloody, has been rightfully overshadowed by other events during WWII.

What also is amazing is how well the images blend together. Yet, at the same time, there is definitely a sharp contrast. This contrast can be seen through the difference between the black and white, grainy snapshots of Leningrad and the color, focused photographs of Saint Petersburg today.

As I looked at all of these images, I began to think about how much pain Operation Barbarossa (Adolf Hitler's plan to capture Russia) caused, and all of the people who died as a result. This was difficult for me. I mean, the people in these images and other pieces of art that are similar were not soldiers or nationalists or bad people or anything like that; they were just civilians who got caught in the frays of violence.

I then started to question why the party that started WWII with its invasion of the Rhineland was allowed to exist and cause so much pain to so many people in the first place. This proved to be just as difficult for me.

And then I remembered the famed Edmund Burke quote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that enough good men do nothing."

Why It Sucks to Be Me

2009-03-10T16:33:00.005-05:00

If the cast of Avenue Q (Yes, I am using another reference to a musical in my title) think their lives suck, they should try being me for a day...or 14 days.

Why? you may ask.

Well, because...

Fourteen days ago, I was diagnosed with bronchitis, and a sinus infection, and an ear infection. And, yesterday, 13 days later, I was diagnosed with influenza and possibly strep. And I can't go on antibiotics because I was just on them two weeks ago. And I can't go anywhere because my body is using all of its energy to fight these infections. This means that I've spent a lot of time at home resting lately, while falling behind in just about everything.

Yeah, it sucks to be me.

On a brighter note: a family member chose to enlighten me on their college drug use today, which was definitely entertaining, and regular blogging will resume soon.

And Jindal Responds

2009-02-28T12:34:00.011-06:00

There are a lot of good things to be said about Obama's first speech to both houses of Congress last Tuesday. However, all I can think to talk about now is the response of his political opponents. And not because it was good, but because it was, to be completely honest, very weak.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was chosen to give the televised response. Originally, I thought this was a wise choice on behalf of the GOP. After all, Jindal is young and charismatic, and it looks like he's testing the possibility of a presidential run, so he needs all of the attention he can get. But what Jindal actually said and how he said it changed my mind. Quickly.

It's actually hard for me to explain Jindal's response, other than saying that it was just awkward. Jindal seemed unnatural and over-rehearsed by emphasizing the wrong words as he spoke. He also sounded creepily happy, like a kindergarten teacher or Mr. Rogers.

But the truth is that Jindal really wasn't happy.To me, he seemed to be very negative by riding off our problems as the result of government corruption, earmarks and wasteful spending. I mean, out of nowhere, he started to talk about Hurricane Katrina. This would have been fine of Jindal wasn't using inaction on part of the central government as an argument for the Republican Party, who was actually in charge at the time. Jindal also went on to make a stupid comment about regulating volcanoes - basically, he said it was a waste of money.

There's not too much more I can say about Jindal. I actually almost feel bad for the guy since he has gotten so much negative press this week. So here's the link to a video from the Daily Show on his performance. You should watch it; it's just as hilarious as the other things Jon Stewart says.

Recovering

2009-02-26T14:22:00.006-06:00

Like just about everyone else, I've been ill for the past week. In fact, I've been so sick that I actually fell asleep during Barack Obama's State of the Nation Address. I finally went to the doctor yesterday, and he said that I have bronchitis, a sinus infection and an ear infection. This wasn't exactly good news, but, now that I think about it, having an infection is always better than having a virus.

I guess you could say things have gotten better since my visit to the doctor. I'm on antibiotics now and have been able to get a lot of rest during the past few days. Feeling optimistic, I tried returning to my normal activities today. This is a decision I now regret. Today has been very stressful - I'm behind in just about every class I'm taking and don't know how I'm going to catch up before finals next week.

In an attempt to distract myself from how miserable I feel, I went to this website that makes collages of your photos, and made a collage of a few of my favorite things. Searching for pictures on Google was relaxing and kind of fun. I also think my final product turned out nice, so I thought I'd share. Here it is:

Tonight, toooonight

2009-02-24T18:35:00.013-06:00

the world is full of light

with suns and moons all over the place

Tonight, tonight

the world is wild and bright

going mad shooting sparks into space

Okay, so this post isn't going to be about West Side Story, but its lyrics provided a good intro to what I really wanted to talk about, and that is Barack Obama. More specifically, the State of the Nation Address that he will be delivering tonight.

The address will be Obama's first given before both chambers of Congress. It's not called the State of the Union address, but from what I've gathered at home today while trying not to hack up a lung, it's is basically the same thing. The speech is called the State of the Nation because Obama has only been in office for one month of his first term.

If you've never had the chance to watch one of these addresses, I really recommend that you do tonight. Not because you'll learn a lot about Obama's agenda or what he has done so far or all of the problems we face, though you'll learn that stuff, but because State of the Union addresses are great fun. I mean, how can you not enjoy seeing one half of a room rise to a standing ovation while the other half looks like they want to gauge their eyes out. Yeah, like I said before, it's great fun.

The gap in ideas has been increasingly noticeable with George Bush's annual addresses. So last year, I decided to take a few notes over how specific members of the crowd reacted to Bush's final State of the Union address. This is part of what I came up with...

When Bush said that he would continue to veto legislation that would increase taxes, John Kerry put his hand over his head
Make health care more accessible and affordable - Hillary Clinton's face went blank
Increased consumer choice on health care - Obama sighed visibly
Behind where Bush spoke, Nancy Pelosi just sat there and tried to look pleasant, while Cheney sat with a menacing smile and clapped after every sentence
Upon hearing Bush say that he would "Liberate our children from failing public schools" and that No Child Left Behind "is a good law", Obama, Edward Kennedy and even Sec. of Education sat with blank faces

Other lines that brought visible discomfort:

"Some may deny that the surge is working, but for the terrorists there is no doubt."
"The state of our union will remain strong", which I'm pretty sure Bush ended each address with

Hopefully, there will be more positive responses to what Obama has to say. After all, he is a new president with high approval ratings. And I also heard that the address will be more like a call to action by emphasizing things we personally can do to help our country. I think that both of those factor wil work in Obama's favor by making members of Congress more receptive to his ideas. But only time will tell...

Forty Years Ago Today: 'Tinker v. Des Moines'

2009-02-24T10:24:00.010-06:00

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

-Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas

While I was not alive to hear the message above conveyed, it still rings through my ears more than any other decision made by the Supreme Court. I think this is because the landmark ruling that ensured the First Amendment rights of students affects me on a daily basis. That line is what allows me to keep this blog in the first place, to write for my school newspaper, to wear what I chose, and to express my opinions - all without the fear of punishment or censorship. That line is what allows me to wear a black arm band in commemoration today.

And that line is from the majority ruling of the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, whose 40th anniversary just so happens to take place today.

Mary Beth and John Tinker pose with the armbands they wore to school in protest of the Vietnam War

In December of 1965, several students from Des Moines, Iowa, including John and Mary Beth Tinker, chose to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. The school board somehow found out about the plan, and passed a last-minute resolution making the wearing pf armbands against school rules. Violating the policy, Mary Beth, John and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, wore the armbands as planned. All three students were suspended.

The students filed a lawsuit against the school's action. It made it to the Supreme Court, where the suspensions were ruled unconstitutional, 7 to 2. In his majority ruling, Justice Fortas made it clear that speech and expression that did not disrupt the educational process (like wearing an armband to school) was indeed protected by the First Amendment.

Now, forty years later, what has been coined as the Tinker Standard is still the law of the land. But that's that not say that the ruling's strength hasn't been tested, or that it won't be tested in further years. However, I still feel that, even if there or more cases like Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier or Frederick v. Morse, the Tinker Standard will prevail.

Why am I, a scholastic journalist, a person whose constitutional rights are threatened often by nature, so sure of this? you may ask. Well, it's not because I've dealt with the consequences of censorship firsthand. It's because I've been able to work in an environment when censorship is rarely an issue.

I've seen what students can do in high school publications when given the opportunity to make real decisions and control their own content. I've seen that the benefits of free expression are far greater than the problems that come with censorship. And I believe that someday more high school administrators will also be able to see this. I believe that someday more states will be able to see this, and pass freedom of expression laws like Iowa has done.

As Frank D. LoMonnte, Executive Director of the Student Press Law Center, wrote in a guest column for the Des Moines Register today:

If the 40 years since Tinker have taught us anything, it is that vigilantly questioning our government is the highest duty of citizenship. Students do not flip a switch at adulthood and learn that lesson, if they are taught for the preceding 18 years that the government gets to decide when and how it is criticized.

I don't know what the next 40 or even ten years will bring students relating to free speech and expression. But I can only hope that there will be students just as courageous and wise as the Tinker's to dispute whatever comes our way; students who realize that their opinions contribute to society and deserve to be shared.

Thank you, New York Post

2009-02-19T21:50:00.006-06:00

for this display of journalistic excellence

Obama Announces Foreclosure Rescue Plan...

2009-02-18T20:45:00.009-06:00

...and re-affirms his opposition of the Fairness Doctrine, which gives government the right to require radio stations to provide arguments from multiple sides on controversial issues. Take that, Rush. And by "that" I mean the fact that Obama agrees with you, not the fact that he announced a housing plan. The move on the housing plan kind of sucked.

Quote of the Day

2009-02-17T23:24:00.003-06:00

I overheard this today while walking to lunch...

"Man, you have to remember that tomorrow's a whole new day."

"Yeah, I guess so, but I still feel bad about all of this."

"Don't worry anymore; things are getting better every second. Tomorrow's a new day. Focus on making tomorrow better."

'Please Vote for Me': The Best Thing I've Ever Seen

2009-02-16T07:18:00.011-06:00

Last week, I had the pleasure of watching the short documentary Please Vote for Me on public television. It centers around three third-graders' quest to be elected as class banzhang, which is bascially like a class monitor...or teacher's pet, in China. For decades, the class monitors have been chosen by the teachers, but one school decided to have the children select their banzhang as an experiment in democracy.

This video, as the title suggests, is the greatest thing I've ever seen.

I mean, it was so interesting to see how the children, their families and their teacher handled the election, and that was, for the most part, poorly. Two of the candidates for banzhang were very competitive with each other, and all three of the candidates were unclear of what the banzhang's rule should be (dictator or a manager, Cheng Cheng put it). The parents were even worse; they basically told their children to destroy the other candidates in front of everyone; one kid's father used his position as police chief to bribe everyone with an Amtrak ride.

One specific thing that surprised me was how grown up these kids appeared to be. Their awareness of their own abilities and how they can use them to manipulate everyone else was astonishing - to the point of actually frightening me.

I really think that everyone should go out and somehow find this video and then watch it. Right now. It's that good.

The Evolution of a Blogger

2009-02-14T20:02:00.001-06:00

Note: required post

Shortly after I began blogging this fall, I was assigned to read the essay "Why I Blog" by Andrew Sullivan. If I remember correctly, at the time of the assignment, I liked the concept of blogging, but wasn't really sure of what I was doing, or why I was doing it - other than to fulfill a requirement. So the opportunity to hear why a prominent political blogger chose to blog was more than welcome.

After reading Sullivan's essay, I understood blogging a little better since he compared it to the kind of media I am most familiar with, and that is print journalism. I could also see why the former could be more appealing to the latter to some people. However, I couldn't see how blogging would ever be more appealing to me. And I definitely wasn't any closer to listing reasons of why I blogged.

I've been blogging for five months now and both of those things have changed.

When the assignment of blogging was first introduced, I have to admit that I was pretty excited. Part of this excitement came from the fact that blogging was something I had heard of, but never tried before. I'm not sure I knew what I was getting myself into, but I had a pretty good idea of what blogs were and some of the things that good bloggers did.

Using what I knew, I tried to establish a few ground rules for myself.

The topics of my blog would be politics, current events and the media and its affect on society.
I would never go into diary mode, I promised myself, unless there was a significant message behind my story (See posts tagged as "Personal Reflection").
I would try not to go into objective journalist mode and just summarize news stories.

These rules didn't make the transition from print to online journalism any easier, unfortunately.

My blog started out as this weird mix of longer columns and shorter posts more like those you would expect to see online. I think the hybrid column-blog I created mainly came about because I've been writing newspaper columns for two years and thought that blogging and column writing were interchangeable. While blogging and column writing are similar, this isn't true. But I didn't know that, so I wrote longer, polished, well thought out columns with a clear point that reached beyond the actual event at hand.

These posts took me forever to write. I also found that it was hard to think of some kind of insightful take on a news story three times a week without sounding like a broken record. I ran into this problem constantly, but it was especially problematic when I posted often about Republican slander and race-baiting in the presidential campaign. Every post had the same point: race-baiting was bad and people should look beyond a person's race in selecting their political candidate. Yawn.

As I became more comfortable with blogging and posted more often, I started to move away from posts like these. I started to comment on specific events or issues. This required just as much research or thought as before because I needed to read several articles and columns and formulate my own opinion, but it was far more rewarding. I felt like my posts were doing what blog posts are supposed to do, and that I was actually learning more about events in world news and the political process.

And as I began to feel like I was getting the whole blog thing down, I began to enjoy it more and more and posting became less of a chore. I actually started to exceed the requirement on most weeks. I mean, I think the fact that this is my 74th post should show how much I've gotten into this and how far I've come.

Even though I've come a long way since the beginning, I know that my blog is still far from perfect. Sometimes when I re-read posts, I find little things I'd like to fix, or I want to delete the thing altogether. And to be perfectly honest, if I found a blog like this on the Internet, I probably wouldn't read it. I might glance over it, though, which than I would have done a few months ago, so I see that as an improvement.

Happy 200th

2009-02-12T07:10:00.004-06:00

To Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, too, happy 200th birthday! The video above ("If I Were Abraham Lincoln") is crazy, like really, really, really crazy, and the guy who made it is crazy, like really, really, really crazy, yet it somehow seemed appropriate for the occasion. Enjoy. Or don't enjoy. Man, I regret posting this now.

First Presser: Obama Speaks Good

2009-02-11T01:05:00.011-06:00

Today, I came across a really interesting entry on the Huffington Post from a guy named Mark Nickolas. But his name isn't the interesting part because, like most people who contribute to the Huffington Post, I had never heard of him before. The interesting part is a little experiment he conducted. After Obama's first press conference, he decided to compare it to the first press conference given by George Bush.

In Nickolas' words, this is what he did:

I copied each full transcript into separate Word documents. After doing that, I deleted the introductions by both men (since those are largely or fully scripted) and then deleted all reporter questions from the transcripts. What you have left are simply the answers that each president offered, off-the-cuff and unscripted, to all questions.

He then ran Microsoft Word's readability tool to find that Bush's answers were spoken at a 7th grade level while Obama's were spoken at a 10th grade level.

The Flesch Reading Ease numbers were also interesting, as they can show what audience someone was speaking to. For example, Bush's Flesch Reading index was 70. This falls into the high end of something that would easily be understood by students in their young teens.

Below are the screen shots from the actual results - Obama's is on the top and Bush's is on the bottom.

BA-rockin' His First Presser

2009-02-10T23:08:00.006-06:00

Barack Obama's first press conference on the economic stimulus package, which took place last night, showed quite a few things about how he'll get business done in the White House. First of all, he'll, well, get business done. And this business will be done in a poised, resilient and confident way.

By the time the conference was over, I knew that some kind of bill would pass through the Senate, and soon. This feeling came because Obama did such a good job making a case for the stimulus package and addressing all concerns, especially those related to how it was created and why the votes had been so partisan. To answer the latter question, he explained the efforts he made to reach out to House Republicans. This effort was not successful in passing this bill, he said, but it was an important step to working together.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, the bill for the economic stimulus package did pass in the Senate today.

So Behind on the Times, Ctd.

2009-02-09T01:28:00.012-06:00

In my last post, I touched on all of the news stories I missed during the last week, with a focus on how ridiculous Rod Blagojevich is and a slight focus on Tom Daschle's resignation. Well, in this post, I'm coming back to talk about Michael Steele. I don't really want to talk about him as a person, or how he was chosen as the first black chairman of the RNC, though that is significant, but rather the challenges he will face with his new job. These challenges are not small and they definitely won't be easy to solve.

The challenges I'm referring to were realized on November 5, 2008, after Democrats gained victories in states that were seen as uncharted territory. At that point, it became clear that Republicans needed to reverse the changes in the electoral map. This was to be done by expanding their party without losing their base.

While that goal is noble, I think it might be out of reach, or at least when the plan of how Republicans have adapted is considered. A change in message and embracing technology Democrats have already utilized seems like too little to actually make a difference in how people vote. I think this is because the problems facing the GOP have been in the making for years and they are hardly easy to control.

During this year's presidential election, Democrats benefited from an expanding electorate, which was mostly created by increasing Hispanic and working class populations in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida. Beastly early voting numbers and high voter turn out in general, along with 98 percent of African Americans supporting Obama, also helped. And we can't forget that all of these people came out to vote because of active grass roots campaigning, and the resources invested because of Dean's 50 State Strategy.

Without a doubt, these changes highly influenced the result of the election. However, I think the current Republican predicament can be more accurately traced back to substance, er, lack of substance; that's really what caused everything in the last paragraph.

In my totally biased opinion, Republicans haven't had a clear party platform for the past eight years, or at least a party platform that makes sense to everyday people. The only stance that has been clear to me is being pro-life, and that isn't exactly old news. And, as it has been realized throughout history, one issue can't carry a political party for very long, especially when it's an issue we've been bickering about for 200 years. Many people even set the issue of abortion aside (especially the young evangelical crowd who is equally, if not more concerned, with Darfur, poverty and the environment) during this presidential election.

I think I covered everything I wanted to say... . So recap: Because of changes in the electoral map, which can be attributed to an expanding electorate, good campaigning on the Democrats' part and bad campaigning on the Republicans' part, the GOP has a huge mess ahead of them. The closest up-side is still two years away. At this point, the Republicans will probably pick up a few seats in Congress if the economy is still doing poorly. However, this will not led to immediate recovery for the party. This recovery will only come if significant action is taken, and, sorry, significant action isn't electing an African-American as GOP chairman.

So Behind on the Times

2009-02-06T18:13:00.013-06:00

Without a doubt, I've missed a lot of news during this past week.

Rod Blagojevich was impeached
Republicans selected Michael Steele as their new party chairman
Michael Phelps was caught smoking marijuana
Tom Daschle resigned as the nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services
Judd Gregg was nominated for the position of Secretary of Commerce
And the push by President Obama and Democratic leaders for an economic stimulus package continued

I really wanted to blog about the events above, but, for many reasons, I just couldn't. First of all, I wasn't sure whether or not I would be able to keep this page up. So I blogged less frequently and about things less substantial and controversial, like a book I started reading and a cool photo of Barack, just in case. I've also been really busy. And lazy.

But, don't fear...This post, which will be about the recent cycle of corruption in politics, is intended to bring me back to speed. Not only on the news itself, but also on blogging since I feel like I've lost my rhythm. At the end of this post, I hope to feel caught up with the news, which means I can move on to other topics comfortably, and more familiar with blogging.

I'll start by talking about Blago, who was impeached by the Illinois Senate last Thursday. It made me sad to see the case come down like it did, but I'm so glad that this mess of a governor is finally gone. This means that the healing process can finally begin.

When I said that I was sad to see the case end the way it did, I was mainly talking about Blago's attitude and the negative image he has now tied to government.

In the days before the vote, Blago peaced out of Chicago and into New York City to do a series of television interviews. During these interviews, he, once again, claimed that he had done nothing wrong. Blago said that the reason for impeachment was his attempt to raise taxes to fund state and social programs. This was ridiculous and unbelievably tacky. His actions definitely showed his above-the-law mentality, stupidity and insanity.

Maybe he acted more appropriately after the impeachment?, you might be thinking. Well, if that is the case, you're wrong. When stopped by reporters outside of his house and asked about the case, he said, "And the fight goes on. Just because I'm not the governor anymore doesn't mean I'm going to stop fighting."

I guess some things never change.

On a brighter note, it looks like former lieutenant governor Patrick Quinn has shown excellent leadership and a sharp contrast from his former running mate so far.

Daschle's reason for resigning as the nominee for head of HHS reflects Blago's mentality of lawlessness. This is not to say that the cases are even similar, though; they just reflect similar attitudes.

Still, I was more disappointed by Daschle's actions than Blago's. I just really liked, and still like, Daschle, I guess. For this reason, it was sad to see something as preventable as unpaid taxes lead to his demise. It was also sad to see Daschle act in a way that separates members of the government from everyone else because they think they can get away with it.

Again, on the bright side, it looks like a good list of replacements for the HHS job is in the works, including Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius. It also looks like the resignation process ran fairly smoothly, at least on Daschle's part. He made it clear that he couldn't serve in the position because he needed the trust of Congress and America, and he had lost this trust (something Blago obviously can't do). However, things didn't come as easily for the Obama-Biden administration. Their message was very supportive when it looked like Daschle would remain in consideration, and then suddenly changed when they were forced to accept his resignation. Of course this was pointed out by Jon Stewart.

I think this about covers my feelings about corruption in politics lately. I may return to some of the other topics I missed in the future.

'Team of Rivals', Part I

2009-02-04T21:03:00.011-06:00

I recently started reading Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin and it has proved to be an excellent read so far. An 800 page biography on Lincoln probably doesn't sound very interesting, but it really is. Okay, well it is for me.

But I didn't always feel this way.

Originally, I was apprehensive about reading Team of Rivals. I had heard that it was very good, but, come on, ANOTHER Lincoln biography? That comment sounds bad, but I'm totally honest when I say that was how I responded initially. This wasn't because I disrespect or am not interested in our 16th president. This feeling came from the fact that there are more books in America about Lincoln than any other person in history. For whatever reason, that fact bothered me. I began to question whether or not there was anything new to say.

The answer is surprisingly yes - there is plenty of new information to be said. This is because Kearns' work offers a very fresh take on Lincoln, especially for someone like me, whose knowledge of the man amounts to school history and a visit to his presidential museum in Springfield. This new knowledge is not only delivered through information on Lincoln, but also through information on members of his cabinet in a highly engaging way.

By engaging I mean that the book doesn't read like a textbook. It reads instead how history is meant to be re-told - like a story. And this all started with the book's beginning.

Team of Rivals opens up on May of 1860, which was the day when ballots were submitted at the Republican National Convention in Chicago. Kearns uses this day to focus the stories of the four men (Lincoln, Seward, Bates and Chase), who were all awaiting the news of who had been selected as the nominee.

It's stories and connections like the opener that have caused me to enjoy this book so much. Instead of just talking about Lincoln's life and political career like a million other biographies, Kearns talks about his life by talking and comparing it to three other politicians. These three other politicians - William Seward, Salmon Chase and Edward Bates - were Lincoln's competition for the nomination and distinguished public figures. Seward, Chase and Bates all served in Lincoln's cabinet.

Everytime I pick up Team of Rivals, I feel just a little bit smarter and like I'm learning so much more about Lincoln. It's a great feeling. I'm looking forward to finishing the book, and will probably blog more about it later.

You Should Probably Also See These

2009-02-03T18:44:00.015-06:00

Here are a few of my favorite Inauguration photos. To view more, click here. That website houses quite the collection of January 20th images from DC, New York, other major cities and even other countries. Plus you should check it out because the small, compressed duplicates bellow don't even come close to doing any justice to the originals.

You Should Probably See This

2009-02-03T18:35:00.006-06:00

This is an (almost) panoramic photo of Obama's Inauguration taken with a 1.4 GEGAPIXEL camera. I had never even heard of a gegapixel before, but it's equal to 1,000 mega pixels, so the quality is absolutely amazing. You can zoom in on basically anything - people's faces, the Capitol, snipers at the top of the Capitol - and see it in perfect detail. Personally, I enjoyed how one of the Supreme Court justices appeared to be asleep. But yeah, check this photo out. It's so sick.

A Comprehensive Argument for the Stimulus Bill (and Against House GOPs)

2009-01-28T19:33:00.027-06:00

Tonight's vote on President Obama's economic stimulus bill showed three things:

1) House Republicans strongly opposed the proposal, which is pretty obvious considering that not even one voted for it.

According to some, this means that Obama took advantage of the Democratic majority in Congress to introduce a partisan bill. However, I don't think that's the case, which brings me to point number two...

2) House Republicans strongly oppose everything. Yet they are unwilling to propose anything of their own.

which brings me to point number three...

3) House Republicans don't propose anything of their own or vote for anything proposed regarding economic matters because they know the recession won't dissolve immediately. This way, they can't be blamed for wasting billions when the bill passes but doesn't fix everything magically; they can then say "We told you so".

Before I explain what I meant by those observations, especially number three, I'm going to outline the specifics of the $800 billion proposed stimulus package. '

Here are its main components:

Infrastructure

$142 billion will be invested in education to modernize classrooms and make other repairs
$54 billion will be invested in regulating fuel standards and greenhouse emissions (reversing much of Bush's energy policy) and producing more alternative energy
$20 billion to work toward moving all medical records online
$16 billion will be set aside for investments in science, research and technology

State relief

$87 billion for Medicaid so eligibility and coverage will not have to be cut
$4 billion for law enforcement

Safety net to protect those losing jobs

$43 billion to be used for unemployment benefits by creating unemployment insurance and incentives for states to provide unemployment assistance; effective until Dec. 2009
$39 billion to help people who have recently been laid off maintain their health insurance
$20 billion will be put toward increasing the food stamp program and supporting food banks and school lunch programs

Tax cuts for individuals and businesses

$145 billion middle class tax cut, which will amount to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families
$5 billion low income tax cut
$18 billion child tax credit
$17 billion for suffering companies over the next 10 years

Overall, I think the bill's contents are fairly solid. However, in some cases, it looks as if money is just being thrown out left and right. On the other hand, in the case of education and energy especially, it looks like there isn't enough money to do what has been proposed.

Part of the Republican argument against the bill deals with my first area of concern - that the money won't be regulated properly.

This is a valid concern, however it should be noted that the Obama Administration has introduced plans to increase the transparency in the money used.

The Republicans take my concern a step further, though, by saying that investing in infrastructure is unnecessary and a waste of money.

Since the vote, many legislators have come out and said they would have liked the bill if it had focused more on tax cuts for individuals and businesses, without investments in infrastructure. While tax cuts alone haven't worked to better the economy before, I guess I can understand the argument. However, I can't understand why House Republicans didn't propose their own bill, or work to amend the current one, since they had so many issues with it.

What appears to be the main reason for the inaction of House Republicans is the fact that the bill won't work right away. This is because it was written to balance short term and long term stimulus. The tax cuts and unemployment relief will help people now, while investments in infrastructure and new energy will create jobs and leave our country better off in the long run, much like designing the highway and rail systems did. By not voting for the bill, yet not working to create an alternative to it, or a real opposition besides a dissenting vote, House Republicans have shown they are only interested in the short term effects.

Now that we have established that House Republicans prefer to sit around and do nothing to writing and passing a bill that could actually help people, there is another question that needs to be answered: Is it Obama's responsibility to whip these Republicans back in line?

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial tried to make the argument that Obama should have shown more leadership in order to produce a more bipartisan vote. The author made a few good points. However, I ultimately disagreed with the article because I believe there is only so much room for Obama to lead in matters of Congress. After all, our country does have separate branches of government and division of powers for a reason.

That's not to say that a president shouldn't try to influence policy, but, like I said before, there is only so much room to do so. And I think Obama acted appropriately and filled this responsibility by meeting with Republican members of Congress several times. During these meetings, he answered all questions and sought the opinions of all who attended. Republicans spoke of how generous, intelligent and kind Obama appeared to be after the fact, yet never really spoke of an alternative to his proposal, which they still didn't agree with.

And this brings me to point number three...

3) House Republicans don't propose anything of their own or vote for anything proposed regarding economic matters because they know the recession won't dissolve immediately. This way, they can't be blamed for wasting billions when the bill passes but doesn't fix everything magically; they can then say "We told you so".

The Vote's In

2009-01-28T19:22:00.012-06:00

"The House...passed an $819 billion economic stimulus package Wednesday on a party-line vote, despite President Obama's efforts to achieve bipartisan support for the bill.
"The final vote was 244 to 188. No Republicans voted for the bill, while 11 Democrats voted against it.
"The Senate is likely to take up the bill next week."
Read the full article.

I want to write more, but have mixed feelings about the bill. You'll learn how I feel about this as soon as I learn how I feel about this.

Fair and Balanced

2009-01-26T22:36:00.024-06:00

Lately I've been curious to see how FOX News has been covering the Bush-Obama transition, but have been too terrified to actually watch FOX. The last time I tuned in was shortly after Sarah Palin was selected as the Republican vice presidential candidate and all I remember was seeing three crazy women yelling at each other about the proximity of Alaska to Russia. This was too much for me. I mean, if you don't have the poise and intelligence to respectfully argue a point while using real examples and evidence, then you shouldn't be on TV.

So long story short: Because of bad experiences, when I wished to hear from the right this past week, I relied on the The Daily Show. More specifically, I relied on the video posted bellow. It gave me my fair share of insanity without causing me to tear my eyes out or something terrible like that. Sorry, that might have come off strong, but so did the sound bite of Rush Limbaugh saying "I hope he (Obama) fails".

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Fox News Fear Imbalance

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

My first response to the Daily Show video was to laugh out of shock and because, well, it was funny. But then I started to think about the comments further. I came to the conclusion that they are inappropriate, inaccurate, and just stupid for the most part. Obama has only been president for a week. Before discrediting him completely, would it hurt to give him his 100 days and see how things go? The answer (in case it wasn't obvious): of course not.

However, I realize that not everyone loves Barack, as much as I'd like to think otherwise. Some people don't like him and won't make the effort to. That's fine. I feel this way because I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me or Obama. In fact, I'm glad to live in a country where people take politics seriously and there is so much diversity in political opinion. I'm also glad that these diverse view points are represented on television in one way or another.

What I am bothered with is when journalists chose to express their opinions by bashing others, and this includes everyone, even the "liberal media" - ie MSNBC. It's unnecessary to be so mean-spirited. Also, journalists who just hate on other public figures are doing a disservice to our society because the truth and facts can be left untold. Our country can become divided even further by adapting the idea of us against them from people like Limbaugh.

I'm extremely interested in this subject and will be writing many future posts about the media. I plan to focus on its role in public life. I'd also like to touch on how our society has come to define the terms fair and balanced. From what I've seen, it's obvious that those two words don't accurately describe FOX.

Obama's Inauguration: A View from the Sky

2009-01-22T23:52:00.003-06:00

In the right picture, one and a half million people gather to see Barack Obama inaugurated as our 44th president.

"I've been sitting here thinking -- it's really beautiful. This is what I would consider the true representation of all of America. Obama gives everyone space at the table." -Patrick Bragg, an eyewitness from Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Lowery Inspires During Benediction

2009-01-22T23:45:00.010-06:00

I am white and my response to the benediction given by Rev. Joseph Lowery was simple: Amen, amen. The prayer was one of my favorite moments from Tuesday's Inauguration, yet it has been unfortunately overlooked by the more obvious choices. In my opinion, it provided for the perfect ending to the ceremony.

Lowery, who is now 87, was a friend of Martin Luther King, Jr. And, as he called for us to continue to move forward as a country and accept one another in prayer, Lowery made it clear that he never thought the day an African-American president would be sworn-in would come. He used many references while he spoke, including those from the Bible, King speeches and a popular song from the Civil Rights Movement.

And as we leave this mountain top, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family. Let us take that power back to our homes, our workplaces, our churches, our temples, our mosques, or wherever we seek your will.

The quote above, for example, points toward the land of equality and freedom King called for. I absolutely loved this part because "I've Been to the Mountaintop" is my favorite King speech. To me the passage said that, at the moment of the Inauguration, America was in a very good place and it was our duty to acknowledge that. At the same time, we needed to recognize that the joy over Obama's inauguration will wear off, but by remembering what brought us to that point, eventually things can improve forever.

This was excellent. Out of all of the prayers I've heard (and believe me, I've heard a lot), this is the only prayer that I have ever knowingly responded Amen to. This is also the only prayer that has caused me to want to hug the deliverer afterward. Seriously. Lowery is too precious for words.

On Obama's Inaugural Address

2009-01-22T23:44:00.004-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

With the exception of cable news interrupting with some sort of test near the beginning, Barack Obama's inaugural address was excellent. But, as an Obama supporter and liberal individual, you would expect me to say that, so I'll elaborate.

First of all, what I liked most about the address was that it took a very fresh approach to a speech that is usually boring. This is especially true when you consider that the inaugural addresses of past presidents primarily consisted of shortened versions of their agendas, with rainbows and unicorns flying everywhere.

Obama's was different. He clearly spoke of the challenges we face that have been left by the outgoing administration, and also those that come with a developing world. But, as he does in every speech, Obama left the audience with hope. He did this by bringing attention to previous struggles our nation has not only endured, but came better because of. These included the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, Cold War, World War II, Vietnam, etc. I was suprised to hear Obama use so many war-related examples; I suppose he did this to appeal to a broader audience.

Second, I liked how much Obama, once again, tied together the themes of his campaign: serving a common purpose, the can-do attitude of America, hope over fear, unity and so on. This was done in a more tangible way than past speeches. I almost thought this took away the pizzaz and fireworks from his address. Really, I was hoping he would burst out into yes we can's early on. However, I can see how the use of example and more specific terms would appeal to a wide range of people, so I'm glad Obama did this, I guess.

And third, Obama delivered the speech with poise and confidence, though that doesn't really need to be said.

Congratulations, Mr. President

2009-01-20T12:33:00.016-06:00

I just finished watching Inauguration coverage for the day because I'll be heading out to lunch with friends soon. But before that, I wanted to stop in and share how I'm feeling right now, right after Barack Obama was inaugurated.

In short, I feel great - really, really great, and so touched by what I have seen today today. Of course, this includes Obama's speech. It was fantastic and provided a great set-up for his administration. But there were so many more significant moments to the Inauguration, like seeing people in crowds stretching two miles across the National Mall.

For me, the best part of the ceremony was the fact that Obama will be the first president I've watched and supported from the beginning. And now that Obama is in office, I feel like I actually hold a stake in our government. Most people my age feel this way because Obama is the first president we've been able to connect to. He's also the first public figure to give the youth an idealistic voice. This is the one thing I still can't get over - how much Obama believes in gradual change, common purpose and hope for the future, and even more - that he has brought this view to millions of supporters.

His speech showed all of this, and certainly that something new is beginning. As familiar as I am with Obama's policy statements, I'm not sure exactly what the new beginning is. But when you've an intelligent president, who will finally close Guantanamo Bay, end the war in Iraq, work toward energy independence and support the rights of all Americans, things look pretty good.

That's not to say there won't be pit-falls and I'm sure there will be something Obama does that I won't agree with, but I don't want to think about that know. I just want to think that, after all of the waiting, worrying and work, Barack Obama is no longer Senator Obama or President-Elect Obama, but PRESIDENT OBAMA. It's great to say and even write, so if you don't mind, I'll write it a few more times: President Obama, President Obama, President Obama.

OK. I'm done.

I'll blog more later. For now, I just want to say: Congratulations, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President, and best of luck. We're all here with you and eager to watch things unfold.

New Media Trends I Don't Understand: Live-Blogging

2009-01-19T23:15:00.014-06:00

New Media Trends I Don't Understand is a new and semi-regular feature of my blog. In these posts, I will choose one multimedia feature that has become popular in journalism. Today, this feature is live-blogging.

For those of you not as familiar with the journalism world as I am, live-blogging is basically like regular blogging, except you are blogging your observations as a particular event takes place. I had heard murmurs of this all throughout the campaign season, but never bothered to look at any of the promoted blogs.

This past weekend was different.

When the blog of Candy Crowley, who traveled with Barack Obama by train to Washington, DC., was mentioned on CNN, I decided to check it out. And after seeing Crowley on TV before, I was disappointed with what I saw. The posts from the train ride were limited in length, number and quality, and just weren't very interesting.

The first of Crowly's six posts was this:

ABOARD THE OBAMA EXPRESS (CNN) — The Amtrak train carrying President-elect Barack Obama and his entourage has left Philadelphia's 30th Street Station.

The 10-car, two-diesel-engine train is carrying 90 members of the media in addition to the President-elect, his family, his entourage and staff, and the Secret Service.

This is not a trip for the claustrophobic or anyone in a hurry. We will be covering 135 miles in approximately eight hours.

Upon boarding the train, most of the media headed for the café car.

As we pulled out of Philadelphia, about two dozen people lined a bridge to wave at the President-elect train as it departed Philadelphia.

Sorry Crowley and CNN, but this was a yawner and, unfortunately, the posts never got any better. They detailed where the train was and when it stopped. I guess this information might be interesting to know as it happens, but live-blogging seems like an inappropriate way to simply share basic information. Isn't this why CNN broadcasts 24 hours a day and has a very popular website? Perhaps the schedule could have been posted off to the side somewhere?

Now, if Crowly, would have taken a different approach to the posts, like maybe making them more detailed or more personal, I think what she attempted to do would have been more effective. I mean, the reason I even bothered to look at her blog was because I was interested in any thoughts or insights that might occur to someone while riding on a train with the next president of the United States. Instead, she came back with a bunch of lame posts that could have probably been written by someone who wasn't even there.

Ultimately, I don't understand why live-blogging is necessary, at least the way it is done by Crowly and like-minded and technology-limited journalists. It seems to be another thing the media is doing to appear up-to-date and hip. But like everything else the media has done to complete this goal, which shouldn't even be a goal, I'm not impressed.

An Update: Obama-kah

2009-01-19T21:21:00.010-06:00

I finally took a few minutes to watch pre-Inauguration coverage and now let's just say that I'm really, really, really excited to see tomorrow's events to unfold.

In honor of the inauguration of our 44th president, I'm forgetting all of my responsibilities and taking a holiday for Obama - Obama-kah, if you will.

As excited as I am for missing school, I don't have any real plans for my day. I'll sleep in, eat a nice breakfast, and that's all I have so far. From there, I could either meet up with friends, road trip down to Iowa City to meet college friends, or watch the address at home with my dad. The last of those would be the most quiet and simple, but probably just as enjoyable. After the actual address, I will blog while watching post-Inauguration coverage, eat a nice lunch and then definitely go to Iowa City.

No matter what I end up doing tomorrow, it's going to be a great day.

An Interesting Survey

2009-01-19T21:14:00.005-06:00

A new CNN survey found that 84% of Americans support Barack Obama in his transition to the White House. I couldn't believe that statistic at first because I'm so used to seeing approval ratings in the 20's for our current president. This - this is just incredible. I hope all of the people who responded positively will be just as supportive once Obama takes office. I also hope that they understand the significant problems we face and the changes needed in economic, energy and foreign policy.

Listed bellow, are the responses to a few other questions I thought were worth mentioning. Also, while I didn't list them here, the answers of surveyed African-Americans were very interesting. I think something like 9 out of 10 blacks thought Obama's inauguration was a dream come true.

Inauguration a celebration in democracy
60% - Obama's
40% - Bush's 8 years ago

Thrilled or happy about inauguration
68% - Obama's
50% - Bush's 4 years ago (A little high, but that's just my opinion...)

High quality of inaugural address
85% - Obama's
61 % - Bush's 8 years ago

Thanks to Mr. Ayers for pointing the poll out.

Happy MLK Day

2009-01-19T09:37:00.004-06:00

"Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He has allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!"
-Martin Luther King Jr., "I've Been to the Mountaintop", April 3, 1968, Memphis

Pre-Inauguration Reading: 'Promises to Keep'

2009-01-15T15:06:00.026-06:00

Thanks to temperatures of -29 degrees Fahrenheit, I've spent this past week not just inside of my warm house, but inside my room with every blanket I could find wrapped around me. And, during this time, I've finally finished reading The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama and Promises to Keep by Joe Biden. I meant to do this ages ago, before Election Day actually, but never got around to it.

Anyway, what I'm going to attempt to do in this following post is something I've never done on this blog, and that is give a book review. Biden's and Obama's books couldn't look more different from the cover, but they really have a lot in common when it comes to themes and ideas. It's amazing that the concepts were developed independently.

This post is all about Promises to Keep, and I'll write a later one about The Audacity of Hope.

Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics

by Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden

I'm starting with Biden's memoir, Promises to Keep, because it has gotten significantly less attention and probably has only been read by die hard supporters. I enjoyed it just as much, if not more, than The Audacity of Hope, but only because of the approach that Biden took. Instead of his chapters being titled "Values", "Republicans and Democrats" and "Our Constitution", Biden's are more about specific events throughout his life and long-spanning career in the Senate.

Obviously, this included the story of his first wife and youngest daughter dying in a car accident when he was 30-years-old, shortly before being sworn into the United States Senate.

I've heard Biden's wife and children talk about this event, both in person and in televised speeches. And to be totally honest, hearing the story makes me cry every time. The best example I can give is Beau Biden's introduction of Joe at the Democratic National Convention this year. It was a very touching speech (This is the link to the actual video. Seriously, if you haven't seen this yet, you really need to. It's beautiful) and showed Biden's remarkable response to great tragedy and how it shaped who he is today.

So, while I'm more than familiar with the story, I had never heard Biden talk about the accident more than in Promises to Keep. I thought the set-up and background provided before Biden actually got around to talking about the accident was excellent. In fact, it made the story even more powerful because it showed how Biden went from the top of the world to mourning his wife and baby daughter, and dealing with two sons who were severely injured. To do this, he retold meeting his late wife Neilia, falling in love, getting married, having children, winning a huge a election, and then how it went away on one night, in the search for a Christmas tree.

After reaching all of that and to the chapter where he met his current wife, Jill, I thought the rest of the book would be a downhill ride, but that was not the case. Biden was also able to apply the same storytelling and reflecting techniques to talk about the transformation of the Senate and America, important events and decisions he had to make. He did an excellent job of putting all of this in historical context. Out of everything he talked about, I found his discussion and stories from the Robert Bork nomination to be really interesting, especially since Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. I also enjoyed his recollections since 9/11 on the Iraq War, which he spends the last few chapters on. This gave me a better idea of what had been going on at the time and why we're where we are now.

The only negative to Promises to Keep was that Biden sometimes appeared a little cocky by quoting himself and other newspaper articles. That's easy to overlook and doesn't happen very often.

Overall, I enjoyed this book. It was a compelling personal story that strung all of Biden's values together, both political and personal. I liked this approach and also found it to be very approachable, in the sense that Promises to Keep was easy to read and gain meaning from.

I also think Biden's memoir can give any person a greater understanding of who he is as a person. I've seen Biden speak in person several times and actually met him twice, but picking up this book helped me gain an even better sense of Biden's character, thought process and ideas of gradual change and shared values amongst very different people. So, if you're looking to learn more about a well respected Senator and our future vice president, this is a good read.