Second Presidential Debate

Obama is seen as the clear winner in the snap polls, and I'd agree: if Obama have given this performance two weeks ago, the election would have been over.  The question now is: is Obama's return to form sufficient to arrest, if not reverse, the momentum in Romney's poll numbers nationally and in the swing states.  The change in the nature of the race is a result of the gender gap's shrinkage to about dead even.  In the swing states, a poll from today had Obama leading Romney among women 49% to 48%. Of great significance was Romney's demeanor toward moderator Candy Crowley combined with his reference to women "in the binder" that he drew upon to fill his Chief of Staff position as Governor of Massachussets.  Romney also committed an unforced error in the Libyan matter by not knowing that Obama had in fact the day after 9/11 referred to the assault on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya as as resembling "acts of terror."  When corrected by Crowley, Romney was never the same: he sank into an incompetent slump.  It's poetic justice that Romney tripped himself on this matter since he had seized upon it as an opening to condemn Obama's foreign policy leadership before the attack on the consulate took place.  It was arguably an unseemly effort to gain politically from a national tragedy where all Americans should have been pulling in the same direction, at least until the facts were in.  But Romney saw evidence of Obama's "apology tour," his "leading from the rear," and he couldn't pass up the opportunity to score political points when events were still unfolding.

Now we watch the polls and the forecasters like Nate Silver and Larry Sabato.  One would think that the keys to an Obama win -- namely, women in Ohio and Iowa and women and Latinos in Colorado and Nevada -- will take what they need from tonight's debate.

The Veepstakes Debate: Hyperreality vs. Reality

The results of the flash polls following last night's vice-presidential debate are instructive precisely because they present such disparate representations of what took place when Biden and Ryan squared off in Danville, Kentucky.  The CBS poll of undecided voters had Biden winning handily: 50% thought he won, while only 31% thought Ryan was the victor.  CNN's poll, however, had 48% of a sample who'd been interviewed the week before and declaring that they intended to watch the debate giving the nod to Ryan as the winner with 44% favoring Biden.  This difference is well within the + 5% margin of error for a sample with 382 respondents.  Inspecting the composition of this sample, one finds that a plurality of the respondents favored Romney, leading one to discount the results relative to the CBS poll.  Persons interviewed by CNN had told Opinion Research Corp personnel the week before that they would be watching and willing to respond to a second interview on the Veep debate.

These differences have been dissected and spun a thousand ways in the post-debate analyses, but the most common characterization features the perrenial rivalry between the eye and the ear.  Those favoring Ryan were put off by Biden's facial gestures -- baring of teeth aka smiles -- in the split-screen visuals when Mr. Ryan was speaking.  Mr. Biden was seen as being disrespectful by viewers giving the debate to Ryan.  As David Brooks saw it, the old guy was treating the youthful challenger with visibly rude disdain.  Biden, by this account, was by body language repeating the same mistakes made twelve years earlier by then Vice President Gore in the first presidential debate of 2000 with Republican nominee George W. Bush.  Gore, it is worth recalling, was seen as winning on substance in the immediate post-debate polling; however, after four days of media-frenzied discussions of the Veep's invasion of W's space and childish antics during Bush's remarks, majorities came ultimately to conclude that, on second thought, maybe Gore wasn't the winner after all.

The debate about the debate will go on this time with no likely reconciliation between the two accounts, which brings us to the subtitle of this post: "hyperreality" vs. reality.  As the following link demonstrates, in full youtube visual splendor, hyperreality trumps reality in this postmodern moment.
See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEkEd9nDo

Biden vs. Ryan: Pre-Debate Strategy

Joe Biden is tasked with a tougher challenge than is customary for incumbent vice presidents facing a challenge from the opposition's bottom of the ticket.  Normally, VP debates are relatively inconsequential.  Even when a line is esconced in electoral history -- e.g., "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." -- it is void of ties to contextual matters or overall electoral significance.  But President Obama's much-discussed underperformance in the first debate with Mitt Romney, coupled with its visible effects in the tracking polls, make tonight's event more crucial than is usually the case, if for no other reason than it offers a break in the pro-Romney, anti-Obama narrative that has dominated for the last week.  That this narrative has prevailed despite widespread acknowledgment that Romney's victory in the first debate was predicated in large part on notable discontinuities in the Governor's positions over time on fundamental fiscal issues like GOP brand-name fondness for across the board tax cuts.

Biden's tactical task is to strengthen the association between Romney and Ryan.  In this instance, that means forcing Ryan to defend his own budget, particularly the near-term cuts it dictates in Mediare as we know it as well as underscoring the undefined alterations in the tax code (with credits, exemptions and deductions) that would make an overall reduction in the individual and corporate rates "revenue neutral."  Romney's recent pivot to foreign-policy points of difference with Obama does not play to Ryan's strength; thus, Biden will likely use his time to call attention to Romney's intentions and to the continuities they display with foreign policy under Bush and Cheney.  Ryan has arguably been a drag on the GOP ticket, since he does little to enhance Romney's appeal among Independents and among those skeptical about a former governor's expertise in national security issues.  And because his budget puts policy on paper, the commitments to cutting popular entitlements while doubling down on supply-side adjustments of the marginal tax rates, Ryan offers a bigger, more stable target than the shape-shifting persona at the top of the ticket.

Prediction: Biden will meet expectations, and arrest the damage done by Obama's off-night in Debate 1.  It won't serve as a "game changer," but it will bolster confidence among the Democratic base and change the narrative going into Tuesday's second presidential face-off.

DT

Obama vs. Romney Debate 1

Who won?  Romney, at least in the short term.  The long term may prove otherwise because Romney repeatedly cited statistics and facts that, upon close and repeated scrutiny, may well prove false.  Obama clearly had an off night.  He spoke, by the clock, for four minutes more than Romney, yet he failed to directly challenge Romney on several points.  For example, Romney claimed that his tax plan would not reduce taxes further on the wealthy, yet one of its key provisions is to abolish capital gains taxes entirely.  He would have paid zero taxes by his plan last year.  Jim Lehrer would not as the moderator call him on that; but Obama shouldn't have expected someone else to do it for him.

This was a debate on domestic policy yet not a word on Ryan's and other Republicans in the House's record on domestic policy, including women's reproductive rights, the 47%, Bain Capital and the export of jobs, the alleged greater efficiency of private insurance relative to Medicare.  Obama was off his game, and Romney used an aggressive prosecutorial style fortified by dubious facts, e.g., 90 billion in subsidies to green energy, lowest drilling on government land ever. 

Many are blaming Lehrer for not controlling the debate better.  That was the intent: to let this be more like a real debate; and Obama was, quite simply, not as well-prepared as he should have been.

Is Bloom's Portrait of Iowa and Iowans out of Bounds?

The infamous article in Atlantic Monthly's online edition from the journalism professor at Iowa, Stephen Bloom, continues to elicit critical reactions from those who know the state best.  How fair was the Professor's Portrayal? 

We Built It!

Whatever happened to the sense of gratitude -- let alone recognition of the role of government, teachers, breaks, ohters -- that most Americans seem to feel about their luck in being alive in this country, at this time?  Watching the GOP convention speeches, framed around the the President's remark recently that no one, no matter how successful, does it solely on his own, it's easy for someone like me who was the beneficiary of a Congress who passed the National Defense Education Act to help finance the college costs of those like me from families who didn't have the means to afford tution and fees costs for all their kids.  The speakers -- Santorum, Nikki Haley, even Ann Romney, and Chris Christie -- hammer on the same point: we hearty individualists and we alone are able to say "we did it."  Good for them!  I can only say: it really is doubtful.

DT

The politics of student loans

A sobering series on college costs, the most recent post of which looks at the federal government's outstourcing to collection agencies to run down the delinquent in repaying their student loans. 

The link below is to the New York Times most recent article on the costs of college, both monetary and political.  All are sobering accounts of how students and their families have paid dearly for their detachment from politics and policymaking.  The problem, though, is that the anti-government and anti-political detachment fostered by this detachment only makes it worse.

Debt Collectors Cashing In on Student Loan Roundup

DT

The Road to Recovery?

As pointed out in an August 25 New York Times column by Charles Blow, a White House report issued a week earlier noted that:
      

“Since the end of the recession in June 2009, the economy lost over 300,000 local education jobs. The loss of education jobs stands in stark contrast to every other recovery in recent years, under Republican and Democratic administrations.”

 

For a time, the loss of teaching jobs was held in abeyance by the so-called stimulus, enacted by a strictly Democratic vote in 2009.  As federal funds ran out and the Republicans who controlled the House in the wake of the 2010 elections put efforts to curb the debt atop of their own recovery agenda, the recovery has slowed and job increases have been paltry and confined to the private sector.

 

Meanwhile, China and India continue to pour resources into education, far outpacing in the US in producing college graduates with training in Science, Technology, and Math (STEM) degrees.  Charles Blow's column proceeds to point out the consequences of these divergent paths for the next generation of Americans.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these consequences are hardly hearty or worthy of national pride.

 

In 1957, I was a fourth grade student when the USSR launched Sputnik, the ICBM capable of carrying nuclear warheads from one side of the world to the other (in addition to winning the race for space).  The US response included passage of the National Defense Education Act, a program that was in place nine years later when I borrowed money from the early student loan program to pay for what my (athletic) scholarship didn't cover at Whittier College.  The interest on NDEA loans was 3%; the terms of repayment were such that if I chose to enter the education field, 10% of what I owed would be canceled from the total I borrowed up to five years or half of the value of the loan.

 

This is worth mentioning because hundreds of thousands of Baby Boomers like me benefited from this federal program.  That this program was part of national security seems, in retrospect, to make good sense (though at the time it struck me as odd to couple defense-spending with subsidies to college students).  The contrast today could not be more stark.  As college has become far more necessary for economic survival for today's high school graduates, and the costs of attendance have escalated at a rate the rivals only the growth in health-care spending relative to the cost of living, the attitude of lawmakers toward education at all levels has undergone a dramatic transformation. 

 

Under the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011, passed in an eleventh-hour compromise after House Republicans threatened to allow the debt limit to expire for the first time in history, federal educational spending, already diminished on a per capita basis relative to my generation, becomes expendable -- literally.  Since the Super Committee created by the debt deal failed, as expected, to agree to an additional trillion dollars in savings over a ten-year period, the default option in that event that was part of the BCA goes into effect on January 1, 2013.  "Sequestration" -- automatic across the board cuts in spending programs in defense and domestic discretionary programs -- takes effect unless action is taken beforehand to "kick the can down the road" until the 213th Congress is in power.

 

Partisanship aside, this is no way for the world's oldest constitutional republic to run things.  And so it will remain until sufficient numbers of the masses most directly affected by these priorities make it plain to office-holders that this is unacceptable.  Or, at the very least, that this is an issue demanding debate in the presidential election.  The ball, as the saying goes, is in our court.

 

DT

The Oldest Story in American Politics

This editorial is from the local Tucscon, AZ paper about the two young men battling to take Gabby Giffords' district in the House.  It's a hoot, a tad partisan perhaps (but not in an unfair way), and it's a wonderful caricature on the state of American Politics at this point of the 21st Century:

High school graduate Jesse Kelly defeated a Harvard educated Air Force pilot, a nice American named Dave Sitton and Frank “Spank me, I’m bad” Antenori. Now that the fat lady has sung and the primary is over it’s time for Act II of “The Barber of Civility”: A contest between the guy who looks like the Jurassic Park professor without the pith helmet and a carpet bagging gun-toting Bible thumping gosh and shucks Gomer Pyle who can channel Sean Hannity.
Jesse will do great among the unwashed, the rural, the illiterate, the scared goobers willing to cheerfully vote against their own interests, whipping up the groundlings and the believers with rhetorical red meat so rotten with the stench of untruths that honorable flies will choose to lay their eggs elsewhere. And he’ll smile like a man surprised he said something resembling a coherent thought. And the crowds who hate elitists and grammar and syntax and critical thinking will slap their knees and hoot. Scan the online comment section for repugnant speech and unfiltered anonymous hatred of all who differ with the strict conservative view and and you have found your archetypal "here come the black helicopters from Kenya" Kelly supporters.

And he will be petted and stroked and groomed and cooed to by right-wing think tanks and he’ll be showered, nay, flooded with bags of cash from big oil and all the right PACs looking for a manly mannequin with a pull string. And he’s a pretty one. He’s tall and he’s handsome and he’s tall and he’s handsome. Elderly church ladies who can't tell you who the Vice-President is gaze adoringly up at Kelly, yearning to vote for him and to adopt him and to feed him apple pie. Goodbye Mo Udall, hello empty plastic Ken doll.

And he will be angry at those who question his ascendency and his indignant finger will raise up to poke the sky and he’ll thunder incoherent talk radio babble about freedom and liberty and liberty from freedom and FOX news and the right-wing machine will give him their cameras and their spotlights every chance they can.

He won’t represent you. He will represent the Tea Party fanatics, talk radio freaks, the hand-wringing evangelicals, the gun fondlers and the paranoid. The rest of you are just not Americans, you Marxists and Communists and baby killers and you can go to Hell for all he cares. He’ll terrify crowds with his tales of the liberal straw man, the wretched progressive sasquatch, the abominable secularists and he’ll shake the scarecrow and he’ll offer himself up as the great peasant’s torch just waiting to be pressed into battle against the fictitious kindling. Swaddled in the flag and clutching his sacred Constitution he’ll weep for America and prophesy a plague of socialism sweeping across the land that will rival the fire-in-the-sky visions of St. John. Evolution is a head-shaker and abortion is for harlots and those who are not with him are devils. The Word is Limbaugh and he is the word made flesh. Hearken to Jesse all ye Limbaugh Christians, the end times are upon us and the Messiah has a high school diploma. Reject him not, oh ye dittoheads. The Republicans have their man, their folksy Baron of bromides, their King of jingos, raised in the womb of the right-wing echo chamber. And their darling will have an army of fanatical feverish shock jocks who’ll trumpet at the Walls of Jericho for He who is Him everyday until Medicare, Social Security, Big Government, Taxes, the department of Education, our rotting public education system, and those diabolical regulators and the United Nations all come tumbling down.

At the final debate with Giffords in 2010 he was figuratively hoisted on the shoulders of believers with pitchforks and torches who cheered their Messiah with yahoos and slogans in lieu of palm fronds. How can one be civil when you’re debating an opponent who lies and smirks and makes George Bush sound look Stephen Hawking? His adherents cannot be moved by facts, they have found faith.

Sinclair Lewis had his Main Street Babbitt, we have Kelly. This Barber v. Kelly election will truly be an American spectacle rivaling the Scopes Monkey trial because its outcome will define us for years. Are we an easily frightened America aching for the shallow comfort of the primitive and the superstitious or are we the fearless America that questions, that embraces the future, that is modern and smart? Mark Twain and H.L.Mencken savaged their respective times as the gilded ages of carnival hawkers and tent evangelists and smiling shoeshine salesmen and gullible rubes willing to say yes to any smiling carpet-bagger. They are gazing up from Hell longing to see this show unfold. This summer the oldest American story shall repeat itself.

PS:DT--My guess is that the exact characters might change, but the essential elements of the story will be repeated dozens if not scores of times in this election.  The New Gilded Age indeed!

Kevin Bacon Theory of Politics

The game "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", which I thought was Six Degrees of Separation, is the game where you try to trace your path to Kevin Bacon in the fewest possible steps.  In Six Degrees of Separation, the theory is that every one is connected within six degrees of separation.  This article states that the election has reached a point where they are starting to play this game more often.  Whether it be Mitt Romney and his "ties" to Ted Nugent who recently said that if President Obama wins the election this year that he will be dead or in jail by this time next year.  Or the most recent controversy of Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen, who has almost zero ties to the President, when she stated that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life.  This happens during every election, but the truth is if someone tried hard enough they could probably find a connection between the President or Mitt Romney to anyone.  So we better all watch what we say because who knows...it might be overheard by someone who thinks I am connected to the President.  And if I am connected to the President and I said it, it might as well have come straight from his mouth. Give me a break.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/17/11250791-analysis-kevin-bacon-theory-of-politics-overtakes-2012-campaign?lite

Racism in Iowa

http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/16/ruling-expected-soon-in-iowa-employment-discrimination-lawsuit/?hpt=us_t2

I was reading an article today on CNN about racism and dicrimination in Iowa. A lawsuit has been filed for over 6,000 African- American applicates who felt that racism had a role to play in them being looked over for a job. The beginning of the article tells a stroy about a clear racist bias that lead to a women not being considered for a job. The lawsuit was filed against Iowa. The following is a block of a paragraph that I have trouble with.

"The plaintiffs' attorneys say the discrimination is not necessarily a result of racism. They say the discriminatory hiring was often the result of implicit bias – an unconscious preference of the mostly white hiring officials for white applicants over black applicants."

This was the plaintiffs' attorney and it makes it sound as if they don't want this to been seen as racism because that will have a negative affect on Iowa. Everyone would like to believe that racism was a thing of the past that has already been delt with but I don't think that is near to true. I was watching a national baseball game the other day and it was Jackie Robinson day, a day were every player wears Jackie's number 42 and everyone is suppose to honor how Jackie was able to perserver through racism and break the color barrier in baseball. Some would say Jackie Robinson was one of the most important figures in African- American history and they wouldn't be lieing. What shocked me most was an announcers comments on the day. He spoke about how, even today, we are still fighting for people's basic rights to be equal. And he made a broad and suprising statement that he cautioned American's to start treating one-another with equality because we like to move on too soon on issues of inequality.

We have been talking about whether people would like to take the easy and wrong path compared to the hard and right path and this is how I feel people view equality and racism. They feel like the issue is over and we have moved on but this is just the easy and wrong path. The issue of equality will always be there and we can't ignore it.

Do you feel racism is still an issue today? I have trouble believing it isn't with the actions and comments I've heard people have about Obama.

Is the "War on Women" Hoakem?

For those inclined to disregard recent allegations of the "fake" nature of the alleged war on women conducted by one of our nation's major political parties, it's worth noting that the whole story is not solely about contraception or about whether women choosing to be fulltime moms are "working" or not.  The story is about the same party's current effort to preclude a reauthorization of The Violence Against Women Act, passed initially in 1994 as part of an Omnibus Crime Bill that Republicans opposed because they "owned" the crime issue and couldn't conceivably concede this ownership to Bill Clinton.  And the story entails state efforts, successful in the case of Wisconsin, to repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the first piece of legislation to be signed by Barack Obama.  That act made it legal for women not being paid as much as men for the same work to use the courts to sue their employers.  And if such policy issues are too abstract to have much persuasive impact, I'd advise the skeptics to read the following story and pass it along to those who consider allegations of gender-based political discrimination a bunch of malarky.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/8168-murder-of-a-nobody

To mainstream media, the death of this lady at the hands of her husband, was back-page/two-sentence news.  And as only one of a thousand such stories a year in this country, perhaps the journalistic neglect is understandable.  Or perhaps, for exactly the same reason, the journalistic neglect is indefensible.

Gen Y Revisited: Sam Spade at Starbucks?

Today's column by David Brooks in the New York Times goes by the subtitle of this post, which refers to the noir hero from "The Maltese Falcon."  Brooks argues that Generation Y -- or a part of it, which he deems as anti-political to the core -- would do well to become reacquainted with the "moral realism" exhibited by such characters.  His point is that much of the idealism of GenY -- seen, for example, in much of the service-oriented, social-entrepeneurial activity of today's twenty-somethings -- is lacking in moral-political fundamentals.  His point is that the Sam Spade character was a man with a bit of a shady past, and as someone who'd been around the block, he was not caught up in his own virtue and innocence.  This sense of selfless virtue, says Brooks, is ultimately self-defeating: humans, we all eventually learn one way or another are mixed creatures, neither inherently evil nor unambiguously heroic.  Politics, to Brooks, is a undeniable part of our natures, and the pursuit of high ideals, no matter how praiseworthy, cannot relieve us of its burdens.  Being human is being a part of a community in which choice, individually and collectively, is inescapable. 

So to the litany of attributions laid on this generation by the Bucholz "Go-nowhere" meme is the claim that Gen Y's defining element may be its desire to flee from politics in its mundane, often-mind-numbing toxicity.  At a point in time when polls tell us that the percentage of Americans with "some" or "much trust in the government in Washington to do what is right for the American people" is at an all-time low of 17%, this desire to flee from the political is understandable.  What apparently is more difficult to understand is that, in the end, this effort to rise above the pettiness and ugliness that often accompanies political disputes only deepens the darker nature of our struggle to govern ourselves democratically.

As politically interested members of this generation, does Brooks's indictment of some of your cohorts hold water or not?

RICE DAY

Dear Capstoners,
I hope that the Queen is not mad with me for adding this new word to her language. But, I would like to say a big thank you to all of us that came to support our fellow classmates that did their presentations. It was a wonderful turn-out...That is the spirit. And to our fearless leader, Dr. Dani Thomas, a big thank you. We would not have done without you. Thank you for the extra time outside of class and for letting us in on the unique study and use of Q-methodology.....we are filled with gratitude...

This 'christian girl' from Uganda.

Op-Ed The PS 460 Capstone: The International student view

The PS 460 Capstone: The International student view

Growing up in Uganda, I have always been taught to respect my elders and not reply back at them when they say something to me. And here I am in America, the free world where I am taught the direct opposite of my cultural norms, to question every single statement. Yes, at times it feels like I am at crossroads, to endure with what I have been taught as a child or to embrace my new found liberties and make good use of them. And of course the answer lies in taking the bull by the horns and from a saying that goes, ‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do.’ And here I am in America, and definitely, I am going to do as the Americans do. I am going to make good use of my Western acquired education; I am going to ask questions, defend my view points and at the same time remain respectful while putting my view point across. Suddenly, I am shocked by my courage to speak out, to voice my opinions and asset myself, and because where I come from, in Uganda, women do not even speak unless spoken to. The nature of the ability to express myself freely is overwhelming and at the same time empowering. I now understand what the framers of the women emancipation felt when that came through. It is that untold, unseen gratitude and self empowerment that comes from being able to speak openly, precisely, articulately and yet respectful putting your point across to whoever is listening. It is that sort of communication that dons and majestically clothes the disciplines of Political Science and not forgetting International Relations. It is what I believe that makes for the closed door politics, when the leaders of the free world assemble to decide the fate of the rest of us, they sure put to use the ability to flawlessly make allies, and pull strings. It is not because they are always right or they know better, but because they have the ability to ‘sweet talk’ and of course make ‘political threats.’ It is the salt missing in the sauce of the African Politics. It is what our leaders in the ‘Other World,’ as the developing nations are dubbed in a more politically correct way lack. They love to fight, argue and spend time profiting from the national cake that they selfishly want to keep on eating with their close friends and family. And then we ask when the nepotism will ever end; simple, the day we learn to speak out, and train our people to stand for the truth, to be open minded yet engaged in the affairs of their nation. It is what the PS 460 capstone is has opened my eyes to. To the fact that scholars like Andrew Bacevich are dubbed realists of the canning world is not a fairytale. It is reality that some of us come to embrace and ensure that we make up our minds about our stand point on political issues and be ready to speak up and defend the core of our political beliefs without bias and threats from others on the opposite side. Bacevich in his book, Washington Rules: America’s path to permanent war refuses to view causes for the war in Iraq or the Global War on terror as a “Democrat-OR-Republican binary issue.” Instead states that any view of current American Policy needs to be viewed through a historical lens that stretches through many past presidential administrations. And of course many people may not agree with Mr. Bacevich, but he still speaks out and makes his point stand. It is therefore, such charisma that is needed to be passed on to all of us that are seeking political careers and even those just wanting to retire into the exotic resorts south in Mexico.

Op-Ed Kony 2012: My Ugandan view point

And it goes viral. Yes, the Kony 2012 video went viral making approximately 80 million hits in the few hours it was posted. As the whole world went on viewing this video, little did most people know that a single click and view was making Kony famous. And every corner of the world and even on the small Iowan campus of Wartburg College resounded the messages of the viral video. It took me a day or so to finally realize how much ignorant some people were, and of course to pay tribute to the power of the media. Name it, Facebook, twitter, you tube and all other media centers were reaping big from the stories about this ‘human rights defense’ video. I recall some friends in New Jersey and Minnesota calling me and asking me why my country was trending on yahoo and twitter.  I simply replied, it is all about Kony. Carol, one of my friends asked a rather ignorant question, what about Kony? I expected her to have at least made use of the search engines, the likes of Google and Bing to find out who this ‘made famous’ man was. And again, Carol is just one of the many ‘couch potatoes’ we have in the world. One of the most annoying remarks came in the Trumpet, a weekly student led newspaper for Wartburg College, one student noted, ‘When I heard about the things Kony was doing, I knew I had to do something.’ Seriously, what was this student going to do about it, and even more disturbing is the fact that this video made it seem like the war is still raging on in Northern Uganda. No, there is no more war up there, people in the affected districts of Gulu and Lira are healing, and the least they needed was a 17 minute video going viral world wide with falsified information. And, this is where my problem with the media and the West comes in. First off, the media is too focused on selling, than informing. This has created a need to verify the phrase that says, ‘if it bleeds, it sells.’ Given the content of the video, it is obvious that it was bleeding news and thus, it was bound to sale, but at whose expense? Of course, at the expense of the Ugandans that suffered through the war for close to 20 years. And this is where I ask a question which if most definitely; I do not expect an honest or straight forward answer to. Where were the media and the West all those 20 so years when Kony was actually abusing and terrorizing those innocent children and women in Gulu. Every single time an American soldier is killed or wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan, we hear the entire buzz about it. It in fact makes national news, on huge news channel s like CNN. I do not understand why such fair media treatment is not accorded incidences like the Northern Uganda war, 20 years ago when it was actually taking place. These are not rhetorical questions; in fact they are food for thought to all of us with political ambitions  to act as a soul searching avenue to check our hearts, minds and souls and ask our selves, why all the bias and greed to want to become famous at the expense of others’ agony like Jason Russell and his mates.

Jason Russell and his co-founders of Invisible children may of course have some humane explanation for the making of the video, but to me, a Ugandan, I did not funny this video tasteful but rather a mockery and ingenuity of their greedy selves. Sometimes, it is just ok to hit the nail right on the head and call a spoon a spoon and not a shade. I do not at any one point condemn the video. It was short, yes but not exclusive of the subject matter. The content of the video begs questions that need to be addressed, and if I were the government of the Republic of Uganda, I would have asked for the taking down of video immediately. But of course, this is where the West and all its ‘freedom of expression and media’ nonsense come in. I would have thought that this video would have included more testimonies from several people portraying their lives during the war and after the war. In fact, the video leaves out an important part, the rehabilitation of the former child soldiers. So, maybe next time Mr. Russell and friends decide to pull off one of those videos again, they should remember to include and give credit to several organizations and of course the government of Uganda for the timeless efforts to end the war, and the tremendous rehabilitation being given to the former child soldiers and those countless raped girls. What these people need now is not another reminder of the treacherous and horrific moments they lived through for 20 years, but rather peace, calm and rehabilitation and not cameras hovering around them for selfish media and Western world interest. It is time the world woke up and embraced the reality that a 17 minute video with not so accurate information is not going to do anything constructive for the people of Northern Uganda and it is not going to capture Kony. Sadly, it made him famous and I have all reasons to think that the percentage of the profits named for Northern Uganda will never make it there.

And as if we have heard it all comes the infamous wikileaks....http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1383276/-/aw5a0jz/-/index.html

Is comfort a less repulsive alternative to laziness?

I wanted to try and get some more opinions on the discussion we had two Tuesdays ago. We discussed whether or not we believed it was in people's nature to be lazy. The question is 'will most people take the easy option when they are given a choice between something easy and something hard?' My opinion in class and on here is the same. I believe most people would rather go down the easy path without question. You might even be able to say that most people are naturally lazy, but this might be taking it a step too far. I believe people have just disguised their accepted norm of laziness and just called it a pursuit for comfort. Is that not what most Americans are trying to achieve in their lives, happiness and comfort?

We live our lives day after day striving for something. Most people get up and go to work to make money so they can buy themselves nice things and make their standard of living higher. People want things, things that can make their lives easier, more comfortable. But why? I believe people want nice things because society puts a high value on nice things. I think another problem with society is the given belief that most people want this dream of being rich and not having to work hard ever again. With the craze that hit Americans over the $640 million Mega Millions lotto I support my argument. The American Dream is to be stinking rich without any effort and never have to lift a finger for the rest of their lives.

However, somewhere along the line the word and idea of laziness gained a negative connotation. Even though it is the thing most Americans strive for everyday people still want to hide behind the idea of happiness and comfort.

Your thoughts or angry rebuttal to my potentially bone-head argument?

Op-ed: Democracy and the impermanence of its bearers

            Robert Kagan assures his readers that America is here to stay as the world's leading power in The World America Made. However, more interesting than his arguments for America's dominance is the reason why he is making them in the first place. He seems to be soothing an unspoken, panicky fear that exists about the perhaps inevitable downfall of America. Kagan automatically associates the fall of America with the extinction of democracy. This is because he says the policies of the United States made "the explosion of democracy possible" (p. 26). He views unfavorably the idea of a multipolar world, which is quite likely to be seen in the future. He reminds us that the last time European powers dominated the world, their world order "collapsed in two world wars" (p. 70). He is suggesting that world civilization would fall to pieces without America as the leader. First of all, what would our "downfall" look like? When one hears of a fall of a civilization, it conjures post-apocalyptic images of a chaotic society.

            We are often reminded how the great democracies of Greece and Rome fell. However, did they really fall or just change? Many of the city states of Greece were direct democracies, which was functional because of the small amount of people permitted to participate. On the other hand, according to history professor Paul Cartledge, "cities that were not democracies were either oligarchies- where power was in the hands of the few richest citizens- or monarchies" (2011). Democracy did not necessarily flourish in all of ancient Greece. Democracy existed where it was promoted by those in power. Democracy survived long after Alexander the Great's empire was divided. Democracy also remained after the Romans ruled parts of the old empire. It is important to note that even though Greek civilization fell, Greek ideas and culture had already conquered the Romans and was perpetuated by them. As for the fall of Rome, writer N.S. Gill questions if Rome really fell and notes "some prefer to say that Rome adapted rather than fell" (2012). The split of the empire in two, with the eastern half becoming the Byzantine empire, can be viewed positively, because irreconcilable differences in the leadership of the Christian faith made it impossible for the two empires to live peacefully as one. Rome still exists today, it is just not a massive world power anymore. However, the ideas of ancient Greece and Rome never fell and are still a part of western education.

            Democracy is an idea and does not belong to any one nation. Governments come and go, but ideas are immortal. Even if the United States declines as a world power that won't take away from its achievements as a nation. The idealism of thinkers like Thomas Jefferson will always be remembered. Democracy will continue to be practiced by nations that find it beneficial to them, just as it is now. Change is an evitable part of our existence, but it is not the end of the world. In my opinion, Kagan just needs to relax and perhaps write a more realistic sounding book instead of attempting to soothe his own paranoia.

Cartledge, P. (2011). BBC History Ancient History in depth: The Democratic Experiment. BBC . Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml

Gill, N.S. (2012). Fall of Rome. Ancient /Classical History. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefallarticles/a/fallofrome.htm

Kagan, R. (2012). The world America made. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Good News for PQMethod Users with Windows7

Good news for those who've been slogging away on Q-studies with the freeware from Munich not operating without DOSBox for PC's with a Windows7 OS.  Peter Schmolck now has PQMethod2.30 that can be downloaded for free and run on Windows7, including the PQROT subprogram, that provides a full picture of factor loadings and graphical display of rotation, whether it be by Varimax or Judgmental options.  BUT -- and it always seems like there's a but -- he's waiting for feedback from experienced users before he puts up the automatic installation package on his website.

Here is his comment taken from a post to the Q-Method listserv last week:\\

The new PQMethod version 2.30 for Windows does not require DOSBox any
more because it contains the windows compatible new version (1.5) of
PQROT. Mac users could replace their PQMethod.exe with the new one from
the 2.30 Windows package.

I do not want to actually release the new version before I get some
feedback from experienced users who are able to get along without
detailed install directives. Therefore it's just a "Preview" version at
the moment.

And Now, A Little Change of Pace

http://www.godvine.com/Shy-Boy-and-his-Friend-Shock-the-Audience-with-The-Prayer-Unbelievable-1318.html

A much-needed  time out from Trayvon, Mitt and  Rick, Scalia and Brocolli,  Paul Ryan and Budgets...

Enjoy . . . 

A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney

Good stuff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html?_r=1

GOP's Sex Addiction/Women Discrimination in Health Care

I came across this article in "In These Times" today.

http://inthesetimes.com/ittlist/entry/1296 /the_gops_sex_addictionand_why_it_might_not_hurt_the_party_this_fa/

The article talks about Wisconsin passing a bill that repealed the state’s standards for sex eduction.  If Governor Scott Walker signs the bill that passed two weeks ago, as expected, contraception education will become optional. Abstinence education will still be mandatory.

This repeal of the Healthy Youth Act shows The GOP's motivations over sex and reproduction rights since the GOP's stance on contraceptive coverage has been a main issue in the  presidential primaries.

States passed 93 restrictions on abortions in 2011 which is triple the old record of 34.

Anderson sites three main factor that encourage this "War on Women."
   1.Faith- against all studies that show that offering abstinence only education has significantly higher rates of teen pregnancy doesn't stop people from repealing laws that would help educate young adults.

   2. Population Growth- many conservatives think that slowing the rate of population growth is eeil or "a conspiracy to re-engineer the American economy and gradually introduce socialism."

   3. Tea Party repression- tea partiers are getting a record umber of restrictions on abortions passed which are keeping these ultra-conservatives happy.

Anderson also says that unfortunately this "War on Women" will not hurt the GOP but will be a popular point with evangelical and the elderly who ted to vote more.

Another map that's been floating around that I thought was interesting is this map that shows how much more women pay than men for health insurance.

http://fusewashington.org/actions/aca-map/

It seems ridiculous that women are still being publicly discriminated against in the 21st century. Not only is it happening, but it will also help the GOP candidate win their primaries.

Any thoughts?

A Town Divided

As the weeks have gone on I have watched news about the Trayvon Martin case develop.  It is getting nationwide recognition now and it seems as if everyone has something to say about it.  I would just like to say that his death was a tragedy and George Zimmerman should have been arrested.  If he wanted to claim self-defense that is fine, but he should have done it in front of a jury.  One group that I was not expecting to hear from were people on Zimmerman's side.  They must have known the backlash that would result from their siding with him.  Zimmerman has claimed that Martin punched him in the face and hit his head into the ground.  However, the witnesses say that this is not the case.  I know that the police may be hesitant to arrest him now because it may spark the belief that  if a large enough group of people want someone arrested then they will be arrested, even if it is not warranted.  This is not the case though.  A large group of people want this person arrested because this person should have been arrested a month ago.  Many people in Sanford have now said that they no longer feel safe in their own town.  If I lived in a town that supported a man who killed a young man just for carrying a bag of Skittles then I would be scared as well.  I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this crazy situation and what you believe the police should do at this point?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/us/florida-teen-shooting-sanford-divided/index.html

French Presidentail Elections

NYT Article
I'm sure you all have heard about the killing of French soldiers, Jewish children and a Rabbi in Toulouse, France. The suspected murderer was found, confronted in this apartment after a 32 hour stand off and killed once a raid on his apartment happened. He was found to be a member of Al Qaeda. This is interesting to politics, and especially me since I will be in France for the Presidential elections, because the candidates running for president suspended their campaigning during this national crisis. I thought this posed a very question to presidential campaigns in the United States where elections seem to run through every part of our lives.

Would presidential campaigns ever be suspended in the United States for any reason?

I can't imagine a crisis of any type that would have candidates willing to suspend their campaigns. National events seem more and more to be welcome to presidential candidates because it allows them to win brownie points by supporting the country on what is usually a one sided event. In the example of France, all of the candidates were in support of finding this terrorist actor and ending the killings. However, in the United States, more and more often I find that candidates take national events and use them to take low blows at other candidates. Critiquing any fault in speech or handling of the affair.

Your answer or opinion?

 

Silencing the Guns

This blog post by Westen, discusses the lack of progress on weapons legislation since the shooting of Gabby Giffords in Tucson. He points out that in times of tragedy, our Congress can come together in support of one of their own or of mourning families across the country. But when it comes to moving forward and doing something about it, their bipartisanship is nowhere to be found. Since the shooting in Tucson, there have been school shootings (such as Ohio), medical center shootings (U of Pitt), and more. All of these shootings were done with semi-automatic weapons or extended magazines. The big question Westen is posing, should the N.R.A. really have this much power? And how can something be done to stop the onslaught of shootings due to relaxed gun laws?

"North Korea moves long-range rocket to launch pad"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/asia/korea-obama-visit/index.html


A South Korean Defense Ministry official said that Pyongyang moved a long-range rocket it plans to test fire to a launch pad Monday. What do you think what US should do?
Is it time for the United states to move a missile or atomic weapon because atomic weapons kills people less than the war. There is an example of as atomic bomb, little boy, in Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.

Iowa charaties getting short changes; Nonprofits with large salaries

Telemarketers for Iowa Charities Keep Most of the Money They Raise


This is the link to an article I remember seeing nearly a year ago - "Iowa charities that use outside telemarketers received an average of just 22 cents of each $1 raised, a Gazette investigation found."


When I read this I found it appalling. So apparently it's not just KONEY people who are attempting to gain benefit from an atrocity. "When DialAmerica called on behalf of Special Olympics Iowa for 24 months, ending in October, the non-profit received $142,100 of the $982,766 generated. That’s 14.5 cents for each $1, or 85.5 percent to DialAmerica, because some donors chose to give to the non-profit without purchasing a magazine."


How can this be? What can we do about it? Can we do anything about it? How can DialAmerica claim to be a socially responsible organization "helping" these nonprofits?


But it's obviously not just organizations in Iowa though. ChildFund International’s CEO makes double the salary of the average nonprofit CEO. The President made a salary of nearly $318,000 in 2010.


How can we say that this is okay? Are our nonprofits really doing good if their fundraisers benefit a for-profit company? And should nonprofit President's earn the top 5% of salary earners?

How Kennedy helped shape Mitt Romney

Very interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/us/politics/ted-kennedy-helped-shape-mitt-romneys-career-and-still-haunts-it.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120325

Ugandans react with anger to KONEY video

After KONY 2012 video attracted over 82 million views on YouTube up to date, the local people of Lira town in Uganda finally got to see the video that the world was talking about. A local charity “The African Youth Initiative Network” organized a screening of the movie and invited locals to come and watch the  most important video of that week or maybe of the year. Many of them were looking forward to watch this video since it was the central discussion in social media, shared/watched all over the world, what they looked forward was to see a video that would present their struggle and problems. Yet, what they found was different from what they expected I guess. Malcolm Webb, a journalist of Aljazeera explained that the people he spooked to “anticipated seeing a video that showed the world the terrible atrocities that they had suffered during the conflict and the ongoing struggles they still face trying to rebuild their lives after two lost decades.”  However, after watching the video he noted that the mood changed in the crowd and many saw this video as “inaccurate account that belittled and commercialized their suffering, as the film promotes KONY bracelets and other fundraising merchandise, with the aim of making KONY infamous.”

So what do you make out of the KONY 2012 camping then? As I stated in my previous op-ed about KONY,  I have countless question and continue to ask more about the video and the NGO itself. But also want to understand more about how much of an impact this video might have on locals and outside of Uganda. If this video was done with its best intention for the local people, then how come the locals are so angry about that? I guess sometimes awareness is important because at list out of this video many people know that “Uganda” is a country and “Joseph Kony” exist. If the people that shared/watched the video about Kony have no power or refuse to do anything about it and just give money to Invisible Children for awesome camping of poorly portrayed Ugandans who is winning here?  

"The Internet is a wonderful thing....But it's not the answer for everything. Raising awareness of Joseph Kony is like voting for Obama in 2008: it's the beginning of solving a problem, not the end....If you just make Joseph Kony famous without capturing him, he will win."- Bill Maher

Here is the link that will take you aljazeera video:

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/africa/2012/03/14/ugandans-react-anger-kony-video

The Construction of Political "Losers": Generation Y's Turn?

OPINION | March 11, 2012
Opinion: The Go-Nowhere Generation
By TODD G. BUCHHOLZ and VICTORIA BUCHHOLZ
Americans have historically been on the move, but young people these days seem to prefer staying put.

The above link to an article from Sunday's New York Times will be of interest to most capstoners and others interested in the "politics of demonization."  We've seen this process at work for ages, but it has become especially pervasive and brutal in times of economic pinch when the factors conspiring to limit our options in the material world are too complex or remote to warrant an effort to understand, let alone manipulate with a public-policymaking system that, itself, is broken.  We've seen this phenomenon in particularly mean-spirited and discouraging form since President Obama was elected at a time in our history coincident with the meltdown of our financial system and, in turn, the macroeconomy of not only the states but most of the globe.  We've seen it in the "construction" of "Obamacare," the general, conservative public's characterization of the Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act as a socialist, big government takeover of one-sixth of the US economy.  There is the more primitive expression of the same dynamic in efforts to delegitimize Obama himself: he's not really an American, as the birthers insist; he's a Muslim, as 25% of GOP primary voters in Tennessee recently claimed.  He's a radical leftist, harbors disdain toward small town residents, is a elitist through and through, and so on and so forth interminably.  We've seen this in the efforts of Austrian-school economists to define our fiscal problems as the result of runaway spending, taking our eyes off the fact that government revenues have never been as small as a percentage of GDP in some 60 years.  And most recently, we've seen the battle over meaning in the "construction combat" over the efforts of some to define the proposed HHS rule for contraceptive converage as a threat to religious liberty, while American women have seen this and the state-level initiatives to require invasive ultrasounds of women considering abortion as a no-holds barred assault on women's rights and an expansion of government into the relationship between a woman and her doctor.  Even in what passes as the academic realm, we see Charles Murray's effort to affix blame for our socio-economic ills on the morality shortfall of the residents of Fishtown, not on the 1% who have benefitted handsomely from our tax policies and from profits drawn from investments in firms who have exported jobs to cheap-labor offshore locales.

So now we encounter an attempt to locate the roots of our collective ills in Generation Y, arguably the single most victimized collective of the New Gilded Age and its polarized politics.  This is not without precedent either.  As Generation X became of college age, it too was pilloried -- mostly by Baby Boomers -- as lacking in work ethic, content to exercise its rights as a generation of slackers and slobs.  I would encourage all of you, as members of Generation Y, to take a look at the latest form the quest for losers has taken since it lowers its sights on you.  And then I would suggest a look at some rebuttals by your cohorts that have materialized in the form of letters to the editor, reachable via the link below.  Close scrutiny will reveal yet another concourse ripe for picking as a Q study of the core political dynamics at issue in such efforts to construct reality out of whole cloth, the very essence of politics in the Age of Social Media.


OPINION | March 17, 2012
Letters: Generation Y Stands Up for Itself
Readers respond to a Sunday Review article, "The Go-Nowhere Generation."

MUN

Honorable Chairs, Distinguish Delegates

Wartburg Model United Nations (WMUN) finally took place after six week of preparation from the exec team, countless meeting, awesome delegates and big help from Dr. Billet and Dr. Thomas. Thank you all for making this possible and I hope that everyone enjoyed as much as I did.

But what now? I would like to open a discussion and hear what you guys think about MUN? Do you think the experience was worthy and suggest to others to be involved in MUN? Can you relate what we did in MUN with class experience? Did you learn anything out of this three days experience? How can we keep the conversation and discussion going? Do you think that a class like Capstone for Political Science and International Relations should have MUN included as their class project in the future?  I guess this is more a post session comments, reflection. What do you think can be improved? How can we keep WMUN alive on campus?

…I yield my time to the chair and the rest of delegates: d

Delegation of France

Is Obama's Fate Predetermined?

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/14/can-president-obama-end-150-year-streak/?hpt=hp_bn3

On a less serious note, this article argues that the winner of the presidential election may already be decided. If fate does exist it could be that Obama's chances at reelection aren't too great. Apparently in the past 150 years every presidential election that took place on November 6th has been won by the Republican candidate.

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/did-the-oscars-clinch-the-election-for-president-obama/

But then there's the theory that Obama will win because of the Oscar results. When the same film is named Best Picture at the Golden Globes and the Oscars the Republican candidate wins, whereas if two different films win these top honors the Democratic candidate is elected. However, this trend has only existed for the past 50 years.

More likely than not these are just coincidences, but if either of them were true it might simplify the campaign process.It's unlikely that most people would be opposed to this. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Syria's First Lady

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/01/asma-al-assad-fearless-critic-of-barbarism-unless-its-aimed-at-her-own-people/

A lot of blame has been placed since the crisis in Syria began, but this is the first article I've read criticizing, Asma Al-Assad, the First Lady of Syria. It highlights her nonexistent efforts at bringing an end to the situation. She has previously spoken up for the human rights of civilians in other countries when they experienced similar turmoil, so the question is being asked why not now, when it's her own country? Many people view her actions as hypocritical and they aren't comforted by the fact that she has take the time to comfort victims of the violence. Some individuals feel that Mrs. Assad has condemned the people of Syria to death, by not standing up and vocalizing arguments for their rights.

I find it hard to disagree with this argument. It would be different if Mrs. Assad hadn't ever stood up against human brutality in the midst of conflict. However, since that isn't the case it looks like she has abandoned the Syrian citizens. If she has argued with her husband and asked him to bring an end to the violence, this isn't apparent to anyone else.

Is Limbaugh being treated fairly?

While I do not agree with the things that Rush Limbaugh says, it is almost like people hold him to a double standard. No, I'm not talking about the way that he attacks people, but the people that he attacks. His rants fall on almost everyone except for white, conservative men. But, a lot of his attacks fall on to women. They are easy targets as there aren't a lot of them in politics and those that are involved are generally a pain for Limbaugh. However, by degrading women with words like "whore" and "slut", words he frequently uses, he isn't just hurting individuals, but hurting women as a whole.

However, there is another political pundit who does just as much damage to women: Bill Maher. While Maher tends to keep his comments related to women in the political field (Palin, Bachmann, Clinton), the fact the he still uses degrading language that affects all women is just as bad as what Limbaugh does. While Obama said that the remarks were "reprehensible", he has not spoken out against the misogynistic language that Maher constantly uses. Maher also just donated one million dollars to the Obama Super PAC; money that was earned by berating women. Many female rights groups are calling on Bill Burton, the super PAC founder, to either reject this money or donate it to a charity for abused women.

Please do not take this post the wrong way. I am not defending what Limbaugh said. I am only trying to impose that because of how the comments were stated and whom they were stated about, there is a double standard in affect that shouldn't be allowed. The ultimate group that is victimized isn't the Democrats or Republicans, but women.

Disclaimer: This article is aimed at showing that many women (mostly democrats) should not support Bill Maher. The video that is linked in the article is anti-obama.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/12/opinion/christoph-terrel-bill-maher/

Oped on Social Issues

This morning on Meet the Press, the Governors of Maryland and Virginia, Democrat and Republican respectively, took positions and debated many different topics. Governor O’Malley of Maryland spoke about the move of the GOP to the fringe right. “If you look at the presidential campaign, I mean let’s be honest, there has been a lot more time spent pandering to the extreme right-wing ideologues of the new Republican Party than has been spent talking about jobs and the economy,” This was immediately rebutted by Governor McDonnell. McDonnell spoke about how the discussions on social issues have been a political move by the Democrats to avoid discussing the economy. “McDonnell said he thinks Democrats are just trying to shift attention away from jobs, the economy and the nation’s debt by focusing on social issues, because the nation is still struggling economically” (Associated Press).

            In what universe is Governor McDonnell living in? The move towards social issues has exclusively been a Republican effort in many state legislatures. The move towards social issues, specifically birth control and abortion rights, have been acted upon in Kansas, Texas, and Governor McDonnell’s home state of Virginia. In all three of these cases, which is just a small sample set, all legislation that relates to these social issues have been Republican-led.

It is utter hypocrisy to claim that the constant focus on social issues is Democratic gamesmanship when the GOP continues to introduce anti-choice legislation. I’m sorry Governor McDonnell, but no Democrat forced you to support the trans-vaginal ultrasound bill, that ultimately had to be amended due to political pressure. It is cowardice to claim that Democrats are the ones bringing these arguments to the forefront to avoid talking about the economy and jobs, when it is clearly the Republican position to try and shed decade’s worth of pro-choice legislation. Essentially, the Republicans are saying: “How dare you oppose our invasive encroachment on your constitutionally protected civil rights!”

On the point of constitutionality, this debate had seen its resolution in the Supreme Court case of Griswold vs. Connecticut, where they found the constitution protected the right to privacy. This was not a recent decision made by the Supreme Court. This was decided in 1965. This should not be what encompasses political relevance in 2012.

Republicans can spin their legislation any way they want. But to not take ownership of the legislation they are putting forward, and passing into law in many cases, is cowardice. It is their party’s choice to make the social agenda relevant again. Republicans should tread carefully, as the legislation being put forth directly impacts close to half of the United States population. This demographic does not take kindly to others deciding what is right and wrong for their own bodies and their own circumstances. If Republicans think they can continue to push this type of legislation without political kickback in the form of voter turnout, they will be sorely mistaken.

Md. Gov. O’Malley, Va. Gov. McDonnell Debate Economic and Social Issues in

Presidential race. (2012, March 11). Washington Post. Retrieved March 11, 2012

Silencing Limbaugh

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Many people, from politicians to celebrities to soldiers, are calling for the FCC to remove Rush Limbaugh from his post as a radio talk show host based on his hate inciting speech towards women, gays and lesbians, non-white races, etc...

People are complaining that his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, who have always stood behind what Limbaugh has said, have been accused of not using their license "in the public interest" because of the dehumanizing nature of his speech.

Many people, Rush included, say that his speech isn't hateful at all, but humor based or that he is simply creating entertainment for his fans.

Personally, I don't understand how he hasn't been dropped yet. While he is entitled to say the things that he says, he shouldn't be allowed to in the way that he has been. It reminds me of the Don Imus "knappy headed hoes" comment. He was fired in an instant. Why hasn't this happened with Limbaugh yet?

It's the Men's Turn

http://current.com/community/93693946_ohio-senate-bill-offers-male-lawmakers-a-taste-of-their-own-medicine.htm

Even though it is seen as a bit of a joke, here is the bill proposed by Ohio Senator Nina Turner that would require men to seek psychological help and jump through other hoops before they would be written a prescription for Viagara.  She believes that it is time to turn the table on the men in this country who think it is up to the government to decide what is best for our reproductive health.  I agree with her.  According to Jansing & Co. there have been about 242 bills that restricting women's rights to reproductive health decisions recently.  When they say that there is a "War on Women" this election year I believe them.

College and Snobbishness Revisited

"Perhaps if our leading colleges encouraged more humility and less hubris, college-bashing would go out of style and we could get on with the urgent business of providing the best education for as many Americans as possible."       

This is the concluding sentence from a thought-provoking essay by Andrew Delbanco, a professor of American Studies at Columbia, which appeared in the New York Times Thursday.  Entitled, "A Smug Education," the essay looks at the history of the US's great institutions of higher education and their origins as affiliates of religious traditions.  Hence Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are cited as educational institutions established by our earliest Protestant settlers.  And Delbanco reviews the early history of such colleges, in the same way that David Ricci does, reminding us that the ideal graduate was one who was not filled with self-pride and the ambition to leverage the degree to make millions.  Rather, the early ideal was to recognize, with gratitude, one's humble place in the universe, a universe filled by untold secrets even for the most knowledable.  So, despite the huge rebuttal to Rich Santorum's calling President Obama a snob for recommending college for most young people (he didn't recommend a four-year degree for all), Delbanco finds an element of truth in Santorum's rant among America's most elite institutions of higher learning.  Their students, he says, have too often strayed from the core message of their founders: learning is a privilege and not a ticket to a life of luxury.  The real learned among us know this in their bones: what we know is a tiny fraction of what we don't know.  And that kind of knowledge is cause for humility, not hubris.

Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/opinion/colleges-and-elitism.html?src=me&ref=general

Why U.S. shouldn't rush to war in Syria

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/08/opinion/clark-syria-intervention/index.html

Why does the United States have to get involved in their mess? It's up to the Arab League to get involved?Is it wasting people's lives in US, resources, and time by thinking and playing "policemen in the world" and let them sort it out?

"KONY 2012"

     KONY 2012 is a film and campaign by Invisible Children that aims to make Joseph Kony famous, “not to celebrate him, but to raise support for his arrest and set a precedent for international justice.” The mission of Invisible Children is to “uses film, creativity and social action to end the use of child soldiers in Joseph Kony's rebel war and restore LRA-affected communities in central Africa to peace and prosperity.”   Therefore, Invisible Children wants to make KONY famous until December 31, 2012 so the world will know more about what is happening back in Uganda. “Wow” is the first word that pops in my mind as one must be blind for the past years to not have a clue about Kony and what was going on back in Uganda since his 2005 indictment by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.  However, I think the campaign itself is good for awareness but my question is why now? How come the world woke up with one YouTube post? Or maybe it did not wake up since this might be just a week-long discussion without any action. If one wants to know more about Invisible Children and Joseph Kony, a Ugandan guerrilla leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), there are countless sources out there that you can find. I am glad I’ve seen the video and heard others talk about KONY but I am wondering if people are more interested in the cause or just the movie itself.  I myself did not simply share the video on Facebook and claim that I am empowered by this video like many other friends of mine. At first it was interesting to hear my Facebook friends talking about this, and sharing this video and feel bitter for a second, but then I thought, does every war criminal need to be famous in order for people to take action and feel sympathetic and be aware of the need for helping others.

     But, what I wanted to focus here is the power of Social Media; watching KONY 2012 brought countless questions about the power of social media and how people do not question WHY? Or do not even understand what the cause is but still use the “like” button just because everyone else is doing so. It amazes me how within two days or so the video named “KONY 2012” was viewed by 43,354,020 folks around the world as I am writing this … and the Facebook has been boomed with countless posts about KONY. It’s crazy how much impact the social media have nowadays; I mean even when I think about the recent Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street movement, KONY, and now I wonder what’s next?  Because the film and campaign is everywhere and it continues to be the hottest topic in Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other Social Medias. This has been something that has also been an important topic that I’ve been talking about to my friends on campus. This video was shared by so many people, yet many of them had no clue what the story is. They speak no English but still like the campaign and video. My question here is how we have come to this point that we don’t question much. KONY is not the only war criminal around the world in the list of people that abuse human rights, there are many others that some of us have never heard of.

     As I continue questioning KONY and the power of social media I would like to note what one of my friends said today to me as we were discussing about injustice and this video in particular. He said, “it made me laugh to see how people started sharing this video like crazy, like that’s some isolated key of human brutality just screaming for our help or whatever like, millions of people became humanitarians, sharing posts with their iPhones and new MacBook’s, and for a moment they even felt better a bit, and when we start talking about, dunno, brutality in iPod/iPhone factories, barely anyone shares that (using their iPhones), cause that makes me realize how F*****  up we have become.”

     Finally, I question myself about how many people out there are suffering and never get a chance to raise their voice; how many young kids around the world suffer injustice and domestic abuse; how many war criminals are free out there and no one even cares because there are always other important political items in the agenda that needs to be followed.

Here is the YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

The World's Next Superpower

Washington Rules emphasizes the United States' belief that it has a duty to look out for the rest of the world. This viewpoint enforces the generally accepted fact that the U.S. is the world's current superpower. However, there is debate as to whether or not our country will sustain this position in the coming years. A lot of people seem to believe that China holds the potential to replace the U.S., but there are other hypotheses as well. I came across the following article that questions if Canada might be a contender. While the article raises some significant facts, I don't think it presents enough evidence to suggest that Canada might become the world's next superpower. But who knows...

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/06/is-canada-the-worlds-next-superpower/?hpt=hp_t3

 I also recently discovered a book entitled No One's World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn which suggests that if the United States does lose its status as the world's superpower, maybe there will not be a country that takes its place. (At least this is what I gathered from the description given on Amazon.) This is an interesting claim that merits some consideration. How might international relations be different if there wasn't a country viewed as the superpower of the world? Would such a condition be an improvement to today's world?

http://www.amazon.com/No-Ones-World-Rising-Coming/dp/0199739390/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331184999&sr=8-1

An interesting look at the Catholic perspective

This is a blog post that discusses Rick Santorum's disgrace with JFK's 1960 speech in Houston. The author of this post, also a Catholic, paints an interesting portrait of what JFK's presidency meant to the Catholic population of the time. Very interesting to see two sides of that spectrum.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/the-view-from-bay-ridge-in-1960/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120306

Syria...The next Libya?????

Apparently.. most of us watched as CNN replayed the McCain speech in the house where he called upon the US government to intervene in Syria and stage airstrikes.....I however, do not agree with him considering the 'untimely' situation of Iran's heat raising and Netanyahu's visit and comments of Israel having the right to safe guard and protect herself....This is too much for Obama, I should say.....
What do you think of McCain's airstrike plea????

Talk about crazy politics!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/fraudulent-votes-for-putin-abound-in-chechnya.html?hp

In this New York Times article, it talks about how a precinct in Chechnya had a turn out rate of 107%. Thousands of votes were for Putin and 1 vote was for Zyuganov. This is both statistically improbable and there were about 100 extra votes cast. Election commissions don't monitor Chechnya because it is too dangerous.

It interests me that such an obvious effort was put into cheating, however, the article said that this probably wouldn't even be looked into.

Student Debt: The Next Bubble to Burst?

Thanks to Isaiah Corbin for passing along this link:

http://dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=696

Warning: this is a clear-eyed appraisal of the costs this generation of college students is bearing so that they will not be destined to live their entire lives in Fishtown.

Seriously?

I just had to post this.  My cousin is a FAR to the right conservative.  He tends to find "socialist, communist liberalism" in everything.   He called Madonna's performance at the Super Bowl "The luciferian symbolism during the Maddona halftime show was thick... Satan worship in full effect."  Now he is going off on a rant about the Dr. Seuss movie "The Lorax."  He wrote on Facebook "Took the kids to "The Lorax" last night.  Can't even see a decent kids movie without the socialist-anti-capitalist-environmentalist agenda anymore. The indoctrination of our kids continues.   there is a time and place to get your views heard, keep it out of the kids movies that is all I ask. Socialism and communism have failed time and again. Capitalism has made this country the most prosperous in the world in a very short time. Now capitalism is under attack like it is something evil. The real evil is government control and that is exactly what socialism and communism is all about."  If you didn’t know, according to Wikipedia, the Lorax is a children's book written by Dr. Seuss and first published in 1971. It chronicles the plight of the environment and the Lorax, who speaks for the trees against the greedy Once-ler. As in most Dr. Seuss works, most of the creatures mentioned are original to the book.  The book is commonly recognized as a fable concerning industrialized society and the danger it poses to nature.  I was just wondering what your thoughts are on his statement about liberalism sneaking into all movies?  I personally believe it is a load of bologna, especially since it is a Dr. Seuss book…give me a break.  He was just trying to teach kids a good lesson:  Respect the environment.  

Sad, But True

www.livescience.com/18706-people-smart-democracy.html/
This article states that people in this country are simply not smart enough to make political decisions wisely.  We have all believed this was true, but now it is being scientifically proven!  We assume that people can choose the best candidate for this country, but since most of the topics of debate are above people's heads (taxes) then how can they choose?  Not only are people not understanding these topics, but they are even too ignorant to admit that they do not understand.  Their studies also showed that people put their skills in a variety of areas as "above average."
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell

Another Rush Limbaugh Blunder

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/rush-limbaugh-sleep-train-sandra-fluke-slut_n_1315900.html
As many of you probably have heard, Rush Limbaugh recently called Sandra Fluke a "slut" for wanting to speak in favor of birth control at a Congressional hearing.  I find this not only outrageous, but personally offensive.  It has been shown that out of all of the women from the ages of 15-44 who are sexually active, approximately 99% of them have used some sort of contraceptive method.   Currently, 62% of ALL women in the same age range use a contraceptive method.
So, not only should I be offended, but so should most of the women in America.  I was extremely happy to hear that some of his advertisers had pulled their commercials, but is this what it takes?  It takes Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut?  What about all of the other ludicrous things he has spoken of?  Like when he claimed that volcanoes are more to blame for the depletion of the ozone than humans are? Or when he said, "The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there.  Its natural.  It's as natural as the ocean water is."--Talking about the BP oil spill.  He needs to be held accountable for every mistake he makes because people listen to him and worst of all, they believe him.

Just in case any of you want to sign the petition telling his advertisers to stop supporting him...I signed it with pleasure!
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/ads_limbaugh/?rc=LA_Rush_03022012_ad2

The Effort to Delegitmize Obama: Religion's Role

OPINION | March 01, 2012
Campaign Stops: Leaps of Faith
By MOLLY WORTHEN
What do President Obama's conservative Christian critics really mean when they portray him as an enemy of religious freedom?

Today's "Campaign Stops" feature of the NY Times features the above essay by Molly Worthen.  It follows a recent revival of the irrational elements of the President's critics in seeking to villify Obama's character, his politics, the authenticity of his citizenship, and the nature, if any, of his religious beliefs.  The worst in the latest chain of insane allegations is the revival of the long-settled issue of Obama's birth certificate.  This most recent appeal to the paranoid element in American conservatism, made by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, claims to have evidence that the birth certificate produced by the president as a means of closing the shameful chapter in our history, when the birther movement was taken up by Donald Trump, was an electronic forgery, not a copy of an original hardcopy.  (That Sheriff Joe's efforts coincide with a Justice Department investigation of chronic violations of federal law with racial profiling and abuse of Latinos run amok is not likely a mere coincidence.  Yet it shows the Right's absolute absence of shame in treating this president as "not one of us."

The most recent attacks by Rick Santorum and Senators Blunt and Rubio of Obama's assault on the First Amendment's separation clause in the provisions guaranteeing contraceptive coverage to women in the employer-based insurance policies that will continue under the aegis of "Obamacare" are a new twist on the efforts of his critics to demonize Obama.  The proposition that the Affordable Care Act contains provisions by this president to deprive American's of religious freedom is preposterous on its face.  But then again, it wasn't long ago that Frankling Graham, son of the aging "Pastor to Presidents," the Reverend Billy Graham, accused  Obama of being a Muslim by virtue of his father's religious heritage.  But the new narrative taken by the Obama haters goes further, insisting that this president is seeking to impose his own religious views -- "phoney theology," as Santorum puts it -- on Americans who have religious reasons to oppose the use of contraceptives.

Why the combination of fear tactics with projected (paranoid) attitudes -- "worldviews" that some Christians take offense with -- in the latest round of Obama assaults?  Is there something here that I'm missing?  Is this truly a sense that Christians have a point on?  Or is it, as Jonathan Chait's essay in the New York magazine noted by Mr. Nelson's earlier post, a desperate attempt by a demographically shrinking Republican base to cast their political aspersions on the president dressed up in a sublimated form of White Christian Identity Politics in the parts of the South where race and religion are a dangerous mix in the animosity toward those with different views and different skin color? 

Another concourse awaits interrogation.