Politics and The Truth

2006-12-25T17:30:00.000-08:00

$100,000,000 on a program that does not work and does nothing but perpetuate stereotypes and racial profiling? Nah...that doesn't happen in the United States, does it? Does it?

2006-12-24T15:37:00.000-08:00

I don't need to say anything more. Happy holidays, folks.

2006-12-14T13:51:00.000-08:00

So many points to be made here, but I will let you all take this story in any direction you wish. Two thoughts to get it started:
1. Once again, the cops are getting more power, and the citizens are losing theirs.
2. Cops, even the most heavily-trained ones, aren't very good with not shooting people, apparently.

2006-12-12T21:20:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure this even qualifies as political, but I am sure some connections can be made. Quite honestly, it was too humorous not to post. Any absurd thoughts, readers?

2006-12-12T07:53:00.000-08:00

An interesting local that may turn national political story. Is Mitt Romney becoming the new John Kerry? (The picture should serve as a clue as to what I mean). How do you think his apparent indecisiveness will play out on the national stage?

2006-12-10T16:48:00.000-08:00

I could have put a picture of a dollar bill, but somehow that image seemed more appropriate for this story.

2006-12-08T19:50:00.000-08:00

So, there are many arguments for allowing immigrants into the country, legally or illegally. The two arguments for really cracking down on them are the threat of terrorism and a drain on the economy. So much for one of those justifications for building a huge fence on the border. Does this change anyone's mind on the whole issue of immigration? Or are you all rather unaffected by the news? I am no fan of the Texas way, but it seems like even Texans would be hard-pressed to argue billion of dollars is a bad thing. I mean, think how many executions that sort of money could pay for...

2006-12-08T19:44:00.000-08:00

From the department of hardly surprising news...

2006-12-06T16:26:00.000-08:00

Our military is spending trillions of dollars in Iraq, and yet, our poor soldiers who are being put in harm's way to line fat cat's pockets have to make do with this to try and save their lives? That is pathetic and profane and horrible, and the fact that ordinary citizens are doing more to help soldiers than the government tells me all I need to know about the true concerns of those running the country right now.

2006-12-06T09:00:00.000-08:00

I don't know about you, but I despise Black Friday and Christmas music playing on Thanksgiving weekend. I am sick of people who try to assert that all Americans must celebrate Christmas. As such, I love this article. Enjoy. Happy Holidays.

2006-12-06T06:10:00.000-08:00

Another in a series of ridiculous events. I would say this is only in America, but similar stories have been reported from Asia and Europe. Two acts of senseless violence, a cop killing an unarmed teenager, and...a video game console. This is hardly an isolated incident, as many people were accidentally or intentionally harmed while waiting for the XBox 360 or Playstation 3 to come out. What does this say about our fetishistic need to consume?

2006-12-05T11:51:00.000-08:00

The new guy isn't afraid to say what the old guy couldn't apparently. Finally, we have some official recognition of a theory that most of the world and many Americans embraced a long time ago. What changes might this statement predict for the future of American policy in Iraq?

2006-12-04T21:51:00.000-08:00

It's funny because...well, because it's funny. Everyone has imagined George Bush as a petulant little brat, and now it's time to see him as such on the television.

According to CNN.com,

Comedy Central has ordered "Lil' Bush: Resident of the United States," a cartoon satire that re-imagines President Bush and key executives in his administration as elementary school misfits.

The title character is surrounded by close pals like Lil' Cheney, who grumbles unintelligibly, and Lil' Condi, who pines for Lil' Bush and does his homework for him.

"Bush" is not without its risque moments. When Lil' Bush's school serves falafel instead of hot dogs for lunch in one episode, he and his pals torture the cafeteria employees with methods made famous during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

If there are three funnier paragraphs in the English language right now, I would love to hear them. Your thoughts, loyal readers?

2006-12-02T21:39:00.000-08:00

It's been a long day, with ups and downs, and I am incredibly tired, but this is too good a story not to post. These people"in this "Baptist church" are an old story by now - they essentially have no class and are using "religion" as a shield to mask their hard, hate-filled hearts, and they have chosen a repugnant way to spread their message. (I would link to their website, but I in no way want to broadcast their agenda - it sickens me that much) The Native Americans, in my mind, reached out and preemptively stomped out the flames of hate. Since they live on private land, the Native Americans can essentially deny the First Amendment, if they so choose. What do you all think about this situation? (0h, and by the way, Happy Birthday Samantha Brown).

2006-12-01T09:05:00.000-08:00

So...it's been a little while since the last post. Sorry about that, it's been a buys week. To make up for it, I offer you the following "only in America" moment. (Thanks to Thing Progress for the scoop).

Right-wing radio host Dennis Prager wrote a column earlier this week claiming that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, had “announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.” Prager claimed this “act undermines American civilization,” and compared it to being sworn in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

Bloggers on the left and right — including Taylor Marsh, Steven Bennen, Eugene Volokh, Stephen Bainbridge — have torn apart Prager’s argument on constitutional grounds.

But Prager’s column is based on one other glaring error: the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. (Occassionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)

Plenty of countries debate things like this, sure, but most people who go on the radio or television to express a viewpoint would check their facts first. Except her, of course:

She lies more often than a Hollywood publicist. But seriously folks, what does it say when people are allowed to stir the pot by using blatant misinformation and lies?Why is this sort of thing accepted? Why do these people still have jobs? Lastly...if these two guys:

who by the way, discuss sports on an ESPN program, not global issues, have an on-air fact checker, why don't shows that discuss weightier issues have anybody anywhere who does a little research before the verbal diarrhea begins? Just wondering...

2006-11-27T17:55:00.000-08:00

Interesting side story here. I am particularly interested in the fact that the game makes American soldiers appear to be invincible. That certainly could not be further from the truth. I mean, even Captain America has to deal with mortality sometimes, and he is a superhero. Nonetheless, it seems as though recruiters are trying to sell the video-game generation on the thrill of real-life combat in an attempt to beef up the ground forces they can send to foreign countries. Except there is no reset button in Iraq. Am I wrong?

2006-11-26T09:17:00.000-08:00

I only post this because it relates to my Collegian article for this week, and because it is a conversation no one is really having. What does this say that this happens at least once a month somewhere?

2006-11-25T16:16:00.000-08:00

Thanks a bunch, Republicans. Aren't they supposed to be, if nothing else, good with money? Apparently not. Your thoughts, my loyal readers?

If this trend continues, we will lose our superpower status a lot sooner than we all expected, I would think - most governmental power comes from money and military, and we are losing both real quick...

2006-11-24T18:49:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.

Something I am definitely, definitely, not thankful for.

2006-11-21T15:37:00.000-08:00

More shocking news

Or is it, really? The victim suffered from mental illness, and weighed about as much as an average female cheerleader, according to most reports - was he really a threat to multiple police officers? This is starting to make me very sick.

2006-11-20T14:27:00.000-08:00

Could a decreased or lack of American presence in Iraq really be a possibility sometime soon? The rising star of the Democratic party seems to think so. What do you think? Can we pull out? Or have we done too much to ruin Iraq, and hence, feel the need to stick around and try to undo some damage?

2006-11-19T11:13:00.000-08:00

In an awesome example of a story becoming a big deal, the UCLA library story has now become fodder for a sports humor site because another man got tasered for doing pretty much nothing. Oh glorious day, my worlds of sports and politics have collided. It seems, however, that the police are going a little nutty with tasers lately, huh? I don't mean to stir up the pot any further, but did anyone else notice the video capture of the fellow who got tasered in Michigan?? I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying...

2006-11-18T08:09:00.000-08:00

So this story has sort of been floating around over the past few years, but it may take on some more significance now that Rep. Charles Rangel will become the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is a fairly influential post.

The irony of the story, of course, is that Rangel is almost certainly staunchly anti-war, and that the reason he is fighting for a draft is that it will prevent future wars.

It is his belief that Senators would not approve of war legislation if it meant that their own sons and daughters might be conscripted to fight and perhaps die in a foreign land. At present, of course, the armed forces tend to recruit from pools that senator's children probably do not spend too much time swimming in. Does anyone agree with this tactic? Or does it seem like Rangel might be getting too clever for his own good, and that it might backfire, with a larger standing military leading to more wars?

2006-11-17T12:43:00.000-08:00

THIS IS GRAPHIC.

Seriously, don't hit play if you can't stomach violence.

So, for those of you who are looking for an explanation of what happened, here is a pretty good summary. There are about a million different ways to start this conversation, but here are a few:

1. Does anyone think this would have happened to a Caucasian student?
2. What should happen to those "police officers?"
3. If campus cops feel justified to do this, then is it any wonder that we are slowly moving towards a police state?
4. The student in the white t-shirt was threatening with a taser for asking for the police officer's badge number. In case you didn't know, asking for such identification information is well within the scope of the law, and a civil right of Americans. What is this country coming to when exercising civil rights is cause for being threatened?

2006-11-13T12:46:00.000-08:00

A man who has done more for civil rights than any of us could ever dream of being honored by a man who has done more to strip Americans of their civil rights than any of us could ever dream about. Does this seem kind of horrifically ironic to anyone else, or am I just being too cynical?

2006-11-12T15:06:00.000-08:00

When does truth become stranger than fiction? When does life resemble art? Both of these questions might have a common answer in the events described in this article. I know this is a little more pop culture based than most of my questions, but how many of you have seen the film V for Vendetta?

If you have, you might notice that the fellow in the article is rather similar to the protagonist of the film. Similar in terms of ideology, not methodology. When the film first came out, many thought that it was the intention of the writers to portray one possible version for a future America, even if the film were set in Britain. Now, it seems as though our costumed friend has taken that logic one step further and begun his own campaign against the tyranny of the United States. Is his methodology appropriate? Will it be effective? What are your thoughts on the whole story?

2006-11-11T11:09:00.000-08:00

Is Representative Henry Waxman the new Dick Tracy?

Real quick opinion, people. Does this article make you laugh or cry? Or craugh? (That's a bit of both). I mean, a powerful and respected politician, not a yahoo in any way, says of the American President:

I'm going to have an interesting time because the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over everything," Waxman said Friday, three days after his party's capture of Congress put him in line to chair the panel. "The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose.

Choosing between many options should be a reality at Wendy's or in the liquor store , not in a criminal trial. We all hoped this day would come, that the many lies and crimes of the current administration would begin to be unearthed, but isn't it sad that with all of those shenanigans (the war, Katrina, Halliburton, lies, incompetency, etc.) only 31% of Americans think Bush is doing a good job? Perhaps even more tellingly, on no issue does Bush have more than half of voters on his side. (Read the sidebar graphic to see what I mean). Hopefully, with the new regime, accountability will be restored to national politics, and we will be able to consider respecting our politicians again.

2006-11-09T19:16:00.000-08:00

Bush's worst nightmare - the 2006 midterm elections. What do you all think? Is Bush truly done? Or is he going to be able to continue to exert his influence?

Also - everyone hates Bush around the world. I never would have guessed...

2006-11-08T07:27:00.000-08:00

From Boston Globe coverage of the election yesterday:

With the end of the GOP's 16-year hold on the offices of governor and lieutenant governor, Bay State Democrats in 2007 will enjoy a political monopoly unequaled by either party in any state in the country.

In January, Democrats will hold all six statewide constitutional offices, all 12 seats in Congress, roughly 7-to-1 majorities in both chambers of the state Legislature, and all eight seats on the Governor's Council. With returns still incomplete late last night, Republicans were losing one net state Senate seat, which would drop the GOP to an all-time low of five seats in the 40-member upper chamber, and in close fights for several House seats. The highest ranking Republican officeholders in the state will be a smattering of district attorneys and county sheriffs.

As you have all undoubtedly figured out by now, I am not a Republican. Nevertheless, I am a bit worried about this latest turn of events. A two-party system is based upon the presupposition that there will be some sort of shared power. (Of course, I would prefer to see more than two parties, but that is a separate post.) In this scenario, the Democrats will have a monopoly over state politics unequalled at any time in any state in the history of the United States. Does anyone else think this could lead to scenarios that might have unpleasant reprecussions? I certainly am not accusing the Massachusetts democrats of being potential despots, but one must agree, there is some scary potential here. Or am I way off base? What do you all think?

2006-11-05T14:37:00.000-08:00

In honor of Election Day, I thought this would make for an exciting list. If the flawed Diebold voting machines don't change your vote, your vote really could matter. I thought this article, though a bit dated, was a wonderful essay on why we must all vote.

2006-11-04T17:15:00.000-08:00

So this is a fascinating read. One of GWB's handpicked foot soldiers is becoming so ineffectual and so unpopular that his subordinates are calling for his ouster. Rummy has never been credited as being either effective or at all intelligent, but this is a shocking development. The military has always been run as an organization that relies upon the leadership of its upper echelon, and the unquestioning, unflinching loyalty of the soldiers in the field.

Now, even this tradition is eroding. Does this mean the military is disregarding its heritage? Or is it more likely that the Iraqi war is becoming so unpopular and just plain wrong that even those who once gave their unwavering support to the effort are now sick of those who continue to push the Bush agenda?

2006-11-02T15:36:00.000-08:00

So, a lot of people have been asking me how I stay on top of the news. Obviously, I read a lot of the regular websites like NYTimes.com and CNN.com. However, there are also a few Web 2.0 sites I love to read. One of the newest, and best, displays world news in a map format, which an extremely effective visual way to browse the news. Check it out here.

More news to come soon, enjoy the website in the meantime.

2006-10-30T17:33:00.000-08:00

So, the election is coming up in about a week. Good thing that we've got everything squared away, huh? I mean, we definitely don't have any problems with the voting machines.

Denis Miller style joke time: "Define irony. Fox News broadcasting a story that would presumably make their overload look like criminals."

But of course, that was just some ivory tower nerds working in labratory conditions, right? That could never happen in real life, right?

How ridiculous is that the technology involved in national elections is more flawed than Charles Manson's psyche? I mean, there is credible evidence that the Republicans have cheated their way to victories in the past, and now, prior to the election, they have a clear-cut way to do it again. Why is this not a bigger story? Where is the rage over this issue? Do Americans just not care anymore?

2006-10-29T07:58:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago in my Collegian article, I offhandedly mentioned a journalist in Iraq who has been detained by U.S. authorities. His crime? Well, depending on whom you believe, either "nothing" or "We're not going to tell you." Yahoo has a follow-up article here

The government's stance on this case reeks of a desparate five-year old seeking to uphold a lie. You know what I'm talking about. The child says something preposterous, at which point he or she is called on it. The child then answers: "I know the answer, but I don't want to tell you!" It's obnoxious. And in this situation, it seems doubtful the U.S. government has an answer at all, other than that they just don't like him. Hrm...I wonder why?

How long is it until the American government starts imprisoning people in this country? When it happens, what will we do then? This situation reminds me of the poem written by Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller about the Nazi invasion of Europe. There are many versions of the poem, but since I'm a Bostonian, I will choose the version incscribed at the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston.

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

The social fabric around is slowly being torn apart by distrust and an unwillingness to stand up for gross human rights violations if they don't impact us. What can we do to change the status quo? What steps can we take to end these injustices?

2006-10-25T13:59:00.000-07:00

Two words: awe-some.

2006-10-23T13:16:00.000-07:00

This isn't so much a point of discussion, but I found a website that I rather enjoy. I have long read Rolling Stone because despite obstensibly being a music magazine, they have some interesting alternative political viewpoints than what is often out there. This website is a good aggregation of some of the better ones. Many of their stories are on what's wrong in America today, and although it they are not "fun" to read, they are fascinating, and in my, mind, necessary.

2006-10-22T09:07:00.000-07:00

Another interesting article. The Republicans have apparently given up all semblance of subtlety and instead went directly for the jugular. After the Foley scandal and the sense that the war in Iraq is a complete failure, the Republicans are clearly adrift at sea with the upcoming elections coming up.

The widespread thought is that if the Democrats sweep into Congress in these midterm elections, then Bush will essentially be neutered. Of course, given Bush's track record of "working with" the other branches of government, it may mean nothing.

Nonetheless, the commercials are clearly attempting to harp on American's fear of self-preservation. The corollaries are obvious: the war in Iraq is noble and we should all continue to support the effort. Compare that rhertoric with the article, recently written by Kevin Tillman, the brother of Pat Tillman, the former NFL player who died in Afghanistan. Now, which one of these accounts sounds more reasonable and accurate to you?

2006-10-21T14:31:00.000-07:00

So this article doesn't really have much to do with politics in the U.S., but I think it can be an exciting topic for conversation.

Specifically, it is fascinating that in Germany, laws prevent the usage of Nazi symbology such as the swastika:

Considering the horrific connotations the symbol brings up to some, it may be argued that this law is reasonable. A symbol that has become almost synonymous with racial hatred and genocide really can not be put to good use. (On a personal note, I felt a sense of revulsion in even searching for an image of the swastika - that's how powerful this symbol can be.)

Of course, in the United States, anything and everything goes because the First Amendment has constantly trumped legal challenges. However, this story got me thinking. Should some words and symbols be prohibited because of their implications or message? The United States certainly has an imperfect history, and there have many horrific incidents that can be invoked with one word. For instance, the word "nigger" often brings to mind an era when white supremacy was a law, and blacks were treated in a manner commensurate with a pack animal. Should this mean that the word should be made illegal, in some manner? Or do people think that the German government has gone too far in censuring it's people?

2006-10-20T18:12:00.000-07:00

So this is a pretty fascinating article. It essentially tells us that not only is Bush spying on potential terrorists, but he is attempting to track down those who are critical of his policies. Now, of course, tracking public sentiment about political matters is as old as politics itself.

However, I think most would agree that this is an entirely different tactic. Rather than relying on inexpensive and mostly independent (as in free to the taxpayers) polls, Bush is spending millions on technology to see who is saying what.

This is particularly ominous when one considers that the new legislation allowing Bush to define "enemy combatant" is pretty much any way he wants. Could professors speaking truth to power soon end up in animal cages in Cuba? This is certainly a question worth asking. Considering the technology is probably scanning this article right now, I won't take it personally if any of you do not comment on this post, but if you're not afraid to, you know, use the First Amendment (which I am fairly certain will soon be eliminated) tell me what you are thinking about.

2006-10-19T16:44:00.000-07:00

So, for those of you wondering, the current cost of the war (this is strictly in terms of dollars, of course, the cost in human life is incalculable) in Iraq as of October 19, 2006 at 7:31 PM, it is $335,548,550, 650.

go here to check out what I mean. (Please note: since the financial cost of the war is rising exponentially each day, I expect the figure will look a bit different when you click on that link. Don't be alarmed by the disparity. Do be alarmed by the crazy high figure.)

If you are too lazy to check out the link, the fine people behind that website inform us that such a sum is enough to finance over 16,200,000 full college scholarships at public schools. Although tallies have not been completed yet for this year, based upon past data, this number is remarkably similar to the number of students who will begin their collegiate studies this year.

In other words, if Bush was not so "dedicated" to eradicating all non-Christians from the world, (or at least America) then it quite concievable that we could finance a goal that many across the country have: free higher education for all those who qualify.

Check out a little more info on that subject here.

In the long run, what do you think is more important? Cheaper gas so we can take the kiddies to DisneyWorld in the suburban? Or an educated generation? I know what neoliberals might say, but what do you think??

2006-10-09T10:16:00.000-07:00

So, they have done it again. Newsweek magazine this week has a different cover photo for their American edition. This time, the cover story on the American edition is about Steve Foley, the Congressional lothario, rather than on global warming. Foley is certainly a signficant story, but one would be hard pressed to argue that political scandal is a bigger deal than a trend that may destroy all life on the planet.

Newsweek editors used the same tactic a few weeks ago, when they put Annie Liebovitz, a celebrity photographer, on the cover of the American edition, rather than choosing the same image they used in their other editions: a Taliban member in Afghanistan holding a rocket propelled grenade. The subhead was: "Five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting back hard, carving out a sanctuary where they--and Al Qaeda's leaders--can operate freely."

Obviously, Newsweek is a very successful, very long-running newsmagazine, so they must be doing things according to what they believe the consumer will desire. So, why would American consumers not want to see an image of the conflict in Afghanistan on the cover of their edition? Granted, the story still runs inside all editions, but it is a safe bet that many people only see the cover of the magazine as they walk by the newstand and form their opinions of what is going on in the world from that image. By keeping the truth that Afghanistan is a losing proposition, they are effectively shielding people in this country from the truth. Should Americans be blinded by the media to what is going on around them? Or is this someting the American people desire?

2006-10-05T08:50:00.000-07:00

So, this man visited the campus of UMass-Amherst this week. For those of you who do not know who he is, his name is Tim O' Brien and he has written several works of fiction. The most famous of these novels is

which was a finalist for both the 1990 Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award. On a personal level, it also serves as one of my favorite books - ever. It is not an act of hyperbole to say that this book influenced the way I read and write, and I believe that many others have been similarly touched.

The book plays out as a series of vignettes about the Vietnam War told from the point of view of many characters. The war is presented as surreal and horrific, and many have claimed the book is an anti-war screed. However, Tim O' Brien has never really made that claim himself.

With such a background, he was clearly an intriguing choice to speak at a time when many are comparing the current conflict in Iraq to the Vietnam War - an unwinnable conflict that was undertaken for the wrong reasons.

However, he didn't criticize the Iraq war, at least, not directly. Instead, he just said: "War is a lot more complicated than any of us first believe - we must all reconsider the current conflict and all wars before coming to judgment. That, and nothing less, is your responsibility."

Such an attitude seems very gracious, considering the events in Vietnam and the current events in the Middle East and the sub-Asian continent. What do you all think?

2006-10-04T19:20:00.000-07:00

So, I pretty much think this image says it all. But if it doesn't, watch this video. It is about five minutes long, but I think it says all you need to know about the Republicans. They spent tens of millions of dollars on investigating a little hanky-panky between consenting adults, then booed a woman who wanted to investigate one of their own who attempted to commit statutory rape. Real classy, and totally bipartisan of them.

So to recap: they have immaturely derided a colleague for trying to do her job and look out for the youth of America, then had their press machine work to deny that a favored son was even a member of their party! How ridiculous can these guys get? Of course, I feel like there is more to come...