Walking in a Winter...Warzone?

It’s Christmas once again, and you know what that means; and no I don’t mean Santa.
It’s time again for the annual exercise in pointless debate, where narrow minds and righteous indignation take their yearly place amidst the tinsel and holly.
I’m speaking, of course, about the debate concerning the dirty word that pervades our hallowed halls of learning during this season. I’m talking about calling this wonderful time of year, this wonderful season of joy and happiness, etc., Christmas.
It surprises me to no end how vehement this debate gets every year. Anytime a public institution mentions the word “Christmas”, atheists cry bloody murder as if the government were suddenly replaced by the Pope. In response, religious folk cock their rhetorical shotguns as if humanity were taking a pot-shot at God himself.
The problem, as many social ills are, is rooted in the polarized nature of American culture these days. On the one hand, you have militant atheists who view religion as the ultimate childish farce, out to prevent any vestige of its clearly unreasonable logic from entering their country. On the other hand, you have fundamentalist Christians who “believe that the nation was founded on Christian principles” (translation: America should be Christian), and who picture atheists like orcs from Lord of the Rings.
Normally these people, on the fringes of the political spectrum, would be ignored for what they are; radicals out to make mountains out of mole-hills. Yet for some reason, as they seem to be doing a lot these days, these radicals are hogging the spotlight.
The simple fact is, there are two different Christmases that just so happen to occur at the same time. There’s the religious Christmas, the celebration of the birth of Jesus (the one with Baby Jesus and wise men and the candles). Then there’s the secular Christmas (the one with Santa and Frosty and presents and such). What was once a purely religious holiday has now evolved into two entirely separate phenomena.
Think about it. The last time I checked, Santa had nothing to do with Jesus. The last time I checked, you didn’t have to be a Christian to give presents to each other. And I don’t care what last year’s Reveille opinion columnist said, I don’t in any way connect a wreath to anything even remotely spiritual.
Even if you feel the need to make Christmas a religious thing, the simple fact is, in most cases, the whole thing is blown way out of proportion. In most cases that reach the papers, the debate isn’t over anything that is really an affront to free speech; it’s usually over the simple word Christmas. People get up in arms that a store advertises a “Christmas Sale”, instead of a “Holiday Sale”, or that LSU decided to call the colossal tree in front of the clock tower a “Christmas Tree”, instead of a “Holiday Tree,” or if somebody hangs a gigantic wreath from the Law Center.
Does it really matter whether it’s a “Christmas Tree” or a “Holiday Tree”? If you’re an atheist, is calling it a “Christmas Tree” like quoting the Bible? If you’re a Christian, is calling it a Holiday Tree like denouncing your faith?
In all honesty, it kind of saddens me to see this debate. In the universally accepted season of caring and giving and brotherhood, we bicker amongst each other about something trivial. On our own campus, we hear about accusations of infringement of basic rights over, ironically, something that the administration puts up as a symbol of our common love for each other.
Can’t we just once let it rest? Can’t we just once let it go, and sip eggnog together instead of fighting about minutia?

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Mr. Obama.
Congratulations on winning the election. The campaign was long and grueling, for you and for all of us.
As you have said before, this nation faces unprecedented challenges. We have troops fighting and dying in far off lands. We continue to face terrorist threats from abroad, and we face an Iranian nation that threatens the balance of power we have known for over half a century. Meanwhile, at home we are enduring the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
And still problems remain that have been left unsolved for more than a decade.
We have watched as Social Security and Medicare inched ever closer to collapse and yet seen nothing done to fix them. We have watched as our education system continued to go unattended. We have watched the impending energy crisis go unsolved. We have watched as a fiscally irresponsible government racked up a record deficit. We have watched voiceless as our leaders remained too absorbed in partisan machinations to move our nation forward.
We will no longer watch.
The costs of inaction are ours to bear. We will be the ones caring for our parents when Social Security and Medicare collapse. We will be the parents of children who attend schools with no money. We will be the ones to deal with the climax of the energy crisis when it inevitably comes to a head. We will be the ones trying to find jobs in a collapsing economy.
We cannot afford to accept the irresponsible, gridlocked inertia that is our political inheritance.
If there is one thing our generation can learn – must learn -- from the previous one, it is that we cannot afford to be as divided as it has been been. We must seek to change not just the way politics works, not just the way Congress works, but we must reform the very way we as Americans think.
In this, our first chance to voice our opinion, we were not idle. We watched expectantly, carefully observing both candidates. When you spoke, we listened.
We listened to you speak of a truly United States of America. We listened as you were lauded as a post-partisan candidate, a candidate who cares not about politics or business as usual but about what is right and what is good for the country.
We did not do it blindly. We did not vote mindlessly, in bloc, as some of our elders would suggest. We are not your personal army.
Yet as a whole, our generation has given you an unprecedented vote of confidence, in keeping with the unprecedented challenges that must be overcome through your leadership.
There are those who have called us starry-eyed idealists. There are those that do not believe that in this modern world a post-partisan candidate is possible. There are those who say your sweeping rhetoric is simply empty talk.
Prove them wrong. Validate our trust that your words are not empty, that you honestly believe “that we are not as partisan as our politics suggest.”
Show our fledgling generation the path to an undivided America. Cast aside the bonds of partisanship that have so long paralyzed us. Change this nation, not merely in terms of what party is in power, but change the very way we think about ourselves and each other. Show us conservatives and liberals can peacefully coexist, that is possible to disagree without believing the other person is a fool. Show us that cooperation is not a dirty word, that compromise does not mean failure.
I know that is difficult. I know that, especially given that you will have a Congress stacked with politicians of your own party, the temptation to simply reverse course and pursue your party’s agenda will be overwhelming.
This is not the mandate we have given you. This is not the change we demand.
Our generation has learned that we cannot continue down the forked path the previous generation has led us down. In order to emerge transformed from the dark days looming ahead of us, we must come together and walk down one road -- together.
And it is the mandate of our generation that you be the one to lead us down that single road. It is the mandate of our generation that you do not renege on your promises of unification.
Do not fail us. Our nation depends upon you.

Obama: Where does he go from here?

The Republicans have finally lost.

It's obvious, and it was expected. Ever since the Democrats overthrew the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, every sane person who followed politics knew that the Democrats would sweep Congress in November. Although it may not have been the massacre some pundits have predicted -- the Republicans can still cherish their right to a filibuster -- Obama crushed McCain in the electoral college and the Democrats now have an overwhelming congressional majority.

Now Barack Obama, as our new president-elect, faces an interesting choice. Does he change the nation merely in terms of left and right? Or does he follow his rhetoric and cause change by bipartisan means?

Throughout his campaign, Obama has been lauded as - and has couched himself as - a "post-partisan candidate." The best example of this is his victory speech in front of a colossal, jubilant crowd. When he could have gloated over the stunning victory he had accomplished, could have so easily reveled in a massive win for his party, Obama said this:

"while the Democratic party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility, and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress."

Great words, but does he mean them?

The idealist in me -- the idealist that wrote the open letter to Mr. Obama -- believes that he does. Though that piece was written in the immediate aftermath of Obama's speech (which is in my estimation the greatest of my lifetime so far), and is thus rooted almost entirely in emotion instead of logic, a part of me really believes it. Certainly all of me hopes it is true.

Yet the rationalist -- the cynic -- in me is not convinced. We are, after all, talking about a junior senator who has not once challenged his party on major issues. We're talking about a legislator who's biggest non-partisan bill is creating a Rosa Parks postage stamp. We're talking about a relatively new politician inheriting the reins to our government, whose workhouse is a decidedly partisan congress lead by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, some of the most entrenched partisans in the system.

With these kinds of factors, what chance does the nation have of a truly post-partisan government?

Although it is a deeply held tenet of mine that a post-partisan future is the only one that can remedy what is broken with our government, such a government is rooted in self-interest as a disenfranchised independant. What then, is Obama's interest? To whom is he accountable? In what direction should Obama go to achieve the most reform and, more realistically, in what direction does the most political benefit lie? Is the right path for our new president the left or the center?

The easy answer is the left. It would be easier for Obama to fall into step with his party and merely force the political pendulum back towards the left. Attempting to push anything but a strictly Democratic agenda is bound to mean fighting his own party, which means a great deal more effort and expenditure. But more importantly, doesn't the overwhelming support for Obama and his party mean a drift in public opinion to the left?

Not necessarily.

Whether it's deconstructing exit polls or looking for tides in public opinion, pundits and politicians alike should be wary of interpreting the Democrats' landslide victory as a significant swing to the left. Instead they should interpret it as a reaction to a wildly unpopular Republican president. Let's face it, any candidate running under the Republican label did so with a 300 lb. weight across their neck. Except for maybe 3 or 4 states, every single state in the Union went more Democrat this election than the previous one.

The entire nation doesn't suddenly like the Democrats -- they hate Republicans, or specifically, Bush.

In the next series of elections, the Republicans will not be the incumbents, so the overwhelming advantage that the Democrats had in this race will not exist. If the Democrats have any inclination to hold their power for more than one term, they need to court the center.

Yes the center. Remember us?

What both parties seem to have forgotten in recent years is that a center does exist within the American electorate. Although it is true that the Democrats won partially because of a rabidly excited base, its no coincidence that Obama won the election handily among undecideds. McCain attempted to follow the outdated strategy of firing up the base, his choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President being the most desperate attempt to that end. Yet the once-mighty socially conservative base finally failed the Republicans, and their neglect of more moderate voters -- even less devoted voters in their own party -- left them with no recourse.

All of the exit polls indicate that Obama obliterated McCain in terms of the independant vote.

The reason is simple: Obama's message of post-partisanship and cooperation speaks powerfully to the considerable portion of the electorate that isn't religiously partisan. For people tired of divisive politics, a unity candidate like Obama was the perfect choice.

If Obama drifts far to the left, as his party leadership likely proposes, he will be committing the same mistake that has led to the collapse of the Republican party.

If the new president maintains the partisan status quo -- if he attempts conventional Democratic solutions to the problems of our day -- he exposes himself as just another politician. His mantras of fundamental change and post-partisanship ring hollow, and those that supported him begin to question his legitimacy. The only people who would whole-heartedly support a partisan Obama would be the staunch Democrats - moderates and the young voters that so heavily bolstered his ranks would be disillusioned, and would be at the very best apathetic to re-electing him.

As the Republican party self-destructs, Obama and his party can do one of two things: they can revel in its chaos and attempt to push through a highly divisive, far-left agenda while the opposition recovers. Or, they can analyze the fundamental factor in the party's collapse, learn from their opponents mistakes, and avoid making the same error themselves. If the Republican part is to survive, it can, must, and will cease to rely as heavily on its fundamentalist base, and become more moderate; when it does, the Democrats better have done the same, or the Republicans will take back the power that they lost because of their folly.

October 7, 2008: An American Travesty

I am furious.

I am so furious that it is late at night and my body is literally quivering with anger. I am so furious that I will likely not sleep tongiht unless I use some very heavy medication or some kind of self-inflicted blunt force trama.

I am so angry that I am resurrecting this poor, neglected blog.

With a reaction like this, you might think I've failed a test. You might think I'm high on something. You might think that perhaps something horrible has happened to me.

It has. And it has happened to every one of us, every American who even pretends to give a damn about the direction our nation is headed.

I am talking about the ludicrous farce that the American people were presented with as the second Presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain.

I watched the debate by myself, laying out on a couch in front of a television. I began serene, expecting a stimulating debate on the pressing issues of our time, expecting two politicians that I have grown to respect more and more on the campaign trail speak openly, and frankly about the unprecedented challenges our nation faces. I expected the two to discuss the recent economic catastrophe in measured, yet still intense terms. I even had some hope, some slight vestige of belief that maybe, just maybe, the down-to-earth war hero and the charismatic orater could cast down partisan rancor and maybe, just maybe give the American people some kind of hope.

What the hell was I thinking.

Instead of my perhaps too-lofty expectations, I watched as a politician I have admired above all others since I became politically sentient, a man who I have seen consistently be a force of unity and bi-partisanship, a man who I had hoped might bring some kind of unity to a polarized country degenerated before my very eyes into a bickering, finger-pointing monster. I watched him fling barb after barb at his opponent, desperation tactics that I had thought the man was above.

To my horror, I found myself praying that John McCain would be ignored.

Yet under the barrage that my now-fallen hero hurled at Barack Obama, he eventually responded in kind...how could he not, when McCain was throwing out bombshell accusations that were, if not blatantly untrue, then spun until the facts were left dizzy and broken in a muddled pool of propaganda.

Because my own words are fast turning into hysterical gibberish, let me use some of theirs. Yes, I took notes... I recorded every misguided, malicious barb that I caught during the debate on my text phone.

I filled up 5 different documents on the notepad software.

Here are some of the gems; they are not related to each other:

John McCain claimed that Senator Obama received the most money from large companies of any senator in history.

After one of McCain's quotes, Obama said, and I quote, "I have to correct John on this, not surprisingly."

McCain: "I want you to see the letter that several other senators and I sent that warned that this might happen. Guess what, his (Obama's name) isn't on it.

McCain: "Obama has the most outrageously liberal record in the Senate."

McCain likened an Obama presidency to that of Herbet Hoover.

Obama: "John says government hasn't done anything about alternative energy in 30 years; he's been there for 27 of them!"

The candidates began to rail so heavily against each other that they utterly abandoned the debate format, leading Tom Brokaw, one of the most venerable journalists alive today, plaintively begging them to stay on topic. Like children, they utterly ignored the established rules in order to hurl accusations at each other, hoping to get in the last damning word before their opponent could respond.

When they did discuss their own policy issues, it was largely the exact same stump speeches we have heard since the first rumblings of the campaign. Many times, it was word for word exerpts from previous speeches and debates. Even though between the two debates a financial meltdown of almost apoctalyptic proportions occured, the speeches, the phrases, the stances were almost identical.

What is most disturbing, and what has me so furious, is the utter disregard that the candidates had for any refreshing debate or any real answers to tough questions. Call me an idealist, but when we face the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression, when our own citizens are losing jobs and homes, when we are still embattled in dangerous conflicts abroad, isn't it time to cut the political crap and actually answer something? Isn't it time to abandon the stump speeches and "facts" blatantly twisted in your own favor? With the American people staring into the inky black void of an unprecedented recession, isn't it time to show them that they are humans, not dogma-spouting machines?

Apparently not. Apparently the two men who are running to lead our nation believe that in the face of challenges that Americans have not faced for generations, bickering, mud-flinging, demonizing politics as usual are still the right way to proceed. And this from two candidates who claim that to be the sworn enemy of the political status quo.

It's true that every debate is like this, and it's true that I have watched those debates without nearly this level of disgust. You may be wondering why I'm all of a sudden so vehement about this.

Maybe it's because I'm in a bad mood. Maybe it's because I was alone, and didn't have any way to diffuse my frustration.

Or maybe it's because I have finally had enough, and, as we stand at the brink of another Great Depression, I am just too furious to stomach it any more.

Ahh, Religion

Sorry for not posting in awhile.

After going through Reveille training, I am definately pumped about being an opinion columnist, and I couldn't be happier about my beat. Religion....

I know that this is going to get me a good sack of hate-mail...which only adds to the allure.

Here's the deal. No matter how you look at it, religion in any meaningful form is essentially ludicrous. Since virtually no fundamental aspect of religion can be verified scientifically, human experience, emotions, and, frankly, imaginations are free to run wild. The result? Probably the most staggeringly diverse, and, to be honest, wierd stuff in existence. The unadulterated potential of the human mind translates relatively freely into religious experiences, leading to a wealth of intellectual and emotional material...material that is fascinating to discuss.

This is, of course, only possible in an environment where open discussion is not only permitted, but encouraged. Religion is utterly empty and virtually meaningless if it is not discussed honestly and seriously. And any religion is intellectually inferior if it is never challenged, if presiding doctrine chokes out freedom of discussion.

That is the one basic rule that I will try my hardest to stick to in my writings...I will not attack anyone's beliefs about the existence of a higher power, no matter how ludicrous it may be. Even if Tom cruise believes that we are actually the imprisoned spirits of extra-terrestrials, I will not question his sanity, as tempting as that may be.

That does not, however, mean that I will not criticize any religious view. Especially in the more well-established faiths, certain views may be (as I perceive them), contrary to the teachings of the mainstream faith itself. Christianity is likely to bear the most discussion in this manner, as it is personally the faith I am most familar with (because I am personally a Christian).

In addition, as it is an opinion column, I may on occasion point out what it is that would prevent me from ascribing to a particular faith tradition. I might, for example, say that I take issue with the Catholic Church's religious totalitarianism as I percieve it, or perhaps take issue with the fundamentalist obsession with intervening in issues that I believe to be inherently secular.

If I do happen to disagree with a particular faith, I am in no way, shape, or form contending that a person who believes in that faith is a fool. I am likely not even contending that they are necessarily wrong. It is one of the fundamental truths as I see it that to claim you know, for a fact, that you are right, and that everyone who does not believe like you is not just wrong but stupid, is foolishness on a staggering level. Unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, using physical evidence (sorry folks, there ain't such proof about the Bible) that something is a fact, then calling someone a fool for not believing as you do is utterly conceited.

In the end, I firmly believe that we'll all show up in the afterlife, and all of our petty claims to understanding will be laid bare for the half-truths they are. Like a parent patiently explaining the ways of the world to his bickering children, God will reveal that all of the hatred and conflict caused by religious differences is pointless and infantile.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try. I believe firmly that, even though it may be futile, there is something inherently noble about trying to attune ourselves to something beyond ourselves.

So, anyway, I thought I'd lay out my broadest views on religious discussion, so that you know where I'm coming from when...if...you read my columns.

See you this semester.

Nancy Friggin' Pelosi

I am currently watching the aftermath of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's appearance on the Daily Show. I know the Daily Show isn't credible news, but it's the woman's own words that have me angry.

I am pissed. Let me begin with a quote:

Stewart: Are you proud of what Congress has done in this term?
Pelosi: I'm proud of what the Democrats have done.

Pelosi continued to expond on this bent, whining that the reason that Congress has been about as effective and meaningful as the British monarchy, ("a vestigal body" in Stewart's own phrasing) is, of course, the Republicans.

Are you serious?

In a nation where the line in the ideological sand might as well be a moat of lava, you're excuse for ineffectuality is something that I might do as a five-year old? It was their fault?!

Now, I agree that the Republicans have been stalling legislation, and if the legislation that the Democrats were trying to pass were undeniably the right path, I'd be whining right there alongside her. But it isn't. As I have routinely lamented, the Democrats are trying to pass bills that fit perfectly with their agenda.

Now call me an idealist, but this ISN'T how a two-party system is supposed to work: each side creates an agenda, then attempts to pass that agenda through the legislative process against the other side's attempts. Guess what happens when you try that? WHAT WE HAVE NOW!!

The way it's supposed to work, at least according to my Political Science professor, is that each side creates an agenda, and then the two sides cooperate rationally to reconcile the two.

Sound ridiculous? It shouldn't.

Essentially, what Pelosi is saying by stating that Republicans are making Congress ineffectual is that the Democrats are inherently, irrevocably right, and the Republicans, by opposing them, are either stupid are evil.

Those are the exact words I use often to describe fundamentalists. Although Pelosi isn't as obvious about it, the not so subtle message in her complaints about the Republicans is inherently identical.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these people who think Pelosi is just an arrogant, snooty, liberal femi-nazi off to destroy America as we know it. But this hacks me off. You cannot, as one of the country's most powerful politicans, go in front of the nation you serve, and tell them that the reason your institution is worth approximately it's collective weight in vienna sausage is that the opposing party won't lie down and do your bidding; at least not without a heaping helping of narrow-mindedness.

Now before liberals get up in arms and conservatives applaud, let me make this perfectly clear. The democrats aren't the only ones guilty of this. The Republicans are just as guilty. In fact, we, as Americans in general, are guilty, because, sadly, the Congress represents the American public at large. In the words of Dennis Miller, "America's greatest renewable resource is narrow-minded righteous indignation."

So, to all you Nancy Pelosi's out there, Democrat and Republican, it's high time that somebody, or even better somebodies, finally realize that this partisan finger-pointing is not going to get us anywhere.

But it's going to take somebody a whole lot more important than me.

The Joker: Delicious Psychosis

Holy Crap.

Have you seen The Dark Knight? It's incredible.

I wasn't a huge fan of Batman Begins. It was a well done movie, but it was largely just a glorified action movie. Yes the action was good, yes the cinematography was stunning, but where was the depth? Where was the pathos and the moral dillemas of Batman? Instead of a conflicted, troubled hero, we had a determined, hardened ninja (?!) out to clear out a stable of cookie-cutter villians.

This movie far surpasses the other one in every respect. First, it's just a straight-up captivating film. I think the moment I realized just how good this movie is was a scene that involves a tanker truck being thrown end over end, as the entire audience simultaneously gasps. As the truck hurtles silently through the air, a capacity crowd sits on the edge of their seats, mouths agape. The movie has several of these moments, where the audience involuntarily, physically reacts to what's happening on the screen. I saw it twice on the opening day (it's that good), and the reaction is always unmistakable.

By the way, all the hype about the Joker is valid. Heath Ledgers portrayal of perhaps the greatest comic book villian of all time is staggeringly good. Dark, violent, and psychopathic, but in a deliciously insane way that makes you both cringe, gasp, and sit agape, even making you laugh. I'm a huge fan of the Jack Nicholson Joker from the original Batman, and I expected that my love for that character would put a taint on the new one, but the two are so very different that the comparison is impossible.

WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE MY NERDY COMIC BOOK SIDE. PROCEED WITH CAUTION, AS THIS MATERIAL MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR SOCIAL LIFE

Alright, now I'm not a big fan of DC comics. Other than the graphic novel The Watchmen, (a trailer that made me just as excited as the one for The Dark Knight), the Batman franchise is the lone island in a sea of shallow and largely meaningless fluff in that universe.

But Batman is awesome. I am a firm believer in the role of comics as an art form, as a way to express emotions, stirring themeatic elements, and truths about the human condition, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the Batman stuff.

Batman isn't your bland, generic superhero, who triumphs over villians efforlessly, who is virtuos, faultless, and righteous. Batman is an often-brooding, very human hero, with emotional and psychological complexities, who struggles with the burden of his responsibilities as a hero. And many of his villians, especially the Joker, are as equally complex and troubling as he is.

This movie, unlike the first, delves deep into the thematic gold mine that is the Batman franchise.

First, the Joker's twisted psychology, utterly unlike any conventional thug is played up to great effect. Unlike the Mafia, who are simply greedy and corrupt, the Joker is simply out to, in Alfred's words, "watch the world burn". As he himself puts it, "I'm an agent of chaos", a man who is utterly unmoved by the forces that drive crime and, in many ways, society as a whole. His mangled worldview leaves him practically invincible, immune to intimidation, unmoved by money, and utterly unafraid of death.

Second, the film explores the "Batman/Joker Catch-22", which, as perhaps best explored within one of the greatest comics of all time, "The Killing Joke", is the fundamental reason why the Joker is Batman's most enduring and dangerous nemesis. Batman, whose one rule is that he will not kill, cannot kill the Joker, and the Joker cannot kill Batman, because he is driven to have him break that one rule. Thus the two are locked in an epic, ongoing struggle. As in the comics, Batman is faced with a terrible dillema; if he cannot bring himself to kill, villians such as the Joker will cause mayhem and death, but if he chooses to kill, then he is little better than the scum he is fighting. This dynamic, which pervades the comics, is incredibly powerful, and the movie depicts it masteruflly.

Finally, the film is, in many ways, an analysis on society as a whole. The carnage unleashed by the Joker brings the social structure of Gotham to the verge of catastrophic collapse. The movie brings into sharp focus the inherent fragility in human society. Yet at the same time, it brings out a hopeful glimpse of humanity, in the ferry scene, where the passengers of neither boat opt to destroy the other. The incident is remarkably realistic, incredibly tense, and overall a fascinating situation.

The Dark Knight is an exquisite piece of cinema; even without it's many deeper meanings, the sheer scale and quality of the action and cinematography is worth a look. However, the deeper meanings are what makes it a truly powerful film, one that is definately worth seeing at least once.

And see it in theaters...there are some crazy good sound affects that can really only be fully experinced by a speaker the size of a house.

The New Yorker: Barack Obomba?

The New Yorker is catching a lot of flak for it's newest cover. It depicts Obama, dressed as Osama Bin Laden, turban and all, fist-bumping his wife, attired in millitary gear, with an AK-47 strapped across her back.

It's hilarious.

I understand why people are up in arms about it. However, to me, it's pretty obvious that the cover is satire, and not of Obama. As soon as I saw the cover, I cackled, because its actually very clever.

Perhaps the reason most people are angry about the thing is they don't have the friends have. I am very good friends with a great deal of people who inhabit the far right of the political and religious spectrums. Among some of these, there are people I know who actually believe, in all seriousness that Barack Obama is covertly working for fundamementalist Muslims in an effort to destroy America from within. The number of people who actually believe this is way higher than is expected or reasonable. Don't believe me? I know of at least 3 Facebook groups that make the claim.

To me, the illustration is hysterical, because I actually know people who look at that and go "Y'See thur? Even them dadgum liberals know that Barack is one of them terrorists!"

I understand if people get upset about this illustration. If you don't know somebody who actually believes the caricature, it can seem like a totally tasteless, utterly gratuitous assault on Obama and his wife.

I applaud the New Yorker for having the cajones to print this picture, and I applaud the editor for standing by it. This kind of satire is bound to draw criticism; it's only sad that it's from people who should be laughing along with it.

Okay, so He's not That Bad, Really...

Alright, so I've gone back and read my previous posts about Barack Obama...

They may have been a little harsh.

I'm not actually that much against the guy. Other than his obviously over-eager position on health-care, I'm not really offended by any of his proposed policies of which I'm aware. I'm a little uneasy with the immediate timetable for withdrawl in Iraq, but then again, I can't really say I'm head-up about staying in, either.

The things I love about the man most, however are his speeches. He's easily the best orator I've seen in my lifetime.

And his base platform is dead-on. We need a change in politics; we need somebody to come in and fix the mess left by the previous adminstration. Seriously, if the giant mess that is the political scene these days were any different, or even if somebody besides McCain were running against him, I may very well have been on here proclaiming his virtues. I know I would have if any of the other Republican nominees had beaten McCain out (except perhaps Giuliani).

What really infuriates me is the way that the right demonizes the guy. Calling him a socialist is obviously a stretch, calling him unpatriotic is borderline stupid, and calling him a muslim is infantile (not that I have anything against Muslims). Saying that Barack Obama is a covert fundamentalist Muslim terrorist is exactly the kind of Rush Limbaugh-esqe, McCarthyist witch-hunting that is not just innane and irrational, but detrimental to democracy.

Seriously, people. Whatever happened to rational thought? I mean, I'm personally going to vote for McCain, but that doesn't mean that I can't see a lot of good in Obama, does it? Just because I support McCain doesn't mean I have to come up with vast, insane logic why Obama is the devil does it? Whatever happened to the polite disagreement?

It's this kind of no-holds-barred political warmongering that has so polluted our collective system that a progressive candidate like Barack evokes such wild rhetoric from me as the undigested beef analogy (see "Barack Obama is a n00b").

Cue the inevitable comments about how I'm a wishy-washy, fence-riding flip-flopper. Sigh.

China and the Trenchcoat Mafia

I'm not going to be boycotting the Olympics this year.

Don't get me wrong, I know and respect several people who are going to boycott the games, and their reasons are entirely logical. Let's be honest, when it comes to human rights, China is the bull in the...well...the china shop. Regardless of what you think about China or the Chineese, it's kind of hard to ignore the abuses that its government have managed NOT to disguise, even just in the past few months leading up to the games. Arbitrarily evicting whole populaces to make way for the actual physical plant for the games caps up years of known brutal crackdowns.

However, there is no event in the world that is as symbolic of world unity then the Olympics. As Morgan Freeman says in the commercials, the games are chance for us to forget our differences and come together as humans.

So, therein lies a Catch-22. There are many people who are boycotting a symbol of human unity...in the name of human rights. If you want to watch the Olympics and support international unity, then you're tacitly empowering those who abuse people. But, on the other side of the coin, if you want to make a stand against those abuses, you're turning your nose at the world.

I, for one, am not going to boycott the games. China pollutes the environment and represses her citezens out of a driving desire to become modern, to join the first-world nations in our affluence. Like a high-school kid wasting his money on designer jeans, China is just trying to fit in. It seems to me then, that boycotting the games because they host it can only do one of two things:
A.) China, seeing that it is still not accepted as a legitimate world power, redoubles its efforts, churning out more pollution and repressing more citizens in order to finally gain what it seeks.
B.) China, seeing that it is still not accepted as a legitimate world power, becomes, to continue our high-school analogy, the angry kid in a trench coat. China pulls the global equivilent of a high-school shooting, and, must I remind you, nobody's more representative of "the in-crowd" in global politics than the U.S.

At some point or another, we're going to have to admit that China is going to be a major player in the world, and treat it with respect. The U.S. has always dealt with countries that violate human rights, and the reason is simple: we have to. If the U.S. refused to deal with any nations that repressed their citizenry, it would cripple our markets and open up a host of hostile enemies.

So, if you want to boycott China, go ahead, and all the more power to you. But don't come at me like I'm hugging Hitler if I watch, and don't come spewing out the horrible, horrible facts about how bad China is.

I know. But I'm going to go ahead and support world unity here. Plus, it's fun to watch the Kenyans embarass the rest of the runners on the track.

The Power of the State v.s. the Power of Prayer

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/faith.healer.deaths.ap/index.html

Since I'm going to be writing about religious topics in the Reveille next semester, it seems logical that I should start doing it here one of these days.

Apparently a family in Oregon has had two children die from curable diseases, because they are firm believers in the power of prayer. The most recent one is an older child of 16 years, who, in theory, was old enough to make the decision for himself. The case is so tragic because the boy died from complications of a urinary tract infection that a simple catheter could have resolved.

Apparently this same extended family had a child of 15 months, the recent casualties' cousin, die from bronchial pneumonia. This case is being brought before a judge, because a child barely over a year old cannot decide for themselves wether or not to seek treatment.

The reason that the two children died from preventable diseases is that their parents are members of the Followers of Christ Church, which advocates using prayer for "faith-healing", a practice that some fundamentalist Christians endorse.

This brings up two main conundrums. The first, and more theological one, regards the practice itself. Now, as a Christian, I'm definately not ready to say that prayer doesn't work or even say that God can't heal you of illness. But it seems to me that refusing medical treatment is a bit foolhardy.

It can be argued, and I have been told before, that, if we really believe that God can heal us, why is it foolhardy? If you seek medical attention instead of relying on God, isn't that a sign that you don't fully trust him?

In response, I would argue that God provides means of healing more subtle than a beam of light and a miraculous, inexplicable miracle. Isn't it possible that God has provided mankind with the ingenuity to develop a practical solution? It's the old story of the man sitting on the roof of his flooded house, refusing the aid of a boat and a helicopter, saying that God will save him, only to die and have God ask him why he didn't use the boat and helicopter he sent him. Refusing practical aid seems not only mule-headed, but also remarkably like throwing yourself from the roof of the temple as a test of God's faithfulness.

The second, more practical issue rasied by this debacle is wether or not the mother and father should be prosecuted. A very valid argument can be made that, if the parents are brought to court, the state would effectively be limiting their religious freedom, i.e. restricting their right to believe in faith-healing. The problem, however, is that they aren't the ones who died because of those religious principles. Instead, a 15 month-old infant, who did not have the time in life to determine wether he believed in faith-healing, died. This is where the parents are guilty; when it comes to religious matters, a 15 month-old child should receive medical attention, regardless of his parents religious views.

Barack Obama's Fairy Godmother

I recently read an article describing a chance meeting between Barack Obama and an old guy after a speaking event. The man was something like 95 years old, and Barack at least feigned awe and respect for the mans longevity. For some reason, the man felt the need to hand the candidate his walking stick, saying that he has used the stick for several decades. And what does Barack do? He waves the stick in the air, saying that "he's going to use a stick like this to whip Congress into passing universal health care."

That's right folks, Barack Obama's going to pass universal health care. And he's going to do it by whuppin' Congress with a big stick.

In my humble opinion, Barack Obama is going to need a much more magical stick than that to even address healthcare at all, and he's going to need nothing short of God's own shillelagh to pass universal health care.

Let's take a look at his odds. First keep in mind that Bill Clinton ran on a similar platform, that he was going to "fix healthcare". We all know how far he got with that plan; his feeble attempt got swatted down like a five year old shooting against Yao Ming. Now, hate the guy or love him, the man is the Stephen Tyler of politcs. Even if he has the charm, Barack Obama doesn't have half the political skill that Clinton did, and he certainly doesn't have the experience.

I forgot to mention that Bill Clinton wasn't trying to pull this off in the current quagmire we're mired in now. Obama is, by his own fervent admission, inherinting an unstable nation. The U.S. is currently engaged in a costly, bloody conflict abroad, is breaking all records for defecits, and is on the verge of a full-fledged economic depression. I had the very enjoyable experience of attending the Bonnaroo music festival this year, and nowhere have I seen a greater mass of people with so many pressing issues to be angry about. In the words of the Pearl Jam lead singer, "there's a lot to be angry about these days, my friends..."

My point in all of this is, Barack has WAY too much on his plate to be able to pass something as controversial as universal health care. Even if he had the time and energy to fight the Republicans, the the simple, blunt truth is obvious. With our nation trillions of dollars in the red, the only way you could fund health care is to pull out of Iraq immediately, and raise the taxes significantly. Regardless of your personal take on politcal theory, nothing dispels a good speech (even one of Obama's) or a ruins good public policy strategy in the public's eyes like a tax hike, especially in these hard economic times.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal health care... in theory. I'm also for world peace, an end to hunger, and unicorns that crap happiness. I simply do not believe that universal health care can be pulled off in a nation as large and diverse as the United States, especially not now.

As good as universal health care sounds, especially when it flows like honey from Obama's mouth, it just isn't feasible at the current time. This is just another empty political promise, a sunshine and rainbows hook designed to draw in naive voters. I would be mad about the claim, but it's a well-established tradition in the modern election, and these days every candidate, including McCain is guilty of it. Also, the alternative is even scarier...maybe he actually believes it himself!

One more thing: SCREW KANYE!

Barack Obama is a NooB

Since Barack is officially the Democratic nominee now, the party can stop beating itself up and let the Republicans do it for them.

Now I'm not a Republican, but I do think that, recently, the conservative party has been handing the Democrats their own lunch. After the first term of Bush, the best the Dems could muster was John Kerry, who had all the charisma of a high-school librarian. Even with a majority in Congress, the Dems have been able to accomplish a net good-for that matter, net anything of zero. Bush hasn't even had to veto a whole lot to keep them in the kennel.

The party is hoping to get a fresh start with Barack Obama, the very junior senator from Illinois. The Democrats are hoping that Obama's starry-eyed idealism and high piss/vinegar content are the "fresh new thing" that they need to jumpstart their flagging political success.

It's like when Coke decided they were going to go for the "fresh new thing".

Don't get me wrong, Obama is probably the single best orator I have seem in my lifetime. His rhetoric is sweeping and inspiring, and he is brimming with confidence and charisma.

For me, however, his words ring somewhat hollow. I'll admit, his talk of change is tantalizing, especially while we sit mired in what seems like an eternity of frustratingly stagnant politics. But when the words fade away and I actually listen to what he's saying, the spell wears thin.

When it actually comes to his stance on issues, it can be hard to delve through the mountains of beautiful prose. From a purely practical standpoint, if you'd like to hear an Obama speech, record him saying "Change" in that grandiloquent voice of his once...and repeat it incessantly.

There's something fundamentally disturbing about the very philosophy that has caused the Democrats to put him forth into the arena. I'm always wary of candidates who run as "outsiders". If you'll recall, Bush ran as an "outsider" during his first election (how a Yale-educated governor and son of a former President managed to pull that off boggles my mind), and we all know how HE worked out.

In almost any other profession, running as "an outsider" would be absurd. Would you want an "outsider" surgeon doing your back surgery? Would you want an "outsider" accountant doing your taxes? How about an "outsider" pilot flying your plane?

The reason most professions don't have "outsiders" is simple; in order to be really good at something, you have to have experience in that profession. Yet a politician like Barack Obama can point to his tiny tenure as a Senator and claim it's a GOOD thing.

Why is this? The reason is simple; people don't understand what politics is all about, especially when it comes to the office of the President. The common conception of a President is someone who knows what the best thing is for the country, then gets it done. Unfortunately, many people forget that those are only the beginning and and the end of the political process. The interim, and, in fact, the bulk of the process is the actual politics of it all, which is one of the most arcane arts in the world. A President doesn't just get elected, then begin assigning public policy. In order to be effective, a President has to have mastered the game of politics, has to know how to convince, cajole, and when necessary, coerce a slew of legislators and other beaureaucrats into following their programs. Wether for good or for ill, in order to be an effective leader on any government level, you have to know how to work the process, and you also have to have connections.

How difficult is politics to understand? It's an entirely seperate curriculum at Universities, and even people with PhD's in Political Science don't have any idea what the hell is going on half the time.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of an "outsider" candidate. Trust me, nobody is more sick of the current state of affairs in Washingon right now, and nobody is a bigger believer that our political system needs an overhaul.

However, the method of change that Barack represents is the wrong laxative for our democratic constipation. As I have said before and will say again, the reason that nothing is getting done in Washington anymore is because Democrats and Republicans long ago declared all-out, winner-takes all war on each other, and have retreated far back into the extremes of their respective ideologies.

How do you remedy this gridlock? The only solution is by finding somebody (or multiple somebodies) who are willing to resurrect the long-lost art of compromise. Elect people who are willing to walk across the no-mans land and work with their opposing party to genuinly, non-partisanly address the pressing issues facing our great nation. For years, there's been one figure that, above all others has displayed these qualities. I'll give you some hints: he's old, bald, refers to our capitol as "Warshington", and he's definately not an "outsider".

I can tell you one way NOT to remedy it: elect a man whose (short) voting record is lock-step with the dictates of his party. Elect a man who, from an ideological standpoint, is fairly far to the left on the political spectrum. Elect a man who has not been in the game long enough to make connections or to fully master the complex, weaving dance of flattery and force that is politics. If you're looking to pile more undigested beef into our nation's political bowels, than elect Barack Obama.

If anybody asks why, it's because he talks pretty.

John McCain Live

I recently had the pleasure of attending a town hall meeting in the Baton Rouge RiverCenter featuring Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president. Senator McCain was introduced by a train of incremantally more prestigous local officials, from Mayor Kip Holden to Ex-Governor Buddy Romer, to Governer Jindal. Governor Jindal's mere appearence on the stage caused an eruption of applause and good ole-fashined hollerin'. It was almost scary how religious the crowd's fervor for the man is.

Religion, by the way, was not by any means a taboo topic at this event. Mayor Holden came out strong by lauding the Senator in religious terms; McCain himself said of Washington D.C., and I quote: "It's hard doing the Lord's work in the city of Satan, my friends." It seems likely that he was playing to the crowd; the senator enjoyed an obviously overwhelmingly conservative audience. Questions that were posed were less actual interrrogations and more set-ups for his talking points. The first lady who got to speak was chosen because either she A.)was so much of a plant she gets energy by photosynthesis or B.)was waving her arms like she was on fire.

That being said, I was impressed by his responses. McCain obviously brings a great deal of experience and has a coherent, rational, consistent political philosophy. A few times, he brought up his own controversial topics, as if to prove he could. This event only increased my support for McCain as a candidate.

However, one thing concerns me. McCain simply does not have the charisma of his opponent, Barack Obama. If Obama has one thing going for him, the man oozes charisma like mayonaise from a McChicken Sandwhich. This could become a serious liability when the election draws near and the official debates start. I can only hope that McCain can summon all of his rhetorical prowess so that he doesn't repeat the infamous Nixon/Kennedy debacle and steer his old, bald campaign into an iceberg

However, there is a ray of hope for the McCain team. McCain announced at the meeting that he has invited (challenged) Barack Obama to a series of 10 or so similar Town Hall-style meetings.

The catch? They'll be doing it together (competitively).

I will admit, I've been frustrated by the formal debates recently. The past few formal debates have been nothing but oppurtunities for the candidates to dodge questions and whip out their same tired stump speeches.

Hopefully, this will be the end to that. In my opinion, a town-hall style format lessens the chance of recycled speeches making it into the "dialogue." I'm practically salivating for a chance for the two candidates to be dumped in the same rhetorical ring, peppered by questions from an audience that contains members of both sides of the political spectrum. This environment means having to think on your feet, or, more appropriately, requires a consistent, logical political philosophy and a fundamental understanding of a wide variety of issues.

If Barack has the cajones to accept this challenge, I think McCain can show that, although he doesn't have Obama's silver tongue, he is at least as qualified, if not moreso than his opponent.

Ye Olde Abortion Debate: The Narrow View

Imagine the following scenario; you're an esteemed, devout Catholic businessman, and staunch Rebublican, who is, as any good catholic should be, against abortion. You are a guest speaker for a group of other devout Catholic businessman-whose priest has just denied you communion-for reasons concerning abortion.

Having trouble? Seem too crazy a scenario to imagine? Ask one Douglas Kmiec, a veteran of Ronald Reagan's business department.

It seems that this poor fellow was denied communion because he has, to some surprise, supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election. I have a great deal of respect for Catholics who publicly support Democrats...announcing that kind of support must be similar to coming out of the closet in terms of potential persucution.

Apparently the priest, who Kmiec has graciously refused to name to prevent personal attacks, decided that supporting Barack Obama is, and I quote, "a grave moral evil," simply and, apparently solely because he is pro-choice.

I have no problem with Catholicism as a belief, but I find this reprehensible. To deny a person communion, (which, if I understand Catholic doctrine properly, is an extremely grave punishment that endagers the concerned soul's future in heaven) because the candidate he supports disagrees with the church on a single issue is absurd. Remember, Kmiec is against abortion himself.

To be fair, this incident is not a result of official papal policy per se, but it is nonetheless a textbook example of the kind of polarized, arrogant, all-out war politics that are strangling our political system. It displays a kind of all-or-nothing mentality that isn't just detrimental to democracy, but crippling. You simply can't universally condemn a candidate because of his stance on a single issue, and you definately shouldn't, through religious strong-arm tactics, try to convince others to do so as well. Choosing a politician should be about rationally balancing their opinions and qualities on a wide range of criteria. Thinking like this priest is precisely what has lead to the political no-man's land that has caused absolute inertia in our hallowed halls of government.

The upside of this debacle is that it has given Kmiec an opening to defend himself, and he has done so admirably. Here I'm referencing E.J. Dionne Jr.'s column on the Commentary page of the Tuesday Advocate. Kmiec, like me, questions the effectiveness of attempting to change the way our nation views issues such as abortion is through combative legislation; in our current climate, trying to pass a meaningful bill on either side of this issue is out of the question, and attempts for a political solution only clog up the plumbing of democracy.

Stay strong, Mr. Kmiec. Don't let the mean priest scare you.

In Defense of Video Games

Okay, we all knew it was going to happen.

Every time a Grand Theft Auto Game hits the shelves, video gamers such as myself have to bunker down. The Grand Theft Auto series is unquestionably the poster-child of violence in video games. Every time a GTA game comes out, the constant undercurrent of criticism for video games comes to a head.

It doesn't help that that this latest iteration is, by most sources, a milestone in video games, on all levels. The graphics are incredible, the controls are apparently amazingly tight and intuitive, and the gameplay is said to be addictively fun.

I personally am not a fan of GTA. I think that it is so realistic that it's disturbing. Even games like Gears of War are so over the top in their violence that it removes the shock factor. I just have a hard time stomaching it.

Nonetheless, the argument that video games are responsible for tragedies such as the Columbine or Virgina Tech shootings is unfounded. Yes it is true that many of the people responsible for tragedies such as these played video games.

It's also true that they ALL wore pants.

Just because a majority of prominent shooting-spree perpetrators played video games does nothing to insinuate that they caused the mayhem.

Just a simple background analysis of these killers is far more reasonable and revealing. And what do they show? The people who perpetrate these crimes are, by their very nature, outcasts of society, and are often pantently disturbed. It makes perfect sense that these people would play video games, because, unable to function properly in society, they put themselves in another world.

Now before you hunt me down, know that I am also an avid gamer and in no way believe that playing video games makes you unable to function in society. The simple fact is, video games don't make a killer. Mental instability makes a killer.

To say that someone who sees marching into a school and massacring students as justice does so because of a video game, and without said video game, would NOT have done so, is absurd.

Why is it that video games bear the brunt of this criticism, when almost all other media have more realistic, more graphic depictions of violence? Television and movies are rife with scenes of wanton destruction that make even GTA look like Andy Griffith.

Why then, do "family values" conservatives and Senators such as Hillary Clinton crusade against video games? Is it a reactionary mistrust of a rising medium? Is it because the video game industry lacks the monolithic lobbying bodies and public relations firms that the elder media enjoy?

To be clear, I always support moderation. Playing too many video games, like too much of anything, can have many deragotory effects. However, I do not see any merit in the claim that they are causing a rise in violent behavior.

Opening Salvo

Okay, so my editor tells me to keep up my writing skills over the summer, I should start a blog.
Since the purpose for this thing, at least at the start, will be for me to hone my rhetorical skills to a razor edge, I'm going to write almost exclusively about topics that involve opinions, which means a focus on social and political phenomenon.

In real life, I'm not nearly this controversial.

So to kick this blog off right, I'm going to give you a rundown of my social perspective. As the title suggests, from a political perspective, I am a radical moderate. At first, the very term throws people off balance.

Yes, it is possible to be a radical moderate. I believe strongly that the primary problem that faces humanity as a whole, and America in particular, is a decided drift towards the extreme ends of every spectrum, socially, culturally, religously, and most obviously, politically.

As long as I have been politcally sentient, the American political scene has been a warzone between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have been dominated by extremists, and, most crucially, neither has been willing to compromise.

What does this lead to? STALEMATE. UTTER, TOTAL, COMPLETE INERTIA.

Seriously, name a SINGLE major piece of progressive legislation that has been passed recently...and by recently, I mean, in the past four or five sessions of Congress. Since nobody is willing to compromise, nothing gets done.

What ever happened to cooperation? What ever happened to compromise? Since when is it bad to be a moderate?

In the war that American politics has become, the word moderate has gotten bad connotations. To most people, a moderate is a person who rides the fence, unable to make up there mind.

Hence the title. As a radical moderate, I'm not apathetic. I'm an active advocate of a more centrist government and society, a society where people are willing to cooperate, to see the other side not as antagonistic foolishness but a valid, different point of view.

Just thought you'd like to know.