Hardcore Moderation

The Only Thing I'm Going to Say about Casey Anthony

2011-07-05T13:37:00.000-07:00

And the fact that CNN is running it on its front page is pretty much symbolic of the circus.

Steven Colbert FTW

2011-06-30T10:20:00.001-07:00

"Colbert is literally wading through the crowd with a credit card swiper."

I would just like to point out that one comedian is engaged in an ongoing media crusade against Fox News, while the other is battling the federal government on campaign finance reform. I think Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert's business cards should read "comedian/social activist."

Lol@Propaganda

2011-06-29T13:44:00.000-07:00

North Korea is seriously like either bad serious dystopian fiction or good comedic dystopian fiction. Struck by lightning?

Teaching to the Text Message

2011-06-29T12:05:00.000-07:00

This is good stuff.

A wise writing teacher once told me: "shorter isn't better; longer isn't better; better is better." But conciseness is a virtue, and not just in journalism writing.

I think Selsberg has nailed it — there's real potential in teaching kids to write short before writing full. It's a lot easier to let out your writing than it is to rein it in.

Layabouts by Locale

2011-06-29T11:31:00.001-07:00

I'm a sucker for lists like this.

Only two cities from my native Louisiana rank in the "most sedentary" list. New Orleans gets a D+ at #68, whereas dear old Baton Rouge gets a C+ at #36.

I suspect I didn't help BR's statistics. I think standing around in the heat oughtta count for something.

"Dark of the Moon" Gets Bad Reviews; No One is Surprised.

2011-06-29T10:53:00.000-07:00

Kaboom.

I don't intend to see this movie, for all the reasons mentioned. Also, because anybody who can make movies with as cringeworthy dialogue as Bay's gets no room for the pretentious "Dark of the Moon" title. You, troglodyte, don't get to play games with the English language.

This Week in Duh(mb)

2011-06-29T10:35:00.000-07:00

Newsweek's cover is, well, let's just say raising some interesting journalism ethics questions.

Well, not really. It's more just raising some interesting "who in their right mind would be dumb enough to" questions.

Obviously the magazine is trying to cash in on the public's obsession with Princess Diana and with Princess-What's-Her-Name. The fact that Diana still captures the minds of American audiences to the extent that Newsweek might make an ill-advised sortie back into her life amazes me -- in a kind of "palm suddenly applied to face"-type way.

Unexpected LSU Mentions

2011-06-03T11:17:00.001-07:00

Apparently this flag-burning at LSU still hasn't entirely faded from memory.

Read the second-to-last graf of this otherwise unremarkable contribution to the miles-tall stack of 2012 Republican campaign columns.

Well that was unexpected. And I must say, bizarre. I don't know if this being to conspiracy-ish, but it's interesting that this pops up a month later in a paper owned by the same company as FoxNews, the only national outlet to give the event any real coverage.

UnCollege? Uncool.

2011-06-03T10:36:00.000-07:00

As a recent graduate, this obviously drew my eyeballs.

A lot of the author's criticisms of college are fair, and I agree with them. But this author, like so many others, takes a few flaws and ruins something that's beneficial overall.

College taught me a lot. It may not all have been practically useful, but we know through science -- science that exists only because institutions of higher education exist -- that the type of thinking one does in college builds your brain.

But even beyond that perhaps holistic view -- a view know-it-all young entrepreneurs like this guy probably reject -- in practical terms it's overwhelmingly difficult for an overwhelming majority of young people to get a decent job without a degree. The author says we don't have a choice between Zuckerbergdom and low-wage drudgery, and he's technically right.

But only for a very few people.

The, Uh, Americans Are Coming, Uh, Or Something.

2011-06-03T10:26:00.000-07:00

At this point it feels like a cheap shot to even mention it.

State of the Union

2011-01-25T21:26:00.000-08:00

So that was a good one, as far as States of the Union go.

Whenever the President gives a speech like this, I always hear the same thing from people.

"That was just a bunch of fancy words. He didn't propose anything concrete."

They're right of course. Obama's speech, like every other SotU, was broad, eloquent and totally abstract.

What I fail to see is how this is a bad thing.

Think for a second -- would we really want to see a speech that gave concrete policy proposals?

The answer, of course, is no. Rhetoric is fun. Rhetoric is sexy.

Policy is boring.

While this may be a bit cynical, it's true. But even if that seems a little too Machiavellian for you, consider this: even if a President did somehow manage to make a speech with bullet points detailing how to fix the economy, how many of those points would Congress adopt?

The answer, of course, is we have no idea.

That's because a single man (or, more accurately, a single man and his legion of policy advisers and other assorted lackeys) can't and shouldn't make policy by himself. As painful as the sausage-factory that is Congress is sometimes, there's a reason why laws go through so much rigamarole before they hit the books.

These things need to be open from debate on all sides by all kinds of people. That includes Congressmen, our representatives (if they aren't too busy arguing), lobbyists, the people who work in or work for people who work in the industries (if they aren't too busy buying votes) and us (if we aren't too busy watching Jersey Shore.)

So a SotU isn't meant to be a policy laundry list. It's meant to help the President do what political scientists call agenda-setting.

Agenda-setting: n. The process by which political figures attempt to control what issues and what aspects of those issues are discussed in the court of public opinion through discussion in the news media.

(If you don't like my definition, try this scholar's.)

When the President talks about broad, sweeping issues, he's trying to use the huge podium this speech gives him to shepherd the public into talking about what issues he thinks are important.

Of course, this time around there's only one issue, and that's the economy, stupid. Democrats and Republicans and everybody who ever commented on politics ever agree that's the issue that's going to be the focus of public attention.

There, however, we get into the real agenda-setting battle. We know we need to fix the economy, but how do we do it?

Obama's answer in this speech is thus:

"Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need."

Compare that to Paul Ryan's response to Obama's speech:

"Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth."

For Obama, the way to fix the economy in the long-term -- to make the country competitive with other countries -- is to invest in green energy and education. For Ryan and the Republicans, it's cutting the deficit and letting the free enterprise system work it's magic.

That's the main debate we're going to see going forward. In part because of this speech, the larger agenda is set. Whose nitty-gritty agenda will end up being implemented, however, is yet to be seen.

Quote of the Day

2011-01-22T20:39:00.001-08:00

"As God as my witness, in the commercial break just before the emotional moment, the producer got into my earpiece and he said, 'um, can you cut it down to 15 seconds so we get in this tennis result from Stuttgart?"

-Keith Olbermann, on leaving MSNBC

Hate to tell you, Keith, but most of us feel pretty much the way your producer did.

Republican Civil War

2011-01-22T19:42:00.000-08:00

So Paul Ryan is giving the response to the State of the Union.

At least, he's giving the official response. But he ain't the only one.

Michele Bachmann, everybody's favorite Tea Party attack dog, is giving her own.

Which is almost comical, really.

For all their victories and supposed momentum, there's a well-documented and often-pontificated-upon divide in the Republican Party. How deep that divide goes and what it means for the party's chances is a big ole' unknown, no mater how many people claim to know it now.

Still, the fact that there are two responses to the State of the Union exposes some of the fracture lines between the two conservative factions.

On the one hand is Paul Ryan, a pragmatic policymaker -- the guy who proposed an austerity budget with real concrete suggestions even though he probably knew such a concept was foreign and laughable to his colleagues at the time.

On the other is Bachmann, who seems to be some kind of walking, breathing, kinda-sorta-thinking totem cut from the vague, zealous anger of the movement she represents.

This should be fun to watch.

How different will the tone, tenor, and (maybe, if we're lucky) actual policy suggestions the two speeches be? We dunno. But we can guess.

One has to assume Ryan will be more level-headed than Bachmann. If she doesn't spend half the speech saying "The American People rejected your agenda," or making general threats about the impending doom of the nation, we'll consider her speech reserved.

But what will Ryan do?

I'll be honest. I like Ryan. In a party that has not just accepted but openly embraced the label of "Party of No," in a party -- heck, a Congress -- that prefers ideological shortcuts and political sniping to making policy, Ryan stands out as one of the few that actually seems to propose hard solutions. In a political discourse mired in buzzwords and mudslinging, he speaks rationally.

I hope he speaks that way Tuesday night.

Fox News Headlines

2010-08-04T13:53:00.000-07:00

The headline on the Fox News Web site for this inflammatory tripe read "WH trying to rewrite history?"

About the Obama Administration's decision to send an ambassador to the memorial of the Hiroshima bombing, they quote the son of the guy who dropped it saying:

"It's making the Japanese look like they're the poor people, like they didn't do
anything," he said. "They hit Pearl Harbor. They struck us. We didn't
slaughter
the Japanese -- we stopped the war."

I don't see how sending somebody to show we remember the horrible destruction
wrought by the atom bomb says "We're sorry." Although maybe it does, in the way
"We're sorry it had to come to this. We're sorry so many people had to lose
their lives. We're not apoligizing, but we're sorry that you had to endure it."

Is that so bad, years after the wounds of that war have done all the
healing they will? Isn't that human?

Yeah, they have some voices of
sanity pointing out that it's not a big deal. But those voices are lower in the
story, to give the one guy criticizing Obama the maximum voice -- even if he's
really the only one.

A study in biased writing. They should teach this
to journalism students as a "what not to do."

Bobby Jindal: Loose Cannon

2010-08-03T11:31:00.000-07:00

This is pretty much right.

Jindal has gotten props at times during the spill for "looking like a leader." Unfortunately, that's all he's done -- looked like one. The closest thing he's come to actually doing anything is these jetties, which, as Bob here points out, few scientists outside his office approve of.

The Politics of Star Wars

2010-07-30T08:49:00.000-07:00

I am having a hard time describing how awesome this is.

Apparently some commentators have been discussing the politics of the Old Republic and the Jedi.

I may not have said it here, but I am a recovering Star-Wars-aholic from my childhood. Now that it has collided head-on with my current fan-dom of politics, it threatens a dangerous relapse.

Damn you, Atlantic Wire, damn you...

Ignorance Inc.

2010-07-30T08:34:00.001-07:00

It really is sad that people who have this kind of voice can get away with saying stuff like this. And this . And this. (wherin Glenn Beck makes his own chief researcher out to be an idiot. Although, granted, whoever gather's Beck's facts, probably is.)

If the importance/influence of the tea party (and the leeches like Beck that have latched onto it) weren't so grossly inflated by national media, this would make the FIHB plummet. Still, it's going to drop a little bit.

Dumb-ass of the Week

2010-07-30T08:29:00.000-07:00

Seriously? Like, this isn't a joke?

Somebody's out of their league.

Another Home Run

2010-07-30T08:22:00.000-07:00

Twice in one day, two seperate Atlantic writers have nailed what I've been trying to say to the tee.

This is nothing short of glorious.

Sully is right...again.

2010-07-30T08:01:00.000-07:00

I really don't have anything to say about this, other than that I agree whole-heartedly.

Welcome to the Media Circus of the Damned.

2010-07-22T14:11:00.000-07:00

As the whole Shirly Sherrod thing continues to embarass cable news on an unprecedented scale, the networks are alternatively flaying themselves and pointing fingers.

Guess which one Fox News is doing? That's right, the whole debacle was was President Obama's fault.

Nevermind the fact that it was Fox News who took the story from incindeary partisan hooliganry to mainstream, million-viewer importance. Never mind that, at no point, did Fox (or any cable TV news outlet) take the time to call Sherrod, ask for the whole tape, or talk to the farmer, any one of which would have put the brakes screeching on a story that should never have been -- and any one of which an intern at a more stable medium would have tried reflexively before running with unverified, out-of-context video. Nevermind the fact that Fox News would have been screaming reverse racism if Sherrod hadn't gotten fired.

Never mind that any politician, no, any human, would probably act hastily when the entirety of cable news is telling the world one of their workers is a racist.

This story is, perhaps better than any other, a perfect example of the flaws of the 24-hour instant information media culture. In fact, it's hard to envision a scenario that could illustrate those flaws better.

This is a story made up entirely by cable news, blown out of proportion entirely by cable news, and fantastically, hilariously exploded entirely by cable news. It wasn't a story. Nothing happened. But a network with biases jumped on a similarly-aligned blog -- a damn blog -- and turned nothing into a very big something without taking the time to verify it.

In this long-ass, totally useless, kinda-sorta Mea Culpa, Roland Martin totally misses the point. He says this thing is a result of a nation still struggling with race issues.

Yeah, we're still struggling with race issues. But that's not the point. This isn't a story, isn't the great big mistake it is because we have race issues. It's the great big mistake it is because TV news media trample on those issues just like every other issue in their haste to break a big story.
Are other media outlets perfect? Of course not. Do we have weaknesses the others don't? Of course.

But newspapers didn't make this non-story happen. In fact, newspapers are barely mentioning it -- the one I work for certainly isn't. That's because we aren't so worried about the scoop or about being the first to make news that we sacrifice the steps necessary to make sure the facts are straight.

Which is exactly what happened here.

The Tea Party Caucus

2010-07-20T14:14:00.001-07:00

So the Tea Party Caucus is apparently a thing now.

The Republican Party is still at war with itself. And the wrong side is winning.

Even if it gains a bunch of members, the caucus has to gain power. This means one of three scenarios.

My odds:
A.) The Tea Party Caucus gains power, pushes via grass roots methods an already partisan, far-right Republican Caucus to become more partisan and more extreme. It does. A solely partisan, far-right party gets beaten soundly in elections. (5%)
B.) The Tea Party Caucus gains power, pushes via grass rootsan already fairly far-right Republican Caucus to become more partisan and more extreme. It doesn't. A disorganized, self-foot-shooting party gets beaten soundly in elections. (25%)
C.) The Tea Party Caucus is just another publicity stunt, doesn't really affect the balance of power. Nothing changes. (70%)

The Nail on The Head

2010-07-12T11:55:00.001-07:00

I have a feeling this is going to be prescient.

The money shots:

"For all it's energy, the tea party has not had the chance to demonstrate the same sustained capacity for winning methodology and follow-through."

"The Tea Party may have an admirable drive, but it is an indisputable reality that the same purity of view that has allowed the movement to dominate many primaries leaves the GOP vulnerable in November."

The Party of Stupid

2010-07-12T11:50:00.000-07:00

This is just pitiful, really.

Issues? Nah, screw it. Let's make fun of him for playing golf. That's a mature, legitimate criticism, isn't it? Not like what a, oh, say, 3rd grader would do?

The DNC should post Obama's schedules for the past three weeks. I betcha golf doesn't make up 1% of his waking hours.

Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous

2010-07-12T11:45:00.000-07:00

This couldn't really happen, could it?

The headline "Snoop Dogg Tried to Rent Lichenstein" is simultaneously hilarious and sad.

First of all, who in the hell is this property agent who claims he could rent the whole country? And is he serious?

I mean, I know it's only ~60 square miles, but still. Aren't there, uh, sovereignty issues here?

The Shiniest New Piece of Junk Everybody's Gotta Have

2010-07-12T11:38:00.000-07:00

You know that fancy new iPhone 4 everybody couldn't wait to get their hands on?

Yeah, it's broken.

Consumer reports "cannot recommend buying it."

Not even "Well, you oughtta buy a Droid, but this'll do." Nope, it's just straight up failed the test.

Now ain't that a shame?

Obama Doesn't Need a Dick Cheney

2010-07-09T11:38:00.001-07:00

Agree with the fundamental principles here.

I agree that Obama has been incredibly productive thus far. And I believe he's getting tarred and feathered with misinformation by Republicans willing to go on the attack 24/7 on everything. And I agree that he doesn't have Dick Cheney.

What I fail to see is how that's a bad thing.

Obama is actually sticking to the promises he made about non-partisanship for the most part. He is not constantly hammering at his opponents -- when he does, it makes front-page headlines simply because it is rare -- and he isn't sic'ing any war dogs on Republicans.

That's how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to argue why your policies make sense -- not why your opponents are idiots.

The foregone conclusion that Somaiya assumes here is that Obama can't win by playing the way he is. He thinks the Republican assaults on his programs will doom the president. But I don't know if that's true.

Remember, anyone who isn't a Republican or stupid sees that the Republican message is purely, simply, anti-Obama. It's so blindingly obvious that Republicans have no message of their own, and only construe messages in predictable gut-reactions to what Obama says.

I think, deep down, Americans know this. And they hate it.

Fox News Headlines

2010-07-01T15:07:00.001-07:00

So guess who the damn communist Muslims are after now?

Wonder Woman.

That's right. By taking the American flag off of her costume, DC Comics is killing America.

Sigh.

This is seriously a thing, isn't it? Fox News is actually arguing this, aren't they?

Comparative Headlines

2010-06-28T08:13:00.001-07:00

Fox News: High Court Extends Gun Rights to All States
MSNBC: TOP COURT PUTS LIMITS ON LOCAL GUN BANS (CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.)
CNN: Chicago gun ban ruled unconstitutional (NOT top story)
New York Times: Justices say gun rights apply locally
Washington Post: Supreme Court Extends Gun Rights Nationwide (Hmmm...sound familar?)

Fox thinks the Court is finally giving people the inalieable right to shoot people in their own home. MSNBC thinks the Court is wildly restricting local governments' ability to keep people safe.

CNN just says what the hell happened.

NYT gives the real technical definition of the ruling.

Washington Post: see, Fox News.

Fox News Headlines

2010-06-28T08:07:00.001-07:00

Fox News has a section on it's site devoted to legalizing marijuana. It's called "Going to Pot."

The Rundown:

A.) Seriously? Has anyone said seriously said the phrase "going to pot" since the 90s? Fox must be TRYING to alienate young people.

B.) Among the related topics: Starbucks. YOU DAMN KIDS WITH YOUR POT AND YOUR HIPPIE COFFEE.

C.) See, the graphic head looks like a dog tag. Because it's war. On drugs. Get it?

The Party of No

2010-06-10T12:51:00.000-07:00

In this mediocre column, we see why John Boehner and the Republicans are failing America:

"For Boehner, being called the "Party of No" isn't a regrettable invective. It is a strategy aimed at highlighting the contrast between those running things and those who want to run things."

Yo! Minority leader! Democrats don't "run things." Congress runs things. It isn't about what the Democrats are doing or what you're doing -- it's about what everybody's doing.
This kind of thinking is exactly why Congress is broken, not because people don't kiss ass as much as Boehner would like.

Second:

"Boehner is reluctant to speculate about November when 100 seats will be in play. If thign should go bump on election night -- and should Boehner replace Pelosi as speaker -- expect to see lots of blood on the floor. First to get the hatchet would be health-care reform, which Republicans would seek to replace with "common sense" measures to reduce insurance costs and secure jobs. Other priorities would include line-by-line budget cuts, entitlemetn reform, and restoration of the integrity of the House."

The last one pains me, it really does.
Also, who in the hell does Boehner think he is? Some kind of legislative Superman? The Democrats barely managed to get HCR reform passed with a supermajority and the President. Is he arrogant -- and delusional -- enough to think his party can get it repealed with a regular ole' majority and over an inevitable veto?
Besides? Is he really going to bring that painful issue up again before presidential elections happen?

Also, I physically cringe at the return of the ignoble "common sense measures," as used in the HCR debate. The audacity of saying there is a "common sense" solution to something as vast and complicated as health care is sickening.

I have no love for the Democrats, but I'm really starting to hope they keep the majority. Because this pre-emptive bragging the Republicans have been doing for months already is really, really getting old.

BP Spills Coffee

2010-06-10T12:37:00.000-07:00

This is spreading around the Internet like crazy. It isn't really fair -- but it is hilarious.

Our American Newsmakers

2010-06-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

Somebody at Fox News is really very bored.

The Huffington Post Sucks.

2010-06-08T14:48:00.001-07:00

I hate to break it to you, enlightened college students, but the Huffington Post is crap.

Take, for example, this.

Who gives a damn what Alec Baldwin thinks about oil policy? Seriously! He has literally no expertise about oil spills. He is an actor. They even have the gall to slap it on there under his title, without even a lame attempt to bilk him up as an expert (like what people are doing to James Cameron). It's right there under his name!

An actor.

I don't care if he were Marlon damn Brando. He's an actor.

I get it. The site is supposed to be Arriana Huffington and all her very interesting friends blogging off the cuff. That would be fine, but people have started treating it like a legitimate venue for legitimate opinion journalism, for well-reasoned rational analysis -- and any site that unflinchingly has Alec Baldwin talking about energy policy is NOT THAT.

What really kills me about the Huffington Post is that the liberals that frequent it are often the loudest critics of the bias propigated Fox News and its imitators.

I got news for you -- the Huffington Post is just the left-leaning equivalent, complete with a fawning love for celebrities and an almost cartoonish pretension.

Badly Timed Boom

2010-06-07T13:47:00.000-07:00

Oh for crying out loud.

I would not want to be an oil industry lobbyist right now.

PR via Google

2010-06-07T13:46:00.000-07:00

Want to try something fun? Google "oil spill" and see who bought the link.

A Sense of Scale

2010-06-07T13:14:00.001-07:00

Oh, S---.

I know some South Louisianans are clamoring especially loudly about this. "Well, we'll see how fast the response is once it gets up there."

I dunno. Having seen how mind-bogglingly big this spill (and, by necessity, the cleanup) is, and powerful and unmanageable the forces involved are, I really don't know that that's fair.

But if oil starts washing up the Potomac, you just know Rep. Melancon's going to have a field day.

It just boggles the mind how big -- and bad -- this is.

It's Not Going to Be as Easy as They Think, Cont.

2010-06-07T12:24:00.000-07:00

More evidence.

Again, Democrats aren't going to keep all their seats -- but it's also not going to be the massacre Republicans seem to think it is.

This Week in Lulz.

2010-06-07T12:01:00.001-07:00

I've always wondered about that.

An Unfortunate Farewell

2010-06-07T11:54:00.000-07:00

It's sad it had to end this way.

I dunno how I feel about this. Yeah, Helen Thomas' comments were stupid -- really stupid. But the woman's been a member of the WHPC since JFK. And, while certainly not politically safe, the views she voiced aren't utterly outrageous.

It's also important to note that she's of relatively recent Palestinian descent. I don't know if that influenced her decision, but if it did -- well, I dunno if that makes it more or less tolerable.

Anyway, it's really a shame that someone who's been at the top of the game for so long (frickin' JFK) has to go out like this. She deserves a graceful exit, and her unfortunate comments probably mean she will be denied that.

Bizarro World

2010-06-07T11:46:00.000-07:00

This is bizarre.

The Rundown:

A.) Does this mean Rush Limbaugh doesn't really care about gays, but instead goes on his borderline-homophobic diatribes out of a carefully-calculated move to court his constituency?

B.) Isn't Elton John rich enough that he could y'know, not take a gig with the original Angry Conservative Pundit (TM)?

C.) Fourth wife. She's more than 20 years younger. She's more than a little attractive. Shouldn't that make Ye Olde Family Values people a little uh, uncomfortable?

The Cool Stuff Department

2010-06-02T15:04:00.000-07:00

Don't sneeze.

This is pretty crazy. Could you imagine a bunch of Americans doing this? Especially the whole "work on something for six days before immediately dismantling it?"

Yeah, those are some freeeed minds there, maaaan.

Ps: I'd name mine Nelson.

Fixing the Oil Spill with Magic

2010-06-01T15:22:00.001-07:00

Don't worry guys, they got this.

Read the last two paragraphs:

Meanwhile, "Avatar" and "Titantic" director James Cameron joined a group of scientists and other experts who met Tuesday with officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies for a brainstorming session on stopping the massive oil leak.

The Canadian-born director is considered an expert on underwater filming and remote vehicle technologies.

He'll fix it.

History via CNN

2010-06-01T13:20:00.001-07:00

This is cool.

A little self-serving, but cool.

This Week In Owned.

2010-06-01T12:34:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, I stumble upon a piece of writing that makes me giggle malevolently. You know those moments in action movies when there's that moment of grim satisfaction after the hero absolutely destroys the villian, and all the pent-up urges you've had to see that villian get annhilated are released?

Yeah, sometimes that happens in writing. And, for a word nerd like me, it's just as glorious.

For example, a Salon.com article by Wajahat Ali decrying the shallowness and inanity of Sex and the City 2.

Kaboom.

The Money Shot: (although there are many.)

"Our four female cultural avatars, like imperialistic Barbies, milk Abu Dhabi for leisure and hedonism without making any discernable, concrete efforts to learn about her people and their daily lives."

Imperialistic Barbies...well-played, sir.

When it's Hard to Be Impartial

2010-05-27T13:04:00.001-07:00

A lot of what they teach us in journalism school is not the nitty-gritty of reporting -- you only really learn that through practical experience. I can attest to that -- in one week interning at the Times-Picayune, I've learned far more in one week here about practical skills than a whole semester of mass comm classes.

But a lot of discussion in journalism classes you simply can't get in a newsroom is about the ideals and standards journalists are supposed to espouse. Among those, Impartiality (a.k.a. unbiased reporting, a.k.a objective reporting, although those are often up for debate) is pretty big.

A reporter is supposed to provide facts, not editorialize (that's what the opinion section is for.) A reporter is trying to get the truth, inasmuch as such a noble concept really exists, and that truth should be free of opinions and prejudices.

Sometimes that's a lot more difficult than it sounds.

Case in point -- today I was assigned to cover a panel discussion featuring a group of coastal Alaskans and Louisianans. These were community activists who had heart-wrenching stories about how erosion, oil spills, and climate change had devestated their livelihoods and shredded their way of life. They were railing against oil companies and government (obviously) and as I furiously scribbled notes my training kicked in.

These people have a vested interest. They are inherently biased against government. Proceed with caution.

I'm conflicted about just how appropriate this is.

In the end, the article I gave my editor was exactly what she had asked for. But it's easy for a reporter to shift perspective on an argument or subtly and indirectly argue for a side based on the quotes they pick. By picking out some of the angrier, more emotionally powerful quotes, my article could easily be interpreted as leaning against oil companies and those who don't believe in global warming (it wasn't, at least not intentionally.)

Is that not impartial? More importantly, is that bad?

Hard question. No easy answer. Happens every day in a newsroom.

3-D, Schmee-D

2010-04-29T14:49:00.000-07:00

Roger Ebert doesn't like 3-D. And he's right.

For now, 3-D movies are awkward and distracting -- and not nearly worth the extra money and effort.

Also -- Rogert Ebert likes really simple sentences.

The Nuclear Club

2010-04-28T15:44:00.001-07:00

This is pretty much the best summation of the nuclear issue I've personally seen.

Bravo, senior. Americans need to realize why it's difficult to censure Iran, and why it's difficult for The Greatest Country In The World (TM) to eliminate the nuclear threat.

Fighting Obesity, one Happy Meal at a Time.

2010-04-28T14:24:00.000-07:00

I wonder how effective this will be.

This obviously raises all kinds of questions about the government's right to interfere in private business for social good.

If this becomes a big thing, expect a lawsuit. If it happens, that'll be an interesting one to watch.

Fox News Headlines Ctd.

2010-04-28T14:13:00.000-07:00

Just so everyone is aware, Fox News' Web site currently depicts a Mexican jumping over a fence.

It might not actually be a real Mexican jumping over the fence, but the connotation is unavoidable.

I really, really don't know what to think about this.

This Week in LOL

2010-04-28T12:14:00.000-07:00

This man is a standard-bearer of the Republican Party. Also, he's the longest-serving governor of Texas.

Interestingly, it's got a line on the front page of MSNBC -- but, as of time of writing, nothing on Fox or CNN.

It's not Obama we're tired with.

2010-04-28T09:36:00.001-07:00

Ahem.

The Money Quote:

Dissatisfaction is widespread, crossing party lines, ideologies and virtually all groups of voters. Less than a quarter of independents and just three in 10 Republicans say they're leaning toward backing an incumbent this fall. Even among Democrats, who control the House, the Senate and the White House, opinion is evenly divided on the question.

Also, notice the continuing trend against Republicans.

Americans aren't tired of Obama and the "socialists." They're tired of the whole broken, bitter, partisan system. They're tired of stalling progress for the sake of short-term political gain. They're tired of old rich white guys in suits claiming they know what American's want when they really only fight for their own fundamentalist ideological interests.

The revolution's coming.

This is Going to Be Awesome

2010-04-28T09:00:00.000-07:00

I don't know if it's bad for me to say this, but this is going to be awesome if it works.

The Lunatic Fringe, Ctd.

2010-04-27T10:24:00.000-07:00

I'm just going to leave this right here.

But they represent Americans, right?

She's not running for President, cont.

2010-04-26T12:29:00.001-07:00

Andrew Sullivan still thinks she's running.

It's a potent argument. But it gives the right-wing echo chamber more credit than it deserves.

Yes the Beck/Limbaugh/Ailes/Murdoch machine is potent in further isolating hardcore conservatives. But that demographic is small and shrinking. It is not the electoral juggernaut it once was.

She might run, or put up the pretense of running. But the GOP isn't stupid enough (yet) to put her out as a legitimate challenger.

Green Tea Party?

2010-04-26T11:14:00.000-07:00

Thomas Friedman is right on.

The basic point is fantastic. The Tea Party claims to be non-partisan, but they are essentially Republican. More importantly, they are vehemently anti-Obama -- and by that I mean they base their policy decisions almost on entirely on opposing him.

If the Tea-party movement were really apolitical, they would be open-minded enough to support ideas that appeal to real patriotic conservatives. Energy reform is quintessentially patriotic -- we currently are dependent on other nations for oil, nations that in some cases are actively trying to destroy us. There are few issues as patriotic as new energy, because new energy means a country that is self-reliant and not addicted to the products of other countries.

What's more conservative than that?

Unfortunately, Obama and his administration are in support of alternative energy. So that means the Republicans -- and the Tea Party people -- are against it.

Friedman is right -- the Tea Party needs to live up to its claims that it is independent of party. Right now they're just the angriest Republicans.

She's not running for President, cont.

2010-04-14T14:57:00.000-07:00

More evidence here and here.

People forget that, while Sarah Palin earns a lot of personal dough, she isn't nearly the fundraising juggernaut that is President Obama. It's possible the grind involved with a term in office has gotten rid of some of the zeal among his voters, but he annihilated the fundraising records in his 2008 election. Annhilated, I say.

And yeah, a lotta people watch Palin on TV. But when it comes down to voting they won't. There's far too much dirt -- like these campaign receipts -- for even a mediocre political squad to miss. There's too much evidence that she isn't the persona everybody sees, and there's far too much fodder for half a dozen mudslinging ads.

And I think she knows it, too.

2010-04-08T18:16:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show nails it.

I couldn't agree more.

John McCain used to be my hero. He was a maverick and proud of it, someone who didn't just occasionally say no to the party establishment, but someone who did it almost out of habit. He voted his conscience. He compromised when it was necessary. He was beholden to no one but his constituents, not beholden to party politics or the extremes. The things he says in those Daily Show clips are inspiring and sublime, and now he's just another bitterly partisan politician-as usual.

He was a radical moderate. Now he's just another Republican.

Maybe our system has deteriorated so badly that centrists like he once was cannot survive. Maybe mavericks really do now mean what Sarah Palin thinks they mean -- people so radical that even party leadership tries to rein them in.

Maybe America no longer wants the real John McCain.

I get the feeling that the old McCain is the real McCain. I'd like to believe that he's dying inside every time he calls Obama a socialist against American values. I'd like to believe that, upon getting re-elected, he will once again be the great man he once was and that he needs to be again.

He is fighting a grueling re-election battle. From my couch I can't conceive the realities and difficulties of such a fight, so maybe this is all a great but unavoidable evil.

If so, it's sad and scary, because that means this new, lock-step angry soldier McCain is what the American people want.

I hope it isn't. I hope he or his advisers have grossly misjudged what his voters are looking for.

For the sake of our process, I hope we haven't turned off the old, great McCain.

This Story Needs to Die

2010-04-08T18:01:00.000-07:00

I think I'm going to have a new running term: TSND. This Story Needs to Die.

This story, specifically.

Tiger Woods is a golfer. A golfer.

A gooooooolfer.

At best, he is a sports hero. But we shouldn't give a damn if he cheated on his wife. Even if we did care, we certainly shouldn't be caring about it this damn much.

A sovereign government was overthrown in the Middle East yesterday. People are dead in the streets. And this isn't just any country we're talking about here -- it's the country that gets to determine whether or not we can fly stuff into Afghanistan.

But an athlete cheated on his wife. The story broke months ago. It is patent old news. But the gaping maw that is 24-hour TV news needs feeding, and the army of talking heads needs something to discuss.

It needs to stop. Seriously.

Time's Influential People -- Yikes.

2010-04-08T16:01:00.000-07:00

The population of the Internet is a vast, dizzying mystery to me.

Time's Most Influential People online poll results are up. They're -- not encouraging.

Lady Gaga is #1. Yeah. The most influential person in the world is a pop singer. "But she's revolutionized fashion." No she hasn't. Nobody wears her stuff -- it's all stunt stuff. "But she's stood up for women's sexuality." No more so than any other female pop star.

Eh, maybe I'm just an old coot in a young person's body.

Other trends:

-Barack Obama -- the damn President of the United States of America -- is 26th. He is, according to these voters, less influential than:

-Snooki from Jersey Shore

-Neal Patrick Harris

-Jeff Bridges

-Lady Gaga

-Beyonce

-Kim yu-Na

-Sandra Bullock

-Han Han

-David Chang (A chef)

-Dan Coudreaut (McDonald's chef)

-Conan O'Brien

-I know it's just the Internet, but still -- a Jersey Shore character is more influential than the President? Faith in Humanity Meter just dipped.

-Muammar freakin' Gaddafi is number 7. Maybe I grossly underestimate the general knowledge of the American people, but I didn't know this many people knew who Gaddafi is let alone think he's important. By the way, I am convinced that it is physically impossible to take a picture of that guy where he doesn't look like evil incarnate.

-The Penny Arcade guys are #43. Hah.

-Nicholas Sarkozy is #4? Are the French spamming the vote?

-James Cameron is #6. We get it. Avatar had some spectacular visual effects. It was overall very impressive. But Cameron 'ain't that influential.

-Sandra Bullock is #8. Didn't she win a Razzie this year?

-What's sad is I can't argue with Sarah Palin being #9.

-Nicole "Snooki" Pollizi is #16. I literally cannot find words to describe this.

Again, this is an open Internet poll, so the results mean little. It's more a glimpse into the collective Internet consciousness, not humanity in general.

Oh wait -- the Internet demographic skews heavily towards my generation.

Excuse me. I need to go bang my head on the wall for an hour or so.

Is Palin for Real?

2010-04-06T08:51:00.001-07:00

Andrew Sullivan doesn't think so.

The kicker:

"Her flimsy record of public service has been festooned with so many lies and delusions and fantasies on her part it beggars belief. Her book is self-evidently the product of a dangerously delusional fanatic. She poses as a "real American" from the heartland, yet she has done everything in her power to escape that heartland and find refuge in celebrity."

I dunno. There's a part of me that agrees with him -- or, I guess, would like to agree with him. But I don't think that the "lies and delusions and fantasies" are concocted. I don't know whether she quit her governorship because there was better fame and money elsewhere, although her shady explanations for doing so might point in that direction -- it's possible she honestly thought she could do more good elsewhere. I don't know whether starting the DEATH PANELS debacle was an intentionally (evil) genius move on her part -- I dunno if she or her communication staff are that savvy.

And I don't know if her anti-Washington, anti-intellectual, anti-experience messages are calculated to sway her voting base -- the sentiment that the average man makes the best president, while personally incomprehensible to me, is widely held by others. And it's entirely possible she's exactly that -- an inexperienced average American whose "unconventional" tactics simply show she doesn't know or want to play the game as usual.

But, Sully's grim predictions aside, I'm still convinced she's not running for President.

It's Going to Be Harder Than They Think

2010-03-30T07:53:00.001-07:00

Ouch.

See, Republicans like to think anti-establishment anger runs exclusively in their favor. But people are angry at everyone, including the GOP. In fact, I daresay there are as many or more people angry at them than their opponents.

Does this mean the Democrats aren't going to lose a lot of seats in mid-terms? Of course not. The current imbalance is untenable in the long-term, and mid-terms are always bad for the party in power.

But I don't think there's going to be a huge shift towards the right. There probably won't be a huge majority for either side. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats keep a slim majority.

Suit up, people.

2010-03-29T16:21:00.000-07:00

If I were a Democrat, I'd be saying something like this.

Seriously, people. It's about to be March Madness for us political junkies.

Can I get an Amen?

2010-03-29T15:58:00.000-07:00

This is what they pay E.J. Dionne for.

He pretty much nails it. The church isn't fundamentally broken, but it has some real issues that need real solutions. It'll be hard, but it'll be worth it.

Bullied to Death

2010-03-29T15:34:00.000-07:00

Hmm...

A tragic thing, obviously. But what's interesting to me is the front-page feature tab that links to this from Fox's home page.

"Nine Charged in Bullying Girl to Death."

Bullying to Death. Hmm.

It's an interesting term to use, especially given this is Fox we're talking about. The age-old "driving someone to suicide" idea seems a bit counter to Fox's usual hawkishness about personal responsibility.

They're probably right.

The Crazy-Right GOP

2010-03-29T08:43:00.000-07:00

Amen, brother.

I couldn't agree more. The very definition of extreme is that few people agree with you. The Republican formula of rallying the base is not working, and it will not work in 2012. It might conceivably work in 2010, but I doubt it's going to get the huge results that Republicans think it will.
Besides, anger-voting in mid-terms is the status quo. And the current lopsided majority is unnatural and untenable in the long term. So Republicans will certainly even the odds this year, but they can't make the mistake of thinking divisive, extremist politics will win net them big wins when it counts.

Catholic Crisis

2010-03-28T19:04:00.000-07:00

Whatever the ramifications of this most recent sex abuse scandal end up being, there might be some hope in it all.
I disagree with Catholics on a lot of theological issues. Maureen Dowd mentions several of them here. And this new Pope has seemed sketchy fromt the start.
That said, these theological quibbles are nowhere near enough to merit condemnation of the whole church. Critics of Catholocism, in their haste to get to the juicy bits, tend to forget the staggering amount of good the Church has done in modern times. And they often make the regrettable mistake of pressing the sins of church hierarchs onto everybody practicing the religion.
I have a great deal of respect for Catholics, even if I disagree theologically with some of their tenets. These crises are more a problem with their leaders then with the faithful at large.
That said, Catholics do need to stand up and be intentional and loud about reform. The Pope's position is far too sacrosanct in current doctrine -- this most recent scandal is damning evidence.
Andrew Sullivan is a good example. He's a Catholic, but he's also willing to criticize the Church when it does something he thinks is wrong.

She Isn't Running #347

2010-03-24T19:55:00.000-07:00

Sara Palin isn't running for president.

There is one school of thought that her forays into the media world (which, by the way, should make most hard-working professionals in that arena pretty angry) are an unconventional way to keep herself in the spotlight should the time come for here to get serious about campaigning.

Protip: she isn't.

She will probably keep dropping hints, probably keep flirting with the idea, keep people guessing. But when it comes down to the wire she will simply be someone the Republican nominee needs to cozy up to.

Is she a political force? Certainly. She's got a considerable following, and that following is rabid enough to immediately, unquestioningly flock to whomever she endorses.

But she knows better than anyone that she can't win the nomination and she sure as hell can't win the main event, so all of this is just a way to milk her fame as much as possible.

And, perhaps, keep the issues she thinks are important out in the public forum. Although narrating a documentary hardly seems like such a thing to me.

Is This How it's Always Been?

2010-03-24T15:42:00.000-07:00

Is this the way it used to be?

I dunno. I'm sure there has been legislation that's incited this kind of ire before.
That doesn't make it any more sad or infuriating now.

He's on a Roll

2010-03-24T14:59:00.000-07:00

President Obama is on fire this week.
CNN and Fox haven't covered it yet. Fox doesn't surprise me, but I don't think it's settled in how big a deal this is.
While reducing nuclear arms isn't the kind of sexy thing that starts conversations — or press coverage — it's the kind of important, world-changing stuff that earns presidents historical significance.
The timing could absolutely not be more spectacular. Slashing nuclear arms the day after you sign the most sweeping domestic policy legislation in decades is a colossal achievement. Spectacular.
For an administration that's been muddled in bloody policy battles with no foreseeable conclusion or positive headway, this is proof that these efforts haven't been wasted.
Obama's approval rating should skyrocket. If they don't, the Faith in Humanity Bar is going to plummet.

Preventative Health Care?

2010-03-24T13:29:00.000-07:00

I wonder how effective this will be.
For the burger regulations, I guess it really depends on how clear the FDA makes restaurants make the labels. Your average joe (myself included) hardly knows what constitutes a good or bad calorie count. I mean, if a Big Mac's 540, I guess that's bad, but I only know that because I already know Big Macs are not healthy.
Most people for whom calorie counts matter are people who probably aren't going to be eating these things anyway.
That is, of course, unless the regulations force you to put the % daily value stuff up there.

As for tanning, there's a big issue everybody's overlooking — yes, this will conceivably discourage people from tanning bed use. But that doesn't mean white people won't want to look tan — the bill does nothing to discourage spray tan use.
So we'll have less cancer, but we'll have more people running around in that distinctive Jersey Shore, TV reporter orange glow.
And I dunno about you, but that seems like a huge risk factor for the general mental welfare.

Today in the Lulz.

2010-03-15T10:47:00.001-07:00

Really?

This seems like a staggeringly bad idea to me. The potential for awkwardness is barely fathomable.

Jury-Rigged Reform

2010-03-11T15:07:00.001-08:00

For those of you who haven't figured it out, the Democratic Party's leadership sucks at this game.
I understand the temptation to sneak the college funding reform bill into the health care reconcilliation bill. The Republicans are good at keeping legislation locked down, and the opportunity to milk as big a policy gain out of this.
But when you're trying to corral moderate Democrats, and Democrats that are only in their position because the last election was so skewed, the last thing you want to do is tack on more legislation that plays right into the "Big Guv'mint" frame.
Besides -- even if they can pass the bill with this legislation included, it's only more ammunition for Republicans to use in 2010. The Republicans will use the argument -- indeed have already used the argument -- that the Dems crammed this down the nation's throat via reconcilliation. And, the more they pass by those means, the more potent that argument will be.

Really helping the stereotype

2010-03-11T14:51:00.000-08:00

This is pretty disgusting.
Whatever your opinions on the morality of homosexuality, it's pretty hard to support this.
Also -- of course it's in Mississippi.

Tea Parties — not that big a deal.

2010-03-10T11:27:00.000-08:00

Lee Harris tries to analyze the Tea Parties' impending historical significance.

"Today many intelligent observers grope to discover what the Tea Party is all about and where it belongs on the Richter Scale of historical events. Does it signal the approach of a catastrophic upheaval, like the 9.0 earthquake of 2004 which sent devastating tsunamis across the Indian Ocean? Or will the Tea Party movement register only as a light quake in the 4.0 to 4.9 range, entailing “noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises,” with “significant damage unlikely”?"

I tend to think the latter. The Tea Party movement does not have any new ideas, and it has few — or no — practical policy suggestions. It is merely a rag-tag conglomeration of the most rabid of conservatives pitching a fit because the Democrats are in power.

Tea Partiers say they dislike the Republican Party as much as they dislike the Democratic Party. This is a load of hogwash. Sure, they don't agree with the GOP on everything, but it seems likely this movement will collapse once the Republicans seize power (whenever that is).

This is just an unconventional grass-roots campaign against the Democratic Party. If the movement makes it into the history books at all, it will be as an interesting example of how to protest.

This isn't a Chilean earthquake, although if it were the consequences would be no less tragic. It's more a tremor that makes people stop, look, shake their head, and move right on with business as usual.

This is News?

2010-03-10T10:57:00.000-08:00

Why the hell is this news?
Who gives a damn if Republicans think Harry Reid is Scooby Doo? Why is he responding the accusations? Why is that news?
It isn't. Unless, of course, you're Fox News. How a "journalistic" organization that puts crap like this on their front page is so well-known is scary.

On the sexuality of politicians

2010-03-09T19:46:00.000-08:00

This is either hilarious or pathetic. Or some combination of both.

The short version: a California state senator notorious for his activism against gay marriage has recently come out of the closet.

How does this happen? What kind of mind supresses its own sexuality in the quest for political power?

Well, I've got a theory. This theory explains why men in the highest echelons of power get caught so often in some kind of sexually damning scenario.

Some politicans aren't heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. They're mysexual.

Meaning they love themselves above all else.

While I'm not old enough, experienced enough, or cynical enough to apply this theory to every politician, only the most idealistic (or idiotic) would deny that the overwhelming majority of politicians have horrendously inflated egos. Their life goal is power and attention, and in that pursuit they will sacrifice whatever it takes.

There are, of course, degrees. Not every politician is mysexual, because not every politician has let their ego seep that pervasively into their psyche.

But, for the worst of these fellows, sex is merely a physical impulse that has to be taken care of quickly so they can get back to big, important, attention-getting things.

Which explains why so many of them are caught and exposed, and explains why the circumstances in which their dalliances occured are so head-scratchingly hastily thrown together.

Sure, some of them are gay, some of them are straight. Sexuality is as much a physical trait as intelligence or strength. But their psyche is so overwhelmed by their ego that that it gets buried.

Headline of the Day

2010-03-09T19:22:00.000-08:00

Republican Denies Back waxing.

Apparently Crist accused Rubio of getting his back waxed. In addition to being hilarious and bizzare, it's damaging. I think. Still haven't figured that one out yet.

If I were a Florida voter, I probably wouldn't have much of a forehead left from beating it on a wall after seeing this whole kerfluffle unfold in 3-D, full color, 24-hours-a-damn-day-o-vision. If they're talking this thing to death in the national media -- well, maybe not to death, but certainly somewhere in the emergency room -- I can only imagine what hell Floridans are in.

Marco Rubio for President? Meh.

A Real New Orleans show?

2010-01-14T17:36:00.000-08:00

Apparently, HBO is going to be running another show set in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Initial reviews are good. I hear from friends who are big into the TV scene that it's going to be fantastic, and the write-ups say that it's spell-binding.

Much of the praise seems to be a result of the co-creators. The pair are responsible for a little-known show called The Wire.

I haven't seen it, and I know few who have. But those chosen few give reviews that border on the fanatic. They say The Wire is not just good television, it's high art and something that proves film can rise to the sublime.

I hope they're right. Because Treme has the potential to do justice to New Orleans and the whole sad Katrina saga.

It seems to me that a post-Katrina NOLA is the best setting a writer could hope for. The high drama and unique culture provide as compelling a basis as a writer could ask for.

But I have not yet seen (and granted, my expertise is slim) any form of art that does it justice.

The most laughable attempt I can think of is the ill-fated show K-ville. It had all the right ingredients; a cop in that setting seems like instant drama. But the show devolved into a generic cop drama, and the attempts at summing up New Orleans' fantastic culture degenerated into routine pots of gumbo and boiled crawfish.

Upon reflection, it seems that the spirit of New Orleans would be difficult to encapsulate. New Orleans' culture, like a Mardi Gras, is a spirited, intricate dance. To an outsider it appears like a gaudy, colorful party, but the complex emotional machinery that drive it are made up of infintessimally small, but vital cogs of experience. Thus any outsider that tries to capitalize on New Orleans uniqueness ends up only catalogueing stereotypes and cliches.

I certainly hope these folks get it right. By all indications, these aren't just a few guys who want to capitalize on a compelling story; instead, it appears they are two genuine lovers of New Orleans and the culture, and they intend to do that culture justice.

I hope they do. The real New Orleans, and the real tragedy the city experienced after that dreadful storm is a story and a setting too good to go unrecognized.

The League of Ordinary Nations

2010-01-13T14:41:00.001-08:00

So I'm watching the West Wing.

(This is probably a good time to point out that A.) The West Wing is perhaps the best thing to ever appear on television ever and B.) It's one of the best sources for discussion outside of a classroom. Wait, who am I kidding; it's one of the best sources for discussion including the classroom.)

The episode I'm watching brings up an interesting moral/socio-political question. The U.S. intelligence community discovers that the Defense Minister of the (fictional) country of Kumar is responsible for the planning of a foiled terrorist attack on the Golden Gate Bridge. The minister, unaware that the U.S. knows of his activities, plans to come to visit the White House. President Bartlett decides that this is the oppourtunity to arrest him and bring him to justice.

Unfortunately, it turns out that the information tying the minister to the plot was elicited under torture. (The Russians did it in the episode, but it illustrates just one of the many ways that torture never ends well.) President Bartlett faces pressure from his advisers to order his assassination.

Keep in mind, assassination of such a figure is illegal based on international law. It's also of questionable morality.

But the man is responsible for a grevious action.

You're the President. What do you do?

I don't know what'd I do off the top of my head. There are many people who would say "This man is evil. He wants to kill us. We should kill him. Period."

But it's far more complicated. International laws exist for a reason. No state should be allowed to assassinate leaders of other sovereign states without trial - doing so compromises the sovereignty of the state and allows stronger nations to execute officials without legal justification.

And no, "We are the U.S., and we are right," doesn't cut it. American exeptionalism as a form of blanket moral high ground regardless of circumstance is a dangerous and meglomaniacal way to view the world.

This isn't to say that there's nothing exceptional about America. Far from it. In fact, if we are to believe that America and her allies are somehow above other nations that pursue tyranny and strong-arm tactics, it is precisely because we obey the rule of law and allow justice to be served rationally, fairly, and publicly.

As President Bartlett puts it in the episode, simply assassinating a dangerous target because we can't find legitimate evidence to convict him would put America in the "league of ordinary nations."

If America (or any other nation) is to be exceptional, it must abide by the rule of law.

Always. Even when it's hard, which means when it's infuriating and dangerous.

But perhaps there is a line when it becomes too difficult, or too dangerous. This is the argument the fictional President's military advisors and chief of staff make, and it's the argument made repeatedly by former real-life Vice President Cheney and other Bush Administration officials in response to tortue accusations.

I've often fought this assertion vehemently. Perhaps I'm just a starry-eyed college student who hasn't been exposed to the harsh realities of life, but it seems to me that compromising the very ideals we fight for makes the fight meaningless.

But then again, I'm not the one responsible for soldiers in harm's way. I'm not the husband of a wife killed by terrorists, and I'm not a general who's seen the brutal reality of a world that really wants to see us dead.

It's a tough question to answer. And I really wish more people who addressed it acknowledged the issue like it was.

Oh Snap it's Cold

2010-01-08T15:27:00.000-08:00

It's cold outside. The ways I have reached this conclusion (besides the fact that I absent-mindedly stumbled out the door in shorts this morning) are many.

1.) When it gets this cold, if you spend more than a minute outside with even just one other person, someone will inevitably remark "Hey. It's cold outside." Depending upon the number and type of compatriots in your company, there will be variations. Yesterday I heard the following: "Hoo boy it's cold," "It's colder than a witches' tit," and the ever classic "FUCK IT'S COLD." If it's really cold out, you say it even if you're by yourself. Which, if you ever stop to think, is pretty freakin' wierd.

2.) Stuff freezes. Like, freezes solid. In Lousiana. Good hint right there.

3.) You see headlines on prestigious news organization Web sites like: "Freezing temperatures persist in the Deep South" and "How cold is it? Check out Key West"

Apparently it's getting cold everywhere. NPR tells me the entire Northern Hemisphere is experiencing uncharacteristically cold weather. It's getting so cold that it's affecting the worldwide economic markets. Also, orange juice will be more expensive.

As a person who loves cold weather (and who doesn't drink orange juice), I'm loving it. But given the extraordinary level of whining IRL, on Facebook, and, well, pretty much everywhere, I guess I'm in a pretty small minority.

Sports Fans are Nerds.

2010-01-07T19:26:00.000-08:00

As I sit here watching the BCS National Football Championship*, I'm also watching social networks.

*Note: Nick Saban has proven he's the Prince of Darkness -- or at least commander of an Army of Darkness. He used his dark magics to strike down Colt McCoy, his opponent's star quarterback early in the first quarter. The game itself is pretty boring, and it looks pretty good for the SEC. But there are plenty of sports blogs, and I know very little about the subject. Still, go SEC.

As I keep my eye on Facebook and Twitter, it's becoming more and more obvious to me that hardcore sports fans are just nerds.

As I see it, there are two general archetypes of sports fans. There are those who played sports and there are those who didn't.

The first category is made up of former high-school/junior high/little league players who enjoyed playing the game. They got to enjoy playing the game because they were competing against average human beings. Average human beings, of course, are slow, weak and uncoordinated. Professional athlets are freakishly muscled behemoths that somehow manage to move with inhuman precision in a way and at a speed that several hundred pounds of flesh have no right to do.

So, once a young athlete realizes that they are not that rare combination of brute force and finesse that makes a great athlete, he finds something in "The Real World" to do for a living.

The draw of competitive sports, however (which, as a decidedly athletically challenged individual, I never picked up and sometimes have trouble fully comprehending) sticks with them. This becomes obvious as they move on to later life.

It's especially obvious in college, where many of these former athletes are fresh out of that life. The stereotypes are pretty consistent: former basketball players who spend the vast majority of their life in athletic shorts and some form of t-shirt; football players who maintain a strict workout regimen aimed at preserving their tacklin' muscles (thoughts on weightlifting later); soccer players who, upon seeing a field, cannot resist the urge to run around barefoot and bounce things around with their feet.

This is in no way a condemnation. I'm a band nerd 3 years out of the much-beloved bandstand, and if marching bands were as popular as football teams, I'd be in exactly the same situation. In fact, I pretty much do exactly what my sports fan friends do during the game during a halftime show.

But that's exactly my point.

The only thing that seperates a sports fan from any other breed of nerd is their sphere of expertise. Especially when you look at those who have reached middle age, the average sports fan is hardly a paragon of physical fitness. They know players like music or art afficianados know great artists. They learn plays and formations like video gamers learn attack combos or RTS* strategies. And they memorize as many or more stats as a tabletop roleplayer.

*RTS: Real Time Strategy. A type of video game involving resource collection and unit command. Noob.

Am I saying this is bad? OF COURSE NOT. I'm only trying to say that it's ironic when sports fans look down on those who follow other activities with similar zeal.

The Tragic Tale of Headline News

2009-05-26T18:11:00.001-07:00

As the days of summer become almost unbearable, I have actually begun watching TV news.

I actually swore off of televised news earlier this year when Headline News -- the last bastion of real news on the tube -- fell victim to the wave of idiocy that is overwhelming the medium.

Headline News used to be what news should be. It used to be a guy sitting behind a tesk, telling you what the hell happened in the world today. There were no pundits, no cult of personality, just reporting.

Now, Headline News consists of exactly that. There's Robin Meade, the perky, "sassy" anchor who repeatedly comments and ad-libs on every story. There's AJ Hammer and his lackeys who employ the same journalistic techniques and cover the same stories as the tabloids. And there's Lou Dobbs, who I can't watch without being eerily reminded of the proganda-head "Voice of Britain" from the movie V for Vendetta. Dobbs, by the way, has styled himself as "

Then there's Nancy Grace, who has truly raised the bar in terms of journalism-destroying inanity. The drawling, self-styled "Defender of Justice" relies almost entirely on her strength of personality (read: aggravatingly intense hubris that overwhelms any discussion). She routinely calls up investigating officers, repeatedly grilling the officers, investigators, and lawyers involved in the case for their supposed incompetance.

In many ways, the fall of Headline News is symptomatic of the fundamental flaw in TV journalism -- it has become entertainment, rather than journalism.

The executives that run this show are hardly at fault for this. They are businesses, and if they were to acutally maintain the highest standards of journalism, then they would fail.

So the fault is yours, America. The fault is yours for caring more for about laughs and listening to pundits rave than for getting real news. The fault is yours for following the people who tell the news rather than the news they tell.

Stop it. I want my boring -- but useful -- old guy behind the desk back.

WTF? Responsibility?

2009-02-05T08:05:00.000-08:00

Ok, I'm really going to start working on this thing now.

Anyway, Barack Obama is doing the unthinkable. He officially called the handling of the Daschle appointment his own fault.

He is admitting he made a mistake. Not something we're used to seeing from our politicians.

Obama's apology is like getting into a pool after relaxing in the hot tub. The water seems a lot more cold, snaps you awake a lot faster than it would had you not been broiling earlier.

In the same way, we as a country have been sitting in a political hot-tub where our politicians never -- ever -- claim responsibility for policy decisions.

We've been living in a just-passed presidency that saw a myriad of problems, none of which elicited any apologies or admissions of responsibility.

We're talking about a war that was justified largely on the existence of WMD's that were never found. We're talking about an absolutely bungled response Hurricane Katrina.

Granted, Bush himself isn't at fault for all of the problems that occurred during his presidency. But neither he nor any of the people who worked for him took responsibility for any of it.

Granted, Obama here is fessing up to making a bad decision that was mostly political, rather than a massive policy blunder.

Maybe the water's not as cold as we think it is, but after sitting in that hot-tub, it sure feels that way.

Walking in a Winter...Warzone?

2008-12-18T15:39:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-20T17:14:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-20T12:39:00.001-08:00

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

2008-10-07T20:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-15T22:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-28T20:25:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-19T19:32:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-15T10:29:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-06-25T12:11:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-24T11:12:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-19T12:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-17T11:34:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-09T20:47:00.001-07:00

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

2008-06-08T16:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-28T17:26:00.000-07:00

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.