McCain fails to vote on GI Bill

Given the reputation that John McCain has for being a war hero, I find it very interesting that McCain missed the vote on this GI Bill. While McCain missed the vote on the bill only because he was campaigning, this should not be a legitimate excuse for missing a vote on such an important piece of legislation. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination for president. He has from now until Election Day in November to travel across the country at rallies, dinners, fundraisers, etc. to gain support for his candidacy.

McCain has repeatedly attacked and criticized Senator Obama for his lack of military leadership and knowledge. He consistently calls Obama out for not having visited Iraq for almost two years and for not having met with General Petraeus despite Obama's pledge to meet with the leaders of other nations that have demonstrated hostility towards the United States. If McCain wishes to make these accusations and have them be valid, shouldn't he at least live up to his own commitments as a legislator and as a War Veteran to support a bill that helps those coming back from military duty to obtain a college education? It's okay to criticize your opponent, but you should at least practice what you preach and live up to your own responsibilities.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/23/mccain_misses_vote_on_a_new_gi_bill_scorns_criticism_from_obama/

Another skeleton in Obama's closet

Recently, news has come out with the story that ties Barack Obama to Bill Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground who was part of a plan to use bombs to blow up the Pentagon back in the 1960s. While Obama’s ties to Ayers are not nearly as strong or as personal as Obama’s ties with Jeremiah Wright, will this second controversial figure from Obama’s past hurt his chances in the fall if he’s selected as the Democratic presidential nominee?

Obama was able to fend off the Jeremiah Wright argument fairly well, but thus far he’s only been trying to win the support of fellow Democrats for the immediate purposes of the Democratic primaries. But what will happen in the general election, when he becomes the clear (and only) main target that the Republicans and the conservative blogosphere need to focus their attacks efforts on? Here’s an article about the controversial relationship posted by the Huffington Post:

Ayers And Obama: What Is Their Relationship?
Huffington Post | April 17, 2008 11:08 AM


The Pennsylvania Democratic debate took a few nasty turns last night, as moderator George Stephanopoulos sought to inject a new figure from Obama's Chicago life -- William Ayers -- into the national discourse. Before the debate, few voters were aware of Williams Ayers, much less the nature of his connections to the the Illinois senator.

The Associated Press reports on Ayers in the debate:

Clinton said she was concerned about Obama's association with Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground who Clinton pointed out said in an interview published on Sept. 11, 2001, that he didn't regret bombing government buildings. Obama quickly responded that Clinton's husband pardoned one member of Weather Underground and commuted the sentence of another.

"Look, there is no doubt that the Republicans will attack either of us," Obama said. "What I've been able to display during the course of this primary is that I can take a punch. I've taken some pretty good ones from Senator Clinton."


The New York Times has a rundown on William Ayer's controversial past, as well as his loose ties with Barack Obama:

Mr. Ayers is listed as a member of the nine-member board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an offshoot of the Woods Charitable Fund, founded in 1941 by a prominent lawyer and telephone company executive. According to the fund's Web site, it has focused in recent years on "issues that affected the area's least advantaged, including welfare reform, affordable housing" and "tax policy as a tool in reducing poverty."

For a time, Mr. Obama was on the board with Mr. Ayers, though he no longer has a formal association with the group. At the debate, he described Mr. Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," but "not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." Mr. Obama said he was being unjustly linked to "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."


The Washington Post also points out that Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's state senate reelection campaign in 2001.

Politico, who first covered the relationship into this year, reports that Obama visited the household of the Ayers in Chicago early in his political career:

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn....

"I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress," said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. "[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor."


As Lynn Sweet points out, Obama's seemingly scant relationship with Ayers has been a favorite story of Fox News:

Ayers is a noted education specialist at the University of Illinois at Chicago. But to Fox News -- which has relentlessly been playing up Obama's associations with Ayers -- Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. Obama made it seem like he barely knew him, though they both served on Chicago's Woods Fund board.
Indeed, some have pointed out that Stephanopoulos' question in the debate sounded eerily similar to a conversation between him and Fox anchor Sean Hannity held the day before the debate. From Hannity's radio show (via Think Progress):

HANNITY: There are two questions that I don't think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I don't know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow. One is - the only time he's ever been asked about his association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground who on 9/11 of all days in the New York Times was saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I don't think we did enough." When asked about it by the Politico, David Axelrod said that they have a friendly relationship, and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I'm taking notes right now.


And Talking Points Memo has a clip from Fox News falsely claims that Ayers was Obama's mentor:


Still, the connection is troubling, if only for reasons of perception, to at least some progressives. HuffPost blogger Larry Johnson suggested in February that, "William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton."

What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists. Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence. Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded.

Standing up for justice

After reading the famous Korematsu v. United States opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court, I was appalled at the bad logic used in the majority opinion to justify the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII because of Pearl Harbor and the idea that American-born citizens of Japanese descent may become disloyal to the United States.

However, at the same time, I found Justice Murphy's dissenting opinion to be particularly inspiring. For someone to stand up against discrimination during a time of war is a courageous act, indeed. I would highly recommend that you read the following excerpts from this opinion. Even though the dissent meant practically nothing in terms of the immediate legal outcome of the case, it surely paved the way for future compensation of the Japanese-Americans who suffered under the injustice and cruelty that was legally imposed and judicially sanctioned by the United States.




Korematsu v. United States

Mr. Justice Murphy, dissenting:


This exclusion of "all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien," from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over "the very brink of constitutional power" and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.


In dealing with matters relating to the prosecution and progress of a war, we must accord great respect and consideration to the judgments of the military authorities who are on the scene and who have full knowledge of the military facts…
At the same time, however, it is essential that there be definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared. Individuals must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support…


…Being an obvious racial discrimination, the order deprives all those within its scope of the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. It further deprives these individuals of their constitutional rights to live and work where they will, to establish a home where they choose and to move about freely. In excommunicating them without benefit of hearings, this order also deprives them of all their constitutional rights to procedural due process. Yet no reasonable relation to an "immediate, imminent, and impending" public danger is evident to support this racial restriction which is one of the most sweeping and complete deprivations of constitutional rights in the history of this nation in the absence of martial law.


… The main reasons relied upon by those responsible for the forced evacuation, therefore, do not prove a reasonable relation between the group characteristics of Japanese Americans and the dangers of invasion, sabotage and espionage. The reasons appear, instead, to be largely an accumulation of much of the misinformation, half-truths and insinuations that for years have been directed against Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudices -- the same people who have been among the foremost advocates of the evacuation. A military judgment based upon such racial and sociological considerations is not entitled to the great weight ordinarily given the judgments based upon strictly military considerations. Especially is this so when every charge relative to race, religion, culture, geographical location, and legal and economic status has been substantially discredited by independent studies made by experts in these matters.


…No one denies, of course, that there were some disloyal persons of Japanese descent on the Pacific Coast who did all in their power to aid their ancestral land. Similar disloyal activities have been engaged in by many persons of German, Italian and even more pioneer stock in our country. But to infer that examples of individual disloyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory action against the entire group is to deny that under our system of law individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights. Moreover, this inference, which is at the very heart of the evacuation orders, has been used in support of the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. To give constitutional sanction to that inference in this case, however well-intentioned may have been the military command on the Pacific Coast, is to adopt one of the cruelest of the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity of the individual and to encourage and open the door to discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the passions of tomorrow.


No adequate reason is given for the failure to treat these Japanese Americans on an individual basis by holding investigations and hearings to separate the loyal from the disloyal, as was done in the case of persons of German and Italian ancestry…
I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Gay marriage receives wider recognition

New York to recognize gay marriages

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Gov. David Patterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.


New York agencies have been told to recognize same-sex marriages performed in places where they are legal.

The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.

The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York's human rights law, Duggan said.

The directive follows a February ruling from a New York state appeals court. That decision says that legal same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York.

"This was in direct response to a court ruling," Duggan told CNN. "Just to make sure all the state agencies are on the same page."

Duggan says that the court's decision was consistent with the findings of several lower courts in New York State.


Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples need not be state residents there to wed. However, then-Gov. Mitt Romney resurrected a 1913 law barring non-resident marriages in the state if the marriage would be prohibited in the partners' home state.


Subsequent court and agency decisions have determined that only residents of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Mexico may marry in Massachusetts, unless the parties say they plan to relocate there after the marriage.

New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil unions, while California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give same-sex couples some legal rights, as do some other countries.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/29/nygay.marriage/index.html


While New York has not made it legal to perform marriages, it has said that it will grant recognition to same-sex marriages that have been made official in other states and countries. This is one more step towards recognition of same-sex marriage at the state level within this country.

But will gay marriage ever be safe from the the threat of legal opposition or legislative/judicial reversal? When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom granted same-sex marriages back in 2004, they were quickly annuled by the state. Even with the apparent legalization of gay marriage in the state of California, the California Supreme Court still has an opportunity to intervene. California will officially be granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginnng on June 17th 2008. However, the Court will have until June 16th to review their decision and possibly overturn their prior action.

Many people have been excited about these recent developments in California and New York, but will same-sex couples ever be able to live without the fear of knowing that their marriage may soon be invalidated? While we have moved towards a much more tolerant view of homosexuals in American society, these victories for the LGBT community must unfortunately be celebrated with caution.

Gas prices....LOL

I saw this video on CNN last weekend while I was sitting inside a McDonalds at Lake Arrowhead, and I thought it was pretty funny. At the same time, though, it's ridiculous how high gas prices have gotten. I still remember traveling cross-country on a roadtrip when i was about 10 years old and seeing places that had gas prices under $1.00/gallon.

Why is it that the executives at the big oil companies such as Exxon-Mobil and Shell have been making record profits in recent years while gas has become less and less affordable for all Americans? It's pretty scary to think about what gas prices will be like in another 10 years. Will we eventually reach $7, $8 per gallon? How bout $10 per gallon?

If there's one thing I really like about McCain, it's got to be his Summer Gas Tax Holiday. Too bad summer doesn't last forever though :(

Obama’s Memorial Day slip-up

I must say, this is a pretty big embarrassment for the Obama campaign. In a Memorial Day speech, Obama claimed that his uncle was one of the liberators at Auschwitz during WWII as a member of the American military. One big problem with this statement: The Americans were not the ones to liberate the soldiers at Auschwitz. Rather, it was the Soviet Union that liberated this particular Nazi concentration camp. If Obama’s uncle really was at Auschwitz, that means he must have been a member of the (Red) Soviet Army.

The Obama campaign released an official statement that cleared up some of the confusion, correcting some of the details that Obama elaborated on. First of all, it was not Obama’s uncle, but his great uncle that served during World War II. Secondly, Obama’s great uncle was part of the liberating army at Buchenwald, not Auschwitz.

These slip-ups are bad for Obama, especially because it shows his possible insensitivity to the Jewish community. To make a historical error that is also closely related to his personal history is never a very good thing. Everyone gets their facts mixed up sometimes, but when you’re giving a formal speech for a momentous occasion such as Memorial Day, you should probably get your story straight first.

At the same time, I think you need to cut him a little slack when you look at the bigger picture of this election. It’s not like Hillary made any claims about arriving in Bosnia under sniper fire, right? Surely McCain hasn’t done anything bad such as to suggest that the Iranian government is training Al Qaeda (insert sarcasm here)?

Scott McClellan's book: too little, too late

In his new memoir that came out recently, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says that Bush relied on an aggressive political propaganda campaign instead of the truth to manage the war. He said that his policies almost guaranteed that the use of force would be the only option in Iraq.

I have two initial reactions to hearing about this book. First of all, is this really some sort of revelation that nobody really ever thought of in the first place? Of course not. While it may be a big deal that McClellan has publicly published this material, it shouldn’t seem like the accusations made by him against Bush are anything new. We all know that Bush lied to us, and we know that his administration was deceptive in their marketing of the war and their efforts to drum up public support for armed intervention in the region.

But my second observation is, why did Scott McClellan wait so long to come out and say this? If he knew what was going on and knew that the American public was being intentionally deceived by President Bush, why didn’t he speak out when it mattered most? Sure he would have lost his job and he would have become very unpopular among many Republicans, but he also lost his chance to be a true American hero and to stand up for justice and truth at a time where the people of America put their blind faith into what the Bush Administration was telling us about the war. Good for you, Scott McClellan, for coming out with this news. Unfortunately, you’re about five years too late.

Should FL & MI be allowed to go to the convention?

Florida and Michigan both violated Democratic Party rules when they moved up their primaries. The parties were notified beforehand that they would be punished for taking any action that went against the policies put in place by the DNC, yet these two states decided to move up their primaries anyway. So what should happen to them?

Personally, I believe that there are other ways to punish the party itself than to discount all of their votes in the presidential primaries. Why should the voters in these respective states be punished for actions committed by only a few top leaders within the state’s party organization? Isn’t it rather anti-Democratic to disenfranchise all of these voters because of an act that was completely out of their hands?

Surely there are other ways to punish the state party leaders. You could impose fines on them, or give the leaders suspensions. Even worse, you could remove them from their positions or give them demotions. But to discount millions of votes by law-abiding citizens? This simply doesn’t make sense to me, especially in a country where voter participation is already so low.

Race or Gender: Which is the bigger barrier?

With a woman and an African-American as the two remaining Democratic candidates for President, there has been much talk about the obstacles that both femals and African-Americans have had to overcome throughout history. Many people would probably argue that race relations have etched a much deeper scar into this nation's surface. Slavery persisted in this country until 1865, and even then there was a shift from chattel slavery to wage slavery during the Reconstruction era. While African-Americans had to endure slavery, (white) women did not face quite as extreme discrimination.

On the other hand, look at the times at which official voting rights were granted to each of these respective groups. African-Americans received the right to vote after the 15th Amendment was passed. Women, however, did not receive this same right until 1920, over a half-century later. So while the initial conditions of servitude endured by slaves were worse, they actually gained equal voting rights much faster than women did.
Throughout this election, there have been remarks made by people in the media and even by other politicians that seemed to attach negative connotations with the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman. At the same time, any hint of racism towards Barack Obama has been generally looked down upon and taken as a much more severe offense than any anti-feminist remarks or gender discriminatory commentary about Senator Clinton. Does the fact that people can get away with snide remarks about Hillary's womanhood while Obama's "blackness" remains off limits point to gender as being a more difficult barrier to be overcome in this country? Or is the fact that racist remarks are taken with more severity point to the fact that racism is still a more sensitive issue and a more prevalent problem in American society? I would venture to guess that much of this might have to do with the fact that there generally have not been as many hate groups such as the KKK directed towards woman. While women are often seen as inferior and have been throughout American history, they have not suffered the same kind of individual hate speech as African-Americans have. So what remains the more sensitive issue, and which issue is the one where the least progress has been made?

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

Alright, so John McCain says that he was kidding around about this, but is this something you really should be joking around about? Watch these next two videos in sequence and see what you think:






You'd think that with such a sensitive issue, McCain would be more careful not to offend anyone or imply something he didn't mean. Is this really the guy we want for president?

2008 Electoral Projection Site – a personal favorite

Given the fact that it appears Obama will clinch the nomination for the Democratic ticket in November, I think this website is particularly interesting and possibly a little disappointing to many of the Obama supporters. Fivethirtyeight.com has an extremely detailed and up-to-date analysis of match-ups between Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain for possible outcomes in the November election.

Though Obama currently has more of the popular vote and more delegates to the Democratic convention, it appears that Clinton actually enjoys a huge advantage over Obama in a head-to-head comparison against McCain. Clinton enjoys a slightly larger percentage of the popular vote in a match-up against McCain, as well as nine-point higher winning percentage among all states and a 15-vote advantage in the electoral college. For a party that seems almost ready to have an official front-runner and nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election, this may be slightly disturbing news.

Of course, one must consider that polls are often inaccurate and unreliable to begin with. However, with such a consistent advantage that Clinton enjoys over Obama in comparison to McCain in so many different national polls and in the national poll of polls, is Obama doomed in November should he receive the nomination, or will his slight lead over McCain be enough to help pull him through? You’ll have to check back for more on that in November.




http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Recommended Reading: What Kind of Nation by James E. Simon

Since I’ve now posted a political documentary, I think it would be appropriate to post a book review/analysis that I have done after reading this book for one of my other classes. The book is called “What Kind of Nation” and it is written by James F. Simon. If you’re looking for some light summer reading or just some interesting fundamental background on the constitutional and philosophical principles that helped shape this country from a legal aspect, you will find this to be a very interesting read.

In What Kind of Nation, author James F. Simon illustrates the proverbial battle between the Founding Fathers over the structure and function of the federal government of the United States. More specifically, this book highlights the ongoing feud between Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall throughout the first few decades following the birth of the United States. The two men had differing perspectives about the nature of authority between the federal and the state governments, as well as how the power should be distributed within the federal government among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. Though the two figures often clashed over how to resolve the governmental disputes that loomed at the time of the nation’s founding, Simon argues that these two seemingly incompatible men both ended up making a contribution to the forward progress of the early United States in terms of their respective institutional preferences and their conceptions of the nature of the government. Simon argues that while John Marshall’s time as Chief Justice allowed him to establish the credibility and respect that the Supreme Court has since come to be recognized for, Thomas Jefferson’s own views about the federal-to-state government relationship and the delegation of power to the people have also visibly taken shape.

Simon describes the inherent differences between Jefferson and Marshall in relation to their respective perceptions about which direction the country should move towards in relation to the economy and the relative power of the state and federal government. Jefferson, a Republican, sided with James Madison in the need to ratify a Bill of Rights that would serve as restrictions on the power of the federal government in relation to individuals. Jefferson’s primary commitments were to states’ rights, popular sovereignty, and individual liberty. He also believed that the future of America was “dependent upon a traditional agrarian economy that was based on the hard work and democratic ideals of yeoman farmers” (Simon 28). John Marshall, a Federalist, did not share much of Jefferson’s sympathy for strong state governments. Rather, Marshall believed in the need for a strong federal government, in which an independent federal judiciary would be a “necessary bulwark against an overreaching Congress” (25). If the country were to keep the legislative branch in check, a strong federal judiciary would be necessary to maintaining institutional legitimacy and a proper balance of power. In combination with Jefferson’s important leadership role in negations with France, these contrasting views between these two men provided a basis for much of their disagreement.

Simon devotes the majority of his book to the documentation of the various ways in which both Marshall and Jefferson were faced with situations that threatened both their personal and institutional legitimacy with respect to their governmental roles. John Marshall became the head of the Supreme Court at a point in time when the judiciary was far from being considered a coequal branch of government. However, he proved himself capable of establishing the institutional legitimacy of the “least dangerous branch” in a number of ways (Federalist No. 78). Simon argues that Marshall’s leadership on the Court was evident in the fact that there were so many unanimous opinions on the early Court (152). This consistency among the members of the Court increased the chances that the public would perceive the Court as an institution free from politicization and aimed at promoting justice, further enhancing its institutional credibility. While the case of Marbury v. Madison could have greatly damaged Marshall’s credibility, his carefully crafted argument and his decision to refrain from partisan judicialization helped Marshall not only re-establish himself but also the legitimacy of the Court. Thomas Jefferson’s own credibility came into question when he decided to overhaul most of the Federalist appointed judges after stating in his First Inaugural Address that he would not do so (148). Simon uses these examples to strengthen his argument about the conflict between Jefferson and Marshall and the resulting impact that this ongoing struggle over the nature of the distribution of political power.

Overall, What Kind of Nation does an exceptional job at analyzing the debate between Marshall and Jefferson and framing it in the context of the general principles of American government. Simon argues that the differences and accomplishments between the two have made a profound impact on the evolution and progression of the United States and its political institutions. While there are some areas in which Simon’s argument may be lacking, the way in which he analyzes and evaluates the institutional roles of both Marshall and Jefferson provides thorough insight into the nature and origin of many contemporary debates about the nature of power in the federal government and the distribution of power among the states and the people.

Obscenity: An Unsettled Subject in Constitutional Law

As I was doing some reading for my American Constitutional Law class, I found the chapter on Freedom of the Press to be particularly interesting. One of the main topics that was addressed was the First Amendment protection (or lack thereof) afforded to obscene speech. The idea of obscenity as addressed in this book made me think of two very interesting aspects of obscenity in the context of contemporary American society.

First of all, obscenity must be one of the hardest things to regulate and to dictate constitutional parameters for restricting. One of the reasons there is so much grey area when it comes to this topic is because obscenity is not, in fact, written into the First Amendment (or anywhere in the Bill of Rights). This makes it extremely difficult for the Court to regulate the extent to which it is or is not allowed to regulate obscenity. While it is universally agreed that the Court may regulate obscenity (see Miller v. California), the actual definition of obscenity is itself nearly impossible to come to agreement upon. People of different age groups, different cultures, different occupations, different sexual orientations, different gender, and different religion may all judge obscenity differently based on any (or all) of these defining demographics. For example, a 25-year old bachelor living in New York City might have no problem with a gentleman’s club opening across the street from his apartment, while the nuns and the congregation at the Catholic Church two blocks away from the club may have extreme objections to it, labeling it obscene and immoral.

The second observation that I made while posting my previous post about Laura Bush is just how exposed and how easily accessible indecent material is through the internet. When I did a Google image search for pictures of Laura Bush to post on my blog, one of the first pictures that showed up was a doctored photo of George W. Bush and Laura Bush with Laura’s wearing no underwear or pants, exposing her genital area. This is offensive to me, but I’m sure it would be even more offensive or scarring to young children doing a class report on Laura Bush or an elderly person just looking for some nice photos of the First Lady.

While obscenity is at least tangibly possible to regulate in newspapers and in the print media, how is it possible to regulate the World Wide Web, which (just like it sounds) is worldwide in its nature and may not have any listed or known authors? Or is this even possible? The Internet has provided us with boundless information about any subject we could ever think of, but at the same time it has also brought obscenity and highly offensive material to a much higher level and lent it greater accessibility, even to those who are not looking for such a thing.

Guess who was at the University Center on Friday?

As I was going to get some dark-chocolate-covered pretzels at the candy shop across from Cha at the University Center, I noticed a huge line that ended near the parking lot by Steelhead that snaked around the entire University Center. Once I reached the inside of the center near Cha, I could now see well over 1,000 people lined up for something. My roommate, who was with me at the time, said “I think it’s Laura Bush!” At first, I didn’t really believe him because that seemed crazy that the First Lady would be at UC Irvine on a cold, stormy Friday evening.

However, I then decided to ask someone in line what they were waiting for, and a woman said to me, “The First Lady is signing the book that she co-authored with her daughter.” So it was true: Laura Bush was at the children’s bookstore at the University Center on Friday evening! It then all became clear as I looked around and spotted at least 15 Secret Service agents by my count, many of them with sunglasses on to give them the “Secret Service” look even though sunglasses were probably the last thing anyone would have needed amidst the clouds and light drizzle (perhaps umbrellas would have been more helpful). My roommate and I then walked around to the other side of the plaza, and we saw her motorcade/police escort complete with about 6 black SUVs with dark, tinted windows and about a 6 motorcycle California Highway Patrol escort with some additional cars from the Irvine Police.

I was able to get a peek inside the bookstore, and had the opportunity to catch a few glimpses of the First Lady shaking hands with people and signing books. I wanted to find out what time she was leaving to see if I could take a picture with her at the very end when she was done, but the Secret Service Agent claimed not to know what time she was leaving. Perhaps the Bush Administration has seen my blog and I have ended up on their bad list. I just found it interesting how even I myself will get excited when I see someone really famous, even if its not someone I’m particularly crazy about otherwise.

My Two Cents on Ann Coulter

This will be my last post on Ann Coulter, but I believe that the breadth and controversy of her talk merited a number of different posts. Given my disagreement with many of the answers she gave to the questions that were asked, I would like to elaborate on my own viewpoints to provide somewhat of a rebuttal to her statements.

I agree that it will be important for the Republicans to pick a strong Vice Presidential candidate, because McCain is really getting up there in age. I find her advice to pick Mitt Romney as a Vice Presidential candidate to be an admittedly wise choice in terms of electability for the Republicans, since the vote was mainly split between Romney and McCain until Romney dropped out of the race. Whether or not he will actually make a good Vice President if he comes into office is a topic for debate outside of this discussion, er, blog.

I found it interesting though that both one of the questioners and Coulter herself seemed to buy into this idea that there is some sort of Democrat takeover in the teaching profession that leads to this sort of brainwashing of kids when they are young, entrenching them with a very liberal, Democratic ideology. Maybe it’s not the fact that teachers are all liberals that makes students move more towards the left. In fact, one of my favorite and most influential teachers in high school was a strong conservative, yet I do not find myself assuming his own political views because of his inspiration as a teacher.

Instead, I think that it’s maybe that people who become teachers are too intelligent to buy into many of the ideas and policies that the Republican Party that simply hurt the working class and the lower class in this country. While many Republicans have made accomplishments for education and have fought for better quality schools, failed and inadequate programs such as No Child Left Behind try to put state and federal control over processes that are probably best managed at the local level. In fact, NCLB is ironic because it runs contrary to the Republican ideal of small government. However, in general, most teachers (as most normal citizens) probably see how education has taken the backseat to defense spending and other areas of the budget under George W. Bush. So it’s not a problem with a lack of conservatives in the profession, but rather it’s the ability of most teachers to understand what’s in the best interest of this country’s young people that causes them to have a liberal leaning on many issues.

Q&A with Ann Coulter

When Ann Coulter came to speak at UCI, I thought that the Q&A session that she held would be worth writing down so I could later share the responses in here as one of my blogs. While I did not manage to get down every question and every answer, here is a fairly thorough and accurate description of the ones I was able to take note of.


Q: Because of McCain’s age, what are the odds he’ll be a one-term president?
A: This makes the VP choice very important, because they have a good chance at ending up
President.


Q: Who would you advise as McCain’s running mate?
A: Romney, he’s a strong candidate. However, because he was governor of Massachusetts he had trouble winning some Republicans over; McCain also said he doesn’t know anything about
economics, this is certainly Romney’s strong suit; Romney was too polite in the debates. I liked Giuliani in the debates.


Q: We see Obama exciting the youth. They have lately been moving more towards the
Democratic side. Our public schools all seem to be entrenched with this kind of ideology.
How can we get more conservatives on school boards?
A: Don’t go to law school, become a teacher! (If you’re a Republican); we get this Chinese-style
brainwashing throughout public school and college.


Q: Would you still defend Pat Buchanan against his charge of anti-semitism?
A: Yes, I would. There are a lot of Jews saying that Pat Buchanan is not an anti-Semite.


Q: Are liberals in this country intentionally doing harm to this country as some sort of a
conspiracy?
A: The idea that we need to sit down with these leaders is crazy; if we need to talk to them, we
can just call them. If they’re going to nuke Iran and then chit-chat, I’m all for it.


Q: Will you vote for McCain even though you don’t like him?
A: She will be voting against Obama. She voted for Bob Dole, it’s not a vivid memory, but
she did it.


Q: Since Hillary is trying to get the women to vote Democrat, would you consider running as
McCain’s VP?
A: I’m a reporter, not a politician.


Q: Do you have any respect for Democrats?
A: There were some things I liked about Democrats 50 years ago like Truman, who were actually capable of fighting a war. No, I doesn’t respect Democrats on domestic issues, but what I really doesn’t understand is why both parties in America are not pro-American?

The Middle East Crisis and the “Axis of Evil”

In my previous post, I mentioned Ann Coulter’s talk at UC Irvine last week. I would like to elaborate on that speech, just because it also relates to one of my earlier blogs that I posted about Obama’s pledge to meet with the leaders of foreign nations that are labeled as hostile to the United States (particularly the ones that the U.S. does not have any diplomatic ties with).

First of all, I found her idea of blaming Jimmy Carter for the worsening of conditions in the Middle East to be nothing more than using him as a scapegoat for decades of failed policy by primarily Republican presidents. Now of course, it would be highly unfair to only criticize the administrations under each period because many of the Republican presidents faced a divided Congress (meaning that Democrats were actually in more control of the legislative power than Republicans). But the fact is that it was the CIA under the leadership of George H.W. Bush and during the Reagan Administration that actually recruited known Islamic extremists such as Osama Bin Laden (yes, that’s right) in order to contain the Communist threat that the Soviet Union posed to the U.S. in the Middle East.

But more importantly, I was appalled at the conditions she laid out for first meeting with evil leaders and hostile governments. She said that George W. Bush has a phone, so he can call Kim Jong Il or whoever he wants any time of the day. She said that meeting with them face-to-face may compromise our position and give leverage to other leaders of countries that may have close links within the “axis of evil”. As I have stated previously, I do see merit in this argument. However, she said that if we want to meet these leaders face-to-face, we should only do this if we have nuked them first. I think this was meant to be more of an illustration of how adamant Coulter thought we should be about NOT meet with these leaders ever, but the fact that she even suggested this seriously was a little frightening.

When a student challenged her explanation on this as being quite extreme, she even had the nerve to cite the U.S.’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during WWII to get them to comply with our conditions. She said something to the extent of this: “Look at the Japanese: two well-placed nukes, and they were quiet as puppies.” To even subtly suggest that one of the gravest crimes against humanity committed under the name of the American flag was actually justified is something that I believe any American should be completely ashamed of. While the Japanese certainly did comply with American demands after the bombing, to ever cite this in a contemporary defensive diplomatic argument that involves nuclear weapons is like suggesting that the Nazi concentration camps “worked”.

So shame on you, Ann Coulter. If Michelle Obama said that she hadn’t been proud to be an American before, doubtless it’s because of people like you.

The War Behind Closed Doors: A PBS Documentary

If you’re looking for a good documentary that traces the origins of the Iraq War, I have film that I would highly recommend. The documentary is by PBS and it is entitled “The War Behind Closed Doors.” It talks about how the Bush Administration entered the war and the outside influences that led to the invasion over five years ago. Contrary to popular belief, the Iraq War was not necessarily Bush’s idea or one that his administration drew up from oil interests or one that they pursued exclusively because of the War on Terror. In November of 1997, the Clinton Administration was about ready to bomb Baghdad and make an effort to remove Sadaam Hussein from power. However, the air strike was called off at the last minute, and the planes returned to their bases with their payloads still unreleased.

One of the main players in the decision to invade Iraq and one of the primary hawks throughout the Bush White House has been Paul Wolfowitz. It was Wolfowitz who butted heads with Colin Powell and eventually helped convert Cheney into a war hawk in 2002. Interestingly, George W. Bush was prepped by Republican leaders all the way back in 1998 about the present conditions in the Middle East because of his announced presidential bid. He was still at the Governor’s mansion in Texas at the time when these kinds of hawkish strategies were being presented to him by people who were already working at various levels of the federal government.

Without spoiling too much more of the documentary, I would recommend that if you have a spare 54 minutes to kill, you’ll find this to be a rather interesting documentary. While it may not be completely independent and unbiased, I believe that it presents a more accurate and fair depiction of events than is possible in most of the major news networks’ coverage of the progression of American involvement throughout the Middle East.

Here's the web address for the website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/

Orange County = Red County?

After having had the opportunity to hear Ann Coulter speak at UC Irvine last week, I realize that Bill O’Reilly is nothing in comparison to her. One of the most frightening aspects of her appearance at the Pacific Ballroom at UCI’s Student Center on Thursday was the vast number of people that were there in support of her. I guess it shouldn’t have been a surprise given how “Red” Orange County is, but the fact that such a conservative, right-wing speaker could get so much praise on a college campus was both eerie and disappointing at the same time.

I suppose that if you’re rich like Ann Coulter (and like many people in Orange County), you really don’t know what it’s like to be middle-class or to be a working-class citizen. Of course, even most of the fairly wealthy members of the community have always tended to label themselves as “middle-class” or “upper-middle-class”, while in reality they are probably among the top 5% of income earners or wealth holders in this country. People like this are often so out of touch with the daily struggles endured by so many across America that the only reason politics is relevant for them is to help them secure the wealth that they already have, not to look out for the welfare of others possibly at the expense of their own fortune. Sadly, these people will allow themselves to be spoon-fed whatever their leaders tell them, swallowing lies and deceptions like spoon-fed children too young to be able to feed themselves.

This is not intended to be an indictment on all Republicans in general or on the Republican Party in general. My observation is simply that many Democrats are accused of being ignorant because they don’t vote. The fact is that there are more registered Democrats in this country than Republicans, and it has been this way for quite a few years now. So if all Democrats voted, we should have ended up with Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004. However, this Republican ignorance is different in the sense that it is blind obedience or submission to the viewpoints of their party leaders. I’m scared for the future of this country should both of these kinds of ignorance continue, but particularly the ignorance of the Republicans who should know better because they are generally more well-educated than the rest.

Bush Family Bloopers

Well, I thought it would be nice for something more lighthearted given the pessimistic and critical nature of many of my previous posts. Here are some of my favorite Bush-isms/slip ups by both George W. Bush and his father:

Time for Hillary to Quit?

Barack Obama now has 1,969 delegates to Clinton’s 1,779 delegates. Obama has now won a vast majority of the states that have voted in the Democratic primaries thus far. Of all the votes that have been counted (excluding Michigan and Florida because they violated Democratic party rules by moving their primaries up), Obama has more popular votes. In CNN’s national poll of polls, Clinton has not been ahead against Obama since around Super Tuesday.

Obama and others have recognized Senator Clinton’s right up to this point to stay in the race. However, I believe that there is a point where her involvement in this race is no longer an attempt for her to take the lead in the Democratic primary and become the Democratic nominee, but rather it is her stubbornness (or her “fighting” character, depending on how you view Mrs. Clinton) that makes her refuse to bow out of the race until the very end.

If Senator Clinton is truly concerned about the welfare and general prosperity of the American people for at least the next four years, I believe it is time that she removes herself from the remaining Democratic primaries and concedes victory to Senator Obama. I have a lot of respect for Senator Clinton, and I don’t think she would have made a bad president. However, the longer this race gets drawn out, the easier it is becoming for John McCain and the Republicans to try to break up an already divided Democratic party over the issue of candidate selection. So is it time for Hillary to call it quits? I certainly believe so.

An Obama/Clinton Ticket?

Will there be an Obama/Clinton Democratic ticket in November? While I would hope so, others don't think it'll happen. I really think it would be a smart choice for Obama to pick Clinton for the Vice Presidential nomination. Many Hillary supporters say they will not support Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee, and many Obama supporters say the same thing about Senator Clinton if she becomes the nominee. There are many states where Clinton is competitive with McCain in an electoral matchup for November while Obama does not come even close. There are also a number of other states where Obama is competitive with McCain but Clinton would not come close (I would imagine that race plays a significant factor here).
However, what if John McCain chooses, say, Condoleeza Rice as his running mate to run against a supposed Obama/Clinton "dream ticket?" He'd be killing two birds with one stone: not only is she a woman, but she's also an African-American. Both women and African-Americans tend to be strongholds for Democrats in terms of American political behavioral patterns, but how would Obama fare against this kind of Republican team? Gender and race are two very obvious and notably strong identities in American culture, and always have been for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) the discrimination that each of these respective groups has faced throughout history. But at the same time, political party affiliations may also be very distinct identities for people.
Are we a nation subdivided and segregated to a greater degree by our political, ideologically motivated principles, or are we a nation that is sewn more closely together by the common struggles that each respective demographic group has faced whether by race, gender, socioeconomic status, or religion? I believe that it's a great recognition of social and political progress towards equality for us to even be asking these kinds of questions. However, with the possibility of both an African-American and a woman as either the Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate for both parties in this election, will the recognition of race and gender help to further unite us as a nation or will the possibility of the nomination of a Republican woman/minority group member been used by the Republican party as an intended barrier to divide these constituent groups among the two parties?

McCain stepping up foreign policy heat on Obama

Blitzer: McCain stepping up foreign policy heat on Obama
Posted: 03:20 PM ET

From CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer


Blitzer: Obama and Clinton have escalated their war of words over foreign policy.
(CNN) — John McCain is not letting up on Barack Obama. Virtually every recent day, he has gone after Obama’s national security stance. He says Obama’s willingness to meet with leaders from Iran, North Korea and Venezuela is “reckless, and demonstrates a poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous.” In his latest statement, McCain calls Obama’s approach “naïve” and “based entirely on emotion.”

Obama is responding in kind. “The Bush Iraq policy that asks everything of our troops and nothing of Iraqi politicians is John McCain’s policy, too, and so is the fear of tough and aggressive diplomacy that has left this country more isolated and less secure than at any time in recent history,” Obama said Tuesday night.

Still, there is no doubt that McCain’s strategy of hammering Obama on a nearly daily basis on foreign policy is deliberate. McCain certainly feels very comfortable talking about national security. He sees that as his major strength. And most observers agree McCain would much rather have national security on the agenda right now than the economy where he and his fellow Republicans see themselves as rather vulnerable..

By attacking Obama, moreover, he is helping to frame the debate and put the Democratic candidate on the defensive. That’s the strategy for now.


I find the debate over whether or not we should be talking to the governments of the so-called "axis of evil" and other controversial leaders such as Hugo Chavez to be quite interesting. On the one hand, I agree with McCain's idea that we should be careful not to compromise our national security and that there will always be the potential of doing harm to our national image and our bargaining position abroad if we talk to the leaders of countries that have traditionally been "unfriendly" toward the United States. However, at the same time, I find myself tending to side more with the position held by Obama.

It has long been held by this nation that the American government does not negotiate with terrorists, nor does prefer it negotiate with other governments or national leaders who have demonstrated outright hostility towards the U.S. But there is a fundamental problem here: If our government has strained relations with North Korea, Iran, and other such nations, how do we expect to improve our ties (or actually establish ties) with other governments if we aren't willing to even talk to them? Simply talking to the leaders of these nations doesn't mean we have to "negotiate" in the sense that we are bargaining away ourselves or weakening our national security position.

Everyone knows the phrase "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Why shouldn't we abide by the same policy? When you invade a country on faulty evidence of weapons of mass destruction and then proceed to stay in that country longer than the Nazis occupied much of Europe during WWII, it hardly seems unreasonable for countries like North Korea to want to build up some sort of resistance to the United States. Even if North Korea hadn't begun testing its nuclear capabilities in 2005, who's to say that the United States government would have viewed them any more favorably? North Korea's nuclear weapons testing is a simple and natural example of the security dilemma. The oppression that has come under Kim Jong Il is violently disturbing, and I would never even suggest that I support what they are doing. However, from a national security standpoint it doesn't seem very difficult to understand why they would become interested in developing their nuclear capabilities.

Given the negative reputation that Kim Jong Il has deservedly developed over the years, I don't see how the United States would expect for the North Korean president to ever change on his own. In times where we have a dire concern for our national safety and when we are elevated to such a high level of publicity on the international scene, it is imperative for us to maintain a policy where we are willing to meet with leaders of unfriendly governments. These talks must be approached very carefully and must be planned while keeping in mind the possible negative consequences. Just because there is the potential for negative backlash on the United States doesn't mean we shouldn't orient ourselves towards making progress in breaking down barriers with our enemies.

McCain on Iraq

McCain predicts Iraq war over by 2013

COLUMBUS, Ohio (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain envisions that by 2013, the Iraq war will be won, but the threat from the Taliban in Afghanistan won't be eliminated, even though Osama bin Laden will have been captured or killed.


Sen. John McCain envisions his first-term achievements during a speech in Columbus, Ohio, Thursday.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee made both statements in a speech in which he envisions the state of affairs at the end of his first term if he is elected president.

"What I want to do today is take a little time to describe what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as president. I cannot guarantee I will have achieved these things," McCain said in Columbus, Ohio.

McCain's speech was unusual -- and somewhat risky -- in that it laid out benchmarks on which he could be judged.

"It certainly was an ambitious speech," said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst, noting that many of the things McCain mentioned will be "very tough things for a president to accomplish."

"But perhaps the key point that he made was the tone and tenor of his presidency when he said near the end of his speech, 'If I'm elected president, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin,' " Schneider said.

"What's interesting about that is that precisely echoes what Barack Obama is talking about in his campaign," Schneider said, referring to the Democratic presidential candidate.

The Arizona senator said he believes that the United States will have a smaller military presence in Iraq that will not play a direct combat role, and he predicts that al Qaeda in Iraq will be defeated. Watch McCain say most troops will be home from Iraq by 2013 »

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and -women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.

"The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension," McCain said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mccain.2013/index.html


This speech given by John McCain subtlely addresses one of the fundamental methods that the Republican party (and the Democrats in other wars) has used to shore up public support for the war. John McCain says that "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and -women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom." Whenever "Freedom" or "Liberty" are used in defense of some action taken by the American government or military, it seems that questioning this assumption would give one the label of being "unpatriotic."

What kind of message have Bush and the war hawks of the Republican Party been projecting if they are saying that the public's not supporting a war or believing that our foreign policy has been misguided is unpatriotic? Also, what freedoms have we secured by being involved in Iraq? If anything, we have completely alienated an Iraqi population that may have once been sympathetic to our cause. However, after the Battle of Fallujah and other battles, we have only weeded out suspected terrorists by suppressing the freedom and liberty of all the Iraqi people. We have now projected a crusading image around the rest of the world and given other countries reasons to fear us if they choose not to agree with our actions.

What liberties and freedoms have been secured for the American public as a direct result of American intervention in Iraq? If there are any, they certainly can't be tangibly measured. Simply saying that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil since 2001 isn't particularly good evidence that our strategy in combating terrorism is working. After all, it was just about 8 full years in between the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the second one on September 11th, 2001.

The "defending our freedoms" argument has always been used in wars throughout American history, but take the Vietnam War as a particular example. We lost the Vietnam War. It was bad, ugly, and everything worse than that. Since we lost, you would think that we must have lost many of our freedoms and libertieis, right? Not really. What freedom did I myself lose as a result of losing the Vietnam War? The government likes to say that we are protecting our freedoms when we engage in international wars, but we can now see that even when we lose, we didn't really lose any freedoms after all. Even though he has somewhat tried to distance himself from the Bush administration throughout this campaign and dismisses remarks about a McCain victory leading to a "Third Bush Term" in the White House, McCain thus far has proven only to perpetuate the myth and deception that Bush himself used to manipulate American public opinion to support this most unpopular of wars.

Cuba, becoming a "Global Citizen"

Over the course of the quarter, I've been mostly reading articles from CNN and BBC. I had to do this as an assignment for one of my classes as part of being an informed, “global citizen”, but I thought it would be worth posting on my blog since its relevant to politics. Ever since I made CNN my homepage, I feel like I’ve been much more informed about what’s been going on both in the United States and globally. I thought reading BBC would be a good idea because one of my Sociology professors always recommended reading a foreign newspaper to be able to draw a contrast between how news is covered in the United States and how domestic American news is covered by other news agencies abroad. Reading both CNN and BBC has given me an opportunity to see how articles covered by BBC about America are often much more critical and objective than the same kinds of stories covered by the American news media.

One of the most interesting articles I’ve read was an article from BBC entitled “Cuba Lifts Ban on Home Computers.” Ever since Raul Castro assumed the role of president after his brother Fidel stepped down, there have been a number of different restrictions on the Cuban people that have been lifted. The lift of the computer ban came just weeks after Cuban citizens were first given an opportunity to buy and use cell phones and purchase DVDs. I thought this was a very interesting article, especially given the proximity of Cuba to the United States.

In the midst of the Iraq War and Al Qaeda, I think Cuba is often forgotten in the minds of American citizens. Most Americans are too young or weren’t even born when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, which was arguably one of the most dangerous periods of this nation’s existence. This article served as a reminder of just how oppressive the conditions still are in that country. Even though computers are now finally being allowed for personal use, there is still a ban on the World Wide Web in Cuba. Many people often complain about the United States government and its encroachments upon individual liberties, but after reading this article it doesn’t appear that we’re restricted so badly after all relative to what others countries face.