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.