Enviro-MENTAL Concerns

Why link to one environmental blog when I can discuss all of them?

I keep seeing environmentalists cling to Al Gore, despite repeated attacks on his credibility. Despite promoting a pamphlet that instructs people to live in straw huts (hopefully not in Cali, we don't need any more fires) and other such extreme measures, he flies in corporate jets that emit ridiculous amounts of carbon dioxide and hardly lives up to his lofty standards. Democratic environmentalists, why would you want a "Leer Jet Liberal" representing an interest that is so dear to you? Surely there are better people to chose from.

And what exactly is his environmental expertise again?

Dog Eat Dog World

Barney Cam is back at the White House. To spread a little bit of holiday cheer, as well as a message about National Parks we get to see a dog's eye view of the White House, featuring Barney, his love interest Miss Beazley, the Bush family, and Tony Blair.

Posting daily dog pictures doesn't only work for Dooce. Throw the White House a bone, will ya?

Democratic In-fighting

It's the top news on major blogs today: Democrats are at it again.

Instapundit highlights the news:

A BAD PRESS DAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS:
Washington Post: Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures
Wall Street Journal: Intraparty Feuds Dog Democrats, Stall Congress
Washington Post: Democrats Bow To Bush's Demands In House Spending Bill
The Hill: Dems Cave On Spending
USA Today Editorial: Surge's Success Holds Chance To Seize The Moment In Iraq – Democrats “Lost in Time”

Michelle Malkin takes a break from poking at Dems in her post, stating that "The Democrats are their own worst enemies." They're having a hard time getting legislation past the House and into the Senate, and it doesn't seem to be getting any easier as Congress is trying to wrap up for Christmas.

I wonder if this will show in the Democratic Debate tonight?

Children and TV

Should you feel guilty if your children spend a lot of time in front of the TV? Probably.

In evaluating what television shows are best for children to watch in terms of social and learning skills, Guernsey, author of "Into the Minds of Babes," writes: "The closer the product comes to simulating the way a good nursery school teacher or attentive parent talks to a young child, the better."

As the author of the article states, this is a chilling conclusion. What children need is parental involvement, not a television babysitter; if we don't like what our kids see on TV, parents need to take control. It is not the government's job to educate us outside of providing schools, or to subsequently limit what we see on TV. This, as I have argued in the past, simply eases personal responsibility but eventually leads to deterioration of civil liberties.

It's hard. Being a parent is incredibly demanding, especially in today's society where both parents will typically need to work outside the home to support a household. But don't we know our own children better than the government? If we can't protect them, then no one can. Playground effects are a concern, sure, but everyone deals with contamination in their life. Good parenting will get kids through it.

Feminists Dislike Billary

How many times have we heard, "If every woman in America votes for Hillary, she will win the election"?

Not so fast, Hillary has been getting nixed by nay-sayers. Why? "Hillary is not just another professional woman of my generation, who ought to inspire sisterly empathy. She is a throwback to an earlier era, when women found their place through their husbands."

Ouch!

Hillary's Slipping off the Coat-tails

Looks like things are getting rocky for Hillary. I am equally happy and amazed to see Obama is chipping away at her support in Iowa, and hope that the trend continues. While she is not the most liberal of the candidates, (Obama really has grabbed the more liberal left in the party, I wonder how that will bode for him if he wins the nomination) I find her lack of ability to give a straight answer, her having Bill campaign for her, and - let's not forget, her political socialize *cough* I mean stances - absolutely troubling.

Religion.. oy!

The buzz has been about Mitt Romney's speech on religion. Pundits have been parsing, secularists surveying, Republicans religifying.. you get the idea.

Like it or not, America is a religious country. It was part of our founding, continues to be part of American tradition, and it is rooted in the Constitution that we should respect it.

Honestly. Secularists who try to push religion into the corners of society forget that freedom of religion is what entitles them to have an opinion on this at all.

My take? Today's Mormon is yesterday's Catholic. When are we going to learn that religion is a personal belief, not a political stance, and get on to more important issues?

Waiting on the World to Change

While songs like Pink's Dear Mr. President can be polarizing and divisive, I believe there's a better way to present politics in music. Reminiscent of Lennon's peace-loving song Imagine is John Mayer's Waiting on the World to Change. His song boldly but pleasantly talks about our generation - of our complaints on the way things are, on world leaders and what's going wrong, but he sums us up perfectly: "One day our generation is gonna rule the population, so we keep on waiting - waiting on the world to change."

While I'm not a fan of posting lyrics in a blog, these are important, so they're down below.

Me and all my friends, we're all misunderstood
They say we stand for nothing - there's no way we ever could
Now we see everything is going wrong with the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means to rise above and beat it

So we keep waiting, waiting on the world to change
Its hard to be persistant when we're standing at a distance
So we keep waiting, waiting on the world to change

Now if we had the power to bring our neighbors home from war
They would've never missed a Christmas, no more ribbons on the door
When you trust your television, what you get is what you got
Cuz when they own the information oh, they can bend it all they want

So while we're waiting, waiting on the world to change
It's not that we don't care, we just know that the fight aint fair
So we keep waiting, waiting on the world to change

One day our generation is gonna rule the population,
So we keep on waiting, waiting on the world to change

Oprama

Original Post: Influence of celebrities on politics

It's always interesting to see where my fellow classmates stand. This is in response to a post on Oprah's endorsement of Obama and its effect on voters, and to one line in particular: "When one has made up their mind, the endorsement of a celebrity can persuade them to change who they want to vote for, which is not good for democracy."

One of the beautiful things about a democracy is that it allows for debate and freedom of opinion. Unfortunately, a consequence of that would be people following other's opinions blindly. However, is celebrity endorsement really bad for democracy? It enhances it - it opens up more conversation, especially since celebrities are prominently featured in the news. Whether the effects of this are desirable or not are debatable, but it is the way a democracy functions.

But is it good for the country? I have one thought on that. Pink's song Dear. Mr. President received some air time recently on z100, with one lovely little gem of a lyric attacking Bush: "You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine."

I wonder what she'd have to say about Obama.

Or is he off limits, since he's a Democrat?

From a Critic of Tribunals to Top Judge?

Original Artical: New York Times

On the front page of the New York Times today is an article about a paper criticizing the use of military tribunals. What makes this paper different than others, however, is that it was written by Judge Kohlmann in 2002, now the chief judge of military commissions in Guantanamo.

Having just conducted substantial research on military tribunals myself, I must agree that I am not fond of the military tribunals we have today. Kholmann writes, “even a good military tribunal is a bad idea.” Here is where I must dissent. A "good" military tribunal would be created by Congress and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice - i.e., due process would be provided in accordance with what is provided to POW's. A "good" military tribunal, therefore, would be reflective of what the citizens of this country think is needed to ensure our security.

My problem with today's tribunals are that they were created by the President, and have not been checked by the other branches of government. Congress has started to question the situation, ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that citizens have a right to challenge their detainment order, and in Hamden v. Rumsfeld that the military commission is illegal because it does not comply with the UCMJ.

To that I say.. no, really?!

This is what happens when we depart from the Constitution. Congress needs to check the President rather than acquiescing to him. But then again, this isn't new with President Bush - the same thing happened under FDR. Who am I to expect now what was never done over 60 years ago?

Katie Couric vs. Jon Stewart?

Unfortunately, I could not compare the 6:30 network news with the Daily Show due to the writers' strike (although, appropriately, the repeat Daily Show episode featured much discussion about Iowa).

What might have been interesting would be comparing Fox and Friends with the Colbert Report.. fans of Colbert I'm sure know why. Sadly, Colbert was a repeat as well.

The Daily Show is a primary news source for young adults. Although the show is meant to be a humorous political commentary, for many in the younger age demographic it is their only source of news. (It, too, has been accused of having a liberal bias, although Stewart has said that it's not his fault that it's easier to make fun of Republicans.) The writers' strike has been going on for weeks now, and this makes me wonder - how many high school and college age kids have any idea what is going on in politics at the moment? Sure, Barack put the Bomb in Obama - but without writers, who is putting the Stew in Stewart?

Hannity and Colmes

While tonight's episode was not particularly riveting, I always enjoy watching the short but passionate debates on this show. Tonight's focus was on the Republican debate in Iowa, the last before the caucus. Present was the founder of Luntz.com, which tracks audience approval/disapproval of comments made throughout the debate. (You can see it in the video below; if you are interested in participating, visit Luntz.com.)

Highlighted was one of the more humorous moments of the debate:
(Skip to around second 35)



Much speculation was made of this by the participators of the Luntz program, including that it seemed as though most Republican debates were moderated by a Democrat and that the atmosphere seemed rather hostile.

Tomorrow (12/13/07), coverage will be of the Democratic debate. If you're interested, be sure to tune in to watch the appropriately modified Colmes and Hannity (as Alan quipped) tomorrow.

Fox vs. CNN

Complaints about bias in major network news coverage are always around. Many Democrats detest Fox and write it off as unobjective hogwash, and Republicans respond by saying "Sure - give us every other news station - the liberal CBS, ABC, NBC, CNBC, CNN, BBC - oh, and all your liberal rags too, and we'll call it even."

Aside from the editorial programs, however, I didn't see much difference - at least today, where coverage of the Iowa debates was on every station. On CNN's "The Situation Room," the focus was on Obama and Hillary being tied for first in the state for Democrats, and Huckabee was described as being the front-runner in the state against Romney. Huckabee's comments on Mormanism, which will appear in the NY Times in their Sunday magazine, were discussed, and opinions were laid thick during the Cafferty File.

Back on Fox, discussion was also focused on the debates. The same issues were covered. While the opinionated bias of the Cafferty File was not mirrored and no real complaints were aired about the Democrats, Fox chose not to focus on them at all so there wasn't much opportunity for criticism. Overall there was slight bias on both sides, but nothing that didn't balance itself out. Now, if there were more channels like Fox, perhaps there would be greater balance overall.

YouTube, Where YouChoose the Politics

Although this blog offers evidence to the contrary, I have never been one to speak up about politics. In fact, for a period of time after 9/11, I specifically avoided the issue. When the topic of Iraq came up, opinion seemed to become so polarized that it was near impossible to discuss politics in a civil manner.

Then, I was listening to a classmate talk about his views one day. His knowledge amazed me, and realizing how little I knew, I just listened. I liked and disliked what I heard, but either way, his arguments were damned persuasive. This was an epiphany for me - talking about politics really could change someone's opinion!

So I figured that I should start talking, and what better place than to do it on YouTube? I started a channel called Crashtheparties that was going to be completely run by the viewers. It was to be an experiment - I would discuss whatever topics the majority of the viewers wanted. In time, if they asked for a specific or different opinion, I would give it. I wanted to see what people really wanted to hear.


Add a Comment

Ultimately, I pulled back from the channel after just one video. Part of me was uneasy about starting a record of my political opinion that would forever be around, but part of me is still curious, and I am reconsidering making more videos during winter break. If you are interested, leave a comment telling me what interests you.

All The President's Men

It's easy to criticize media. Some criticize it for being a corporation, where the real concern is about the bottom line. Others place the blame on reporters: issues of bias, just working for a paycheck, and lack of overall social concern hear much lip service.

It is in this light that I would like to discuss - no, praise - All the President's Men, for not only reminding us just how incredibly difficult it can be to write a story, of how morally tough it can be to publish a story regardless of one's patriotism, but also, for reminding us how money can be an incredibly attractive incentive.

After all, the reporters who got the ball rolling weren't doing it for the public good. In the beginning, Woodward and Bernstein had no idea what they were on to - they were just your average reporters, sitting at a desk, working on another story. But when there was hesitation to publish the story - when the leads got tough and dead ends seemed insurmountable - when the work and amount of hours put into a story seemed entirely unworth it - what kept the reporters going?

It was the hunch that they were onto something. It was knowing that if they were right, they would have a future career completely carved out for them. It was the very nature of media being a business that was about profit that made it work. The promise of future gains provided a large incentive not just for the reporters, but for the editors and publishers to risk their personal reputation, their jobs, and the reputation of an entire newspaper in printing a story that was based on a hunch. Like any employee, some work harder for the money than others, and for some, it really pays off.

Sometimes it's nice to have a reminder that amidst much criticism, there is a reason for why things are done the way they are.

Big Business vs. Big Government

Occasionally when I hear talk from political elites, I hear a phrase that rings true to the core of my ideology. Such was the case with a statement by Rush Limbaugh on the radio a few months ago. He stated that he can't understand why people are in such a rush to give more control to the government, when once the government is given that power, it is nearly impossible to get it back.

This is something I've always felt has been lost in modern day America. We forget, in our place on a pedestal as a world power, why the founding fathers wanted our government to be divided, separated, republican, and limited. Through the lens of great prosperity, especially with a stable and reflective government, we forget how easily the government can abuse such power. We are too comfortable and removed from the negative abuses that the founding fathers were still in touch with and hoped to prevent.

When something is broken, we want the government to fix it. Bad economy? Blame the President. No healthcare? Let the government take care of it. Unemployed? Let the government foot the bill since they didn't fix the economy. Gas prices are too high? Let the government go to war with other countries to fix that.

The logic is tongue-in-cheek, but a lot of Americans feel that way. We complain and blame the government at every turn when something goes wrong, and then turn around and blame them for their solutions. If we are so unhappy with how the government handles things, why should we give them more power that we can't get back? Big business, at least, is subject to the market. Government? Keep allowing it to expand, and watch your rights fade away. The personal responsibility of watching after your own healthcare may seem difficult, but far worse is when the loss of personal responsibility turns into the loss of civil liberty.

CBS Evening News With Katie Couric

There's something I didn't like about this news program, and I couldn't put my finger on it.

While it did cover some more serious issues - although they weren't too serious, they were actually about on a par with the light summary that the 5 o'clock news gave them - I didn't like the way the time discussing the issues was spent.

Several stories were lightly discussed:
- Severe weather in the midweast kills 32 people.
- Veterans are twice as likely to commit suicide than non vets.
- Car bombs in Iraq (covered in more depth than the news at 5)

Yet, the majority of time was spent on a segment called Primary Questions, where Couric asks the top Presidential candidates a new question with each broadcast. These questions are not meant to specifically be about the issues, but about the candidates' character. Some of the past questions, such as "What was your biggest mistake?" were actually quite enlightening. Others, like the question asked today, seemed like a waste of air time. While the question was something along the lines of "What country do you consider to be the biggest threat?" the answers were forced to be so superficial due to time constraints that it was disappointing. Additionally, the selection of candidates is odd; top tier candidates are represented, yet other important candidates like Ron Paul are not and certain unknowns are.

I suppose it shows how the air time that the media gives candidates affects their chances for winning.

Putting the "Loco" in "Local News Coverage"

After watching an enjoyable episode of Judge Judy, I left the television on to watch the local news coverage on CBS at 5. Contained in the not-so-local local news program were incidents of burning houses, molestation, rape, drunk driving, disappearances, murder, hate crimes, and female house keepers kept as slaves. Disbursed in between these "important" stories was news of Tina Turner's husband dying, Jessica Alba's pregnancy, and Time magazine's top awkward moments. To lighten up the end of the hour long news segment, a segment about the Barney Cam at the White House finished the program.

Now, I personally have never liked local news, but let me place this in a larger context. I visited Berkeley in California in the summer of 2004, the year that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 came out. I stayed with a family out there, and they treated me to a trip to the theater to watch this movie. I remember, as I strained to listen through my disdain, hearing about Michael Moore's theory of the government instilling fear in the country - or should I say, about Bush propagating this fear.

I was left to wonder, and watching this news program reminded me, why would someone like Moore try to blame Bush and the government for this? First of all, it is liberals who as part of their ideology want more government involvement in society; second, it is the media who really propogates this fear through broadcasts such as the one mentioned above. Ironic that Moore would bash Bush! It seems to me that that is counter to liberal ideology, especially when media, which many liberals feel is in the hands of "Big Business," would have been an apt and ideologically sound place to blame. Then again, I suppose that wouldn't be in the spirit of Bush Bashing, but I digress.

We all know that crime happens, so what is the news trying to convey? Crimes are given air time that is disproportionate to how often such crimes actually occur, or to their importance. Plus, since CBS has a large audience to provide for, "local" stories out of Boston, New York City, and southern New Jersey were covered. Everything in the news was focused on what happened in the past. Why can't the news be focused on the future? Why can't we discuss what members of our local government and our state government are doing? We embrace the concept of preventative medicine - why not embrace the idea of preventative news? Surely, local events are the one thing that citizens really can change.

Asking for a governmental department such as the FCC to come in and regulate this is unacceptable to me - please, let's not give Michael Moore any more movie fodder. But is this the news we really want to watch?