What a difference a year makes

Heading in to the primary season last year I would have never guessed how this election process has turned out. I thought Romney would win the Republican ticket and that Clinton was a solid lock for the Democrats. Of course, this is why I am not a political analyst, and why I don't gamble.

Twelve months ago I wasn't even registered to vote. My view of the American political system was jaded, cynical, and bordered on a frustrated feeling of complete hopeless and powerlessness that lead to a strict stance of indifference. Two elections have come and gone since I was of legal age to vote. I had no part in either of them. I was a proud political conscientious objector. My indifference was my voice to the government. I was an educated non-voter; I followed the debates, the issues, and all of the different policies. Yet, I was never inspired to be politically active; I never felt as if there was a reason to exercise my right to vote or that my views would be heard.

All of that changed this year. As this political maelstrom that we call the race for the White House has grown larger and larger - sucking in various politicians' careers, American integrity, ethical behavior, and billions of dollars - I decided to register to vote. This was the first race that was interesting, inspiring, and made me feel as if I should be involved since I turned 18. Bush v. Gore? Bush v. Kerry? Boring. Uninspiring. Continued hopelessness.

This country is at a vital turning point. In 27 days, the people of this country will tell the coming generations what America truly stands for in the 21st century. At least, this is what the media tells me on a daily basis. I do believe this election is paramount, but not just because there will be a female vice-president or a minority president in the White House on Inauguration Day.

When Barack Obama and John McCain were selected to represent their respective parties I actually felt that no matter who won, America would have a strong, bright, respectable, and ethical man in the White House to lead us through the next four years. I may be a "secular progressive". I may have caucused for Obama. But if Clinton had won the nomination, I may have voted for McCain. Not because I believe Hillary isn't capable, but because I despised the campaign she ran. My dismissal of the American political system is rooted in my hatred for misleading and false ads, politicians that stir the racial-religious-social prejudice pot, empty campaign promises and platitudes, and self-interested politicians. Certainly a candidates stance on the economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy will guide my vote; however, for me the "big issues" are just as important as whether or not I respect the candidate.

I am a proud American. I am proud of this country's core beliefs. I am proud of what we have accomplished in this country, especially over the last 100 years. In turn, I want to be proud of the elected leaders of this country. I want to be proud of the actions of my fellow Americans. Lately, I have pride in neither. The mob-mentality of American voters over the last month has been abhorrent. The character assassinations and manipulations of social prejudices during the race for the White House has been repugnant.

On November 4th, 2008, we will be choosing more than just an elected official. We will be choosing more than just whether or not a Republican or Democrat sits in the Oval Office. We will be choosing whether or not, we as Americans, will tolerant our leaders to be elected via unethical and socially divisive politicking. I firmly believe that when your back is to the wall, your true character surfaces. Over the last couple of weeks each ticket has its back against the wall. The finish line is insight, time to dig deep and find the strength to sprint. Both campaigns have flip-flopped - which honestly is better than being too stubborn to admit you're wrong or acknowledge that society and solutions are in constant flux - both campaigns have pointed fingers, and both have used misleading statements to woo voters. Neither side's hands will be clean when they take office; however, it is John McCain that I have lost respect for, not Obama.

John McCain ran in 2000 as the reformer; the Maverick; the man who wasn't afraid to stand up to the Republican base even if meant he was unpopular. He stuck to his morals, his values, and it probably cost him the party domination. I can respect that. He fought for his country abroad and in Washington. I can respect that. In February, when the Clinton-machine was throwing mud and shit as fast as it could at Obama, and the right-wing media used Obama's middle name in a clear attempt to foment prejudice McCain denounced Bill Cunningham's "Barack Hussein Obama" mantra. I can respect that. Hell, I can vote for a man like that, even if he means "four more years of Bush in office" - and I foster extreme dislike for Bush, the Neo-Cons, and the Bush Doctrine. McCain's "Country First" slogan seemed real. Yet, today, I am left asking what happened to that John McCain?

In the last week he has had multiple opportunities to take the high ground, and failed to do so. When someone shouted "terrorist" at his rally he should have denounced the defamatory comment then and there on national TV. The use of Obama's middle name is a much more subtle reference to extremists and "evil"; yet, McCain quickly killed it. Where is that John McCain now? Multiple reports of derogatory comments by supporters at McCain/Palin rallies have been reported; even the possibility of a death threat - it doesn't matter if it's a real threat or not - was screamed at a rally in Clearwater, Florida. Accusations of treason have been lobbed at Obama. These are serious and frightening events. A person that values "Country First" and promises "Change is coming" should squash this uneducated, juvenile, bigoted, and odious behavior quickly and decisively. Instead, McCain's ads and silence only galvanizes and condones the bigots, the extremists, and the hate-mongers. What kind of America is he putting first? Does he want to be in the White House so badly that he is willing to ride the votes of people that believe Obama is the Antichrist, a black who doesn't know his place, or an Arab terrorist secretly plotting to give the United States over to his Muslim cabal?

I used to have a lot of respect for John McCain. I embraced his nomination instead of another puppet of the Christian Right; however, I was embracing the bipartisan John McCain circa 2000. The McCain that challenged Bush, the established Republicans, the Neo-Cons, the Christian Right, and stuck to his own beliefs over the clear desires of his party base. I was embracing the John McCain that confronted unfounded accusations and dirty political games head-on. A real Maverick would have told the Christian Right to get lost and would have nominated Lieberman instead of Palin. A real Maverick would tell his supporters that if they are voting for him solely because he's white, that he doesn't want their vote. A real Maverick would take the high road even if it's a harder and ultimately a losing road to the White House. A real Maverick values his own ethics and morals over political office. A real Maverick would accept losing if it meant that he was still respected. A real Maverick wouldn't want to win if it meant he was guilty of character assassination and galvanizing uneducated bigot rhetoric. A real Maverick brings positive change of reform through his actions and not just paying the lip-service to the idea through a campaign of platitudes and promises.

I wanted so hard to believe that McCain v. Obama would be different. I wanted so hard to believe America was ready to usher in a new era of open-mindedness and tolerance - that we truly are the greatest nation on Earth. I would have really enjoyed a race between McCain circa 2000 and Obama. I would have really enjoyed having to toil with who to vote for in my first time in the booth. I would have really enjoyed being proud of both candidates. I would have enjoyed believing that politicians do care about "Country First" instead of themselves and their cash flow. I would have really enjoyed seeing America change for the better. I really wish I still had "Hope" that "Change is coming."

Originally posted at: The Podium
Published in the Daily Iowan.

The loss of a "friend"

Last night I was "de-friended" on Facebook by a high school classmate. I haven't actually seen this man in over 10 years; Facebook was the only "interaction" we have had in the last decade. I will admit that lately the correspondence has been one-sided, and perhaps even a little aggressive - but it's an election year, right?

In the course of the last month I have responded to various attacks on the Democratic party by "friends" who post items or notes through Facebook. My attacks are never personal, and usually nothing more than an attempt to play Devil's Advocate or counter the partisan post. My language is never vulgar; my arguments never defamatory. I view the interaction as an attempt to exercise the my right to free speech and the necessary process of political discourse when it is brought up in a public forum; especially in an election year with as much pandering, platitudes, and potshots as this race has witnessed.

I don't usually respond to Facebook notes, items, or even pictures. I may peruse the various posts of my friends, but rarely do I voice my opinion on political issues on Facebook. This summer has seen a stark change in my reserved behavior; mainly due to a lack of anyone else trying to fight the clear fallacies spread about Obama - this includes Obama himself, causing me much ire.

My first real venture into the political debate with - for all intensive purpose - an almost complete stranger was last month when I fired back at posts by a friend's sister-in-law. The sparring went back-and-forth with red herring and straw man arguments from her side, and simple questions of where she found her information from me mixed with challenges of her arguments. In the end, I was told I was childish and if I didn't didn't like her posts, then I shouldn't read them. She claims she has a right to post as she sees fit because of the First Amendment; evidently, I don't have a right to rebut her claims as I see fit under the same Constitution.

My other sparring match was with the aforementioned "casualty" of Facebook friendom. This gentleman posted snide comments about Obama's campaign being like China for boycotting and protesting a radio program in Denver during the DNC. When I countered his argument that no free speech was being silenced and then brought up the RNC riots and arrests of reporters, he never responded. He would post notes and items attacking Obama and I would riposte leading to no response until last night.

Why post items on a public forum such as Facebook, if you cannot handle defending your positions? I have posted many articles recently and I willing to discuss with any willing person as to why I posted them and discuss the arguments contained within those op-eds and news articles. It's not a matter of "if you don't like it, change the channel", so much as it is "if you can't handle the heat, then get of the kitchen."

Just when you think you're out...

Well Sprinters, I'm back. Oddly enough, it's been exactly a year since I posted last and what a year it has been.

The presidential campaign, cowardly media, slanted radio hosts, financial crisis, and continued Middle East turmoil have pulled me back into the blogosphere. This time, however, I'm angry. Angry at the politicians that gave me hope, angry at the opposing politicians for being so self-serving even at the cost of America's success, angry at the media for letting the politicking, smears, blatant lies, and bigotry go unpunished, angry at Americans for being so blind, partisan, and cowardly, angry at our government for letting the average American drown in debt while bailing out corporate execs, and angry at myself for how powerless it makes me feel.

The mad dash to midnight seems looming and the race has picked up pace.

The New Boogeyman

Over the last few days al-Qaeda has been linked to three terrorist attacks outside of Iraq: Yemen, Scotland, and London.

Perhaps I under estimate the power and reach of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri but it seems like anything that goes wrong is linked to al-Qaeda. They are the modern day boogeymen. The Yemenese are blaming al-Qaeda for the deaths of Spanish tourists in an attack that echoes the much deadlier attack at Luxor in 1997. An attack that was not committed by al-Qaeda but Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya and Jihad Talaat al-Fath - while al-Qaeda claims al-Gama'a Islamiyya has since joined the ranks of al-Qaeda they were autonomous in 1997. While the Yemenese government believes "al-Qaeda could be involved" the article also mentions that they are prone to blame unrest on al-Qaeda.

The car bomb threat in the UK is also being linked to al-Qaeda. The UK officials stated that the threat is linked to al-Qaeda personnel or associates in a "general way."

If al-Qaeda is as far reaching and influencial as the media and government agencies tell us then the "war on terror" is going to end up with the "evil" side winning. Al-Qaeda is like The Hand or the Illuminati. They seemingly control the world and are behind every crime committed on the planet. It may be true they al-Qaeda inspires regional groups to cowardly attack civilians but that doesn't mean that al-Qaeda organized it or aided the attack in anyway. If inspiration is enough the United States would be behind every attack linked to al-Qaeda. The United States not only trained and aided some of al-Qaeda's top officials, it inspires them to kill noncombatants through our Israeli support, "immoral" lifestyle, and prescence in the land of Islam's holiest cities.

While linking every terrorist attack on the planet to al-Qaeda certainly rallies the victims to support their repsective governments in their fight against Islamist radicals and the "war on terror", it also has the equally damning result of making al-Qaeda that much more mythic. We are feeding the myth that al-Qaeda can take down the "Crusaders" and the powerful West.

Pack Your Knives

It seems Padma Lakshmi is in the market for a new 'Top Chef' of her own. At her bequest, Salman Rushdie has agreed to end their marriage. I don't mention this as a matter of gossip, but because I found the BBC blurb to contain unnecessary information.

While I understand the reference to the knighthood and the international row that it caused. I found the mention of the life threatening fatwa and "Islamic condemnation" to be superfluous in an article about a celebrity split.

The article doesn't even place the mentioning of the fatwa in succession with the blurb about the knighthood row. Not to mention that the statement referring to "Islamic condemnation" strikes me as essentializing the Islamic world. Not every Muslim condemned the novel. And when did the BBC News turn into a tabloid rag reporting celebrity gossip?

The Ultimate Betrayal

When everything you know and understand has gone to pot, you always have your personal perception of your life. Your emotions, thoughts, and recollections are intrinsically unique. They are yours and only made public if you so wish to share them. No one should ever be able to take away your freedom of conscience or your ability to trust in your own feelings and perceptions. People. time, and tragic events may be able to take way your the ability to function in everyday life. Aside from the natural decline in memory and agility, we can generally trust our own instincts, emotions, and perceptions.

Not being able to trust our own body and the information it is communicating to us is a terrible event. Long-term medical diseases like Lou Gehrig's disease or Alzhemier's are horribly painful for the victim and those around them. Enemies don't even wish such fate's on each other.

Losing control isn't limited to neurological or physical ailments. Sometimes the unknown is just as debilitating. Modern medicine is supposed to have the answers. Even a terminal diagnosis brings with it a plan of action; a possible remedy to pursue is discussed and treatment is commenced.

For almost a year now by body has waged war on itself. No one is quite certain what the cause or even the ailment is. Doctor's are fairly certain it's not malignant or terminal, but that does little to stymie the fears of getting through the day when pain or a lack of control take over. It had gotten to the point that I didn't remember what it felt like to feel normal. Luckily, the current treatment seems to be working, with only minor spells of panic, pain, or discomfort.

My thoughts and sympathies go out to those that are suffering a much more severe form of sickness and disabilities than me, and to the families that have to cope with the difficulties associated with slowly or even quickly watching a person's body turn against them.

Man United?

It seems Sony is stirring the pot over in Manchester. ("Cathedral to demand Sony apology")

Sony claims that they have permission to use the interior of Manchester Cathedral in their upcoming game Resistance: Fall of Man. Of course the cathedral spokesperson says "not so fast Sony."

My favorite part of the whole shinanigans is the 4 part demand on the part of Manchester Cathedral. They want Sony to help fund social groups in Manchester to help fight gun crimes. I thought England didn't have a right to bear arms? This seems like something the police need to focus on more than an entertainment corporation. Of course, this suggests that violent video games lead to real life violence. It's possible, I'm not an expert in psychology or sociology, but I have a hard time following the argument that violent video games lead Manchester to have a higher gun crime rate. My guess is the problem is a deeper socio-economic conflict. Mental note: don't piss of a ManU fan, he might be piss drunk and pull a Desert Eagle on you a la Snatch.

Shawskank Redemption*

The daily soap opera that is the "incarcerated" life of Paris Hilton has taken a new twist. Every person able to watch, listen to, or read a TV or news website, has surely been informed of the socialite's release from a California jail. It's received more press than the G8 Summit.

Sheriff Baca stated that she was released for "medical reasons;" yet the sheriff refused to expound upon his statement for "privacy reasons." The blogosphere and news outlets have been full of rampant speculation as to what the major "medical" problem is. I had heard everything from a rash to a refusal to eat prison food, and from sleep deprivation to claustrophobia.

Baca is further quoted as saying, "The problem here is that there is a medical issue and it isn't wise to keep a person in jail with her problem over an extended period of time and let the problem get worse." I'm a little confused, but shouldn't a modern prison facility have a medical ward? We're not talking about Devil's Island, Abu Ghraib, Chateau d'If, Old Tolbooth, or The Maze. It's a modern day Los Angelos prison, with a wing designed to keep celebrities, police officers, and politicians from mingling with the general prison population. (see BBC Article). I don't remember any other inmates getting out recently because they missed their caviar or 24 carat ring - which I saw on a news show once, it was obscene, even by legal standards.

Something I will rarely say, but I agree with Rev. Al Sharpton in this BBC article on the subject. This release by the sheriff smacks of favoritism. It seems Baca is sheriff by day and a fighter for social justice and inequity by night. He is quoted as saying, "My message to those who don't like celebrities is that punishing celebrities more than the average American is not justice." I agree that punishing celebrities more than the average Joe Schmoe is not equal justice and is a poor use of our justice and penal systems. However, I fail to see how the punishment that Ms. Hilton received was more severe than other probation violators. As my previous post described, her attorney claims the cell was too small and isolated, yet is designed to protect her. Baca's logic only works if: 1) Keeping celebrities with unnamed medical conditions is more severe in punishment than keeping non-celebrities with the same medical condition or 2) Ms. Hilton received a worse sentence merely because she has celebrity status. Violating probation can lead to imprisonment of the entire sentence for the original crime. In Iowa, a DUI usually leads to a 6-month deferred sentence. However, a violation of your probation gives the court the discretion to incarcerate you for the entire six months that it originally deferred. I may not be familiar with the laws of CA but I doubt it's much different.

Ms. Hilton -unless the judge rules otherwise- will get to spend 40 days in house arrest. Baca made a big deal to point out she won't be able to leave her home. Sorry, but 40 days in a four-story 1920's Hollywood mansion is not a deterrent. ET showed a delivery van bringing Ms. Hilton her favorite cupcakes and two friends coming to visit. It seems her "medical" concerns have abated quite quickly. Hopefully the air of the Hollywood hills and cupcakes will allow her to heal better than would have otherwise happened under state doctor supervision.

Of course, since writing this and before I could post it after work, Ms. Hilton was taken back to her cell, kicking and screaming the entire way. She now has to serve the full 45 day sentence in jail as opposed to the 23 day sentence she was originally required to serve after 'good behavior.' She screamed "[i]t's not right" at the judge while in tears after the sentence can down. She also screamed for her mommy... how more cliche can you get?

* The title is borrowed from the 7-Jun-2007 Daily Show with Jon Stewart, in which Jon stated they would not be covering the Hilton saga but if they did the story might be titled "The Shawskank Redemption."

The Hilton Prison Suite

Ms. Hilton's lawyer is complaining that his client's prison stay is cruel and unusual punishment. Okay, he didn't use those words but he is saying that it's unfair. Evidently, Ms. Hilton is in a confinement/isolation cell. Her lawyer is complaining that 45 days in isolation (23 of 24 hours in her cell) isn't fair and a normal person would have been placed in a dormitory with other inmates, which would make the time go faster for Ms. Hilton. All she did, he says, is drive on a suspended license while on probation. Of course, he convienently left out the part that it was probation for a DUI.

I am pretty sure that reason Ms. Hilton is in the isolation cell is so that she doesn't have to interact with the "common folk" in the prison population; most likely a move for her safety rather than as extra punishment for being an hotel heiress. I doubt the court system or prison is really all that troubled that Ms. Hilton's time isn't passing very fast. It's the penal system, not summer camp. Although, if every person that went to prison for a DUI received isolation treatment, we might have less repeat offenders.

Just look at it this way, it'll give Ms. Hilton time to write her book on life in the klink.

Standardizing My Future

As I start to prepare for the GRE, I am reminded of why I hate standardized tests. The Kaplan book clearly states that succeeding on the GRE is dependent upon mastering the GRE game. A clear admission that the GRE doesn't actually test your ability to earn a post-graduate degree. In three years of law school I wasn't once asked a test question of this nature: "You have a book shelf with five missing books. You want to re-shelf the books but notice instructions on the wall. It says that Torts cannot be placed next to Admin Law. Con Law cannot be in front of or behind Civil Procedure..." you get the picture.

The reading comprehension and analytical writing sections at least make sense when deciding whether or not the potential student is capable of forming an argument and analyzing dense material. The line of reasoning of logic games, antonyms, and synonyms as measuring tool for future success is lost on me. Perhaps that just means I am not fit for post-graduate studies, aye?