31 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/06/09 4:03am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As I have stated before, I like to torture myself often. Part of me torturing myself includes watching Glenn Beck every day at 5 p.m. on Fox News. For the most part, I think the guy is a raging lunatic. Normally what he says gets no response out of me. But last Thursday, his show prompted me to respond.On a segment of his show called “Refounding America,” he accused President Obama and others associated with him and his administration of being revolutionaries who are trying to stamp out free speech, grow our government into either a communist or socialist government and bring an end to the free market as we know it. He went on to make comparisons between the founding father “revolutionaries” and the modern “revolutionaries,” saying that the founding fathers had the interest of all in mind and that today’s “revolutionaries” only have special interests in mind.Again, Glenn Beck’s rants usually doesn’t provoke a response from me, but this one did. Ever since the Lehman Brothers collapsed last summer, we have turned on the television and read newspapers to hear story after story of corporate corruption, million-dollar scams and people legally being screwed out of savings and homes that they have earned by working hard for years. All of these things have occurred under a capitalist society. I will not say that it is a true free market society, but it is a capitalist society. One can sit back and blame all of this on the deregulation of the Bush administration or blame it on special interests or say that what Obama is doing with all the efforts to control or regulate the market is worse than what we had before. For the sake of this article I don’t really care where you rest. But I do care if you have a mind that is capable of thinking outside of the box that we have been trained to think in since elementary school. Because if you can, I challenge all of you to think of something more.I do not believe that Obama is trying to destroy capitalism or the free market, as Glenn Beck suggests. I firmly believe he is trying to preserve the market as it has been. He is trying to heal the market. My issue is that maybe that is the problem. Whether the market is regulated or deregulated, the disenfranchised continue to be ignored.Speaking of the Declaration of Independence, if we have inalienable rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” shouldn’t the pursuit of happiness be a pursuit of all and not just of individuals? Should it not be a society where all have an EQUAL chance to obtain equality? I understand and agree to some extent with the laissez-faire idea that inequality of some sort promotes competition, which is good. But the market of today has made it useless for millions to begin the pursuit to better themselves because not only will they not achieve their American dream, they barely make it out of their American nightmare. Whatever you think of capitalism, free market, socialism or laissez-faire, we need an economy where everyone has a chance to crash and burn, not just burn.
(10/15/09 2:37am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Growing up, I was always a big fan of the fall. The fall for me was the time when my dad and I would bond over the ups and downs of cheering for the Chicago Bears. My love for the Bears was inherited. Before I knew what life was all about, I had a poster of the late and great Walter Payton on the wall over my bed and a cozy Bears hat, handmade by my grandmother, on my head. My dad would tell me stories of how my first birthday was celebrated with a victory in the SuperBowl by the best team in NFL history. From that point on, my love for the Bears continued to grow. Through my love for the Bears, my love for my dad grew also. Every Sunday was like a mini-holiday of my dad and I watching Bears football. Even as a little kid, I remember staying at home to watch football despite my mom wanting me to go to church.My mom knew it was a waste of time to even try to get us to go instead of watching the Bears’ game. We knew our priorities. Many of the Sundays spent together were life lessons that as a kid I never thought much of, but as I’ve gotten older they have stuck with me. One thing that comes to mind now is my dad telling my sister and I that there are two words you will hear in life more than any other words; ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ He said we would hear ‘no’ a lot more than ‘yes’ and that we have to learn how to deal with it.Another lesson I learned on fall Sundays was that family and faith are more important than football. My dad became a minister, and that was the end of early Sunday Bears football. But that did not take away from our love for the Bears. We found ways to keep track of our team whenever the Bears were not playing a late game. Sometimes, we would find a way to leave church early in time to catch the fourth quarter, or we could always catch highlights. In those days, the Bears often lost, but the fact that my dad was as into it as I was made it cool no matter how many times we got crushed.Nine years ago today, we laid my dad to rest. He was 54. I was 15 at the time, and it was devastating. Over the course of the last nine years it has been rough for me without my dad around. But one thing that every fall and every Sunday brings back warm memories of him is Bears’ football. As the season goes on and people cheer for their teams for various reasons, my loyalty will always rest with the Chicago Bears, because I will always love my Dad. I will always love you, Dino, and I hope I am making you proud.
(10/07/09 1:33am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Sometimes, just for the fun of it, I like to torture myself. I can’t really explain it but sometimes I go to great measures to torture myself.
For example, sometimes I like to eat salads in efforts to lose weight,
or see how long I can be at Kilroy’s Sports without having deep twisted
homicidal thoughts, or go to church only to be reminded that the drinks
I had last night are going to send me to hell and there’s not much I
can do about it.
Perhaps my favorite and most frequent form of self-torture is my
cheapest. All it requires me to do is turn to either CNN, MSNBC or Fox
News.Like
most Americans, I like to know what is going on in the world. I like to
be informed and engaged in the events and happenings around me.
To do this, logically I turn to news sources. I turn to multiple
sources such as newspapers like the New York Times or the Chicago
Sun-Times, or online sites like Huffington Post and Politico. But
an even more logical thing to do is turn to a 24-hour news station. I
mean what can give me better, more up-to-date reports on events and
happenings than a station that’s dedicated to covering nothing BUT
news. Right?
The problem with that logic is that now days, as I watch the news, I
realize that 24-hour news channels are to the news like the WWE is to
“wresting.” These
days, to call what you see on Fox News or CNN “news” is pushing it at
best. At any given time, I turn to either of the channels to get news.
Instead I get old, ugly, rich white men who are more out of touch with
society than the politicians telling me what the American people are
thinking and/or what I should think as an American. Instead
of getting good unbiased news, I have to listen to Glenn Beck telling
me that everyone in Washington is out to destroy America and that Obama
is a communist, or Ed Schultz telling me that ‘he’s crazy liberal and
you should be, too!’
On top of all of this, I have people like Nancy Grace and Greta Van
Susteren telling me about every kidnapping or slimy murder case in the
country.I have said multiple times that a healthy democracy cannot exist without a healthy media.
With that said, 24-hour news channels are the worst thing to happen to entertainment since Andrew Lloyd Webber. When
I think about it, it makes sense. Anything that is dedicated to one
thing 24-hours a day and seven days a week is bound to suck at some
point.
Anything done too much is bound to be more bad than good. The
problem when it comes to news channels is that Americans trust these
sources that in the end care less about giving you good news and more
that you are watching them all day, every day.
Therefore, they put people on air equivalent to the crazy nutcase that
screams out stupid stuff at town hall meetings and gives them a show.So, to all my readers out there, don’t torture yourself like me. Diversify
your news sources and don’t believe everything you see on TV. In the
words of Congressman Joe Wilson, I say to 24-hour news stations: “You
lie!”
(10/01/09 2:25am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I grew up in a city that is unfortunately known for crime: Gary, Ind. It is a great city that has a bad reputation. Among crimes, it’s mostly known for its run through the 1990s as being the murder capitol per capita of America. Gary has cleaned up its act over the years, but crime continues to be a problem that plagues many places in America. Considering this, one would think that Gary – or any other place in the country for that matter – already has enough guns and need no more. One would think that we have enough accurate shooters and need no additional training, but there is a nice guy in South Carolina who couldn’t disagree with you more.I would like to introduce you to one Dean Allen. Dean Allen, I assume, is a good guy. He is from South Carolina. I assume that he is loved in the community by many. What I do not have to assume is that he is an army veteran who has served this country with honor and dignity. He is also an aspiring politician who is in love with his country and it’s constitution – in particular, one very special amendment.Dean Allen is running as a GOP candidate in South Carolina for the office of adjutant general. When referring to an adjutant general of a state, this general is in charge of the state’s military operations, in particular, the National Guard. South Carolina is the only state in the union that elects this position, which, for me, raises another set of issues. But in order to raise money for his campaign, Dean Allen decided to have a “machine gun social.”You read it right. According to the Greenville News, GOP candidate Dean Allen invited 500 of his closest friends out to a shooting range Saturday. For $25, attendees got good ol’ southern barbeque and a clip of bullets to practice their aim at the shooting range where he had this little “machine gun social.” To make it even more exciting, all who attended had a chance to win a semiautomatic AK-47. That’s right, for one low rate of $25 you can win an army-killing machine known as an AK-47. I mean, what a great idea. It’s not like we don’t have enough guns on the streets – let alone dangerous guns on the streets. Give them more! In fact, give them one of the most dangerous guns out there, show them how to shoot it, and have a great day! According to Associated Content, 2005 saw 16,692 people murdered in America. That’s not enough – murder more! You want to talk about an abuse of an amendment? Say what you will, but having hopeful government officials and former army veterans showing people how to shoot and giving them bullets isn’t what the founding fathers thought of when they came up with the Second Amendment. It’s like a police officer having a bar running out of the trunk of his car and giving people their keys to go home. Or it’s like a priest having naked girls outside the confessional grabbing guys on the crotch as they wait for confessionals. Basically, I am saying that the government or people that hope to be in government shouldn’t encourage such things! Not a good idea, Dean Allen.
(09/23/09 1:55am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last week, former President Jimmy Carter smacked the five-ton elephant in the room square on the ass.Ever since Barack Obama was elected president, some have naively suggested that his election was the sign that America had finally moved past its race issues. To support this, experts pointed to the fact that Obama won in states that many would think a black candidate wouldn’t win. Many hoped that this election would finally begin the process of healing in America. Last week Carter said, “Not so fast, my friend!”Since the health care reform talks have heated up, genuinely concerned Americans have hit the streets to protest the reform. Most of the things the protesters have shown concern about are understandable, such as the cost of this whole shebang, how this will affect current happy holders of health insurance and how this is a sign of increased government intrusion.But as people have hit the streets to protest, some of the methods used and accusations levied on Obama have been repugnant. Some of these questionable methods of protests include comparing Obama to Hitler or bin Laden. The worst among these were comparisons to monkeys and remarks that his health care should be buried with him.Commenting on this and other negative protests that Obama has endured, Carter suggested that racism is the true undercurrent behind many of the protesters. In an interview with MSNBC last week, he said an overwhelming amount of animosity towards Obama “is based on the fact that he is a black man.” He also said that at the heart of this is that many whites feel that blacks aren’t capable of leading this great nation.Critics accused Carter and the liberals of playing the race card. Many said that the protesters are just voicing their concerns over genuine issues. They said race has nothing to do with it, and that it’s more a fear of Obama and the government taking over and stripping them of their rights.Yeah right – of course racism is involved. Anyone that says that racism is not at the heart of a good portion of the protests are being foolish. I will not say that all of the protesters are racist, but the fact that Obama is a black man is no doubt fueling the harsh animosity of many. It’s America, people. Obama’s election didn’t change that. In fact, for all the talk about Obama changing things, he was elected president while only winning 45 percent of the white vote, according to abcnews.com exit polls. I’m not saying everyone who didn’t vote for him is racist, but racism played a part of it.America is a racist nation. Everyone is racist. Not just whites, but blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other ethnic groups that have been here for a long time. It’s hard not to be racist in a nation that defines everything, from crime to food to where one lives, along racial lines. It’s as American as bad beer and McDonalds. We must recognize who we are as a nation. With Obama as president, racism will continue to play a part in the opposition. So if you don’t like what Carter said, don’t get upset with him, get upset with society.He is just stating the truth.
(09/15/09 3:53am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Before I get into the point of this article, I will come out and say that I am an Obama supporter. Not only am I an Obama supporter, I spent most of last year working as an intern on the local Obama campaign. It was one of the best times of my life. Even after the campaign and inauguration, I have remained active with the local and national political movement. I say that to emphasize that I am not another blind and brainwashed Obama supporter jumping to his rescue. But I have to address something.A few weeks ago, I attended a Monroe County Democratic fundraiser dinner. At this dinner Rep. Baron Hill told a brief story of an older woman coming up to him and sincerely asking him, “Are they really gonna kill us for being too old?” The rumor of death panels is an idea that has been spread and perpetuated by health care enemies. It says that the new plan calls for people to go around and basically tell old people if they are sick or well enough to live and give them a pill of sorts to help them die. This would be funny if not for prominent Republicans such as Sarah Palin and others feeding into the idea, and if these weren’t the only attacks being levied on this administration.Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are on personal campaigns to convince the public that Obama’s health care plans are the beginning of the president’s plan of taking over the government, turning it into a communist regime and going all Vladimir Putin on his critics. Their followers have been seen all summer at town hall meetings turning what is supposed to be civic discussions about health care into events that should be hosted by Jerry Springer. My favorite of all the claims is that Obama is the next Hitler and/or the anti-Christ and that we are all doomed in his hands.I absolutely have no problem with anyone that criticizes the president. In fact, I believe that public criticism of the president is necessary for a healthy democracy. Hell, even I don’t agree with the president 100 percent and I have major issues with what I have heard about the health care reforms so far. But resorting to some of the tactics that his opponents have in recent months is going to do nothing but get us nothing. I know some will point out the harsh treatment and push back that George Bush received and say that this is justified. But it is unjustified on both accounts. If you want to criticize the president, follow the lead of the tea party people who raised serious concerns about how to pay for all of this. Or you can raise concern as to whether the public option will be run by another failing insurance company. Or perhaps ask whether the politicians will take the time to do health care reform right. See, there are plenty of things one could raise concerns about outside of convincing people that Obama is the devil in the flesh.This is a huge moment in American history. Health care has been a major problem for many Americans for years and years, including myself; I have lived the past five years without health care insurance. If you think the president’s plan is a bad idea, that’s fine.Express yourself. I am sure the president isn’t trying to silence you. All I ask, especially of the educated Hoosier state, is to not feed into illogical theories and come up with good fact-based concerns and arguments. Only then can the country as a whole finally get to something that will be beneficial for all.
(03/24/08 1:05am)
For a while I actually forgot about everyone’s favorite whipping boy. I got so caught up in the campaigns of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and all the fun they bring that I forgot we had a president. I forgot that everyone’s favorite cowboy, President George W. Bush, or, as I often like to call him, “W,” still resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. \nI don’t know how I could forget such a guy. He’s been the leader of the free world for eight years now. He’s the “decider,” the “compassionate conservative” and perhaps the greatest orator we have ever had. Then I realized that not only I but maybe the rest of the country has forgotten about this guy, too.\nA recently released poll revealed that Bush’s approval ratings are now at 31 percent. Let me repeat that. Only 31 percent of the country approves of Bush’s work in the White House. This means roughly 70 percent of the country thinks he is doing a lousy job or that they just forgot he is still in office. This is March, and with the basketball tournament going on, maybe putting it in sports terms would make it clearer. Let’s say your favorite sports team only won 31 percent of its games. Would you be happy with its performance? Then again, what the American people think doesn’t matter, right?\nI believe most Americans are just flat-out stupid. If you disagree with me, then you probably fit into the stupid category. But here’s what I have to say to that: Considering the stupidity of most Americans, it is very likely that people just forgot about “W.” I mean, with so many people today being diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder, it is possible that he has just slipped people’s mind. Or maybe you were distracted by the “Obama girl” or the pure hotness of Hillary. So, in honor of Bush’s “great” approval ratings and great presidency, and to remind others that he’s still in office, I bring you three top Bush quotes to show off his great oratory skills.\n1. When referring to his 2000 presidential campaign, he said, “If you’re sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come join this campaign.” Because, you know, principles are trivial and unimportant. So are polls that tell us how the people feel about what’s going on. They focus on the important stuff.\n2. “It’s clearly a budget. It’s got a lot of numbers in it.” Yeah, and to that I say, it’s clearly a newspaper, it has a lot of words in it – or is it a book? A magazine? A flyer? Aww crap, I’m confused. I wish I could think as clearly as our president.\n3. This shows the complex nature of “W”: “I have opinions of my own – strong opinions ... but I don’t always agree with them.” \nThat’s deep, people. If you have any other great quotes, please e-mail them to me. I can use the entertainment.
(03/16/08 11:58pm)
Barack Obama did it! Dangit! He did it. I was hoping he wouldn’t. He was doing so well for so long, and everyone loved him. He has been the media’s darling throughout the whole process. (Yes, the media is harder on Hillary Clinton. It’s just easier.) He’s been speaking of hope and change and uniting America. He’s spoken of not a “red America“ or a “blue America,” but of a United States of America. He’s had some people feeling cheesier and more inspirational than after a workout with Richard Simmons. Then, his true colors were exposed. Not by him, but by people around him.\nIn case some of you were too busy this last week bathing in the sun and busting out in uncontrollable beach musicals where everyone can sing as well as the people in “From Justin to Kelly,” a lot of interesting things have been said exposing Obama’s – and Clinton’s – true colors. First, former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro stated that Obama was only successful because he was black. Good one, Ferraro. Then the Reverend Jeremiah Wright recently gave a sermon suggesting that Clinton doesn’t know what it feels like to be a poor black kid growing up in a country dominated by rich white men. He suggested that some Americans want Clinton to win because she is a part of the status quo. Wright has surely said plenty of other things about Clinton and about America for which I’m not here to dispute or argue. But more than anything, both of these people have exposed to everyone that Obama is black and Clinton is a woman.\nI know this might come as a surprise to some people, considering that some Americans attempt to walk around with blinders all day. But this is another example of Americans trying to sweep the impact of the past under the rug. Some would like to believe that race and gender have absolutely nothing to do with the excitement that has been generated by both candidates. Then again, some people think I’m cute.\nSince this presidential campaign has begun, some people have tried as hard as they could to ignore the big elephant in the room. I believe it’s because America is still not ready to deal with the dark past and present of race and gender issues in America. Some people still don’t want to accept that America is a country controlled by rich white men who have in many ways continued to oppress anyone who doesn’t fit into the rich white man club. But that’s America. It always has been and, unless drastic changes occur, always will be. The thing that makes all of this remarkable is that a woman and a black man have a good shot at a rich white man’s office. There. I said it. If we really dealt with our issues as a nation, these possibilities wouldn’t be such a crazy notion.
(03/03/08 4:02am)
In analyzing American voting history, political scientists have always tried to group certain blocks of people together to get a good idea of who is voting for whom and who is being neglected. For example, during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s era, African Americans, poor whites and southern whites were generally associated with the Democratic Party. This trend changed a bit during the civil rights era as whites, in particular white men, tended to vote Republican more often. Loosely speaking, this has been how political scientists have drawn the line over the years. Now, one of the beauties of the white male demographic when it comes to politics is that one usually can’t group all white men into one political pool because they are large in number. But white men are generally always accounted for. Their views are usually always heard. You never have to worry about the white men being neglected in the presidential elections. They are well represented. (See the last 43 presidents). But apparently this trend is changing.\nAccording to CNN.com, this year’s election is unique in that the white man is the overlooked swing vote on the Democratic side. No, that is not a typo, the white man. Apparently, with blacks voting strongly for Barack Obama, and women and Latinos voting strongly for Hillary Clinton, the white man has been left out in the cold. It seems the candidates have been focusing a great deal of energy on building the base of voters they know they can get strong support from and less energy on a group of people that generally votes Republican. But according to experts, the white male vote is important for both Obama and Clinton, and neither Texas nor Ohio can be won without the ever-so-important white male vote.\nSince the beginning of the Democratic Party, every one of the 14 individuals who represented the party in the White House were white males. In fact, I’m sure it will only come as a surprise to a few of you (and to those who find this surprising, bless your soul) that every U.S. president has been a white male. So excuse me for finding it ironic and comical to hear some suggest that in the first presidential election where it is guaranteed that the two Democratic candidates combined will be a better representation of the American people than any other election in history, that the white man is being forgotten.\nThis reminds me of the people that try to suggest that the white man is losing the country. And to that I say, who are you losing it to? I think it is safe to say that the white man will always be taken care of in America, no matter what his party affiliation is. Almost the entire political process is reflective of the white man. Don’t worry – you will get yours. Let the rest of us get ours.
(02/25/08 2:36am)
It’s been more than a year since major presidential hopefuls such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others announced their candidacies for the White House. Each candidate stood in front of all their supporters, many just regular, everyday Americans, and gave grand speeches explaining why they felt the country “needs them at this moment in history.” They all tried to give the kind of speech that would inspire a nation, or at least inspire the crowd of people that sat before them. They ordered the crowd to be the change in the nation they wish to see (in the case of Obama), or they assured the crowd they have the experience that we need to lead us through these dark times (in the case of Clinton or John McCain). Too often, though, after many of these intentionally bone-chilling speeches, the everyday men and women who froze their butts off to listen to them are forgotten; the men and women who saw the speeches from their nice, cozy offices while smoking their cigars that cost more than my bedroom set become the most important people to the candidates.\nThe reason for this is that money has become the name of the game. There have been attempts over the years to control campaign spending, but they obviously haven’t been very successful – in 2007 Hillary raised more than $118 million and Obama $103 million.\n Again, people, this is just in an attempt to receive the party nomination! Considering it’s illegal for companies to donate anything over $5,000 to a particular campaign, one must wonder how these candidates get so much money. (And this leads one to wonder who is in bed with whom.)\nAnother sign of money controlling everything and the little man being forgotten is all the endorsements. Every candidate competes to get the next big endorsement from a Senator from a particular state or a certain union or even a particular celebrity. The obvious reason for this is the money that each of these endorsements either directly or indirectly can bring to the candidates. But yet again, those everyday men and women who may have gotten the flu from standing out in the cold to listen to them for hours that day are overlooked or are dealt with by the hands-on crew and not the actual candidates.\nI feel the candidates should work more on getting the endorsements of the people and not endorsements of celebrities hoping their fame will get people to the polls. They should focus less on raising money and stick to raising the public’s hope, as many of them claim to do when accepting the nomination. Too often, the campaigns get the focus off the people they claim to want to help. Again, I say focus on the everyday people. They will carry you to the White House, not the big money.
(02/18/08 1:44am)
Riddle me this, people. What is it that most of the major democratic countries possess that America, a country that many would consider a leading democracy throughout the world, doesn’t have but so desperately needs? No, it’s not universal health care, nor is it relaxed drug laws. It is fair and balanced elections. For years now, I have run into many people, mostly younger people, who when asked why they don’t vote, have brought up the fact that the Electoral College voters, not the American people, actually elect the president. And when presented with this comment, I have repeatedly pointed out that throughout American history, the voters of the Electoral College have typically voted according to the results of the popular vote from the state they represent. Now, I completely understand the reason why the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College system, even though I disagree with it. In a nutshell, I’d say they didn’t feel the masses were knowledgeable enough to elect a leader of a nation. And every time I watch MTV, this decision is validated. But even as I have come to cope with the Electoral College, I have recently learned about a new loop hole in the system that many feel would make their vote obsolete. \nDespite the gains that Sen. Barack Obama has made over Sen. Hillary Clinton in recent weeks, Clinton still has confidence that she will be the winner, and justly so considering the race for delegates is extremely close. If she is behind, she is counting on superdelegates to carry her to the nomination. In case you have no clue what a “superdelegate” is, as I didn’t until a week or so ago, it is an elected party official within the Democratic National Committee who has a chance to vote at the convention for a candidate who didn’t have to win the popular vote. A superdelegate’s vote is worth more than a “regular” person’s vote, thus basically giving party insiders more power to decide instead of the American people.\nThese two niches in the election system are just two of the many things that are in drastic need of change within the American election system. For America to be the superpower of the world, a flagship for democracy and yet to have such major flaws when it comes to electing presidents is quite simply embarrassing. It seems as if most of the healthy democracies have managed to create good and logical election systems. Among these include: systems with more than two viable political parties, proportional representation that is reflective of the whole population and controlled campaigned spending. Among the biggest things most have that we don’t are systems where the people’s vote really counts, without any loop holes or special exceptions. There is no need for people of many of the healthy democracies to think their vote doesn’t count because there is no Electoral College or superdelegates. Simply put, to increase voter participation in America, change the system!
(02/10/08 11:58pm)
Ever since Barack Obama has decided to run for the White House, the five-ton elephant in the room when talking about Obama has been his race. Since he announced his candidacy for the White House about a year ago, I’ve had many discussions with many different people about the presidential race, and when mentioning Obama, as is the case when mentioning Hillary Clinton and referring to her gender, the question has been, is the country ready for a black president? Some say yes, and some say no. But everyone has an opinion about the possibility of him becoming the president. \nObama isn’t the first black candidate to run for president. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton each have made unsuccessful runs at the White House. The first African-American to run for president was actually a woman. Her name was Shirley Chisholm, a representative from New York’s 12th district. But Barack is different because he actually has a chance. He is the first black candidate that is attractive enough to middle class, white America, yet appeals to many within the black community. The sentiment among many black people for years has been that if blacks can get a legitimate foot in the door of political opportunity, things will improve for our place in America. But is it as simple as that? \nThis past Thursday I attended Terrence Roberts’ lecture, who was a member of the Little Rock Nine. In a nutshell, one of the things he mentioned was that electing Obama will not change much in America, simply because, as he put it, “this is America.” I agree with him completely. To think Obama’s ascension to the White House will change all that is wrong with the racial dilemma that plagues America is simply ridiculous. \nI would argue that racism is as much an American institution as capitalism or the Constitution. It is truly naive thinking to expect drastic changes simply because the president is black. First, one must realize that the American system is so conservative that anything short of completely changing our government system wouldn’t result in drastic changes. Second, if Obama were to become president and have any success in the White House, he would not necessarily make decisions in the best interests of the black community. Lastly, racism is mental and petty. There are a lot of people who, no matter how much he or she is shown that a particular race they hate is in fact human and worthy of being looked at on their level, they will continue to remain racist and there is nothing one can do about it. Due to that fact, having a black president will not change anything at all. In fact, I feel it will simply give America another reason to sweep its racist issues under the rug and not deal with them.\nI suggest voting for Barack not because he is black, or even voting for Hillary not because she is a woman, but because you actually feel that beyond the issues of race or gender, you believe they can make a difference.
(01/28/08 2:48am)
America’s favorite playboy, or as some like to call him, America’s first “black president,” Bill Clinton has been all over the news lately. Eight years after his “glorious” presidential term, it appears he is running for office again. I know that some might point out it is his wife who is running. But to that, I say this: close your eyes next time you’re listening to CNN or FOX News discuss the presidential candidates, and you tell me whose comments are getting the most criticism lately. And Bill is living up to the presidential candidate persona by making ridiculous comments that we’re used to hearing from old, rich white men. His latest comment speaks to the African-American woman.\nWhen referring to the South Carolina primaries, he made an interesting observation that blacks in South Carolina will probably vote for Obama (because he’s black) and that the women vote will go to Hillary (because she’s a woman). He explained, “(It’s) understandable because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time.” By the way, that is an admission that he is not in fact black! This wasn’t a direct comment toward the black woman, but it definitely leaves them at an interesting paradox. Who should you choose? Do you go for Obama because you’re black? Do you go for Hillary because you’re a woman? Before you begin to ponder this question, consider this.\nOne of my professors told a story of a black woman in a South Carolina hair salon who was presented with this question by a cameraman. She suggested that her vote would depend on where the candidate stood on the issues, not the candidate’s race or gender. Issues. Those things that politicians claim to stand firm on, and which they would use to shape the country once they are president. This, my friends, is why I feel the black woman vote is the most important vote this election.\nYou see, as Pimpin’ Bill has suggested, everyone else’s vote is already taken care of. I as a black man obviously can’t see beyond Obama being black, so of course I will vote for him. And white women are going to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. And the white man will vote for Hillary, too, because she is white and because everyone “loves” her husband, Bill, right? The black woman clearly has some difficult but simple choices. But I beg of you, black women, to choose issues over race or gender. I have met many intelligent black women who, believe it or not, know the issues and care more about them than about simply race or gender. So I ask black women to use your intellect and not to fall into the traps that Pimpin’ Bill says black men, white women and white men will fall into. Turn this election upside down and pick a candidate according to his/her stance on issues. By the way, GO OBAMA!
(11/29/06 4:08am)
People are wusses. I'm talking about those whiny, crying, annoying, simple, egotistical types who just can't fathom a life in which maybe their views are wrong and someone else's views are right. So they spend every waking minute trying to explain why they are right and you are wrong and how, if you don't agree, you are stupid.\nUnfortunately, this definition fits way too many people in this country and on this campus. \nExhibit A: A group called the Students' Smokefree Coalition managed to convince the administration to look into having a smoking ban on all of campus because apparently you're going to be killed if you walk by someone who just so happens to have a cigarette and are exposed to smoke for three seconds.\nExhibit B: Despite raising millions of dollars for the University in only two years, faculty members are basically forcing President Herbert out two years before his original contract is finished because he didn't get a chancellor when they wanted one and because he didn't listen to their needs when they wanted him to.\nExhibit C: The useless bickering between Democrats and Republicans.\nI could go on and give other examples, but I think you get the picture: People are wusses. That so many Americans are wusses doesn't surprise me. This country was built by wusses. \nThink about it: King James I was a wuss because he said people in England could only worship in a certain way. As a result, pilgrims moved to the Netherlands. When the people there weren't "religious" enough for them, the pilgrims showed their true wuss colors and moved to America. When they got here, they became even bigger wusses because, heaven forbid, someone else just happened to beat them here by a few hundred years. So they killed many of them and took most of their land. Then when more people came to the colonies and the work got too hard, they brought these same natives back to do their work. Years later, once they had worked most of the natives to death and were still wusses, they got Africans and worked them to death, too. Once the slaves were released, they still acted like wusses, claiming, "You're not American. You're not even human because you don't look like me, so you don't deserve things like an education, good housing and decent jobs."\nI love my country, but it's a country of wusses. Look at current events. Our views are right and yours are wrong, so we as Americans are going to bully you into our form of democracy and capitalist economy. And if you don't agree, poo on you.\nPlease remember, there's a thin line between voicing your opinion and trying to do what's best for the country, and turning into wusses. Please, don't become wusses.
(11/08/06 3:39am)
No matter how Tuesday's election went, it's safe to say that conservative voters were influenced by the "religious right," and liberal voters were driven to represent everything that conservatives are not. But what's ironic and tragic about the religious right's position in Republican politics is that it's so far away from the views of the founding father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater.\nGoldwater served as senator from Arizona from 1953 until 1987 in five terms (excepting 1965-68, when he was out of office) and rose to become the most influential senator in the past 50 years. His prominence began in 1964 when he ran for president. Despite losing to Lyndon B. Johnson, his beliefs became the foundation of the modern conservative movement. He ran on a hands-off governmental policy, rejecting many of the New Deal initiatives, civil rights laws and anything else that involved heavy government involvement. He wasn't a racist or against poor people; he just strongly felt that government worked best when it had little impact in American lives. Years later, despite initial opposition, he was happy to see that his views built the platform to help elect Ronald Reagan president. But, as he saw Reagan run off with political success, he became disturbed by the growing religious right.\nWhen Reagan was elected in 1980 and the religious conservatives became involved in politics, he strongly spoke out against it. He felt that religion had no place in government, that morality shouldn't be governed. History tells us that Republicans didn't pay too much attention to him, which is kind of sad because he was right for a number of reasons.\nFirst, you can't simply force your religious views on a secular nation. It just doesn't work for one religion to rule a country that embraces religious freedom for all. Second, it invades Americans' right to privacy. I know it's not a constitutional right, but our history suggests that we have a right to privacy -- yet religion, in structuring people's personal lives, wants to go exactly where this right says government shouldn't. Third, when allowing religion into politics, the country is forced to deal with nutcases like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and my new favorite religious conservative figure: Ted Haggard. True, he wasn't as famous a figure in the movement, but as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, he was very influential -- often supporting the Republican leadership and even having conference calls with the White House. Republicans create enough scandals on their own without embracing people who allegedly have affairs with male prostitutes and do meth while proclaiming supreme morality.\nMaybe Goldwater knew what he was talking about. Maybe he wasn't simply some old man complaining. It's sad that Republicans didn't listen to him. I mean it would be like Americans not listening to George Washington about the threat of political parties ... oops, damn. We didn't listen. Or like Americans forgetting that all men are created ... damn, we kind of forgot that, too. Oh well, perhaps we could pay attention just this once.
(11/01/06 4:07am)
Peggy Welch is the Democratic incumbent running for state representative.\nPeggy Welch is the state representative in the Indiana House of Representatives for District 60. She has held the position since 1998 and is currently running unopposed. She is not a native of Indiana. However, since being here, she has developed a passion for the region and has gone on to serve the district well. \nBorn in Fulton, Miss., Welch received a bachelor's degree in social studies and education from Mississippi College in 1977. She later attended Indiana University from 1992 to 1994 to earn prerequisites and received a nursing degree from Ivy Tech State College in 1995.\nIn the Indiana House, she serves on the House Public Health Committee, pushes hard for long-term health care options and strongly supports financial management of medical dollars. She strongly advocates creating jobs for the district. She has repeatedly supported bipartisan legislation to help local businesses expand and attract new business to the state. She supported legislation that has helped put Hoosier schools among the best in the nation and improve the state's SAT scores.\nThough Peggy Welch is not the state representative for IU specifically, one of her main issues should be to make sure IU is vibrant and growing. This is something Welch is very much committed to. As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, she has dealt with issues such as tuition hikes and the high number of students finding out of state jobs. \nIn an interview, she said the main thing she feels can help some of these issues is to aggressively support the life sciences initiative put forth by IU. This will help create more jobs for IU grads while keeping them in-state. \nShe also said the state needs to "step up to the plate" when it comes to funding state loans and helping the schools balance their books concerning money not given to the schools years ago. If the state does as she suggests, there will be more money to repair buildings on campus and keep tuition prices low. I wish her all the success in getting these initiatives passed, despite a legislature that often seems forget students.
(10/25/06 6:40pm)
This weekend, I attended an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship conference in Washington, Ind. I would call myself a Christian with many struggles; some are with myself, but some are with trends in the Christian community that I find troubling. One of these trends presented itself through a chance encounter I had during the conference. \nOne day while walking back to the place I was staying, a guy stopped me and asked which direction was north. This immediately got my radar going that something was different here. So after trying to determine which way was north (rather difficult, considering we were in the middle of nowhere), we talked a little. I found out he was from Saudi Arabia, attended the University of Evansville and is currently taking intensive English seminars. Overall, he seemed like a very cool guy. When I found out he was Muslim, I asked him why he was at a Christian conference. He said he wanted to explore Jesus from a Christian perspective. I thought that was pretty cool, considering the huge difference in beliefs regarding whether Jesus was the son of God (as Christians believe) or just a prophet (as Muslims believe). \nWe talked about that for awhile, then the conversation turned to terrorism. He told me in somewhat broken English that all Muslims aren't like that, that very few Muslims would blow up buildings. I explained to him that I didn't feel that way, especially since as a black Christian -- a member of two groups that have had their fair share of negative stereotypes bestowed upon them -- it would be stupid on my part to stereotype another group. But as I walked away, I thought to myself that it was a shame that at a Christian conference, he felt he had to explain this to me. It was one of those moments when I was embarrassed to be a Christian. \nAccording to the Bible, Christians are not supposed to pass quick judgment on other people. It says in John 8:7, "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." And let's be honest: There isn't a Christian in the world who's without sin. In fact, Christianity as an institution isn't without its own sins of terror and destruction. Yet in an effort to be more American than anyone else, to associate Christianity with being American, we've been some of the first people to attack and criticize Arabs. Since Sept. 11, it has become a trend to cast aspersions at Arab-Americans, and Christians have unfortunately too often been at the forefront of that trend. The media aren't very friendly to Christians either, yet we are just as quick to stereotype others. I know this isn't only a Christian problem, but we're held to higher standards by God and by unbelievers. What's more important -- being American or being Christian? Either we're going to be like many Americans and continue to stereotype these people, or we're going to do as the Bible tells us and love them regardless.
(10/11/06 3:32am)
I know many will say it's not such a good idea to give the Bush administration suggestions on where to spread democracy next, but I'm not too worried. If the man doesn't read national newspapers, chances are he's not going to read the Indiana Daily Student. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest that Bush encourage Russia to swallow a heavy dose of liberty. I recognize that democracy there only dates back to 1991, so they're fairly new at this, but in light of recent events, I find it very hard to believe that Russia's system is healthy.\nJournalist Anna Politkovskaya was found slain in the elevator of her Moscow apartment Saturday. Apparently, she was in the middle of uncovering a torture and kidnapping story involving the Moscow-backed authorities in charge of war-torn province Chechnya. A fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Politkovskaya had worked tirelessly since 1999 to uncover human rights violations in the Chechen conflict and apparently had her life threatened for years because of her reporting. In Russia under Putin, this brings the count of journalists slain in contract-style killings to at least 13 -- 42 since 1992 -- making it the third-deadliest country in the world for members of the press after Iraq and Algeria. \nIn my opinion, President Putin truly understands the importance of a free press to a democratic society and seems to be on course to stamp it out. A true democracy cannot function without journalists. For all the checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers to make sure tyranny and oppression don't corrupt our government, the best thing they did to guarantee this was granting Americans the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Only with journalists and other citizens willing to question the decisions of their governments, and raise hell if necessary, can a government truly be held accountable to its people. The minute you eliminate this outlet, any democratic government easily has the potential to become a dictatorship. This, I am afraid, is what is beginning to happen in Russia.\nIf Bush is truly concerned about spreading democracy, he should visit Russia, a place that, if allowed to sink back into its former ways, could be a threat to other democratic countries in Europe and a place where freedom is not yet extinct, but certainly endangered. \nNow I know Russia is no pushover like Iraq. I know we can't invade Russia and declare victory in a few months -- after all, they have something like 12,000-19,000 nuclear weapons -- but we can invade it with ideas. We can invade it with examples of true democracy. I know it is easy to question whether the United States itself is a true democracy, but I think it's safe to say we get it a little better than Russia. \nSo this is my new suggestion to the Bush administration: Deal with Russia before the problem becomes too big for us to handle.
(09/27/06 2:52am)
According to Merriam-Webster, "contribute" means "to give or supply in common with others." According to the IU code of student rights, part 1 section F, students have the right to "contribute to the making of institutional policy generally affecting their social or academic affairs." I'm no Einstein, but that definition suggests that, as a student body, our input on important issues affecting students should be on equal terms with those of the administration and trustees. And as of now, I really don't feel that has been the case with the search process for the new University president. \nNow, I don't blame the trustees for overlooking this very important part of choosing the president; this is the way we've traditionally been dealt with as students. Except for a few student organizations that have stepped up to say something -- in response to which, the trustees appointed a single graduate student from IU-South Bend -- most people don't really know what's going on with this process. Few students realize the effect a new president will have on their lives from an academic and financial standpoint. So I write this article to plead to the student body: If only for a few minutes, take the time to not be so concerned with how Facebook sucks and sit down to educate yourself on this issue.\nI know many will say, "No matter what we say or how we feel, the administration will pick whomever it wants." And that's true to an extent. This is a university that is a business, not a democracy. In the end it'll probably pick who it feels will financially benefit the good ol' boys before concerning themselves with we students. \nBut please, for once, when the administrators sit down and ignore what we say about whom to select, when they send the token student representation to get our opinions and concerns (before tossing them in the trash), let them know exactly what they're discarding. Historically, students have affected many things both on this campus and on a national basis, despite the establishment's efforts. So no matter how much the administration might want you to think otherwise, given our numbers and efforts, we can have a say in this process. \nMany of you have heard this argument before, but please, if not my words, someone else's words should turn this into action. One suggestion I have is for the different student organizations to barrage the trustees with letters, either about their dislike of the process or about candidates you feel would be best for the job. Even if you decide to do nothing, make sure you at least educate yourself. When tuition rises, our classes start being taught more frequently by graduate students and we become even more faceless to the University, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
(09/13/06 3:33am)
In a year when the debacles of the president and the nation's leading Republicans might have finally caught up to them and might lead to the Democrats finally getting their chance to screw up the House, I find it surprising that the most important race this year might not be a national election. \nThe most important political contest doesn't involve Lieberman, Clinton, Hill or Sodrel. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the House or the Senate. The most important race of the year is in fact a state senate race, and it's taking place in Minnesota. Republican Sen. Paul Koering, the incumbent, faces off against Kevin Goedker in a battle for the Republican nomination.\nWhat's so special about this race? Koering is openly gay. \nI know it sounds strange, but yes, Koering is an openly gay Republican politician. Talk about a minority! He finally came out the closet last year when the state legislature tried to push a floor vote to ban gay marriages, and he was the only Republican helping the Democrats oppose the measure. \nWell, this immediately raised red flags. It just doesn't make sense for a Republican to support gay marriage. According to most Republicans, it's the one thing (outside of immigration issues and people burning the American flag) that's going to destroy American democracy as we know it. So for America-lovin' Republicans, you must stop gay marriage! \nThen it was discovered why he didn't. He's gay. As a result, the local GOP chair called his move "political suicide." All will see if that's true after the primaries Tuesday.\nAccording to a CNN article, Koering said, "There's going to be a lot of people watching to see if the voters can look at my record and say, 'He's doing a good job.' Or will they look at my personal life and say, 'I can't support him because of that'? If that how they're going to vote, I might be out of a job." \nHis opponent said this isn't an issue about his sexuality, but "people of high morals and integrity must rally and support candidates who will work to bring ethics, morals and family values back into government." Spoken like a true Republican.\nIf voters in the state of Minnesota do what Koering is hoping they do, it could possibly begin a shift in the way voters view their candidates. For the first time I can remember, maybe candidates will actually have to campaign on what they did for their constituents and their voting records and not the party line on key issues. For a long time it seems, elections in this country, on both sides of the aisle, have been about who's morally or ethically right and have lost attention on poor public schools, unemployment, poverty in America -- you know, the important stuff. So hopefully the Minnesota voters can start a trend and vote for a candidate for what he is doing in public and not in private.