Iraq War

Nearly every American was decidedly pro-war after 9-11, but after a string of shaky presidential decisions, the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, and questionable legitimacy of a continuing war, there has been waning support. What is also true is that there is almost no youth involvement regarding the War in Iraq.

Let me begin by raising the question of whether the reason for this war is legitimate. Popular opinion states 9-11 was a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda operatives under orders by Osama Bin Laden, stationed in Afghanistan. It wasn't later in 2003 that US intelligence became concerned over the possibility of WMDs in Iraq, and the "mastermind" of that accused operation, Saddam Hussein. I am not arguing the fact the Hussein was a ruthless leader, but rather questioning the reasons why America is there. If our only mission was to take Hussein out of pawer, we wouldn't still be there. As for "helping to establish peace in the Middle East", I don't buy it. The supposed role of a "global super power" is to ensure the principles of peace, not facilitate killing, provided the acting power actually understands the term peace. War is designed to eventually help some kind of humanitarian concern, fix a problem or stop an immense threat of extreme proportion; war should be the last resort. 

It is not the role of America to impose our beliefs on another country. Despite my personal opposition to Hussein, what right do we have to remove him from power and put him on trial, resulting in his death? If he didn't pose a serious threat to our national security (which he didn't because no WMDs were found), why the hell are we adding conflict to an area of amalgamated opposition? Though the intention of establishing Democracy and bringing "peace" to the Middle East sounds noble and righteous, what solid diplomacy are we adding? We are adding hatred towards American soldiers and the country they stand behind. The declared mission of this war is to establish a stable democracy and bring peace to the region. What significant gains have we made? How have we helped the chaotic tendencies in the Middle East? John McCain says he is prepared to stay in Iraq for 100 years if we have to. Thats not a war, thats called colonization. 

In addition, the passing of the PATRIOT Act essentially gives the Executive Branch free reign to implement any action declared terrorism, offensively hiding behind the curtain of 9-11. Private companies like Blackwater, essentially killing groups, have been hired by US Government for security reasons. Why would the military need to hire additional security? Dirty operations? Empower American military presence? These types of companies are bullying parties, sending a political message to Sunni power groups like Al-Qaeda. Either way, the government isn't explicit on the role of such companies.  

To my another point of interest - youth involvement. America has once again invaded a country in retaliation and few of my peers care about it, let alone know enough to establish a legitimate opinion. For those of you who are well informed, good job. Unlike the counterculture of the '60s and early '70s, the War in Iraq hasn't facilitated much social change among youth. It hasn't changed the way we think of ourselves, nor has it interested a large population of America's children. I believe this is in large part to the growing materialistic trends of my generation. We have become so desensitized by constant information and personal ideals to realize that there is bloodshed by American hands overseas, dramatically different from romanticized American ambitions. We don't want to read about the troop surge, it doesn't affect us. We want Sports Illustrated and Cosmo, not the NYT or Washington Post. Perhaps because we have spent so many years fighting for our "freedoms", in Korea, Europe, etc., that as a nation we're too dumb to realize that freedom and responsibility are politically synonymous.

Entertaining the Citizen

Liesbet Van Zoonen's Entertaining the Citizen: When Politics and Popular Culture Converge

As Van Zoonen notes, the soap opera allows for these opposing goals to be met because the genre itself is so heavily gendered and because the format itself resists narrative closure.

A related issue here is the relationship between politics/politicians and celebrity, something that has come up recently in the 2008 Presidential Election, as the McCain campaign sought to belittle Obama's ability to captivate large audiences by likening him to people like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Many read the juxtaposition as designed not only to deligitimize Obama, but as an effort to draw parallels between a black man and two young white women, a parallel that has been used throughout American history to justify anti-black prejudice in the name of 'protecting' white femininity.

In chapter three, Van Zoonen talks about the role popular music plays in political campaigns and electoral politics. It's unclear, but one suspects Van Zoonen uses "popular music" to include a number of genres other than 'pop', and that she includes in this term things like rock, punk, rap, hip hop, country, etc. During the social unrest that led to the late 1960s and early 1970s counterculture, musicians played an instrumental (no pun intended) part in lending a voice to movements like the anti-Vietnam war movement. The political climate and the structure of the music industry in the early 2000s were considerably different; only recently have we started to hear musicians take a more openly critical view of American foreign policy or its political leaders.

Below are eight videos that illustrate some of these concepts. They are:

proposes several interesting paradigms for understanding the intersections between American politics and pop culture. In chapter two, for instance, she addresses the way politicians and the media covering them return over and over again to the soap opera as a metaphor that can be used for two diametrically opposed purposes: first to liken something or someone as 'soap' can work to discredit it/them as insubstantial fluff; in the second instance, the soap opera is latched on to not to deride something or someone, but to create a more affirmative narrative of a a person or event, one that often includes themes of perserverance in the face of adversity, overcoming a setback, being tested, etc.

1. "The One" -- anti-Obama ad by Mccain campaign
2. "Celeb" -- anti-Obama ad by McCain campaign
3. "Fan Club" -- anti-Obama ad by McCain campaign
4. Paris Hilton responds to McCain's "Celeb" ad
5. Buffalo Springfield's counterculture anthem about the Sunset Strip riots, "For What It's Worth" (1967)
6. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young's protest against the Kent State Massacre, "Ohio" (1970)
7. Eminem's "Mosh" (2004)
8. The Dixie Chicks's "Not Ready to Make Nice"

1. "The One"




2. "Celeb"




3. "Fan Club"



4. Paris Hilton

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

5. Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth"




6. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young's "Ohio"




7. Eminem's "Mosh"




8. The Dixie Chicks's "Not Ready to Make Nice"

Embedding is not available, please visit link.

And They Say Obama Flip-Flops...

I can understand why candidates "flip-flop" in most cases. Opinions change as time goes on. Let's be honest, who didn't support the War in Iraq when it first began? But a lot changed between then and now, and it's unfair to condemn someone who previously supported the war but no longer does. But I digress...

Anyways, this interesting article written by Jennifer Harper of the Washington Times caught my attention. The story is mostly about how many feminist organizations such as EMILY's List are urging women not to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket (EMILY'S List newest slogan proclaims, "Read my lipstick: I am voting Democrat"). However, there is a tiny tidbit of information in this article that really says a lot about the Republican party:

The transformation of Republicans into energized Palin fans was quick. Shortly before Mr. McCain announced that Mrs. Palin was his running mate, the Pew Research Center surveyed 2,300 voters, asking, "Do mommies or daddies make better candidates?"

At that time, only one in five Republican respondents said they would support a candidate who was the mother of school-aged children; 53 percent of Republicans said working mothers were a "bad thing for society." Among Democrats, a third supported mother-politicians, while 38 percent did not favor working mothers.

You really can't get much more hypocritical than that. You can't go from saying that working women are bad for America one day and then the day after say that a working woman should be the next Vice President of the United States. If a "Hypocrite of the Century" award existing, there would be a clear winner in the Flip-flopublican Party.

Really, how do they sleep at night?

Biden's Record on Race

I was skimming through numerous articles in the New York Times and I read through an article concerning Biden's record on race. Even in this progressive era, we are still being held back on the issue of race. He has faced three separate events during his tenure in the Senate but he hopes that being the Vice President to the first African-American President will redeem him. That is yet to be seen.

In his 2007 autobiography, ‘Promises to Keep,’ he writes: “A few of my colleagues pulled me aside to ask how and when the racists had gotten to me.” Overall he hasn’t been completely anti-African American but in the 1970’s involving bussing, that was the first time he got into conflict with the local NAACP group. When interviewed by the New York Times he said:

Mr. Biden also angered white parents by saying that he would support using federal helicopters if the city’s schools could not be integrated any other way. “I couldn’t live that comment down for years,” he said in the interview.

I found his comment from the interview to be quite racist personally only because he rushed right for the most radically possible way instead of taking the time to think through all his possible options. However, the worst possible situation was concerning the nomination of Justice Thomas, the second African-American on the Supreme Court which he considered an 'incendiary bomb' ready to go off. But there was the question of how fair the testimony was during the hearing because Biden is blamed for limiting questions on Thomas's private life.

“I don’t go as far as Clarence,” Mr. Danforth said. “I don’t think he was the leader of the lynch mob. I think what he was the park superintendent at the site at which the lynching took place.”

Mr. Biden said only, “That was a very controversial nomination.”

What I am left with his wondering if Senator Biden, who will become the official Vice President if Obama gets elected in November will continue to have these small issues with members of minorities or will he be forgiven for his past record.

Hack Attack: Palin's suspect email account

Republican vice presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin has found herself in hot water yet again. Reports from the New York Times and CNET News have informed us that Palin recently had her personal Yahoo e-mail account hacked into. Messages, various family photos, and a list of contacts were posted online at wikileaks.org. This blatant and illegal invasion of privacy has the FBI and the Secret Service working jointly to find the culprits.

Other than being hilarious, this hack reveals a lot about Palin. First of all, not only did her account contain personal e-mails, but also work-related e-mails. This has raised quite a few eyebrows and has Palin on the defensive. She is suspected of using her personal e-mail to divulge information that could otherwise be reviewed by Alaska's open government laws (which keep government e-mail subject to subpeona). This claim was evidenced by an article out of the New York Times on Sunday indicating that Ms. Palin was well aware of the advantages involved in using a private e-mail for business:

"Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a "personal device" like a Blackberry" would be confidential and not subject to subpeona." Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokeswoman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account "when there was significant state business."

Despite the accusations of her overstepping the information laws, Palin has welcomed an investigation.

Though not an enormous scandal, this has caught the attention of the press and could possibly be damaging, or at the least, distracting for McCain (who should be kicking himself for not knowing something as basic as Palin's communications methods). Trust is a serious factor to consider when voting for a candidate. Frankly, if I can't trust the vice president to thoroughly abide by regulations, and responsibly handle communicating as the governor of Alaska, how can I trust her to handle our country's national security codes or secret operation information?

McCain: A Flip-Flopping Hypocrite

For the past decade John McCain has been opposed to government involvement in the banking and insurance industries. He voted for legislation that would essentially make life easier for these industries. Yet with the recent government takeover of insurance giant AIG, McCain is singing a different tune. He now is stating that under his administration he will end "reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed" on Wall Street. He is now saying that the government has a duty to the people, to make sure that these things do not happen. He says that, if he were to become president, he would "put reforms in place to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place."

McCain has pulled a complete 180 on the issue. He is changing his policy on the issue to try and gain the votes of people who are angry with the situation. Not only is this not right, but it is also hypocritical. Just two months ago an article was written in the post in which McCain was quoted as saying that Obama's policy for Iraq was "political" and that "Senator Obama just views this war as another political issue with which he can change positions." So when Obama writes and sticks with a policy that is in line with popular belief, its political, but when McCain changes his position on an issue its not political, its what, good leadership?

Shear, Michael D. "McCain Embraces Regulation After Many Years of Opposition." McCain Embraces Regulation after Many Years of Opposition - washingtonpost.com. 17 Sept. 2008. Washington Post. 16 Sept. 2008 .

Eilperin, Juliet. "McCain says Obama plays politics on Iraq." Washington Post 28 July 2008: A08. 28 July 2008. Washington Post. 10 Sept. 2008 .

Oil Drilling and Ignorance

The House of Representatives, in what seems to represent the present, and many previous, congresses’ quest to prove the unique unobservant nature of the American voter; and in their general desire to confuse the appearance of action with the weight of decision, voted on a oil drilling bill today. It would allow drilling 50 miles off the coast and make states the licensing agency for drilling in their areas while taking away any royalties that the state might receive from the oil found. Naturally the great majority of proven reserves, in California 95%,  are less then 50 miles off the coast and equally unsurprising is that a state would have far less interest in licensing something that is to receive far less revenue from. The bill also includes various stipulations, which, regardless of ecological design or earth friendly intention, seem likely to raise the cost of energy for the average consumer with dubious gains to the environment as a whole. Perhaps if Congress returned to its far more frequent and benign activity of naming schools, stadiums and rest stops after its members instead of engaging in these baffling attempts at serious legislation we would be far better off. Of course maybe we shouldn't be so hard on them, as Micheal Moore illuminated in his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, they don't read most of the bills they pass. 

Two Articles on Wall Street

Here are links to two articles about finance and Wall Street from the past few days that may prove useful in considering who to pick for the coming election. The first, an editorial in the Investors Business Daily, has an interesting take on how troubles began in the mortgage market, with a particular look at Freddie and Fannie. The second, from the Wall Street Journal, reminds us that for things to get better market wise, they must be allowed to get worse. Both to some degree or another remind me of Reagan's quote: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Update: The government steps in to take over AIG and an answer to the question, why haven't hedge funds suffered to the same extent?

News from Iraq

There is an article in the New York Post this morning suggesting that Obama, while visiting Iraq, tried to get both members of the Iraq government and high ranking officers of our army to delay the removal of U.S. troops until after the U.S. election.

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.


Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=0

Even with the greatest of allowances, its difficult to come away from this story with a favorable feeling towards Obama. If true, the best that can be said is that in contrary to his stated goal of returning U.S. Forces in Iraq to America as soon as possible, he intends keep them there for some indeterminate purpose, but this narrative would have Obama as more gung-ho then both the American military and the Iraq government. A far more sinister, though it would seem more likely, desire would be to delay any good news from the Iraq until after it can be of no use in the presidential campaign, even at the cost of leaving American soldiers in the Middle East for longer then is needed. One hopes that the senator isn't so callous.

One of those officers who the article states was encouraged to delay withdrawals was General Petraeus, who leaves his post as Commander of Multi-National Forces to head up Central Command. The surge of troops and accompanying change in tactics that occurred on his watch seem likely to be much discussed in the coming years for the breadth of their achievement. He took Iraq from increasing violence and the threat of a dishonored retreat proceeding a drawn out genocide to an apparently increasingly stable country far better placed to continue along on the virtuous circle towards good government and prosperity, all this in less then two years. His farewell letter can be read at the link below:

http://miserabledonuts.blogspot.com/2008/09/gen-petreaus-farewell-letter.html

"She can ruin your faith with her casual lies..."

Oh dear. Sarah Palin. What has John McCain started? He’s taken the spotlight away from himself, (probably a good strategy), instead making us focus on this woman, who no one had heard of until a few short days ago. Now, rumors are circulating, insults are flying, and at the heart of it all lies a woman who is still somewhat mysterious.
First, there’s the book-banning rumor. There are several different versions of the story out there. The most reliable seems to be the one mentioned in this New York Times article.

And while the list of about a hundred books that Palin supposedly “banned” has been completely debunked (thank goodness for snopes.com), there are still many rumors circulating about the book Daddy’s Roommate. Many claim that Palin did indeed “make a fuss” over the book. The Huffington Post covered the story well.

Palin scares me. It’s not just the censorship that scares me. It’s not even that she thinks the fact that she can see Russia from her home state makes her qualified to help run the country. I think it’s the fact that she seems fake and indirect. Like Sam wrote, her failure to completely answer questions seems fishy. I suppose this is why there are so many conspiracy theories about her flying around out there. I honestly don’t blame people for thinking she faked her pregnancy. I simply don’t trust her. And trust is one of the most important things in the relationship between a leader and their followers.

Our relationship with Palin is especially important in this election, as John McCain is… well, really old. If he dies, or enters a state where he’s unable to make good decisions (ha!), then we need the vice-presidential candidate to be strong, honest and sincere. And Palin is none of those.
I saw this SNL clip, and I loved it. It’s very accurate, on both parts. Tina Fey’s portrayal of Palin is wonderful, from the weird voice and attitude to the scarily identical look. My favorite part:
Hillary: I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy.
Palin: And I can see Russia from my house!

Sarah Palin: Ready (Or Not), Here I Come!

On September 11, Sarah Palin gave her first news interview with Charles Gibson of ABC News.  And it scared me.  Everything about the interview merely demonstrated just how inexperienced, and worse, just how unprepared, she is for the possible mantle of the vice presidency.  For starters, she didn't even sound natural when she gave her prepared answers to the questions.  According to a New York Times article, she appeared to "hew so closely to prepared answers that she used the exact same phrases repeatedly".  I mean, OK, I know politicians like to use prepared statements to make their points easily and repeatedly, but come on - at least they should be able to make it sound natural and fluid.  Strike # 2 for Ms. Palin?  When Gibson asked her about Bush's doctrine, she didn't know.  After a few pathetic guesses, such as "His world view" and that President Bush has tried to rid the world of terrorists, Gibson had to tell her what she, a Republican vice-presidential candidate, should definitely know:  The doctrine of President Bush is "the right of anticipatory self-defense".  And yet, it took two more tries for Gibson to get Ms. Palin to give him a straight answer about what she thought about it. "Charlie, if there is a legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country".  (Can anyone spot the grammatical error here?)  Now, OK, that's an answer.  I may not agree with it, but at least we have an answer, and an idea of what she believes about combating terrorists.  And then there's the attempt to insult Mr. Biden's experience: "It is time for no more politics as usual and somebody's big fat résumé that maybe shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state."  OK, I guess that could be Mr. Biden, who's been in the U.S. Senate for 36 years.  Oh, but wait - Mr. McCain has been in the U.S. Senate as well, for 26 years!  Yeah, Ms. Palin meant the barb to be aimed at Mr. Biden.  But I would imagine that the idea is for the attack to be one-sided, not that it could be used to attack your OWN running mate.  Well, now that she's entered the world of the press, I'm sure we can expect more interviews to come.  And there's the Vice-Presidential Debate coming up on October 2nd - a must see event, for sure.  (My money's on Mr. Biden to have the upper hand)  And I'm sure that everyone will agree by the end just how terrible a choice Mr. McCain has made in his choice for a running mate.