Amidst all the hooplah of the Beijing Olympics, with counterfeit fireworks, lip syncing anthem singers, and generally questionable judging practices, it seems the US Presidential elections have lost focus a bit and the candidates have been trying to get it back. McCain has been attacking the press for Obama bias. Obama has been attacking McCain, ceaselessly attempting to tie him to George W Bush. Even more interestingly, neither candidate has declared a running mate. It’s easy to see why people aren’t focusing on Sen Hillary Clinton so much right now, but she’s doing something interesting. Essentially having been completely eliminated as a VP candidate for Obama and dissatisfied with her substantial remaining campaign debt (no small amount of which is to herself), Mrs. Clinton has decided to re-enter the Presidential race. Part of me has to wonder if this was her plan all along (and a shrewd, if dishonest one, it would be). Bowing out of the race not long after declaring she would ride it out to the bitter end prevented her from facing either of her opponents (Obama or McCain). She escaped scrutiny and prevented herself from sinking significantly further into the hopeless debt she remains mired in.

Pages: 1 · 2 · 3

Some of you may have been following the debate regarding the so called “Fairness Doctrine” for media. If you are not aware, this is a policy that was at one point followed by the FCC that forced license holders to provide contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues reported. This meant that in order to hold an FCC license, a radio station broadcasting conservative political commentary had to allow time for liberal commentary as well. Whether this is actually “fair” depends on your definition of the word. If we are going with the grade school definition of fair, everyone should get the exact same lunchables as everyone else, so nobody will feel bad and the world will be warm and fuzzy. This type of “fairness” might get you through grade school with reduced social difficulty, but we’re grown ups now and fair does/SHOULD mean everyone has equal opportunity to pursue their goals given their abilities. What does that really mean? Does that mean our government should create opportunity where there is not one, thereby forcing it to exist? Or does it mean that people who wish to express what they feel is an underrepresented viewpoint should organize and create a modality to express those views?

Pages: 1 · 2 · 3

It is with great interest and no small modicum of sadness that I have been following the events in Eastern Europe and Russia over the past few days. From what I can see, if looks like a Georgian province very sympathetic with Russia attempted to secede and the government of that country responded with military force. It remains unclear in the news (as near as I can tell) what method South Ossetia used to assert its independence, but it is clear how Russia responded. The Russians sent in tanks and warplanes and attacked not only military, but civilian targets as well. Their stated goal, according to President Medvedev, was to “punish Georgia for its attack.” I have to admit, I have a serious problem with this. Georgia is a sovereign country with its own laws, etc. Russia is not it’s “big daddy” who is there to tell it how to deal with its own provinces. In addition, the appropriate response would be to enter the province where the fighting was occurring and do battle there if necessary. The invasion of interior Georgia stinks of old communist tactics of expansionist policy.

Pages: 1 · 2

I’ve been reading a book for review for Morbid Outlook that has me thinking about the power of words and how people use them. I remember a time when the word “curvy” used to refer to a woman who had hips and breasts but a tapered waist. Now it seems to refer to overweight. Similar things happened to the word “voluptuous” which used to refer to a woman who was chesty. George Carlin famously did a piece about how the names of things keep changing to sound more palatable. He pointed out that toilet paper became “bathroom tissue” and janitors were now “sanitation engineers". People seem to have a notion that if you refer to an object or quality with a term that sounds more innocuous, people will respond to it more favorably, however it seems to me that eventually these words are decoded and acquire the same connotations as their predecessors. In the end, we are forced to create newer more “sanitized” terms for these things.

Pages: 1 · 2 · 3

You may have seen that the New York Times recently published an editorial by Sen Barack Obama outlining his position on the war in Iraq and the global war on terror. In this editorial he does take some time to highlight differences between his own policy and that of his presidential rival Sen John McCain, but focuses primarily on his plan and the rationale behind it. Sen McCain responded by submitting an editorial rebuttal for publication (published on drudgereport.com here) which was rejected, prompting accusations of bias from prominent Republicans. After reading both articles as linked above, I must admit, I see Op-Ed editor David Shipley’s point. While Obama does point out differences between himself and McCain on this issue and accuses Sen McCain of making false accusations about his policy, largely his piece is focused on his own policy and viewpoints. Sen McCain’s piece (which is also a bit shorter) is predominantly occupied with claiming that Obama is an inexperienced idealist and just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Nowhere in Sen McCain’s editorial does he actual say how he intends to act differently or define his terms in any concrete way. He simply says that Obama is wrong.

Pages: 1 · 2