An end to nationalism

Outsourcing has probably been one of the worst developments over the last 20 years. Whatever happened to keeping the jobs here in the U.S. instead of shipping them off to India or China? Now, it appears that even journalists are not immune to the outsourcing fad. As I read Dowd's op-ed about a Pasadena newspaper-owner who outsources his writers from India, my jaw dropped. What have we come to?! We can't even have Americans writing about local American current events and traditions? C'mon!

I'm all for the cultural exchange of ideas and beliefs, but this is just too much. This completely compromises journalistic integrity. I don't really want to read articles about games at the Rose Bowl written by Mrs. Sreejayanthi of Bangalore, when she didn't even know it was a sports stadium. Outsourcing has already negatively impacted our economy in various aspects, shall we add journalism to the list? (Perhaps Perot had a few good points in his anti-NAFTA rhetoric).

The rapid path to globalization has gotten out of control. We can't just outsource everything possibly imaginable. Especially in times of economic trouble, it may be appealing to outsource whatever work possible. But in the long run, it will negatively affect our economy. It's like a domino effect: more unemployed means less consumer spending, and it just keeps going. Let's get a grip, and at least make sure our journalists know about basic American traditions. The last thing we need is a Ramadan observer writing about the holiness of Christmas or Chanukah.

And another one down

What a day! Not only did Citigroup lay off 20% of its employees, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was accused of insider trading and Paulson announced that the administration would leave half of the allocated bailout money-350 billion- untouched when they leave office January 20th.

What the hell is going on?! Well, it looks like we are in a very disconcerting situation. The economy is not getting better, as witnessed by the layoffs and the roller coaster highs and lows of the stock market. Greed and corruption are constantly being unveiled. Although being one of the richest men in the world, Cuban couldn't bear to lose $750,000, so he engaged in illegal insider trading. And then we have Paulson revealing that the White House will not use half of the bailout money. Perhaps this is because they have absolutely no idea what they're doing or perhaps it's because they haven't used any of the money the way they said they would when they proposed this panicky, ad hoc plan.

So what is coming? Well, although pessimistic, my predicitons reflect the seriousness of these turbulent times. We are going to start to see way more layoffs from all kinds of corporations- not just financial institutions. The economy will continue fluctuating, but eventually will tank. Just today, I watched a segment on the news about how manufacturers are decreasing the portions in various products, but charging the same price. Everyone is in shit right now. And although I am excited about Obama, I don't know what he really will be able to accomplish- we've dug ourselves way too deep.

People keep arguing, "Oh, it's going to be ok. The economy is cyclical. It will bounce back." Really? If the government believed that, we would have seen many similar bailouts in the past during turbulent times, such as the recession of the early 1980's, which is often viewed as one of the most serious economic conflicts since the Great Depression. But that did not occur. These are scary times. Definitely scary.

Going Green

Whatever your personal views may be regarding Michael Bloomberg, you've got to hand it to him for taking an environmentally-friendly stance. While proposing plans such as windmills, parks, and congestion pricing, Bloomberg wants to make New York City “the first environmentally sustainable 21st-century city.” But unfortunately, not everyone is as environmentally conscious as others.

Many of Bloomberg's plans have been foiled by the government, including a plan for controversial price congestion and a proposal to require all NYC taxies to be hybrids. The problem with our government and this country (in environmental terms) is that no one plans for the future. In a report released in January of this year, the U.S. ranked 39th (of 149) for environmental performance, the bottom of the Group of 8 industrialized nations (France, Germany, United States, Britain, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia). Why is it that the E.U. is leading the world in environmentally-friendly legislation and movements?

Perhaps they are looking forward a bit more. Everyone in America has an instant-gratification attitude- 'I want it now. I want to see immediate results. I have absolutely no patience to wait for anything, including spending my tax money on an issue that probably won't even affect me in my lifetime.' Well, let's see how that attitude worked in the economy- it flunked. People were so greedy that they could not wait to save money from hard work, but rather took out massive mortgages and maxed out multiple credit cards with hardly any government regulation. Now look where we're at- in a big fat recession. Perhaps had we thought about the future consequences, we would have been a bit more hesitant when charging the latest fad on our VISA.

The same goes for the environment. We have to be forward-thinking. We have to start planning and take immediate action. Global climate change is ocurring and it it manmade. All we can do now is try to develop new technology to combat this and take measures to prevent future environmental degredation. And until lazy Americans are forced to promote this change, nothing will improve. So Bloomberg has taken an important step in the right direction- he is advocating envirnomental activisim. If only there were more environmentally conscious politicians and less greedy corporations (and excessive consumers) polluting the environment!

Way to Go

The joy that came over me after finding out that we would not have another crusty old white guy in the White House was indescribable. Americans have elected their first black president- something that we should be proud of, as the days of segregation were only 40 years ago. Bob Herbert of the New York Times points out that "Voters said no to incompetence and divisiveness and elbowed their way past the blight of racism that has been such a barrier to progress for so long." We have come a long way America, and we should be proud.

The next day after the election, I left my MSN messenger account logged in as usual, as I set out for my busy day. When I returned, I had received messages from friends all across the world: Spain, Portugal, England, and Mexico. Every single one included the same subject (although appearing in 3 different languages!): Congratulations Obama- I am so excited he will be leading your country!!! When I received these mimicked messages, the magnitude of the election really set in- this was the election of our lifetime. We have placed a huge amount of trust in a relatively inexperienced man- but he is carrying the hopes and dreams of literally billions on his shoulders.

I must admit that I did not know if the rascist biggots would trump those with more open minds in this country. But I was pleasantly surprised/relieved when I knew by 8:30 PST that Obama was our President-elect. The unfortunate truth is that minorities in the U.S. have continually been marginalized in society. They have been blatantly denied opportunities in the past and continue to endure some of the same harships today. However, having a black man has our next president is truly a momentous achievement for not only the entire world, but more specifically to all of the minorities that no longer believe in the American Dream. Imagine how little Kenyan boys and girls have reacted upon finding out that a man connected to their own bloodline is now going to be the next president of one of the most powerful countries in the world! It is a great moment and a great inspiration to us all.

Although I am cautious to make any decision regarding Obama's abilities, I am quick to relay my pride in the American people. Way to go! Way to not be scared for something different- perhaps his policies won't be so different- we don't know yet. But he is definitely not the cookie-cutter prototype for the Commander-in-Chief, and for this, I must commend you all. It is more the fact that a majority of us have moved past the awful prejuidces that were so common in not-so-distant history that I must congratulate you all!

Barack- it's your time to shine...

CONGRATS!!!

Congratulations are in order for Barack Obama, for gaining an important spot in the history books- the first black president of the United States of America.

We're ready for the 'change' you've promised us!

Down to the wire

As Election Day is just days away, I was reading a Newsweek poll focusing on Obama's significant lead over John McCain. I was relieved to see these numbers initially; but upon closer look, I became a bit stressed out. The most troublesome statistic I read has to do with Sarah Palin (shocking I know). 55% of voters believe Palin is not qualified (rightfully so), yet 40% believe she is! My jaw dropped as I read this! I would love to meet this group of people and hear their arguments defending Palin's overwhelming qualifications. I cannot imagine that 2 out of every 5 people think that this woman (who didn't hold a passport until just last year) could possibly represent the United States and actually be respected internationally.

After this alarming statistic, I began to think about a number of worriesome things as the Big Day draws near. The Bradely effect has been discussed in virtually every news source, questioning whether or not it will prevent Obama from grabbing the 270 critical votes. I'd like to think no, but realistically, we still live in a racist society. No one wants to admit it, but there are many closeted bigotts out there- we just don't know how many! Hopefully the astounding wave of Obama supporters can outweigh the ignorant citizens in the country.

Another thing that we will just have to wait and see how it plays is who's actually going to vote. The media has hyped up the amount of voters that will show up to the polls, especially minorities and youth. These voters have historically not been active, but is Obama the change that will stimulate a new interest in politics? Well I, as well as many, certainly hope so. I can only hope that the laziness of Americans subsides long enough for them to cast their ballot.

And I must go back to the Palin issue once more (it's just too good to not). What the hell was McCain thinking? Nearly 1/3 of voters say that McCain's VP choice makes them less likely to vote for him! That is a huge number in an election this close. If McCain can't even pick a qualified vice-president, how the hell is he going to run this country? Oh wait...he probably won't because he's so old, he'd probably die before inauguration day!

So Americans, one word of advice as you stand eye-to-eye with a ballot that represents so much:
ANYTHING but McCain.

VOTE November 4th!

It's our constitutional right!

In a parallel world, where political correctness doesn’t affect virtually every aspect of society, Sarah Palin would hang from a noose while John McCain burns in hell. However, this parallel world exists far from West Hollywood, where Chad Michael Morrisette sparked national controversy by publicly displaying just this scene with mannequins displayed in front of his home. After much pressure to remove the effigy, Morrisette got rid of the so-called Halloween decorations. But in an election where lipstick pigs overshadow policy issues, what’s the big deal?

While the effigy infuriated many, it calls important attention to Americans’ constitutional right to free speech. Although many found the display extremely offensive and excessive, the Secret Service, Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department and West Hollywood city Code Enforcement Division found that it violated no law. “‘The sheriff made this clear: This is a country that has freedom of speech, and we protect that right even when we think it's idiotic and stupid and in bad taste," said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Sheriff's Department.’” It can even be argued that the effigy is just another method of engaging voters in the election process. It brings up an important question: where do we draw the line between censorship and free speech?

One might consider, “what if this effigy was replaced with a mannequin of Barack Obama hanging from a noose?” This would have a completely different implication, linking the effigy with racist sentiments, reminding us of the not-so-distant lynching of blacks in the 1800’s and early 1900’s. However, this exact incident occurred just over a month ago, at a small Christian university in Newberg, Oregon. A life-size cardboard imitation of Obama was found hanging from a tree with fishing line attached to its neck. Although the act was repugnant and hateful, it was an act that was determined to fall under free speech, and no charges were filed against the students responsible.

When dealing with issues of censorship, it is a tight rope that must be carefully walked. Although the image of Palin hanging from a noose may not be every American’s preference in expressing their political views, Morrisette should be able to display this image on his own property, as long as he has no intention of violence (We can safely assume a gay couple from West Hollywood have no intentions of actually hanging Mrs. Palin from a noose). Once we start censoring what is “too extreme,” the definition becomes blurred and our 1st amendment rights can easily be infringed upon.

In a ‘melting pot’ country, Americans should be able to engage in wide range of political discussion, whether it be through town hall meetings, blogging, or even displaying their political views with a controversial effigy. The display actually is a great example of the enthusiasm felt by so many Americans across the country. In less than a week, history will be made: we will either have the first black president or the first woman vice-president. A record number of voters are expected to cast their ballot in just a few days. People everywhere are actually excited to vote- when is the last time Americans have felt this way? It is to be expected that in an election with such emotionally charged voters, extreme opinions will be voiced- and that’s ok.

In fact, an effigy that encourages political discourse should be encouraged, not prohibited. A gay couple in West Hollywood is simply engaging in political expression, showing their dislike of a candidate that goes against everything they believe in. Although many others would choose to express their views differently, there is no reason the couple should be castigated for taking a passionate stance on a very important election. Once we begin censoring these demonstrations of free speech, we move further and further away from the democracy we love. Free speech comes with a price- Americans will not always hear or see exactly what they want or necessarily agree with. But the consequence of limiting free speech is far greater, and we must accept differing views on important matters- regardless of the extremeness of these opinions.

After all, this is America.

Failing Freedom?

In a country where we value our freedom so highly, it is interesting to see our 36th place ranking for press freedom, according to the recent study by Reporters Without Borders (RWB). Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, South Africa, Spain and Taiwan all share the 36th ranking with us.

So some may say, "Well 36th sounds pretty good, right?" Well, if you look at many of the countries that have a better ranking, you may be surprised. Iceland, Norway and Luxembourg are all tied for first- no big shocker there. But Jamaica, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Japan rank better and have more press freedom. RWB claims that the amount of peace in a country is directly related to free press, which completely makes sense. The U.S. and Israel are in a particularly fragile state, which negatively impacts free press.

So, what lesson can be drawn from all of this? Well, it is particularly interesting to note all the worthless bullshit that is thrown at us from the media, especially stories covering celebrities and useless lifestyle articles. Where are the newspapers covering third-party candidates? Or articles with more international news? It is impossible to know who really controls the media, but it clear that it is controlled by a handful of powerful companies, each with their own special interests. According to FreePress, the "Big Six" companies that control virtually all of the media are:

(1)General Electric
(2)Time Warner
(3)Walt Disney
(4)News Corp.
(5)CBS
(6)Viacom

How can we trust various websites when they are all controlled by the same companies? There are so many embedded journalists working to satisfy the needs of corporations- how is it possible for free press to exist when any journalist who rebels against the system is simply not printed?

There is no simple solution to improving free speech and press. All we can do is try to aim for peace. In a peaceful society, the government does not have to manipulate the media to run stories that distract citizens' attention away from the real issues. We must constantly remember that the media is not independent and take everything they publish with a grain of salt.

Fear Tactics

As the planes crashed into the Twin Towers, Barack Hussein Obama stood by with a big grin on his face.

Or at least that is what the McCain campaign would like us to think. Amidst Palin’s accusations of Obama “palling around with terrorists,” the GOP is exhausting every scare tactic in the book, just as Joe the Plumber is milking his 15 minutes of fame. The Republicans are hoping that by linking Obama to Ayers and creating an Obama-Osama name game, they will nab those gullible, ignorant voters that will surely never vote for a man with the middle name of a notorious dictator.

But just as roaches scatter when the light comes on, the Republicans will have to come up with something better as their frivolous accusations are revealed to be misleading.

Using fear tactics to sway voters is something that George W. perfected in the 2004 elections. He exaggerated the importance of the ‘War on Terror’ and told us we had to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He essentially scared everyone into voting for him, as Republicans are commonly viewed as stronger in dealing with war-related issues. Well, here we are four years later: we have an economy in peril of completely collapsing, a deteriorating education system, and a complete lack of quality health care. So NO. We are definitely not better off than we were 4 years ago.

The fact that the McCain campaign is using fear tactics is not surprising, considering their dismal standings in current election polls, showing Obama up by a significant amount. But a closer look at their attacks is embarrassing; almost more so than Palin’s ability to see Russia from her backyard.

Palin was recently quoted telling a group of donors that Obama “is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." First of all, since when did serving on a board of a charity group together automatically make Obama and Bill Ayers best friends? There is no evidence of anything suspicious in their relationship. It’s the same thing as saying I support Hugo Chavez because my best friend is from Caracas- it’s ludicrous! Second of all, can we really take anything the excessively-winking Palin has to say seriously?

In another lame attempt to influence voters, GOP Chairman Jeffrey M. Frederick of Virginia linked Obama to Osama bin Laden: “Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon… That is scary." Actually, what’s more scary is your complete ignorance, Mr. Frederick. The fact that the GOP Chairman is saying such slanderous things makes me doubt the existence of honest politicians. Yes, Obama did know Bill Ayers, the former leader of the Weather Underground group, a radical group that was responsible for various bombings during the Vietnam era. But Obama has never expressed approval of any of Ayers actions, and has maintained that Ayers is “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”

Further adding to the disparity between the two candidates, McCain appealed especially desperate when he attacked Obama for his relationship with Ayers during the third debate, accusing him of “launching his political campaign in Mr. Ayer’s living room.” McCain’s attempt to play to American’s fears of electing a president that might have possible terrorist ties actually backfired, as many Independent voters were turned off by this negative campaigning tactic. The economy is now the issue that is most disconcerting for Americans, and the terrorist-tactic that worked 4 years ago is just not having the same impact.

But McCain can’t possibly educate Palin on the intricacies of the economy with such little time left, so they have to stick to what they know- terrorism. Still clinging to the Ayers association, the Republican campaign is launching a wave of phone calls in key battleground states, saying that Obama has “worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans.” This whole terrorist association is overdone now, and if you guys can’t come up with a plan to save the economy, you might as well write your concession speech now.

The Republican campaign probably thought they had stumbled on to a gold-mine when they realized Obama had interface with Ayers years ago. But it was a superficial avenue to pursue, and is actually backfiring on them. Instead of exaggerating the terrorist relationships of Obama, McCain should learn to maintain his positions on the issues and Palin should brush up on her geography- well, actually everything while she’s at it.

Un movimiento valeroso

In a controversial move, Judge Baltasar Garzón has begun a criminal investigation into the vanishings of thousands of Spaniards during the Spanish civil war. This is the first time that a judge has investigated the Spanish civil war, and it is an important step in the right direction.

While living in Spain, the taboo topics that one should not mention became very clear to me. At the top of that list were politics and the Spanish civil war. Even further complicating things, I was living in the Basque region of Spain, one of the most repressed regions under the Franco regime. Although memories of the brutal killings and oppression of self-expression are not too distant, they are distant enough to not be talked about. So it’s going to be interesting to see how Spaniards will react to Garzón’s investigation.

Albeit controversial- something definitely not new to Garzón- this investigation is something that should have been done a long time ago. Many of Franco’s right-hand-men escaped without prosecution for the killings of 500,000 people. Garzón’s is making a courageous effort to give closure to many families who don’t even know what happened to their loved ones, let alone the whereabouts of their bodies.

President Zapatero has praised Garzón’s decision and believes it will have a strong impact. It will show Spaniards that “Franquismo” (the term used to describe Franco’s rule), will never occur again. It legitimizes the Spanish courts and definitely shows that crimes against humanity will not be tolerated in Spain.

However, a possible disturbance might soon be seen in the Basque region. The terrorist group ETA (Basque extremists seeking independence) thrives off of political movements such as this, and view it as a motivational tool to fire up supporters. ETA was formed during the time of Franco, opposing the serious restrictions placed on Basque people. Although ETA is much weaker now, stirring up past discrimination is a tactic which might incite acts of violence.

Voicing past injustices is great progress for a country with citizens who are very private regarding such difficult issues. But with all great leaps of courage, dangers are unfortunately linked as well. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out- hopefully not resulting in bombings or other acts of terror.

It's finally arrived...

The moment no one thought could occur has exploded and buried us in the wreckage. People are scared. No, that's an understatement- people are petrified and frantic. The stock market continues to plunge every day and if the trend continues, the Dow will be at 0 in the next few weeks. Eugene Robinson rightfully questions how McCain and Obama are going to fix the economic crisis, besides just giving generic, cookie-cutter answers that never really answer the question.

What is the plan guys? I want to know how every dollar of the 700 billion dollar bailout is going to be used, because it is furthering Americans' servitude each and every day. And when (IF) you answer the question, could you avoid the exorbitantly used responses: "America has the hardest working workers in the world" and "Not only Wall Street, but Main Street is suffering as well!" Frankly, I'm sick of the bullshit. We all know these predictable and useless answers. And please please please, come up with a better hypothetical street to replace Main Street. In fact, I can relate more to Crenshaw Blvd than I can Main Street.

So yes- I too, like my fellow Americans, am worried. My grandparents have lost half of their retirement in a few weeks, coupled with a huge loss in stocks. How are Obama and McCain going to fix that? Borrow MORE money? The reality is setting in and is even more troubling than the first Great Depression. In our globalized New World Order, we're all screwed. There is no where to run because EVERYONE is in trouble. Even Iceland.

So give me the answers I need to hear- whether or not it's exactly what I want to hear. Until then, my vote will hang in limbo until an alternative candidate presents some solutions.

The Faulty Two-Party System

The duopoly of the Democratic and Republican party in the United States is frequently regarded as being an intrinsic attribute of the Constitution. It is often cited that a two-party system is more stable, has broad support and is thus more politically moderate and prevents a possible ‘split voting’ situation. However, the dominance of the two-party system stifles political progress by limiting alternative choices, which may better reflect voters’ opinions. Although third-party candidates are often viewed as “spoilers” or a “waste of a vote,” they can truly impact the political structure and should be encouraged rather than marginalized. By analyzing the shortcomings of the two-party system, it becomes clear that the introduction of third-party candidates would encourage progress in a system which often alienates voters and only partially expresses the views of Americans.

The two-party system can be traced back to the Federalists vs. the Jeffersonian-Republicans, the former wanting a stronger central government and the latter believing in more state power. However, when faced with the idea of parties or factions, many of the founders of the Constitution believed that they were more harmful than beneficial. George Washington warned against “the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party,” as did John Adams, who believed that “a division of the republic into two great parties…is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” In fact, the Republicans and Federalists “did not think of each other as alternating parties in a two-party system,” but rather believed that the other would eventually be phased out and a one-party system would ensue. Hence, the notion that the party-system was a vision of the founding fathers is inaccurate, and more a result of opposition than decisive consideration. Through much of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the term ‘party’ and ‘faction’ carried a negative connotation. But over time, the negative implication of a two-party system has faded and has become a staple of American society.

Modern day politics has become centered on the two major parties- the Democrats and the Republicans. While many other parties exist, notably the Green Party and Independent Party, the Democratic and Republican parties are the only two which carry significant political clout. While it is argued that these two parties can effectively represent the views of their constituents, various surges in third-party support throughout history have suggested otherwise. Political scientist Hugh P. Williamson draws attention to some of the flaws in the classic Democratic-Republican support: “We proceed upon the obviously fallacious assumption that together these two parties express all of the political principles which any substantial group of citizens would have or care to express.” As a country which prides itself on being a cultural ‘melting-pot,’ it’s hard to believe that we can break down our political views into two definitive categories that the Democrats and Republican completely encompass. Rather, it is more probable to assume that some Americans are being left behind. Williamson further expands his claim and argues that “The practical effect of this situation is that many American citizens are partially, and many more are wholly, disenfranchised as effectively as though they were forcibly denied the right to vote at the polls on election day.” The disenfranchisement of voters results from a number of reasons and raises challenges to the validity of the two-party system.

As a result of the two-party system, voters may feel alienated in a process which ideally should elect officials that will carry out their best interests. Williamson states that our two-party system forces voters into one or the other of the two major parties and many people vote on the basis of the “lesser of two evils.” Why should voters feel like they are obligated to vote for someone they don’t even agree with? As a result of the limitations of alternative candidates, the two-party system can dissuade voters from voting at all. Many people would rather abstain from voting than cast a ballot for someone they don’t even believe in or agree with. A loss of faith in the two-party system calls attention to the need for alternative choices. In a 1995 L.A. Times poll, roughly half of the public considered the two-party system to be “unsound.” Furthermore, in an NES item asking whether parties “make the government pay attention to what the people think,” the percentage saying “not much” had grown from a mere 13% in 1964 to 30% in 1995. The growing disillusionment with the two major parties begs the call for alternative choices for voters. But the reputation of a “wasted vote” that is often attached to a vote for a third-party candidate presents a significant challenge in including more choices for voters.

The idea of the “wasted vote” is routinely attached to third-party candidates, which has proven to be misleading throughout history. Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr and Edward H. Lazarus highlight some important contributions of third-parties:

The impact of third parties on American politics extends far beyond their capacity to attract votes. Minor parties, historically, have been a source of important policy innovations. Women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators, to name a few, were all issues that third parties espoused first.

Although not being elected directly, third-party candidates that gain significant support from voters can carry influence in major political decisions. If we look at the 1992 election, a third-party candidate named Ross Perot managed to get 19% of the popular vote. While Perot was not elected to the presidency, his popular support caused other politicians to take notice and listen to what he had to say. Walter J. Stone and Ronald B. Rapoport provide interesting evidence of the impact of Perot’s candidacy in 1992:

Evidence of the Republican bid for the policy-based affections of the Perot constituency is found in the Contract with America offered in the fall of 1994 as a rationale for electing a Republican majority to the House of Representatives. The Contract emphasized the Perot issues if a balanced federal budget, reform, and limiting American commitment to internationalism. Just as notably, the Contract omitted references to Republican priorities such as stopping abortions and promoting free trade that united the base of the Republican Party but were strongly opposed by supporters of Ross Perot.

Third-party candidates gain popularity when voters are not satisfied with the Democratic or Republican candidates and feel as if they have neglected important issues which third-parties are willing to confront. In order to improve the inflexible two-party system, voters must let go of the notion of a “wasted vote.” As Lowi explains,

…a vote for a third-party candidate is never wasted. If the vote is for a candidate of a dissident party, it is a protest vote which can instill considerable anxiety in the leadership of the major parties… Major third parties in the past have disappeared because of their success. How can that be considered a wasted vote?

Once voters stop voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for candidates they actually believe in, progress will be made and changes will occur.

However, history, as well as current challenges, shows that the path to greater influence of third-parties is not that simple. Third parties have come and gone throughout the years and have never been able to gain a strong hold. For example, in 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party attracted more than 25% of the vote, only to disappear in the next election. In 1924 Robert La Follette drew 17% of the popular vote under the Progressive banner, but did not reappear in 1928. And in 1968, George Wallace’s American Independent Party candidacy was supported by 13.5% of voters, but this was followed in 1972 by the AIP’s paltry 1.4% showing when Wallace was not the party’s nominee. Due to the short-lived nature of third-parties, funding is far less compared to Democratic and Republican funds- and in politics, money talks. Media coverage also focuses on the two major parties and often neglects third-parties agendas. “In 1980, the leading newspapers and weekly news magazines gave Reagan and Carter about ten times more coverage than all eleven third party and independent candidates combined.” Moreover, it has become virtually impossible for third-party candidates to compete in presidential and vice-presidential debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates requires any candidate who wishes to debate to have polled at least 15 % support, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations. There are two obvious problems with these requirements- (1) it is virtually impossible for a third-party candidate to poll 15 % support when they are running against Democrats and Republicans financially supported by wealthy corporations and interest groups and (2) the polling organizations which poll “likely voters” are not targeting voters who would vote for third-party candidates, as they are usually the voters who tend to be so disenchanted that they refrain from voting all-together.

The challenges that third-parties face in the United States are ubiquitous, yet not impossible to overcome. In order for third-parties to gain more influence, a grassroots effort must begin at the local level. Voters must shed the notion of a ‘wasted vote,’ and realize that electing third-parties might be one of the best ways to affect change in politics and address issues that the two main parties have been ignoring for years. It would be idealistic to suggest that a third-party candidate will one day be commander-in-chief. But third-parties present an alternative to the rigid boundaries and issues that the Democrats and Republicans adhere to. Small changes at the local level- through local third party candidate elections- can have a ripple effect, causing the two main parties to listen to the alternative views and needs of their constituents.

13 Votes Short

In a surprising decision, the 700 billion dollar bailout was shot down (at least for now) by Congress. Instead of acknowledging the awful economic oversight of the Bush administration, many Republicans were quick to blame Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) showed his own misguided partisan views when he said that “I do believe that we could have gotten there today had it not been for this partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House. I mean, we were -- we put everything we had into getting the votes to get there today, but the speaker had to give a partisan voice that poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get to go south.” (Watch it here!)

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) further avoided the real issues as he stated that “Right here is the reason, I believe, why this vote failed, and this is Speaker Pelosi's speech that, frankly, struck the tone of partisanship that, frankly, was inappropriate in this discussion.”

Many were quick to point fingers at Pelosi, yet she had every right to criticize the Bush Administration and the mess they have made of this country. After all, it is very important to analyze what led us to this economic crisis, as well as to take the necessary steps to solve it.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) got a rise from the crowd as he poked fun at the Republican’s lame attempt to point the blame for the failure. “But think about this. "Somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country." I mean, that's hardly plausible. And there were 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interests of America, but not if anybody insulted them. I'll make an offer. Give me those 12 people's names, and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them.”

Right on Barney. It is ridiculous for the Republicans (and anyone else for that matter) to point a finger at Mrs. Pelosi, who was clearly just getting off her chest what many other disgusted Americans have felt for quite some time. Instead of blaming others for the failure of the bailout, perhaps you should focus your attention on the corrupt administration which led us down this path.

As for the bailout, I have my doubts. I am hesitant of hastily handing over the Bush Administration 700 billion dollars, adding to the whopping $9,898,738,907,211.78 of debt this country already has. I am also hesitant to allow a former CEO of Goldman Sachs to have so much input, when more likely than not, there’s a conflict of interest (buddies on Wall Street?). But if the choice is inaction, then what? Do we simply let the whole system collapse and enter the second Great Depression, creating a worldwide domino effect? Must everything collapse so we can start ‘fresh’ and rid the system of greedy businessmen and politicians?

Either way, the outlook looks gloomy. Perhaps Americans should have focused on electing a president with the intellectual capacity to keep America running smoothly rather than the man they’d ‘like to have a beer with.’

Gee America

As I look through the list of the ‘most viewed’ articles on Newsweek, I am saddened to see that the top 5 are:

(1)The National Enquirer: Ur-Text of the Tabloid Age

(2)Surprises at the Emmy Awards

(3) Anna Quindlen: This is Important

(4) Anne Hathaway Grows Up

(5) Robert Wagner reveals love affair with Stanwyck

Only one of these deals with issues that will actually affect our lives, which is Quindlen’s thoughtful column, which encourages voters to pay close attention to the election and the unfolding political events. But sadly, her voice will fall on deaf ears as the designer gowns of the Emmy’s trump the soon-to-be economic depression and the historic upcoming election. Perhaps it is easier to turn a blind eye to the mess that America has gotten itself in. Perhaps ‘Ignorance is Bliss.’ Perhaps Americans will continue to ignore the magnitude that politics plays in society and turn to US Weekly instead of the various political debates. Well, I guess there is no choice but to let America learn the hard way. Things must get worse before they get better.

So brace yourself, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Brazen Blankenhorn

“I’m a Liberal Democrat” is how David Blankenhorn of the Los Angeles Times begins his narrow-minded op-ed, arguing that marriage “is primarily a license to have children.” I don’t think claiming to be a Liberal will veil your true feelings Mr. Blankenhorn, nor excuse you from the fallacies you conjure up. Apparently, studying a year of anthropology now entitles anyone to scientifically support their homophobia, asserting that marriage should only occur between men and women. Interestingly enough, I think you missed a few things while “studying” anthropology. According to the American Anthropological Association,

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Blankenhorn goes on to cite anthropologist Helen Fisher’s 1992 (outdated) claim that “People wed primarily to reproduce.” I must have missed the memo regarding procreation as the number one reason to marry a significant other. Perhaps it is too idealistic to assume that people marry one another because of a deep love they share. Blankenhorn’s main argument supporting a ban on gay marriage is to ensure the healthy development of a child, which is best achieved through biological parents raising the child. Well, certainly Blankenhorn would oppose adoption and divorce. Adopting would be out-of-the-question since a child would be “denied his birthright to both parents who made him.” And divorce would also be outrageous, since he believes (with his heart, of course) the right of a child to the mother and father that made him. In following his reasoning, a child that is raised by two abusive birth parents is better off than being raised by a loving and successful gay couple. More than fifty-percent of marriages end in divorce, and many children are being raised by single parents. Adoption of children from all different regions of the world is common and accepted. The “traditional” family unit no longer exists, and there are no conclusive studies that prove that gay couples would raise a child any different, or less ‘healthy,’ than a man and woman. We pride ourselves on equality, yet don’t practice what we preach.

Instead of hiding behind the pretext of child rights, Blankenhorn is better off admitting his blatant ignorance and joining the likes of Palin and Bush Jr. (and Sr. too I suppose).

The Public Intellectual

A public intellectual is a classification which carries as much ambiguity as it does influence. Rather than focusing on the precise definition of a public intellectual, it is more intriguing to analyze the particular role they play in society, and whether or not there has been a decline of their presence in recent history (as discussed in Stephen Mack’s article “The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals?”). Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, is a working example of the public intellectual’s influence on society, frequently commenting on current political debates. Despite his own turbulent political career, saturated with corruption and hypocrisy, Gingrich continues to influence public opinion through his commentary in major media and various authored books. Gingrich’s political catastrophe in the House of Representatives begs us to question whether the public intellectual should be involved in political office, or disengaged to ensure that the quality of there work is not altered for self-interested reasons. Furthermore, Gingrich’s rigid political views call to attention the dangers of the public intellectual who is completely obdurate and inflexible to alternate ideas and opinions.

First, we must look at what exactly classifies a person as a public intellectual. It seems that a person must be (a) highly educated, and (b) in the public domain in order to be considered a public intellectual. While these are both two important characteristics, it is also important that the public intellectual be influential in the opinions they express. More often than not, public intellectuals are removed from a political office, which enables them to critique various issues in a totally open-minded manner. Newt Gingrich crossed into the political realm, which definitely affected his views as a public intellectual. As Stephen Mack points out in his article “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals,” the public intellectual’s function is criticism. It is the duty of the public intellectual to stimulate public discussion and draw attention to various societal issues. But what happens when a public intellectual is completely inflexible in their views? Is it necessary for the public intellectual to entertain the idea that they might not necessarily know all the answers? In examining Newt Gingrich, it is clear that his unbending views ultimately led to his demise.

Gingrich is credited with uniting the Republican Party and ending forty years of a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives in 1994. One of the major factors helping Gingrich rise to Speaker of the House and ushering in a Republican majority was his Contract with America, which presented welfare reform, tougher crime laws, term limits, and a balanced budget law. During his time as Speaker of the House, Gingrich was involved in various scandals and became a very polarizing figure in the Republican Party, which caused him to resign in 1998. He was sanctioned for $300,000 for ethics violations tied to federal tax violations and providing false information to an ethics panel. He was also directly responsible for a federal budget shutdown in 1995, when he halted the release of funds due to a disagreement with President Clinton (many claiming due to a personal and superficial feud). Gingrich was a very loud-mouthed and opinionated politician, and his inability to adapt to changing conditions ultimately turned many of his own Republican colleagues off. Since leaving political office, Gingrich has gone on to continuously comment on current political issues with various media outlets, particularly Fox News Channel. He has worked with various political think tanks and founded a non-partisan group called American Solutions for Winning the Future, which aims to transform all levels of government. Gingrich has written many books, including Rediscovering God in America, in which he attempts to explain the necessity of the Christian religion in various aspects of American society. Despite his clear shortcomings in politics, Gingrich continues to influence public opinion.

In examining the catastrophic outcome Gingrich had in politics, the question of the role of the public intellectual must be addressed. Although Mack points out that it is the duty of the public intellectual to criticize, this can be especially dangerous when this criticism is transferred to politics. No matter what the character of the public intellectual, it is inevitable that once they become a political official, they are not able to make decisions from an impartial standpoint and will conduct their duties to favor their own agenda. As Jean Bethke Elshtain points out,

A public intellectual is not a paid publicist, not a spinner, not in the pocket of a narrowly defined purpose. It is, of course the temptation, another one, of the public intellectual to cozy up to that which he or she should be evaluating critically. I think perhaps, too many White House dinners can blunt the edge of criticism. . . .

After Gingrich became involved in politics, it changed his ability to approach issues in an intellectual manner. To truly be a public intellectual, mustn’t a person be able to see both sides of an issue objectively and not worry about how this will affect his work? Gingrich was committed to exposing former Speaker of the House Jim Wright’s suspicious financial dealings, which forced him to resign. Yet only a few years later, Gingrich had his own crooked financial dealings that were exposed. Additionally, Gingrich was one of the organizers calling for the impeachment of Clinton and criticized his extra-marital affair. Yet years later, Gingrich was involved in his own affair. It is difficult to determine whether these deceitful actions are just inherent qualities of Gingrich, or whether being involved in politics influenced some of these actions. But it is certain that serving a political role transformed Gingrich into something other than a public intellectual.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Gingrich was notoriously known for having a very strong personality and very resolute opinions. Should a public intellectual be steadfast in their opinions? The answer to that is simple- certainly. However, there is a fine line between being firm in one’s opinions and being stubborn and unable to entertain possible alternative views. What distinguishes the public intellectual from a public commentator is the intellectual’s ability to critically think and approach various issues in an inventive manner. Obviously, public intellectuals should have strong opinions. But there needs to be a bit of permissiveness to allow for the growth of new ideas. Gingrich is a very opinionated man, and his inability to tolerate alternate ideas seriously affects his credibility as a public intellectual. When Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he had approval ratings in the single digits, as noted by the New York Observer. Gingrich’s low approval ratings would seem to suggest that perhaps the public intellectual is better off taking a back seat when it comes to getting involved in political office.

Another issue of particular interest is whether or not there has been a decline of the public intellectual in society. As John Donatich noted during a panel discussion,

…I might as well admit that I've been worried about making the slip, "the future of the public ineffectual."... It seems to me that there is a central conflict regarding American intellectual work. How does it reconcile itself with the venerable tradition of American anti-intellectualism? What does a country built on headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance do with its people convinced that they know best?

The anti-intellectualism that Donatich speaks of is a bit exaggerated. If this were truly a country of people convinced they knew best, then books by public intellectuals, such as Gingrich’s Rediscovering God in America, would not continuously be on best-seller lists. With the internet and the accessibility of information, public intellectuals can thrive in modern society. If anything, it could be argued that there is actually an increase in the presence of the public intellectual. Donatich makes the argument that public intellectuals such as Erikson and Freud no longer exist. But we are no longer living in the 1950’s- it is the 21^st century and technology, as well as the types of public intellectuals, has transformed to keep up with the changes. It is no longer as easy to pinpoint the exact definition of the public intellectual because it has evolved and morphed over time. But certainly, the public intellectual is still very influential, shaping our views through various books, newspapers, and television commentary.

By using Newt Gingrich to explore the definition and characteristics of the public intellectual, we see that it is really difficult to narrowly classify these individuals. Gingrich is an excellent example illustrating many reasons why public intellectuals need to remove themselves from inside the political realm. It is also important that the public intellectual leave a bit of leeway for new ideas, contrary to their own, to flourish. In a technology-driven age, it seems only rational that the public intellectual will continue to have a place in society and remain a foundation for public awareness and debate.

Down Girl!!

Woah there! Was I watching the Republican National Convention or an episode of Jerry Springer? The claws came out last Wednesday night when Sarah Palin took the stage to accept the Republican nomination for vice-president. “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities,” she announced to the geriatric crowd, referring to the Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama. She continued to unleash her cleverly-written speech, continuously attacking Obama to divert attention away from the clear lack of substance her speech contained. “…there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate,” she continued. Was I fascinated and engrossed in her speech? Absolutely. Was I convinced that Palin has an ounce of capability to salvage the mess that is the United States? Absolutely not. Although she skillfully delivered nasty one-liners, she failed to mention her and John McCain’s plans to improve the dwindling economy, her radical pro-life stance (anti-abortion even in cases of rape? Seriously?), or the appalling commander-in-chief, who we might as well refer to as Voldemort (He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named). But she did employ the vital Republican tactics in her speech: (1) Let’s support our troops! She even added a touching personal narrative about her soon-to-deploy 19-year old son. (2) Democrats will raise your taxes! And of course (3) Strong family values! (Having a child with down-syndrome will certainly solicit a few votes).

When I first heard Palin’s name announced, I was indeed surprised. But after reading about her credentials (or lack thereof), McCain’s reasons became all too clear. She is more of a “conservative” and “classic” Republican (although I hate using these terms as they’ve became increasingly distorted over time) and will appeal to Republicans that don’t align with McCain’s more moderate views. She is a woman, which will hopefully capture some of the staunch Hillary supporters. But most importantly, like everything else in this excessively-greedy country, she has a tie to oil and supports domestic drilling. Great idea Sarah. Let’s just drill to our hearts content and get that instant-gratification price decrease at the pumps. Who cares? It won’t be our generation left to clean up the mess (literally and figuratively), right? And as far as capturing Hillary supporters, Gloria Steinem expresses my views perfectly when she says “Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive, and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

So thank you, Mrs. Palin. Thank you for reminding me why I would never vote for two candidates that clearly have no idea how to resolve the serious economic and international issues that are facing our country. But hey, at least your speech was 1,000 times more interesting than McCain’s!