Advertisements

Archive

Archive for the ‘Politics or: the art of looking for trouble’ Category

Graphical representation of $700 billion

September 29, 2008 Leave a comment

Ouch.  Is it worth it?  The experts seem just as divided as the bloggers.

Advertisements

Stewart and Colbert grace the cover of Entertainment Weekly

September 25, 2008 Leave a comment

In the midst of re-creating the controversial New Yorker cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama for the cover photo that graces this week’s print edition of Entertainment Weekly, Jon Stewart stops briefly to pose a taste question. As he stands by the catering table in ”secret Muslim” garb, he ponders, ”Would it be weird to be dressed like this and have a bagel, salmon, and a schmear?” Pseudo-blowhard Stephen Colbert has his own worries. Striking his best Michelle-as-Black-Panther pose, he glances at the original cartoon and realizes that he’s ”hippier” than the potential First Lady. Gesturing at his own waist, he moans, ”I could drop a baby like a peasant.”

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20228603,00.html

Libertarianism and Generation Z

September 23, 2008 1 comment

There is talk that the younger generation is becoming more “liberal.” The number of new registered voters for Democratic Party is increasing at a higher rate than that of the Republican Party. Statistics show individuals below the age of 30 have a higher tendency of backing open immigration borders and civil liberties such as same-sex marriage. These are hot topics in what the media refers to as our “increasingly polarized society.”

But what of economic issues? What about foreign trade policy, involvement in NATO, and progressive taxation?

I don’t believe I’m being overly cynical when I suggest that a majority of people don’t care about politics and public policy beyond what affects them personally, especially when it comes to issues as complex and erudite as economics.

“Tax beer,” suggested a DJ on WDHA 105.5, one afternoon, commenting on Governor Corzine’s handling of the budget deficit. “No wait, I drink that. To be honest, I don’t care what they do as long it doesn’t affect me.”

Many listeners probably share that sentiment—that if it doesn’t affect your direct life, it doesn’t matter. But if it does so happen to benefit you, then great! Who doesn’t want to pay less for everything and see that chunk taken out of their paycheck get smaller?

The free market is one of the forces that helped shape America to be great. The success of our country and other free market societies has taught us that the pursuit of self-interest is not inherently a bad thing and enables progression as a society. Especially among business and finance majors, the hopeful entrepreneurs, there is a growing ideology which is becoming downright trendy—Libertarianism.

Advocates for Self-Government, a non-profit libertarian organization, describes Libertarianism as a philosophy: “The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others.”

In terms of political values, Libertarians support minimally regulated markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration policies, and non-interventionism in foreign policy. Libertarians draw from both ends of the American political spectrum, supporting the social freedoms of the archetypal Democrat and the economic freedoms of the Republican.

According to a 2007 Pew Research Center poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates, 56% of American Adults believe there should be a third major political party, an alternative to two-party system of the Republicans and the Democrats. Another poll that year by Ramuessun suggested 58%. This year, an Associated TV/Zogby International noted for the presidential election, 17% were either undecided or leaning to third-party candidates.

There is indeed a Libertarian Party with a candidate running for president this year. But former House member Bob Barr is a poor spokesman for Libertarianism’s eponymous party and its values. His record on economic policies is solid but his record on civil liberties is not. He supported the infamously expensive War on Drugs, backed the arguably unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, and voted for the potentially civil-rights violating Patriot Act.

But what about alternatives? What if there was a viable candidate that spoke for a broad spectrum of Libertarian values, encompassing both the social and economic?

In a mock Presidential Primary 2008 election held by Pi Sigma Alpha, the national political science honor society, Ron Paul won the Republican’s mock primary with 27 percent of the student vote. Ron Paul’s campaign focused on ending the war in Iraq, enhancing state rights, and balancing the budget. The renegade Republican surprisingly out-raised most other contenders in the fourth quarter with $19.5 million, mostly from Internet contributions. And although he ran on the Republican ticket, he was the Libertarian candidate in 1988. Two decades later, the youth speaks in his favor.

The young adults of today, those of Generation Z, hear the word freedom very strongly. They seek to maximize individual liberty. They seek to protect their fundamental rights and the rights of those around them. They seek the change promised from the mouths of so many men. Libertarianism may finally be the third political force that young Americans so desperately crave.

Keith Olbermann lists past RFK references by Clinton

Ouch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758

“You actually used the word ‘assassination’ in a time when there is a fear unspoken, but vivid and terrible, that our again troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for president or a white man or a white woman…. In retrospect we failed her when we did not call her out [for her Time’s March sixth article reference to RFK’s assassination]”

Same-sex Marriage Legalized in California

In lieu of recent civil rights break through in California, I decided I would reiterate some of the main points from my same-sex essay. The essay is about 2000 words, so I can understand why it’s not getting many fullviews. I too have a short attention span, and mostly read tumblelogs.

Quoteth the AP article “California’s top court legalizes gay marriage”:

“Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law,” declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: “We’re going to get married. No Tupperware, please.”

*headdesk*

1. Marriage is not about love, not in the government ratified sense. No ones preventing gays from loving, living together, or even having a ceremony. Plenty of people who aren’t in love get married.

2. Marriage is not “sacred”, unless you’re talking about in the spiritual or religious sense. Somebody please tell Bush there’s a separation of church and state.

2. Legal marriage is about the 1049 rights, benefits, and privileges are granted by the federal government and the hundreds more granted by the state. Marriage is also about having the title “marriage” so that “equivalent” civil unions don’t echo the failed separate but equal concept.

3. Stop calling it “gay marriage.” Same-sex marriage allows people of the gender to marry regardless of sexual orientation. I’m straight and I want the option to marry a woman if I want to. I want to be able to say, “This is my heterosexual life partner. She is the Jay to my Silent Bob. I want her to be the one that takes custody of me if I’m in a coma and receive my social security when I die.” I’m probably not going to, but goddammit I want that right.

More Obamania from MoveOn.org

If you’ve watched all the winners from MoveOn.org’s “Obama in 30 Seconds” contest, you’ll get it.

LOLMCCAIN

If you’re on deviantart +fav.