The Interesting Times

Stay Tuned!

2009-08-12T12:53:00.002-04:00

Hello Folks,

First off, sorry for not writing sooner-- I know my self-imposed deadline was yesterday. However, due a combination of technical misadventures, obscene amounts of curricular work and generally having other things that needed to be handled, I've given myself the week off.

That said, I am going to be on vacation the next two weeks, which means I'll have plenty of free time to post rants! I'll try to make them not as gargantuan as my last one on Afghanistan, but I won't skimp either.

Also, a final reason I haven't posted anything is because I've been waiting for my colleague to get his ass in gear and write an article, both because I am planning on writing a counter-argument and because I want to give him a chance to catch up. So stay tuned, and I will see you Monday evening at the latest!

--The Management

P.S. If you have an idea for a story you would like me to discuss, or if you yourself have a story you'd like published, please feel free to contact me at bzresnik@gmail.com.

Procrastination

2009-08-07T20:51:00.001-04:00

Hello folks!

I'm afraid I don't have a new post today because of an insane amount of work/travel/laziness. Anyway, I shall hopefully have a new post tomorrow. See you all then!

--The Management

Time in Afghanistan

2009-08-04T18:57:00.000-04:00

First off, I would like to point out that this is my THIRD consecutive article since the Great Pledge of ’09, and that I’ve posted three in the time it’s taken my friend and opponent Evan over at Speakwire to even compose one. So fail to Evan, success to me!

Anyway, on to the story.

I have a memory of walking through a supermarket checkout line as a child and looking at the rows of magazines. I was eleven, and for some reason I clearly remember this article on the cover of TIME Magazine. It said “The Other War” in large yellow writing and had a picture of a soldier on a hilltop.

When I realized that this post’s subject should be Afghanistan, I decided to locate this article. I’ve spent the last week tracking it down on the Web, and finally, five years later, found it and read it.

The parallels between the problems laid out in the 5-year-old article and those now are stunning. The story was written two years after the invasion, but it could in most places be mistaken for one written two weeks ago. To look further into that, let’s examine Afghanistan now as compared to it when the TIME article was published. We’ll see what has gotten better, what has gotten worse, and what has stayed the same. And since we’ve got past and present in the mix already, I’ll throw in what I see for the future, and at no extra cost!

Because we’re all rosy-cheeked optimists here, let’s start with the turns for the better. Arguably the most significant improvement in the last five years has been the situation with Pakistan. Up to this point, Pakistan has been the most important factor in attaining Afghan peace (or hindering it), aside from the Afghans themselves.

Under the presidency of Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan was very strongly suspected of aiding the Taliban in setting up a newly set up democracy under president Hamid Karzai. Pakistan’s motivation for aiding the Taliban was that Pakistan had been trying to use the Taliban to turn Afghanistan into a client nation for many years prior.

The TIME article reports an incident in which Pakistani military vehicles were identified driving Taliban fighters away from a battle with American forces, despite the fact that Pakistan is supposedly an ally with the United States. On top of that, bin Laden himself is strongly rumored to be living somewhere within Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan.

In short, the Pakistani government under Musharraf was both corrupt and hypocritical in foreign and local eyes. Thankfully for us, his inadequacies became obvious enough that he incurred the wrath of the native population. Faced with impeachment, Musharraf resigned as president, and was replaced with Yousaf Raza Gillani, a member of the party of assassinated candidate Benazir Bhutto, and a proponent of reform.

This change in administration has brought on improved ties with the US, and even with Pakistan’s long-time opponent, India. Along with these improved diplomatic relations comes a renewed military vitality and willingness to fight off the Taliban. This is most evidenced by the results of the continued strife in the Swat Valley region of northwest Pakistan, where the Taliban have been trying to set up a base of operations. The Pakistani military, joined by local residents unfriendly with the Taliban, have been for the most part successful in keeping Taliban influence out of the region, and putting the extremist group in a tougher situation.

That said, Pakistan is not out of the militant Islamic hole yet, and has a long way to go before it can feel safe from the tentacles of al-Qaida and its ilk; however, the recent steps the country has taken are good signs that they are moving in the right direction.

I will even go so far as to predict that Pakistan will be instrumental in capturing bin Laden. With a renewed friendship with the Obama administration and the West, Pakistan will prove a valuable (if not sometimes unpredictable) ally in the war against extremism.

Next is a way the Afghan situation has destabilized since 2004: drugs. The drug trade was actually outlawed under Taliban rule before the 2001 invasion. The invasion left the militant Islamic infrastructure destroyed, which was good for the population as a whole, but the ensuing chaos has led to a gigantic boom in the nation’s drug trade; according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan was the source of 93% of the world’s illegal opiate production in 2007. The cash reaped from black market drug deals has kept the Taliban supplied with as much armament and ammunition as they have zealots to use them.

2004 was only seeing the very beginnings of this trade, where Afghanistan held a paltry 75% of heroin production. Now, five years later, the Afghan drug trade is in full swing; this is decidedly a turn for the worst for honest members of the nation’s citizenry who have found themselves in regions of the country controlled by drug production, and thus the Taliban.

If things continue their current course, the drug trade in Afghanistan will continue to strengthen. The simple truth is that a militiaman with a gun is more of a direct threat to the US Army than the drug dealers who supply them. Although the issue has been addressed a little, not enough can be done by the armed forces to oust this lucrative market from the impoverished population. At the end of the day, it will have to be Afghans themselves who, like the natives of the Swat Valley in Pakistan, work by their own initiative to force this source of pain and corruption from their homeland.

Finally, the most important way the Afghanistan of 2004 is similar to that of 2009 is that it is under the rule of President Hamid Karzai, the well-protected and constantly endangered Commander-in-Chief of Afghanistan. Even Karzai’s rule is subject to change, though. In 2004, Karzai was viewed favorably by the most part by Afghans. After all, he was the first freely elected president in their history, and the birth of democracy in one’s country instills a fair amount of national pride in its citizens. The TIME article suggests that, while Karzai was never viewed as a particularly tough leader, he was considered a kind person overall.

In the past few months and years, though, Karzai’s approval has fallen significantly, with allegations of corruption and general incompetence within his administration hindering his ability to operate the government successfully. With Afghanistan’s national elections coming up and Karzai’s position on the line, it will be a test of both the public’s opinion of the president and the vitality of the burgeoning Afghan republic to see whether the people’s voice is loud enough to oust him.

This is where my pessimism comes in. I believe that Karzai will win the election. He is a nationally familiar face, and it’s simply easier for citizens to maintain the status quo. There may be some grumbling from those who don’t like him, but in the end much will remain unchanged. Based on future events in the region, it is reasonable to assume that Afghanistan’s democracy will become incrementally stronger, culminating in the election of a charismatic leader. Only at this point will America be able to consider withdrawal from the country.

I first saw the article in TIME five years ago, and it doesn’t seem that we have gotten any closer to ending the “Other War.” Bin Laden has yet to be captured, religious militarism is still on the rise, and, just today, rockets struck the capital city of Kabul. Afghanistan is the main arena for the current war with extremist Islam, and Obama’s handling of the situation may turn out to be his legacy, just as Iraq was Bush’s.

There is still much to do before Afghanistan can find peace. But the upcoming August 20 election will usher in the next phase in Afghanistan’s burgeoning life as a democracy, for better or worse. The challenges that lie ahead are daunting, and Afghanistan’s future is at stake economically, strategically, and ideologically.

That said, if it can be done, our armed forces are as up to the challenge as they can be. The TIME article closes with a statement that is just as true today as it was when I first saw it on my way out of the Giant; “the game is a long way from being over.”

Birth(er) of a Nation

2009-07-31T21:59:00.000-04:00

First off, this is my first post since making the Great Pledge of ’09, and it’s on time, so hooray for that! I’m going to celebrate by sitting back and relaxing for, say, three days.

Anyway, on a less happy note: Birthers!

In a recent poll, it was revealed that 58% of people who identified themselves as Republicans believed that Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore illegitimate as president. This surprisingly large group is known collectively as the “Birther” Movement, the term being a reference to the “911 Truther” conspiracy theorists.

Now, the central idea of this group is so mind-bogglingly stupid that I’m not going to justify its existence by expending the calories necessary to think up a joke. Instead, I’m going to talk about what it reveals about the Republican Party.

The Birther movement demonstrates the continuation of a rift that formed with Obama’s election: the battle between the political styles of Rove and those of Gingrich. After the Republicans’ thrashing in the 2008 elections, the good old boys at the top were indecisive about which direction to take, a fact I may have over-hastily called a death knell in an earlier entry. Some wanted to continue the strategy of mocking their opponents into the ground, most notably done on John Kerry in 2004 but employed unsuccessfully this past election season. The other end of the spectrum favored a more diplomatic approach, preferring political battles on the House and Senate floors to sophomoric name-calling.

The majority of the Republicans who managed to hold onto their offices this Fall decided to go with the more subtle second method, while the disillusioned members of the Republican base turned instead to increasingly aggressive methods of spreading their ideals. Canny conservatives remained quiet while Rush Limbaugh sent out anger-scented invitations to national tea parties.

The Birther movement in itself is no more than another shoddy, half-baked attempt to bring down Obama’s ratings, and ultimately a pointless distraction from real events in Washington. What is important about it, though, is how some Republicans on the Hill, those who have stayed subtle up to this point, are reacting to it. Those who are trying to counter Obama’s policies have been fighting a difficult battle, and have seen at least as many failures as successes. These recent events are an easy way to shore up their popularity with Right-wingers, and may prove a temptation too good to resist. Their responses to the Birther debacle will test their mettle as honest statesmen. Unfortunately for them, whether they prove worthy or not, these last remnants of true Republicanism are sure to face some tough times ahead.

On the one hand, if they stand with the Democrats, they will be castigated by their conservative bases back home. Their voters will view the decision as a split with Party principles and a breach of the faith. As such, their ratings will drop.

On the other hand, if they stand with the Birthers, every level-headed person from any point on the political spectrum will think them just as crazy and sensationalist as the extreme-right group they have aligned themselves with. As such, their ratings will drop.

The reason Republican members of the House and Senate are siding with the Birthers is that they don’t see the long-term consequences of their actions. Soon enough, just like every other half thought-out attempt at manufacturing a scandal in the history of modern politics, the Birther movement will fizzle and die; those that remain will be just as isolated as the 911 Truthers from which they adapted their name.

My advice to Republicans in Congress who are mulling over this decision is to ignore the Birthers. It’s going to hurt a bit with your base in the short term, but at the end of the day, you’ll survive with your ratings intact, along with your credibility and, most importantly, your dignity. If it can be done, it will be those who stand with the Democrats on this issue who bring the GOP into the modern age.

Iran and the War of Information

2009-07-29T19:45:00.001-04:00

The Iranian protests began well over a month ago, and have widely changed the media representation of the country from one of unabashed evil and backwardness to one of empathy for a repressed people. In the time since Mahmoud Ahmedinejad decided he had won the election and opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, erm, politely disagreed, the politically savvy have picked apart every event and its justification. Now, exactly what happened and why has been analyzed by better sources than mine, but the upside of sitting back and waiting for events to unfold is that it’s given me more time to think about what could happen next, and what it all means.

Let’s first take a look at the state of the Iranian government. Perhaps the most obvious sign of decay is the further-weakening legitimacy of “President” Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The reasons for his general lack of acceptance are straightforward—the election was rigged in his favor, and he didn’t even try to fake an honest attempt at addressing the arguments against him. This in itself is no different than any other dictatorship in the world. What makes Ahmedinejad’s case notable is the method by which the news of his questionable victory was transported, and the speed of the reaction.

The existence of 24-hour news programs means that there is always going to be a steady flow of information. However, even Wolf Blitzer seemed surprised at the speed of the return of the results from the Iranian election. So were the Iranians. Ultimately, it was the speed of the news, not the news itself, which let the cat out of the bag for Ahmedinejad. Literally seconds after hearing of Mahmoud’s victory in a given province, an Iranian could post surprise and displeasure on the Internet, and be surprised to see that the incumbent had won in quite a few other places, too. The Web made it possible for Iranians to see that victory was coming too quickly for Ahmedinejad, and from there realize that something wasn’t right. A third-world dictatorship without widespread Internet access could have taken advantage of the relative lack of speed in spreading news of their near total victory to consolidate power while the people tried to figure out what was going on. This is not so in high-tech Iran.

This Internet-fueled dissidence spread to Ayatollah Khamenei himself. The same fact that makes cyber-trolling so pervasive helped keep the Sea of Green stay afloat in its vital first few weeks—it’s easier to be brave behind a monitor. When people didn’t have the guts to call out Khamenei in the streets, they turned instead to the Internet, rallying support for massive Distributed Denial of Service attacks on his and other government websites. Eventually, anger did turn publicly against him, but it could not have done so to the extent that it did without E-protesters keeping the spark alive.

As the uprising progressed, Basij forces got more violent. For a few weeks, the opposition was pushed almost entirely underground. Physical protestors couldn’t get through walls of armed militiamen, but their online counterparts could disarm the firewalls without much trouble. This was the most important part of the first phase of the uprising. Without Iranians and outside sympathizers keeping the faith alive with messages and videos, the protests may very well have fizzled out without returning to the streets.

During this same time, it came to light that many companies, notably Siemens, were assisting the Iranian government in locking-down and censoring the Internet in a bid to shut off Iran from the outside world. Thanks again to the Internet, the moment this news appeared, people across the planet voiced their outrage at the corporation. The PR beating that Siemens took as a result made it clear that it wasn’t worth the trouble to provide the Iranian government with the tools it needed to censor effectively. This, in turn, made it more difficult for the Iranian government to continue to censor its people at all.

So what can the nations of the world do to halt the Iranian theocracy’s repression of so many of its people? Nothing. That does not mean, however, that individuals can’t affect it. In fact, individuals are the key. What needs to be maintained is constant, consistent coverage of the events in Iran. An oppressive, ultra-nationalist government is a lot like a conspiracy theory—it can seem convincing, but sustained scrutiny and logic will eventually reveal it as the pile of rubbish and Photoshopped pictures that it is.

Also important is the continued humanization of the Iranian people. During the previous administration, Iran was named a member of the “Axis of Evil.” While this was all well and good for unity on the part of the West, it made it very easy for those same people to dehumanize the populace of the country it had denounced. Calling Iran “evil” allowed the American people to look at their system and those it affected, shake their heads, and continue on their way. Now that the Iranian people have a face, it’s much more difficult for empathetic people to stand by and watch them being oppressed. And if this is true for Westerners, it is doubly so for Iranians—every day, videos of government crackdowns on peaceful protests are transmitted across the Net, and the people lose a little more faith in Khamenei. It is this sustained attention, sent out from the inside and broadcasted across the world, that will give the young, tech-savvy, and increasingly frustrated generation of Iranians the upper hand.

The Iranian uprising is the first protest in the history of the world to be followed minute-by-minute, tweet-by-tweet, across the world. It is a dispute that cannot be simply beaten into submission with bullets and sticks. It is one in which we, the viewers, are no longer just viewers, but participants and empathizers in the uprising. The Iranian people feel that support at their backs just as Basij become unnerved by the myriad eyes watching them from every corner of the world. It is a battle that is fought not only in the Motherland, but on the motherboard, and a revolution that is based less on actual fighting and more on ideas. And ideas, as a wise graphic-novel hero once said, are bulletproof.

A Pledge

2009-07-29T16:24:00.002-04:00

Hello, ladies and gents.

First off, I'd like to apologize for the hiatus. I wasn't just goofing off and neglecting the blog though; I've been following Iran closely, and picking the right time to begin my rant. I've missed a couple rather interesting bits of news in the down time though, but I'm sure there will be many, many more sex scandles, racially-charged accusations, and general examples of idiocy to come.

Anyway, I'm going to make a pledge to you, my avid fan(s). I promise that you will get a new blog posting at least every three days for the entire month of August. And if I don't, I'll eat my hat (N.B. you will be directly responsible for any medical complications that ensue from ingesting my head-ware).

So, enjoy the postings, and send me your thoughts, disagreements, and alien-related conspiracy theories, as they help me think up new things to talk about.

One final thing: I've officially been published in an actual news source! It's called the Takoma Voice, and it's this tiny little local paper, but there I am in black-and-white electrons nonetheless! It can be found here, and I'll continue to post links to my stories as they get completed.

What is news?

2009-06-18T11:35:00.004-04:00

I'm taking a minor break from my Iran-monitoring to bring you an ongoing Facebook conversation I've been having with some of my conservative colleagues over the nature of the media in America. It began with one of them, let's call him "Bill," posting this link-- "'Conservatives' are Single Largest Ideological Group." I responded by posting this --"Almost All Indicators Show The GOP Fading Into Minority Status." And, well, the conversation unfolded from there. Please excuse the grammatical and syntactical errors; wrote this on the fly. Here you go:

Bill: perhaps the republican party is experiencing a momentary contracture, this I am not denying. But the fact that America is conservative is a fact. And btw, I hope you dont really read the Huffington Post-its more than a liberal-snot-rag than newsweek.

Me: What are your opinions on FOX? and by the way, you're the closest thing to an intelligent conservative I've come into contact with in well over a year. And that's a hell of a compliment from a liberal-snot-ragger like me.

Bill: FOX (i am assuming you mean news) is great-they report everything whether is conservative or not. they at least attempt to be balanced which you dont get on the other stations. I appreciate the compliment, but realize that there are a lot of us intelligent conservatives out there, after all, its an intellectual movement.

Me: correction-- there *was* an intellectual movement. Then 2000 happened. And you actually consider FOX *balanced*? I'm not going to pretend that HuffPost is particularly centrist, but, Jesus Christ dude, they don't sling half the mud that FOX'n'Friends does.

Bill: it still is an intellectual movement. i dont know what you mean about 2000. i said that "they at least attempt to be balanced which you dont get on the other stations." Fox and Friends is a joke-its a morning show. And if the Huffington Post was a tv station, the amount of mud slung would be innumerable...

Me: But they're *not* a TV show. They're a web-newspaper, which lets them separate their opinions in the "opinions" section and their news in the "news" section. FOX TV doesn't do that, and wouldn't if it could, because it wants them both interchangable in the eyes of their viewers. And ok, we'll discount Fox and friends, even though I could easily ... Read Moremake a contrary case. That leaves us Hannity, O'Reily, and, you know, all of their broadcasters. Granted, the articles on international affairs in FOX *print* are objective enough to count as news, but I would be ashamed to call FOX TV the news outlet of my ideological outlook. And finally, about 2000, I'm referring to the fact that, the moment Carl Rove's style of getting a person elected gained credence in the Republican Party, the GOP started to rot.

[Enter my other distinguished colleague, let's call him Ted]: Like MSNBC isn't slanted?! *cough cough* Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow, KIETH FUCKING OLBERMANN, Mika Brezenski just to name a few...

Me: I never said MSNBC wasn't slanted! I'm comparing HuffPost to FOX TV. Come in with a point, not an attack...And for the record, even MSNBC has their news programs separate from their opinion programs

Ted: You're point is a double standard. The shows on fox you mention ARE their opinion shows.

Me: name one "news" show on fox that doesn't meld fact and opinion.

Ted: name one "news" show on MSNBC that doesn't meld fact and opinion. See what I did there? Clever, I know, but it makes a very important point. Every major news outlet melds its facts and opinions. If you can't see that, then I have to question your intelligence. Yes. Fox News is biased (surprise?!). However, you can't point that finger without also ... Read Moreaccepting the fact that they aren't the only players. The reason Fox gets so much shit, is because they are the only (of cable news, at least) that has a Conservative bias. MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc all are biased as hell. I know. I watch ALL of them. (MSNBC being my most watched.) During the "real news" shows, it is mostly fact (I am referring to the 10-2ish time slots) after that, every major network has moved right into their respective primetime shows (Matthews, Maddow, O'Reily, Blitzer, Hannity, Cafferty, etc). So don't try to play all innocent when slinging mud, ok?

Me: show me the quote where I said other sources weren't biased. This discussion, which seems to be continually derailed, is in fact talking about exactly the *opposite* of what you're trying to put into my mouth-- yes, HuffPost is biased, but Fox takes the cake. Rupert Murdoch said that the point of Fox's existence in the first place was to give "room... Read More to both sides, whereas only one side had it before;" he founded the damn thing to have Republicans sling just as much mud as he saw Left-leaning organizations do. And that, in my opinion, makes it lower than any other outlet that the American people gets their information from.

Ted: Fair enough, perhaps you did say other sources were biased as well, I skimmed the other comments, I won't lie. I fail to see how giving another view point an outlet makes it the lowest common denominator. And from that quote, and in that context, I see nothing that foreshadows mudslinging. Yes, that could be the result, but nothing says that was ... Read Morethe goal. Reading that quote, it only implies that he would like to level the playing field in terms of media bias, which I wouldn't say I disagree with.

Me: That's exactly the issue, though-- leveling the playing field *isn't news.* Liberal-biased news sources have as little right to be biased as conservative-based news sources, but their foundation is telling the news. Founding a news organization based on telling off the other news organizations isn't just reactionary and sensationalist, it's dangerous for those who trust that source. Edward R. Murrow should be the archetype news organizations strive to reach, not non-satirical Jon Stewarts.

Thoughts?

Following Iran

2009-06-13T23:13:00.002-04:00

With the recent "election" in Iran, one thing is clear--nothing's clear. I think that the hour is a little early for me to form any pseudo-informative rant, so I'd like to take this opportunity instead to urge every reader to keep up to date on the hard facts. Whether or not you care about international politics, I promise you that, whatever happens, the fallout of this election is going to change the face of politics in America and out, as much as Obama's did.

With that said, I'd like to recommend these sources to help keep yourself informed, and some others with expert opinions in them:

The Huffington Post (of course). This is the most up-to-the-minute news I've found so far on this subject-- here

Reuters. This article includes some professional opinions that'll give you some food for thought-- here

The BBC. Some general information, which is updating as well-- here

CNN. Always a decently reliable source, if you can handle the ridiculous attempts at seeming cool about technology. More updating information, not quite as recent as HuffPost's--here

The Guardian. English-based paper and a reliable source. One of the best general wrap-ups I've been able to find-- here

Those are the 5 best ones I could find in my brief sweep. I hope you find these informative, and if you have any other good outlets please let me know!

P.S. In other news, I just took the 30 seconds necessary to figure out how to link sites without the full hyperlink on the entry itself. So there you go, and enjoy the more efficiently-spaced rantage!

--The Management

Grief

2009-06-10T16:30:00.002-04:00

First, I would like to post a story from the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/holocaust-museum-shooting_n_213831.html

If you don't feel like reading the whole article, here's the long and short of it; an 89-year-old white supremacist opened up with a shotgun in the DC Holocaust Museum, shooting two security guards before being shot himself. One of those security guards has apparently died since the story went up.

Now, I would like to show you a few responses that showed up on the story's comment feed:

--"IN THEIR QUEST TO DERAIL THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE RIGHT WING NEEDS TO STOP THEIR STRATEGY OF USING HATE SPEECH"
--"The Republicans will respond by proposing a law to allow guns in museums."
--"More right wing 'terra'. This aint [sic] the end of it."

Now, there are probably quite a few emotions going through people's heads at the moment, including mine; primarily, anger, disgust, and not a little bit of despair for the state of the world. These feelings are all completely valid, and are inspiring a significant verbal response in their wake. What I was not expecting, however, was the nature of some of these responses. My "favorite" one is this:

"This is what these right wingers have wanted all along- fear (terrorism)"

This, ladies and gentlemen, is not the correct response. To be fair, there were just as many empathetic comments as there were ones of this nature. Also, I by no means agree with how the Republicans and the people over at FOX News are handling this situation. Now, I like to try to maintain a little objectivity when talking about my personal responses to events in general, but, to be honest, I find comments of the kind I have listed disgusting. You (and I) probably do not agree with many facets of Republican dogma, but--and this is important-- the wake of a tragedy is neither the time nor place to blame a group for their policies.

Tragedy is not a forum for attack. After the September 11th attacks, the Bush Administration was able to gain such control over the minds of the American public because it blamed itsopponents for the event; not the terrorists, the Democrats. Similarly, FOX is trying to "hint" at a connection between Obama's recent Middle East trip and this shooting. However, to fire from Left to Right is no different, and not only equally morally despicable, but politically self-destructive.

Like 9/11, Republicans blaming Democrats and Democrats blaming Republicans in the wake of the day's events will set the two ends of the spectrum even more at odds, and, meanwhile, those directly affected will be ignored while they grieve, or worse, used as pawns and talking points.

What needs to be done now is for everyone to take a moment and think. To the Republicans-- today's events ought to be pretty clear evidence that something needs to be done about gun control in this country; the Second Amendment is vital to the sanctity of the American Institution, but to ignore its flaws is to do injustice to the reasons it was put in place. To the Democrats-- what the Republicans think on subjects such as these has validity, otherwise it would not have come into existence in the first place; debating these points is healthy, but to use innocent bystanders as talking points in the midst of their unimaginable grief makes you no better than the Bush Administration post-Bin Laden. To Obama-- now, again, is the time for a call for unity. Help the nation find a direction, or it will degenerate into bickering factions.

Finally, after you're done thinking, take one more moment out of your day, and grieve.

The Connection

2009-06-08T13:14:00.006-04:00

First off, I'd like to apologize for the, erm, brief hiatus I've taken since last update. It's been a mind-numbingly busy month for me, and I hope you didn't miss my ramblings too much!

Quite a bit has happened in the past several weeks, and most of these events have been covered by more informed news outlets than mine, so I'm not going to even try to catch up on individual events. Instead, I have the opportunity to take a look at all the most important recent stories together and see where everything fits.

So, to begin, here is a list of the three events I consider most significant regarding President Obama since May 6: The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to justice of the Supreme Court; Obama's recent speech to the Middle East in Cairo, Egypt; and the recent developments at Guantanamo Bay.

These three topics have been examined and cross-examined by many, many different news organizations from every conceivable point of the political spectrum (and several that aren't conceivable) independent of each other. Looked at from a vantage point that allows us to look at all of them at the same time, though, they show the three current phases of Obama's presidency so far.

Being a pessimist, I'll start with the negative-- Guantanamo Bay. During his campaign, Obama promised to close down Guantanamo bay, a point on which he delivered almost immediately. He also promised a sharp and tangible break from Bush strategy regarding captured terrorists; although Obama has made moves to change from his predecessors way of dealing with captured "enemy combatants," there's still a long road ahead.

The largest bump in this road so far is made out of photographs. Promising transparency during his campaign, Obama swore to open up pictures of detainees to the public. Several weeks later, responding to the surge of horror that accompanied the release of some of these photos, Obama reversed direction, stopping the flow of these photographs. Though the claim that he stopped allowing these photos to go public to protect the soldiers portrayed in them seems valid, the abrupt policy shift still reflects the first potential face of Obama's presidency: that of a man who tried hard to fix the nation, but got swept away by the wave of old-style politics. To take stabs at shifting policy away from the past, but then reverting back to it, reflects ominously on a presidency based on more promises than any ever before.

The second phase Obama's presidency has taken is the "crossroads" aspect, and can be seen most clearly in his recent Middle-East Speech. The overall response to the speech was essentially this-- what he said was eloquent and true, but the people of the Middle East want to see action accompanying the words. The speech reflects the crossroads at which Obama stands-- people around the world are ready to listen to America again; what he needs to do now is act.

If he follows through with the promises he has made to the U.S. and the world at large, his efforts will most likely raise him to the pantheon of god-presidents that America has accumulated since its foundation. If, on the other hand, he doesn't follow through, every statement he has made during his time in the public eye will be looked at mistrustfully, and American public opinion could turn strongly against him. He has slipped to a small extent in this regard with the Guantanamo situation; however, the goals he has achieved with Guantanamo, or with any other of the myriad achievements he already has under his belt, and American sympathy towards the socio-political nightmare he has found himself in, will keep him afloat for now.

The final phase of Obama's presidency so far has been the positive, and is most obvious in his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. What this nomination represents is threefold: it demonstrates Obama's willingness to change the status quo on Capital Hill as he promised during his campaign; it demonstrates ability to change this status quo, as he could have easily gone for a less controversial choice without little complaint; and, most importantly, it demonstrates his knowlege of who to pick to change the status quo-- Sotomayor, despite all the recent, and frankly dispicable, attacks on her personality, is an incredibly qualified person, and her selection reflects Obama's ability to walk the line between long-awaited change and the good aspects of the old system; that is, honor, dependability, and an ability and willingness to do one's duties.

So, we find ourselves at a pivotal moment, perhaps the pivotal moment, in Obama's already pivotal legacy. Obama can take the lower road, as he did at Guantanomo, or the higher road, as he did with Sotomayor. His next actions regarding the Middle East will reflect, more than any other in the grand scheme of things, the character of this president and his presidency.

The Death of Republicanism and What It Means for America

2009-05-05T15:54:00.002-04:00

The final decline of the Republican Party has begun; there's no doubt about it.

The already laughable memory of the Tea-Bag Parties, the recent switch of Republican Senator Arlen Spectre to the Dem ticket, and the recent meeting of top Republican heads at a pizza joint all sound to me like the death knell of the Grand Old Party. That's not to say they're going to collapse overnight, or even that they can't recover; but when a political organization switches its policy from "I think we should do it this way" to "no," it's time to start picking out a casket.

A combination of things brought the Republican Party to its current situation. Ironically, though, the main sledgehammer that's bringing down the house that Reagan built may have been Carl Rove's scarily powerful political tactics during the 2004 elections. The strategists essentially abandoned respectful politics; instead of debating point-for-point with Kerry, ads laughed at and twisted his ideas until they sounded ridiculous, giving the man no credit or acknowledgment for his political achievements, and even going so far as to call his patriotism into question. The Republicans stopped producing their own policies for new political situations and focused on constantly and aggressively saying "no" to whatever the Left had to offer, without thinking up a counter-argument.

This worked pretty well for the Republicans in the short term, and Bush got his second term, but, under the surface, the flow of ideas within the system was stagnating. The No-Policy rapidly developed into simply no policy. Cracks appeared in the 2006 elections, with the Republicans' sound thrashing in the House and Senate, but, with enough influence in the other two branches to keep their old bills alive, the strategists felt no need to change their ways and find a direction.

Then came the perfect storm of the economic collapse and the almost divine aura that manifested itself around Obama. It's not that the man necessarily had better ideas than the Republicans, or even other Democrats. All that made him special was an ability to work past the Republican strategy of shaming opponents into submission, and that quality made the conservative plan unravel, taking the Republican Party as a whole with it.

Now that they've been defeated, the Republicans have no clear leader to give them a direction and no clear direction to allow the rise of a leader, and all the while the Democrats build on their new advantage. As a result, the Republicans have nothing to fall back on except their old leaders peddling their old strategy, which, in short, is making the party completely obsolete.

So, the Republicans are dead in the water, at least for now. What does that mean for America? Firstly and most importantly, it does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that the Right Wing is gone-- they will always rise again. In the mean time, though, the Left has the previously unreachable combination of executive and legislative authority and overwhelming popular support. This is, as joy-inspiring as it may be for the Dems, bad in the long term.

In a democratic system, either side needs an opponent. Otherwise, the dominating side, and with it the process as a whole, will stagnate. The Republicans convinced themselves that the Democrats couldn't produce a strong candidate, and when they did, the conservatives were too taken by surprise to build up a defense. Likewise, the Left is going to need the Right to keep them on their toes and, more importantly, looking out for what's best for the American people.

Whether or not what's left of the Republican Party will be able to offer that is anybody's guess, but now of all times is the opportunity for a new conservative party to emerge. Spectre didn't switch to the Democrats because he was a Leftie at heart; he switched to them because there is currently no other viable alternative. Now is the time, then, for a Grand New Party, one which will bring the Right back to the core conservative principles I disagree with so much, as opposed to the current drivel I just ignore. With the right backing, a new conservative movement may emerge, and it needs to. If someone doesn't step up and replace the Republicans, the Democrats, and with them the American populace, will find themselves in that same pizza joint.

Is revenge on Bush worth it?

2009-04-22T18:57:00.003-04:00

Howdy folks,

Recently, President Barack Obama announced that he would be open to the possibility of investigations on members of the former Bush Administration, regarding such offenses as the possible use of torture to interrogate prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, among others. At this moment, the US stands at a fork in the road very similar to the one after the Watergate Scandal; a horribly unpopular president doing horribly unethical things, and a nation hoping he will get his just desserts.

Personally, I'm torn on what to think regarding a Bush investigation. On the one hand, it would feel goooood for Bush to finally get his comeuppance for his deeds. On the other hand, though, a Bush investigation could turn into a Bush witch-hunt, which could end up further dividing the country between the die-hard Republicans who always loved him, and the die-hard Democrats who always hated him, further alienating the moderates and independents, and perhaps laying a stumbling block that will not appear for years down the road.

What I would like to do now is to lay out a list of pros and cons towards this issue as I see them, and then open up the floor to comments.

Pros:
1) It would give that feeling of revenge that the Left has been looking for since Day 1;
2)America is a nation of laws, and as such, if a law is broken, it is the responsibility of the government to fix the issue;
3) It would send a message to the world that the United States understands that it had issues for the last eight years, and is willing to admit mistakes and try to set things right;
4) It would add to Obama's reputation of being a man of justice and concreteness, as opposed to being just a slogan and a name;
5) It may make Cheney shut up for a while.

Cons
1)It would further widen a growing rift between the Liberals and Conservatives in this country-- The Left would feel justified, while the Right would feel like the dirty Commie-hippies were out to get them again;
2)It could lead to outbursts of stupidity larger even than the 'Tea-Bag Parties' on tax day, perhaps even growing out of hand;
3)It could highlight a fight led by the extremes of either party, further alienating and disillusioning the moderates and independents;
4)The media on both ends of the spectrum would be all over Obama, questioning his decision, blowing things out of proportion, highlighting every hiccup in the operation, and again giving the loudest and most destructive yellers (e.g. Limbaugh) a loudspeaker;
5)It may make Cheney squawk louder than ever.

I look forward to your thoughts!

'Tea parties' staining what's left of Republicanism

2009-04-17T17:29:00.002-04:00

Two days ago, on tax day, thousands of conservatives around the country staged Tea Bag Parties, where they expressed their angry at Obama and his administration for his stance on economic and general government policy. While the event was questionably named, the participants were full of conviction, discontent, and rage. My response? Sit back and watch the obvious, yet somehow unforeseen, consequences of the angry crowds' actions.

The prevailing mood of the day was outrage on the part of the protesters, and claims that Obama was both a fascist (extreme right-wing) and a communist (extreme left wing) were thrown around freely.

The people there were entitled to their anger, but whether or not their claims were justified, or justifiable, are not the point; all the Tea Parties truly achieved was to show another cut from which bled the hulk that is the current Republican Party.

The emotions expressed at these demonstrations, calling Obama a fascist, a Nazi, and more, while perhaps energizing the Republican base, are the exact opposite of what they need to do right now. The disrespect of the protesters, combined with their strength and conviction, will more likely than not have turned out to have turned away a significant amount of Right-leaning independents, as they watch the fallout. All the Obama Administration, and the Democrats in general, need to do is to ignore these events, and not to respond in kind, and they will seem to be the level-headed ones, while the nation's leaderless conservative movement thrashes all the more powerfully and barbarically. In this instance, the Tea Party-goers have sealed their own fate.

The mood of the rallies is the exact opposite of what the Republicans need at the moment; they may have energized the base, yes, but they already had the base under pretty good sway. In 2012, it will again be the independents who tip the scales for or against Obama. But if the Conservatives continue along the path they are on, ignoring the truly brilliant conservative minds, such as Newt Gingrich, and instead rallying under Limbaugh's sensationalist banner, the Right may take another hit, which, this time, they may not recover from.

That said, I would like to encourage any conservatives of any kind to unite under a more logic-based and less emotionally-driven group, for if the Republican Party continues to slip away, the Democrats will have it all, which will be, in the end, just as bad as the current state of the country. America is a two-party system, and that keeps us honest. While it may feel good for Democrats in the short term to thoroughly trash the Republicans, the truth is that we need them; if the Left monopolizes government, they will become just as stagnant and useless as the Republican party as it stands, or rather, leans.

I've attached here the HTML to a story from the Huffington Post about this topic, with actual quotes from people I'll never have access to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/tea-party-fallout-indepen_n_188235.html

P.S. thank you for your comments, and keep them coming! They've given me a lot to think about so far, especially regarding Iran, and I look forward to your thoughts.

Fixing the Iran problem: silence is leaden

2009-04-08T18:22:00.003-04:00

First off, sorry for the long gap since the last post, folks; it's been a long few weeks.

Today, the Times Online reported that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced he would come to the table with president Barack Obama, provided that he would be "honest" in the relations between them. This statement has effectively broken the wall of silence that has persisted between the United States and Iran for almost three decades, and that means, ladies and gentlemen, that things are about to get interesting.

The thinking of the previous chapter of American politics regarding the enemies of America, especially during the years of the Bush administration, seems to have been that, by not talking to states such as Iran and North Korea, we were punishing them. In reality, though, this lack of contact has allowed the leaders of those nations to shine whatever light they wanted to on the U.S., and the West as a whole; since we weren't speaking, they were putting words in our mouth for us.

Now, though, the concept of ignoring-you-as-punishment has begun to disappear from American politics, and with it, thankfully and to the surprise of our enemies, the power of Iran's leaders has begun to evaporate from it's people. When Obama first offered to open up talks, the Ayatollah refused on principle. Much to his chagrin, grumbles echoed around Tehran; the great American monolith had finally spoken, and they were damned if they weren't going to hear it.

As a direct result, Ahmadinejad is opening up to talks about the Iranian missile program, although, honestly, this opening talk could be about nothing at all, and still have a similar effect; the international silence has been broken. For a brief moment, the hostility of the citizens of Iran will let up while they listen to what Obama, representative of the American people, has to say. This is the last and only chance we have to get a word in edgewise-- by speaking, uncensored, to the Iranian populace, Obama has the opportunity to turn the Western colossus into the Big Friendly Giant in the eyes of average citizens, or at least take a step in that direction. With a message of reconciliation and peace that will clash with the long-propogated beliefs of hostility set forth by the government of that country, America has a chance to begin the resurgence it has made in Europe. This is the silence before the storm, and it's the words put into that silence that will determine at whom the storm is directed.

P.S. Thank you for your comments, and, by all means, keep doing it! It's you readers that get me off my ass and working on this thing.

An Act of Faith

2009-02-28T11:56:00.003-05:00

Every day, I like to look over the headlines on Google News, and see if anything interesting pops out at me. I'd been following the progress of Obama's stimulus package for a few weeks now, and had come to the conclusion that the multi-billion dollar plan would get through largely on the Democratic majority in the House and Senate, but that it would go through nonetheless. The passing of the motion would be bold, especially for someone not two months into his presidency, but it would be a telling way for Obama to ease into Washington.

That said, nothing could have surprised me more than finding out that the stimulus was not several hundred-billion dollars as I had expected, but a gargantuan $3.5 trillion deal, giving incredible sums of money to everything from healthcare to the military and back again. The plan will leave a more than $1.5 trillion deficit, and, if it fails, the Republican machine may be able to get a conservative in office three years from now. Already, claims and accusations that Obama is just another tax-and-spend Democrat fly across internet forums and out of politicians alike.

The fact is, though, that, by the passing of this package, a little bit of the character of Barack Obama, and that of the American people as well, has come forth. We are currently engaged in two wars, ever-present political partisanship inside our own borders, and an economic failure unheard-of since the Great Depression; and yet, optimism couldn't be higher. Obama went into his first few weeks of office with the highest approval ratings for several presidents past, and has been able to use that good faith to get some of his loftiest goals accomplished. When is the last time America was this united, and had that much faith and trust in their president?

The answer is George W. Bush, on September 12, 2001. Reeling from the largest attack on American soil in over half a century, the American people put their hopes and trust in George Bush. He used this trust and good faith to get several divisive bills passed, and then, well, he squandered it, opening up what can only be defined as a new era of distrust and anger between his supporters and detractors.

Here, at the dawn of his presidency, Obama has been given the same trust and hope as Bush was, and his stimulus package one of many bills to come riding on this feeling of American unity. Whether or not our "new era of responsibility" has come, or if we will slide back into the same pit of anger and division from whence we just emerged, is largely up to Obama, and what he does. We have again given a president the power to bring our nation together or tear it asunder, and, best intentions aside, only time will tell which is done.

A belated inauguration article

2009-02-10T21:50:00.003-05:00

Hello folks! I know it's been a few weeks since the inauguration, but I've been putting the finishing touches on a large post, and it's finally done! Enjoy

Not really capable of any conscious thought, but still remembering that the time was important, I managed to roll over in my hotel room bed and determine that it was four o’clock in the morning. With unnatural swiftness for such an ungodly time of night, Arthur leapt out of his bed and loudly announced that we were going to be late—the buses left in fifteen minutes.

I managed to muster the consciousness to drag myself out of bed as well, and threw on two shirts, two pairs of heavy socks, two jackets, a pair of gloves, and a heavy woolen hat, and rushed to the hotel lobby, where about 150 similarly exhausted high-schoolers were already boarding the buses that would bring our group to the National Mall. Arriving before even the tiniest hints of dawn streaked the sky, I sat down on the hard, cold ground about two blocks from the Capitol building, and realized that I was in for over nine hours of freezing, huddling, mind-crushing boredom in sardine-like conditions before the earliest part of the inauguration of President Barack Obama would even start. I squeezed my eyes shut, hoping with all my heart that things would go smoothly, and that the inauguration would prove something worthy of coming to after all.

It was.

Like me, those who had also come were tired, cold, and incredibly excited. By 11 a.m., more than two million Americans had gathered from points all over the country to this one spot, the National Mall, to watch a momentous event in the history of the nation, and indeed, of the world. Thanks to my considerable height, I had the perhaps unique perspective of watching the majority of the inauguration in the faces and emotions of the taller citizens around me, rather than the towering Jumbo-Visions set up across the city. While I was frustrated by this fact for a moment, a thought soon occurred to me; this is the best way to watch the occasion. No matter how good the camera-shot of Obama’s face or a sweeping view of the spectators could be on CNN or FOX, nothing could compare to being on the ground, and indeed closer to the ground than most. This was the way to witness this event—not from a living room or place of work, but reflected in the teary eyes of the voters themselves.

At around half-past ten in the morning, with me just at the cusp of losing my mind from the cold, the day’s events finally began. First the children’s choir, then the naval orchestra brought the crowd to attention. All the while, the people around me talked about this or that, half-paying attention to what was going on. After the musical introductions came the steady parade of lower-level functionaries from the current and incoming administrations. Finally, the recognizable names appeared. The majority leaders, high-profile politicians, and bureaucrats walked out of the decorated doorway, one person or the other inciting cheers or scattered boos.

Then, out came the big one. President George W. Bush entered the spotlight for one last time, and was greeted by almost universal booing. I cringed; I had never been a fan of the Administration, but still, the man was a president, and at least deserved a little courtesy. After him came those close to him; Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, and others, occasionally met by boos. The atmosphere of the crowd was distracted, though—they had had enough of this crowd. It was time for the reason they were all there to show himself.

Suddenly and without much introduction, President-elect Obama appeared through the same doorway as every president since Reagan had done, and looked out at the crowd. For the briefest moment, complete and absolute silence echoed across the Mall; then, the frenzied cheering of millions. The tone of the crowd moved past fever pitch—this is why they were here. This was the moment that had been building for weeks, months, centuries.

The silence continued as anti-gay pastor Rick Warren preached unity and understanding, even in the face of greatly differing ideals. It continued as the music of Yo Yo Ma’s cello and Itzhak Perlman’s violin floated across the city. It grew to a brief chuckle as Chief Justice Roberts gave Obama the oath of office (more or less), quickly returned to silence, and, as quickly as it had started, the moment was over.

The crowd of two million erupted into a cheer whose strength I had never experienced. It felt as if the whole world was cheering. Off to my right, I heard a man shout, “Welcome to the new America.”\

The 44^th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, walked to the podium to deliver his inaugural address. His speech was not only of triumph, but also of humility, sacrifice, and an awareness of the great challenges that are sure to come. And there will be tremendous obstacles that President Obama will face in the coming four years; terrorism, the economy, the environment, Iraq—all will test the mettle of the new President, and only time will tell whether the hopes of those who gathered on the National Mall that day were in vain.

Whatever may come, though, one thing is clear; if America is to survive and lead once more, now is the time for a renewed feeling of companionship and patriotism. Black or white, Democrat or Republican, television viewer or spectator on the frozen grass of the Mall itself, the time for petty disagreements has and must come to an end. As President Obama stated in his inaugural address, if the American people can pull together as a nation once more, we stand poised to rise again as the greatest nation on earth— “a new era of responsibility” has dawned, if we can keep it.

Unity

2009-01-20T22:13:00.002-05:00

Today, Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. This momentous occasion finally puts an end to the more than two years of heated and often bitter rivalries between the two campaigns, and within the parties themselves. Unfortunately, the end of the political season does not mean the end of the anger and partisanship between Democrats and Republicans. Before all other goals Obama will work towards, he needs first to bring the country together, once and for all. Fortunately for Obama himself, as well as the rest of the country, the new president has proven himself more than capable of moving towards cooperation between the two major parties. His first motion as official president in this direction was his cunning use of controversial pastor Rick Warren. When it was first announced that Warren was going to offer a prayer at Obama's inauguration, many (including this writer) expressed concern over the choice of a man with ideals that clashed so strongly with Obama's. However, with the pastor's clear message of unity despite discrepancies in ideas and ideals, Warren helped to set aside the deep and painful differences still dividing America, as well as, perhaps, chipping away a tiny piece of unfounded anti-Obama sentiment. With that as the opening note to the symphony of change that will hopefully mark the new president's time in office, the questions that remain are whether Obama and the men and women on the opposite side of the aisle can work together, and whether, at the end of the day, it will amount to enough. As Obama said today as he addressed the nation and the entire world on the Capitol steps, we have entered a "new era of responsibility--" now is the time for leadership through change, and change through unity, and unity through this brand-new chapter in American history.

Trading Bishops: A Belated Thought on Rick Warren, and a Small Announcement

2008-12-29T17:59:00.002-05:00

It's been a few weeks since the Rick Warren controversy, and the finger-pointing and outrage that accompanied, it began, but the issue is far from resolved; the debate is far from over. Now that the dust has settled, though, both opinions can be looked at a little more clearly. The first question that springs to mind is "What caused president-elect Barack Obama to pick obviously Right-wing pastor Rick Warren to swear him in, and what will the ramifications be?" The question that tends to follow this one is "Why did I just say all that? It's clearly posted right here on The Interesting Times, my favorite blog ever, which I read religiously;" I only have an answer to the first one though.
The only logical explanation as to why Obama chose Rick Warren is that he intends it as a peace offering to the Right, who are understandably peeved following the election. He probably hopes that having Warren swear him in will get him on better footing with those who opposed him at the outset. It was a calculated, though doubtless well-intentioned, move, designed to get Right-leaning conservatives on his side. The question that remains, then, is whether or not this was a good idea in the first place.
The response to this question is much more complicated, but in the grand scheme of things, this gesture may prove to give Obama's audience the wrong ideas. Those first affected by his swearing in will be the American People. The great hope that led to the choice of Warren is that moderate Republicans will be swayed by Obama's choice, and, from a certain perspective, even if only the tiniest percentage of Conservatives are nudged towards the center, it will be a gain for Barack-- after all, he has nothing to lose, and everyting to gain, in terms of support. Or does he? It is true that, in the best-case scenario, Obama will be gaining some Republican support, and only leave a few Democrats chafing. However, I believe that Obama stands to lose just as much as he has to gain, and in a much longer-lasting way.
The thinking behind the choice of Rick Warren is that he can chip away at the Republican base and stand to annoy a few far-Lefters, because, at the end of the day, they would never think of voting anything other than Democrat. In the gigantic political game of chess that the next four years are sure to be, he hopes to trade a pawn for a knight; a small loss for a potentially significant gain. The timing may not be right, though, for this sort of move. It is important to remember that the choice of who swears him in will be Obama's first act as actual president, and it looks at first glance like he's contradicting himself-- his message of 'Yes We Can' and the choice of such a publicly bigoted pastor clash painfully. While under the surface the explanations are much more complicated, the unfortunate truth is that the majority of the American populace will only be looking skin-deep. Therefore, Obama may end up (pardon the pun) trading bishops; he may gain a few Republicans, but he stands to disillusion the legions of young followers he inspired, perhaps for all future elections to come.
The other vital factor to consider following the swearing-in is the effect of the Media. Most of the United States is moderate, leaning slightly one way or the other, but you would never know it, because it's the political extremes on both sides that invariably have the loudest voices in the public ear. After Obama is officially put in office, the vast majority of moderates will not process what they've seen independent of outside influence; they'll turn to Rush Limbaugh and the New York Times and their clear-cut Red-and-Blue attitudes. Though the people themselves might not necessarily feel as strongly in either direction as the news they are hearing, they will all have their opinions formed for them, to an extent. FOX can easily spin Obama's choice as a cowardly attempt to pander to the Right, which the New York Times will doubtless condemn.
At the end of the day, all the controversy and argument will be over as soon as Obama is sworn in. Which is where your favorite writer (me) comes in! I am pleased to announce that I will be attending the inauguration itself, and that I have a decent vantage point. If all goes well I'll be able to provide a steady stream of information before and after that historic moment in our Nations history. No matter how it works out, the Interesting Times will be here to provide you the best possible input, and the occasional rant. Stay tuned!

No More Cheneys

2008-12-21T23:18:00.002-05:00

In a recent interview with FOX, VP Dick Cheney defended his actions as Vice President, and those of President Bush. His defense? Because of the acts of September 11th, the Executive Branch "doesn't have to check with anybody" about...well, anything. And by anything, he seems to really mean anything--from invasions to nuclear strikes. On hearing this, my initial response was to snort with laughter and thank goodness for the fact that he's only got a few weeks left in power before we remove him and the tiny demons we'll probably soon find in his room permanently. After recovering from my mirth, though, a disturbing fact is becoming abundantly clear in my mind--Cheney has left a deep, and perhaps permanent, stain on the entire Executive section of our government. Though no statesman following in Cheney's footsteps would have the sheer stupidity to echo his words, the simple fact that we as a people can allow for such statements to go by uncontested, or even unheeded, reveals that there are scars forming in the wound the Administration is leaving that will take a good, long time to heal. Fortunately for us, it will be the job of Barack Obama to fix this gaping wound; not necessarily because of his stances, but because he is going to be watched very, very closely; and that's where we come in. If the cautionary tale of the Bush Administration has brought one good thing, it's that it has increased awareness of our political system. Now that we've been shocked into paying attention by the sheer outrage brought by Cheney's actions and those of his associates, it's time to become the watchmen of our government. The true bipartisan beauty of the coming administration isn't just coming from the passive hope that Obama will work together with Democrats and Republicans; rather, it's that we, the American people, finally, finally have our eyes wide open again, and are actually paying attention to what is done, and not just what is said. The greatest gift that the past eight years has given us is the realization that, through involvement and sometimes sheer outrage, we have the power to change the course of the Union. Now, with this new beginning, we can be the ones to keep away corruption. If we can pay attention and act, we can assure that there will be no more wiretapping, no more executive invincibility, and no more Cheneys.

The New Title

2008-12-16T21:43:00.002-05:00

I have decided to change the name of our blog from "Love of Cheese" to "The Interesting Times." This change was necessary for several reasons, but one came to the forefront...Google searches for "love of cheese blog" came up with blogs about...actual love of cheese. Not that I don't support and respect these vital and important blogs, but we're sort of missing the point. So, I hope you like the new title. Ponder it, think about it, meditate on it... and continue enjoying the same stuff I've been trying to bring to you so far!

--The management

Notes on a Scandal...A Reader Contribution!

2008-12-16T18:14:00.003-05:00

Hey there, loyal reader(s). I just got a message a moment ago from someone who has a contribution they'd like to make to our already terribly biased site. Here it is, hope you enjoy:

Dear Cheese, Are we all really shocked? A cynical view of history is that senate seats were in effect up for sale prior to the 17th Amendment in 1913. The senate has traditionally been the house of the elite, where one obtained power through connections, influence, and favors, as opposed to our current system (oh wait, never mind . . .). I guess it was a more noble system than ancient Greek pederasty. As far as the world taking too much notice, you might not recall that other countries thought were were crazy for the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal (I believe we gave the French a particularly good laugh). Special prosecutor Ken Starr spent over 6 million taxpayer dollars over a b---j---. I doubt this current scandal will last another week, never mind make the history books.

The Blagojevich Scandal...It's a Joke! ...Get it?

2008-12-14T16:37:00.002-05:00

Some of the more interesting comments from the mouth of Illinois governor (for the time being) Rod Blagojevich:

*"... if they feel like they can do this and not f*&^ing give me anything . . . then I'll f&%$ing go [Senate Candidate 5]." -- Alleged quotes from Blagojevich in affidavit.

*ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants are telling him that he has to "suck it up" for two years and do nothing and give this "motherf*&% [the President-elect] his senator. F*&$ him. For nothing? F$#@ him." -- Alleged quotes from Blagojevich in affidavit. (Both of the above were stolen from NBC at http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Top-10-Quotes-in-the-Blago-Scandal.html)

While the obvious response to such a mind-bendingly scandalous fiasco is total outrage from both sides of the spectrum, and indeed worldwide, I suggest another tactic...try to play it off as a huge joke! I mean, come on, honestly, we just earned back international respect for the first time since Nixon, and now we're going to become the laughingstock of the U.N. over this guy? Not worth it. Therefore, the only intelligent, rational, and reasonable thing to do is to try to convince everyone it was just an early April Fools' prank! Afterall, no person in power in his right mind would let himself be taped saying the things Blagojevich said, right? It's a prank! ...Get it? And while the rest of the world lets out a collective sigh and a chuckle and goes back about its usual business, we can discreetly try to fix the truly gaping holes in our political system that such a colossal scandal lays bare.

Why Huckabee Scares Me

2008-12-14T16:04:00.002-05:00

Despite the mostly liberal rants to follow, I like to think of myself as a relatively moderate person-- my favorite color is a nice neutral beige, and I think all foreign policy should be turned over to Switzerland--and, as such, try not to judge what comes out of the mouths of most people. Honestly, my political affiliation is based in large part to the morals and ethics I was raised on, and I'm usually open to opinions, as long as you have the balls and the brains to back it up. It is precisely for this reason that I consider former Arkansas Senator Mike Huckabee one of the most terrifying figures of the decade. At the core, a large part of politics is convincing the masses that you're something that, most of the time, you're really not. This is a sad but true fact--Lincoln's legend comes almost as largely from the story that he was born in a log cabin as his exploits as 16th President. However, once in a while comes along a politician who truly believes in what they're fighting for; on the Left, as far as one can tell so far, is President-elect Barack Obama, and on the Right lies Mike Huckabee. Above all else, Huckabee is a man who sticks to his standards. He truly believes in the moral and ethical righteousness of what he says, and will defend his views to the death. It is precisely for this reason that Huckabee *must* be defeated in any and all elections in which he may participate in the future. America is a land of freedom and progress, in which constant disagreement is the glue that sticks the country; however, extremes on either side, left or right, end up destroying all that the champions of their views fight for, even if they feel that they are in the moral right. For this reason, Mike Huckabee and his extreme views, and whatever liberal counterpart inevitably arises out of the raw emotion of the post-Bush era, must be kept out of the White House, or any House. In this time of increasing partisan contention, it is moderation that keeps the moral right (or left, whichever you prefer) functioning correctly. In the following decades, the U.S. cannot be red or blue, but a calm, open beige.

To the readers...you poor, poor idiots

2008-12-14T15:50:00.003-05:00

Before I make any serious posts, there are two things I'd like to clarify; (1) I want Jon Stewart's job and (b) I have no particular love for cheese. The name came from Jon Stewart's interview with Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=212824&title=arianna-huffington ). This blog is dedicated to the open sewer of failure that has become of most of modern media and politics, and the few bright spots of both that somehow manage to shine through. If you disagree with anything that is posted here, please don't respond with an angry comment...let it grow inside you, until you someday can't control it, and you destroy your apartment in blind rage over some insignificant post you read years ago. That way, I'll have a clean comment feed, and you'll finally have an excuse to redecorate.