You’ve probably seen signs for payday loan stores while driving through certain commercial districts back home. You’ve almost certainly seen or heard commercials telling us that when you are short on cash, these payday loan companies are there “to help you out.”
The concept behind these businesses is simple enough: They offer short-term loans to customers with the expectation of being paid back when that customer’s next paycheck comes in. What’s wrong with that? When you start to examine the industry, the answer is a lot.
Payday loan peddlers prey on the most vulnerable members of society — people who simply cannot afford these loans. They give people money with the expectation that the recipient will fall into debt. Then they charge them triple-digit interest rates for falling behind. There’s no ethical defense for this practice. The United States government needs to enact stringent limitations on the interest that payday lenders can charge.
To obtain a payday loan, borrowers often write checks for the lender to hold as collateral until the date of the loan’s maturity. If the borrower comes in and pays back the loan, they get the check back. If they default, the check is cashed by the lender, which for cash-strapped borrowers often leads to additional fees from the bank for bouncing a check.
Unfortunately, while these loans are intended to be short term, many people fall behind on their payments and end up with loans that can take years to be paid off. The interest payments then add up to be more than the original amount of the loan. Furthermore, these payday loan sharks rely on getting people in cycles of debt, where they have to take out additional payday loans to cover interest payments on earlier loans.
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, payday loans can charge interest rates between 390 and 780 percent annually. Compare that to the typical credit card interest rate, which tops off at around 20 percent.
The typical user of payday lenders takes an average of 22 payday loans out each year, illustrating the cycle of debt. Payday lenders collect $6 billion in finance charges each year, money being taken out of the pockets of America’s poor.
Take for example Janet Gosnell, who according to The Cincinnati Enquirer defaulted on a $500 payday loan she took out a few years ago. She now owes $670.75 on the loan in interest and fees and cannot even afford to make the monthly minimum payments of $81.25. She will continue to fall deeper and deeper into debt as her payday lender preys on her.
The payday lenders argue that their loans are subject to higher default rates than bank loans, so they have to charge higher interest rates. In principle that’s true, but there’s a difference between charging slightly higher interest rates for their risk and scheming to keep poor Americans in a spiraling cycle of debt.
Georgia is one of 13 states that have banned payday lending and this is a step in the right direction. Other states, or even Congress, need to take steps to limit the interest payday lenders can charge, or just outlaw such operations all together. The government has the responsibility to contribute to the welfare of its citizens. They cannot allow payday lenders to prey upon vulnerable Americans.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wheel Column: The Big Man in Pakistan? (11/9)
Pakistan is in a state of sheer chaos. President/General/Dictator Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency last week, suspending the constitution, eliminating independent media and sending police officers into the Pakistani Supreme Court building before sacking the independent-minded chief justice. Since Saturday, Pakistan has seen massive demonstrations against Musharraf. Thousands have been beaten and arrested by Pakistani police and soldiers.
Pervez Musharraf became the leader of Pakistan in a 1999 coup, overthrowing a very unpopular and corrupt civilian leader. Since then, he has pledged to make Pakistan democratic but has dragged his feet every step of the way. He has broken promises to give up his military post and still serves both as the military and political leader. In the past year or so, things have taken a turn for the worse. Musharraf is unwilling to give up any iota of his power, and the Pakistani population is starting to rebel against him.
Musharraf had already suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in March, but massive protests from his country’s lawyers forced him to reinstate Chaudhry to his post in July. Last month, Musharraf was just re-elected to another five-year term as president, but the Pakistani Supreme Court has been reviewing the legitimacy of his victory ever since, questioning whether the parliament who re-elected him was eligible to do so.
Though he’s pledged to step down as army chief if he were re-elected, he has been waiting for the Supreme Court to confirm him as the legitimate victor before doing so. Afterward, he would most likely enter a power-sharing deal with popular former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who just returned to Pakistan last month.
There’s no way around it: Pervez Musharraf is a cruel military dictator who is using force against his own people to keep his tenuous grip on power. That being said, despite the actions of the past week, I still support him.
Musharraf is too important to the United States and the world for us to turn our back on him. After Sept. 11, Musharraf, a one-time Taliban supporter, did an about-face to become the United States’ most important ally in the war against terrorism. He has helped to track down and arrest Al Qaeda operatives in his country. Even in light of Musharraf’s most recent undemocratic actions, President Bush has reaffirmed his support for the Pakistani leader while urging the general to hold elections and step down from his military post.
Though Pakistan under Musharraf has done a mediocre-at-best job at pursuing terrorists, it’s certainly better than not trying at all. The unrest caused by these Islamic militants is the official reason for Musharraf’s state of emergency. His support for the United States has led to a number of assassination attempts. There is nothing that these terrorists would like more than to see Musharraf gone, freeing up a chance for them to run wild in the nuclear-armed Pakistan.
The pandemonium in Pakistan is terrible, and I hope Musharraf is able to return to ruling a civil, democratic country. But if I have to choose between a Pakistan without a strong leader and a Musharraf dictatorial regime, then for the good of the United States and the world, it has to be Musharraf the dictator.
Pervez Musharraf became the leader of Pakistan in a 1999 coup, overthrowing a very unpopular and corrupt civilian leader. Since then, he has pledged to make Pakistan democratic but has dragged his feet every step of the way. He has broken promises to give up his military post and still serves both as the military and political leader. In the past year or so, things have taken a turn for the worse. Musharraf is unwilling to give up any iota of his power, and the Pakistani population is starting to rebel against him.
Musharraf had already suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in March, but massive protests from his country’s lawyers forced him to reinstate Chaudhry to his post in July. Last month, Musharraf was just re-elected to another five-year term as president, but the Pakistani Supreme Court has been reviewing the legitimacy of his victory ever since, questioning whether the parliament who re-elected him was eligible to do so.
Though he’s pledged to step down as army chief if he were re-elected, he has been waiting for the Supreme Court to confirm him as the legitimate victor before doing so. Afterward, he would most likely enter a power-sharing deal with popular former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who just returned to Pakistan last month.
There’s no way around it: Pervez Musharraf is a cruel military dictator who is using force against his own people to keep his tenuous grip on power. That being said, despite the actions of the past week, I still support him.
Musharraf is too important to the United States and the world for us to turn our back on him. After Sept. 11, Musharraf, a one-time Taliban supporter, did an about-face to become the United States’ most important ally in the war against terrorism. He has helped to track down and arrest Al Qaeda operatives in his country. Even in light of Musharraf’s most recent undemocratic actions, President Bush has reaffirmed his support for the Pakistani leader while urging the general to hold elections and step down from his military post.
Though Pakistan under Musharraf has done a mediocre-at-best job at pursuing terrorists, it’s certainly better than not trying at all. The unrest caused by these Islamic militants is the official reason for Musharraf’s state of emergency. His support for the United States has led to a number of assassination attempts. There is nothing that these terrorists would like more than to see Musharraf gone, freeing up a chance for them to run wild in the nuclear-armed Pakistan.
The pandemonium in Pakistan is terrible, and I hope Musharraf is able to return to ruling a civil, democratic country. But if I have to choose between a Pakistan without a strong leader and a Musharraf dictatorial regime, then for the good of the United States and the world, it has to be Musharraf the dictator.
Wheel Column: For Wilson, Justice Long Overdue (11/2)
In a move long overdue, the Georgia Supreme Court decided last Friday that the 10-year jail sentence handed down to Genarlow Wilson in 2006 constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Wilson, who was imprisoned for almost three years for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17, was released later that day.
Wilson broke a Georgia child molestation law since he had oral sex with someone who was a minor. It does not matter that said activity was consensual, or that Wilson was also a minor: He broke the law and got a 10-year jail sentence for it. Cruel and unusual? Definitely. The Georgia legislature has since changed the penalty to a one-year jail sentence, a change made in large part due to the attention the Wilson case attracted.
But the sentence isn’t the problem here — the law itself is terrible and should be abolished.
Any law that says consensual sexual activity between two people is a crime is a violation of privacy and does not belong on the books. I’m trying to figure out how the girl who performed oral sex on Wilson made herself a “victim,” even though she acted freely and consciously. Yet Wilson’s detractors repeatedly pointed out how she was taken advantage of, and even incorrectly referred to Wilson as a rapist.
According to statistics, an inconceivable number of Georgia high schoolers should have already been jailed. Sexual activity between consenting minors happens all the time, and it should not be a crime. The prudish adults who sit under the gold dome of the Georgia State Capitol may think that by making such an act a crime, they are preventing sexual activity from taking place but to believe so reeks of naiveté.
Georgia legislators need to stay away from meddling in morality. That’s not their job, and it takes focus away from more important issues.
Many have speculated that the reason this particular case was tried had to do with Wilson’s race. Wilson’s conviction, they said, was indicative of the subtle racism that still permeates Georgia.
But there was no reason to convict in this case, since Wilson’s crime had no victim. The girl has admitted that the oral sex was consensual so she cannot be the victim. While making a videotape of the act being performed was a foolish mistake, there’s no denying that this exact situation happens all the time — yet Wilson was the only one prosecuted.
Thankfully, justice finally prevailed for Wilson. B.J. Bernstein, his lawyer and a 1984 Emory
College graduate deserves praise for taking on this case pro-bono and for fighting to make sure justice would be carried out. Now it’s time for the next step: The law must be changed so teenagers cannot be charged for child molestation for consensual sexual activities.
Genarlow Wilson was an upstanding student, star football player, and by all accounts a person destined for success. An asinine law took several years of his life from him. Now he’s a free man and wants to go to college and succeed in life. Let’s root for Genarlow Wilson to show he can overcome how the state of Georgia wronged him.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
Wilson, who was imprisoned for almost three years for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17, was released later that day.
Wilson broke a Georgia child molestation law since he had oral sex with someone who was a minor. It does not matter that said activity was consensual, or that Wilson was also a minor: He broke the law and got a 10-year jail sentence for it. Cruel and unusual? Definitely. The Georgia legislature has since changed the penalty to a one-year jail sentence, a change made in large part due to the attention the Wilson case attracted.
But the sentence isn’t the problem here — the law itself is terrible and should be abolished.
Any law that says consensual sexual activity between two people is a crime is a violation of privacy and does not belong on the books. I’m trying to figure out how the girl who performed oral sex on Wilson made herself a “victim,” even though she acted freely and consciously. Yet Wilson’s detractors repeatedly pointed out how she was taken advantage of, and even incorrectly referred to Wilson as a rapist.
According to statistics, an inconceivable number of Georgia high schoolers should have already been jailed. Sexual activity between consenting minors happens all the time, and it should not be a crime. The prudish adults who sit under the gold dome of the Georgia State Capitol may think that by making such an act a crime, they are preventing sexual activity from taking place but to believe so reeks of naiveté.
Georgia legislators need to stay away from meddling in morality. That’s not their job, and it takes focus away from more important issues.
Many have speculated that the reason this particular case was tried had to do with Wilson’s race. Wilson’s conviction, they said, was indicative of the subtle racism that still permeates Georgia.
But there was no reason to convict in this case, since Wilson’s crime had no victim. The girl has admitted that the oral sex was consensual so she cannot be the victim. While making a videotape of the act being performed was a foolish mistake, there’s no denying that this exact situation happens all the time — yet Wilson was the only one prosecuted.
Thankfully, justice finally prevailed for Wilson. B.J. Bernstein, his lawyer and a 1984 Emory
College graduate deserves praise for taking on this case pro-bono and for fighting to make sure justice would be carried out. Now it’s time for the next step: The law must be changed so teenagers cannot be charged for child molestation for consensual sexual activities.
Genarlow Wilson was an upstanding student, star football player, and by all accounts a person destined for success. An asinine law took several years of his life from him. Now he’s a free man and wants to go to college and succeed in life. Let’s root for Genarlow Wilson to show he can overcome how the state of Georgia wronged him.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Wheel Column: The Politics of Genocide (10/19)
It’s been a key tenant of political thought in the West since the Holocaust:
If a country like the United States recognizes something as genocide — acknowledges an act as the deliberate destruction of a group of people — then we have a moral obligation to intervene and stop the killing.
In the past few weeks, talk of genocide has been prominent in the United States, and especially at Emory. On Tuesday, Paul Rusesabagina, the man whose story formed the basis for the movie Hotel Rwanda, spoke at Emory about the genocide he lived through in Rwanda in 1994. In just three months, more than one million of Rusesabagina’s fellow Rwandans were killed.
The United States and the rest of the West sat that atriocity out on the sidelines, even though we knew exactly what was happening. President Bill Clinton has said that not intervening in the Rwandan genocide was one of the worst decisions of his presidency.
Genocide has been a hot topic nationally because of a resolution in the United States House of Representatives that would officially recognize the slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War as a genocide. Even though support for the bill has waned in the last couple of days, last week it still managed to pass the House Foreign Affairs Committee. This infuriated Turkey, which strongly disputes the claims of genocide, to the point where they recalled their American Ambassador to Ankara.
This resolution is pointless. Shame on Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership for continuing to push a bill that could seriously impair American efforts in the Middle East.
For the first time in what seems like years, President Bush is on the right side of an issue, encouraging Congress to vote down the resolution.
Turkey is one of our strongest allies in the Middle East and this resolution will harm vital American-Turkish ties to allow the Democrats to pander to a small minority — Armenian-Americans — that conveniently makes up a good portion of Pelosi’s district. Much of the logistical support helping our troops in Iraq passes through or above Turkey and if we were to lose the ability to use Turkey in the war in Iraq, our soldiers could be put at risk.
Pelosi claims that Turkey’s status as an ally has protected them for too long, and that the United States must call what happened a genocide. This the Democrats’ attempt to regain the moral high ground: Calling something that happened 90 years ago a genocide?
If Pelosi and the leaders on Capitol Hill want to actually do something productive about genocide, I suggest they stop pandering and do something to stop genocide today. There is still a genocide going on in Darfur. What is Nancy Pelosi doing to stop it? She’s attempting to win political points by focusing on a worthless resolution about genocide that would hurt our efforts in Iraq and alienate one of our few remaining Middle East allies.
Bravo, Madam Speaker. You’ve managed to demonstrate another way in which the Democrats have squabbled the trust voters placed in them last November.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
If a country like the United States recognizes something as genocide — acknowledges an act as the deliberate destruction of a group of people — then we have a moral obligation to intervene and stop the killing.
In the past few weeks, talk of genocide has been prominent in the United States, and especially at Emory. On Tuesday, Paul Rusesabagina, the man whose story formed the basis for the movie Hotel Rwanda, spoke at Emory about the genocide he lived through in Rwanda in 1994. In just three months, more than one million of Rusesabagina’s fellow Rwandans were killed.
The United States and the rest of the West sat that atriocity out on the sidelines, even though we knew exactly what was happening. President Bill Clinton has said that not intervening in the Rwandan genocide was one of the worst decisions of his presidency.
Genocide has been a hot topic nationally because of a resolution in the United States House of Representatives that would officially recognize the slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War as a genocide. Even though support for the bill has waned in the last couple of days, last week it still managed to pass the House Foreign Affairs Committee. This infuriated Turkey, which strongly disputes the claims of genocide, to the point where they recalled their American Ambassador to Ankara.
This resolution is pointless. Shame on Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership for continuing to push a bill that could seriously impair American efforts in the Middle East.
For the first time in what seems like years, President Bush is on the right side of an issue, encouraging Congress to vote down the resolution.
Turkey is one of our strongest allies in the Middle East and this resolution will harm vital American-Turkish ties to allow the Democrats to pander to a small minority — Armenian-Americans — that conveniently makes up a good portion of Pelosi’s district. Much of the logistical support helping our troops in Iraq passes through or above Turkey and if we were to lose the ability to use Turkey in the war in Iraq, our soldiers could be put at risk.
Pelosi claims that Turkey’s status as an ally has protected them for too long, and that the United States must call what happened a genocide. This the Democrats’ attempt to regain the moral high ground: Calling something that happened 90 years ago a genocide?
If Pelosi and the leaders on Capitol Hill want to actually do something productive about genocide, I suggest they stop pandering and do something to stop genocide today. There is still a genocide going on in Darfur. What is Nancy Pelosi doing to stop it? She’s attempting to win political points by focusing on a worthless resolution about genocide that would hurt our efforts in Iraq and alienate one of our few remaining Middle East allies.
Bravo, Madam Speaker. You’ve managed to demonstrate another way in which the Democrats have squabbled the trust voters placed in them last November.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
Wheel Column: Between Borders, A Thin Line (10/4)
Illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States no matter on which side of the issue you fall.
If you feel that our current laws are too stringent, illegal immigration is a problem because an entire segment of the population living in our country has to fear deportation exploitation by employers. On the other hand, if you think that the United States is not doing enough to combat illegal immigration, you point to the fact that these people are actually criminals: They entered the country illegally and their presence drains American resources while driving down wages for legal workers.
I side with the latter camp. These people are criminals for crossing into the country illegally, and their use of our resources — namely our hospitals and schools — without paying most of the taxes supporting them hurts our economy.
I know it’s not realistic to deport all illegal immigrants. There are as many as 20 million of them in our country already. But I cannot support President Bush’s “comprehensive” immigration plan since it amounts to little more than amnesty, putting these criminals on a path to citizenship.
Legalization is an acceptable alternative for these workers, but I believe that if they broke the law to come here, they shouldn’t be granted American citizenship. We should work instead on increasing legal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries. We need to provide legal ways for them to become involved as a full part of society — speaking English and paying taxes.
Yet even an issue like illegal immigration has shades of gray, and as easy as it would be to favor a hard-line policy of deportation, the U.S. government should exercise caution and basic logic in treating individual cases.
For example, on Wednesday, a CNN.com story entitled “U.S. Sailor: Don’t Deport My Wife,” caught my eye. Eduardo Gonzalez, an American citizen whose wife is an illegal alien, is set to serve his third tour of duty overseas. He is worried that his wife will be deported when he is gone.
How can they possibly consider deporting Gonzalez’s wife? Not only is she married to an American, her husband is serving our country in the military. Why punish a member of our armed forces in such a way for going to war?
I completely support the U.S. military policy of giving citizenship to non-citizens who join the military. If you are willing to fight for America, you should be made an American citizen. No questions asked.
This comes on the heels of a story I read last week. Pedro Zapeta, an illegal alien from
Guatemala, had been working as a dishwasher for 11 years. Two years ago, he was leaving the country to go back home with the $59,000 in earnings he made working $5.50 an hour jobs when U.S. Customs seized the money because he did not declare he was carrying more than $10,000 in cash. Two years later, he still doesn’t have his money back.
No matter which side of the immigration debate you come down on, it’s embarrassing that the United States government stole $59,000 from Zapeta. He was leaving the country. Just because he was here illegally doesn’t mean the U.S. can steal his money. Make him pay taxes on the earnings and then let the guy go home.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should stop harassing people like Zapeta and Gonzalez, and instead go after the day laborers waiting for work in a parking lot and the employers who hire these people. Maybe once they’re addressing the real problem, we can start having a conversation about how to fix illegal immigration.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
If you feel that our current laws are too stringent, illegal immigration is a problem because an entire segment of the population living in our country has to fear deportation exploitation by employers. On the other hand, if you think that the United States is not doing enough to combat illegal immigration, you point to the fact that these people are actually criminals: They entered the country illegally and their presence drains American resources while driving down wages for legal workers.
I side with the latter camp. These people are criminals for crossing into the country illegally, and their use of our resources — namely our hospitals and schools — without paying most of the taxes supporting them hurts our economy.
I know it’s not realistic to deport all illegal immigrants. There are as many as 20 million of them in our country already. But I cannot support President Bush’s “comprehensive” immigration plan since it amounts to little more than amnesty, putting these criminals on a path to citizenship.
Legalization is an acceptable alternative for these workers, but I believe that if they broke the law to come here, they shouldn’t be granted American citizenship. We should work instead on increasing legal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries. We need to provide legal ways for them to become involved as a full part of society — speaking English and paying taxes.
Yet even an issue like illegal immigration has shades of gray, and as easy as it would be to favor a hard-line policy of deportation, the U.S. government should exercise caution and basic logic in treating individual cases.
For example, on Wednesday, a CNN.com story entitled “U.S. Sailor: Don’t Deport My Wife,” caught my eye. Eduardo Gonzalez, an American citizen whose wife is an illegal alien, is set to serve his third tour of duty overseas. He is worried that his wife will be deported when he is gone.
How can they possibly consider deporting Gonzalez’s wife? Not only is she married to an American, her husband is serving our country in the military. Why punish a member of our armed forces in such a way for going to war?
I completely support the U.S. military policy of giving citizenship to non-citizens who join the military. If you are willing to fight for America, you should be made an American citizen. No questions asked.
This comes on the heels of a story I read last week. Pedro Zapeta, an illegal alien from
Guatemala, had been working as a dishwasher for 11 years. Two years ago, he was leaving the country to go back home with the $59,000 in earnings he made working $5.50 an hour jobs when U.S. Customs seized the money because he did not declare he was carrying more than $10,000 in cash. Two years later, he still doesn’t have his money back.
No matter which side of the immigration debate you come down on, it’s embarrassing that the United States government stole $59,000 from Zapeta. He was leaving the country. Just because he was here illegally doesn’t mean the U.S. can steal his money. Make him pay taxes on the earnings and then let the guy go home.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should stop harassing people like Zapeta and Gonzalez, and instead go after the day laborers waiting for work in a parking lot and the employers who hire these people. Maybe once they’re addressing the real problem, we can start having a conversation about how to fix illegal immigration.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
Wheel Column: Good-bye and Good Riddance, Ahmadinejad (9/27)
The United States and Israel commit human rights violations. There are no gay Iranians. We must allow ourselves to look at the Holocaust from different perspectives. Israel needs to be wiped off the map. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were actually perpetrated by the United States. Looks like Ahmadinejad is back on the warpath, this time launching his attacks from our own front door.
Last year, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran came to the United States with his signature rhetorical firestorm, the mere mention of his speaking at Columbia University was enough to trigger a storm of concern. That appearance was cancelled at the last minute due to “security concerns.” Controversy seems to follow the outspoken leader wherever he goes, and this year he made sure it would be no different.
Ahmadinejad began his pestering of the American people when he requested permission to visit Ground Zero in New York City, to “lay a wreath” on the site where the Twin Towers fell. His request was denied by police, citing security concerns, but already the idea of an enemy of our country visiting one of our most hallowed locations was enough to anger a great many Americans.
Then last Thursday, in an interview with “60 Minutes” taped in Tehran, he accused the CBS correspondent of acting like a CIA agent. The reporter’s crime? Asking a follow-up question to Ahmadinejad’s non-answer of his initial question. Ahmadinejad specializes in dodging uncomfortable questions by answering with questions of his own. For example, during Monday’s forum at Columbia, the university’s president Lee Bollinger asked, “Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?”
Ahmadinejad responded, “Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them?”
Between dodging questions, leaving appearances early and speaking to a UN assembly that lacked the U.S. delegation (which had walked out in protest), Ahmadinejad was able to stay on message: Iran is great and peaceful. The United States and Israel are evil. The Holocaust is mere theory.
At Columbia, Bollinger was rather hostile with the Iranian president, saying in his introduction that Ahmadinejad displays “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.” When he denied the Holocaust, Bollinger called him “either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” Why would a world leader put up with this? After all, as he reminded us constantly, he is the president of mighty Iran.
It’s because Ahmadinejad likes the attention. A forum at Columbia, or in front of the U.N. General Assembly, gives him the platform he needs in order to spew his rhetoric, to respond to a question about the persecution of homosexuals in Iran with, “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don’t know who has told you that we have it.”
Of course, Ahmadinejad has his fans. The Iranian people, generally not huge fans of their crazy president, were rightfully outraged by the treatment he received at Bollinger’s hands, and this won him some more support.
Fellow pariahs President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Venezulan President Hugo Chavez voiced their support for Ahmadinejad. “I congratulate him,” Chavez said, “in the name of the Venezuelan people, before a new aggression of the U.S. empire.”
Ahmadinejad will meet with Chavez later this week, where they’ll surely hold another meeting of the petty dictator club and come out with a whole new set of anti-U.S. rhetoric. At least this time, we won’t have to put up with them in our country.
Last year, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran came to the United States with his signature rhetorical firestorm, the mere mention of his speaking at Columbia University was enough to trigger a storm of concern. That appearance was cancelled at the last minute due to “security concerns.” Controversy seems to follow the outspoken leader wherever he goes, and this year he made sure it would be no different.
Ahmadinejad began his pestering of the American people when he requested permission to visit Ground Zero in New York City, to “lay a wreath” on the site where the Twin Towers fell. His request was denied by police, citing security concerns, but already the idea of an enemy of our country visiting one of our most hallowed locations was enough to anger a great many Americans.
Then last Thursday, in an interview with “60 Minutes” taped in Tehran, he accused the CBS correspondent of acting like a CIA agent. The reporter’s crime? Asking a follow-up question to Ahmadinejad’s non-answer of his initial question. Ahmadinejad specializes in dodging uncomfortable questions by answering with questions of his own. For example, during Monday’s forum at Columbia, the university’s president Lee Bollinger asked, “Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?”
Ahmadinejad responded, “Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them?”
Between dodging questions, leaving appearances early and speaking to a UN assembly that lacked the U.S. delegation (which had walked out in protest), Ahmadinejad was able to stay on message: Iran is great and peaceful. The United States and Israel are evil. The Holocaust is mere theory.
At Columbia, Bollinger was rather hostile with the Iranian president, saying in his introduction that Ahmadinejad displays “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.” When he denied the Holocaust, Bollinger called him “either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” Why would a world leader put up with this? After all, as he reminded us constantly, he is the president of mighty Iran.
It’s because Ahmadinejad likes the attention. A forum at Columbia, or in front of the U.N. General Assembly, gives him the platform he needs in order to spew his rhetoric, to respond to a question about the persecution of homosexuals in Iran with, “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don’t know who has told you that we have it.”
Of course, Ahmadinejad has his fans. The Iranian people, generally not huge fans of their crazy president, were rightfully outraged by the treatment he received at Bollinger’s hands, and this won him some more support.
Fellow pariahs President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Venezulan President Hugo Chavez voiced their support for Ahmadinejad. “I congratulate him,” Chavez said, “in the name of the Venezuelan people, before a new aggression of the U.S. empire.”
Ahmadinejad will meet with Chavez later this week, where they’ll surely hold another meeting of the petty dictator club and come out with a whole new set of anti-U.S. rhetoric. At least this time, we won’t have to put up with them in our country.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Wheel Column: The Greatest Show on Earth?
O.J. Simpson and Senator Larry Craig Help Lay Out the Three Rules of Media Circuses
O.J. “You think you can steal my s---?” Simpson. Larry “Wide-stance” Craig. Lindsay “Cocaine” Lohan. Britney “I can’t lip-synch or dance” Spears. Paris “DUI” Hilton.
What do all of these people have in common? They’ve all had the dubious distinction of being the star attraction in a media circus during the past couple of months.
What exactly is a media circus? It’s when the cable news networks turn into “Entertainment Tonight,” interrupting their coverage constantly to feature “breaking news” updates on stories that aren’t really news in the least.
Reflecting on these media sensations over the past couple of months, I’ve come up with the three cardinal rules of media circuses:
1. A media circus must involve someone who is famous, but not important.
O.J. is famous for being a football star, a movie star and for starring in the “Trial of the Century,” where he was acquitted for murder, even though he was later found civilly responsible for the deaths and ordered to pay more than $33 million.
But O.J. is not really an important person. He travels from memorabilia show to memorabilia show, trying to make money to pay off his civil liability, signing his name to anything.
Simpson would have been out of the spotlight completely if it hadn’t been for his recent ill-conceived attempts at releasing his book, If I Did It, in which he wrote about how he would have killed Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown, if, you know, he had done it.
And Sen. Larry Craig, who pleaded guilty after being busted for soliciting sex in an airport restroom in August, is just an obscure senator from a small state.
He never really had a national profile, just a reputation in the Beltway for being a strict conservative who was a strong supporter of family values.
As for Paris/Lindsay/Britney, we’ll just agree that they’re not important. Not even close. Let’s just move on.
2. The famous person has done something incredibly stupid and, in an effort to uncover their motivations, we learn more about their lives than we ever wanted to know.
Craig denied the allegations that he was soliciting, but then, nearly two months later, he pleaded guilty to the charge of disorderly conduct! How could Craig have thought that pleading guilty to a crime he claimed he didn’t commit would ease his problems?
During Cirque du Craig, viewers heard the tape of his interview with police again and again, both on the news and as joke fodder for late-night television. America learned that tapping your foot is a way to request sex in a bathroom, and that Craig has what he himself called “a wide stance.” This is way more than I wanted to know.
Networks seem convinced that people are looking for the “why” of these scandals. As such, they give us interviews with Simpson’s golfing buddies, his attorneys from the murder trial, his current attorneys, the victims of the robbery — anyone with inside information on the person or their crime.
And media circuses are always looking towards the future. Even if a trial or sentencing is scheduled months later, the talking heads see fit to bring on scores of legal analysts. Forget justice for the “Jena 6,” we want to know whether or not O.J.’s going to be able to get a fair trial.
It’s the constant balancing act between all these different aspects of the story that turns an ordinary event into a full-fledged, three-ring media circus.
3. Other newsworthy events are going on during a media circus, but the “news” networks ignore them to provide non-stop, team coverage of the circus.
Media circuses are created for the viewer, not for their news value.
During the Simpson saga last week, Hillary Clinton, who very well could be the next president of the Untied States, released her health care plan. It received almost no attention, unable to escape the shadow of the O.J. saga.
Unfortunately, the production of media circuses is still a thriving business. Ratings are good, and chances are within the next month, you’ll see a completely new one setting up tents on a television screen near you.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
O.J. “You think you can steal my s---?” Simpson. Larry “Wide-stance” Craig. Lindsay “Cocaine” Lohan. Britney “I can’t lip-synch or dance” Spears. Paris “DUI” Hilton.
What do all of these people have in common? They’ve all had the dubious distinction of being the star attraction in a media circus during the past couple of months.
What exactly is a media circus? It’s when the cable news networks turn into “Entertainment Tonight,” interrupting their coverage constantly to feature “breaking news” updates on stories that aren’t really news in the least.
Reflecting on these media sensations over the past couple of months, I’ve come up with the three cardinal rules of media circuses:
1. A media circus must involve someone who is famous, but not important.
O.J. is famous for being a football star, a movie star and for starring in the “Trial of the Century,” where he was acquitted for murder, even though he was later found civilly responsible for the deaths and ordered to pay more than $33 million.
But O.J. is not really an important person. He travels from memorabilia show to memorabilia show, trying to make money to pay off his civil liability, signing his name to anything.
Simpson would have been out of the spotlight completely if it hadn’t been for his recent ill-conceived attempts at releasing his book, If I Did It, in which he wrote about how he would have killed Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown, if, you know, he had done it.
And Sen. Larry Craig, who pleaded guilty after being busted for soliciting sex in an airport restroom in August, is just an obscure senator from a small state.
He never really had a national profile, just a reputation in the Beltway for being a strict conservative who was a strong supporter of family values.
As for Paris/Lindsay/Britney, we’ll just agree that they’re not important. Not even close. Let’s just move on.
2. The famous person has done something incredibly stupid and, in an effort to uncover their motivations, we learn more about their lives than we ever wanted to know.
Craig denied the allegations that he was soliciting, but then, nearly two months later, he pleaded guilty to the charge of disorderly conduct! How could Craig have thought that pleading guilty to a crime he claimed he didn’t commit would ease his problems?
During Cirque du Craig, viewers heard the tape of his interview with police again and again, both on the news and as joke fodder for late-night television. America learned that tapping your foot is a way to request sex in a bathroom, and that Craig has what he himself called “a wide stance.” This is way more than I wanted to know.
Networks seem convinced that people are looking for the “why” of these scandals. As such, they give us interviews with Simpson’s golfing buddies, his attorneys from the murder trial, his current attorneys, the victims of the robbery — anyone with inside information on the person or their crime.
And media circuses are always looking towards the future. Even if a trial or sentencing is scheduled months later, the talking heads see fit to bring on scores of legal analysts. Forget justice for the “Jena 6,” we want to know whether or not O.J.’s going to be able to get a fair trial.
It’s the constant balancing act between all these different aspects of the story that turns an ordinary event into a full-fledged, three-ring media circus.
3. Other newsworthy events are going on during a media circus, but the “news” networks ignore them to provide non-stop, team coverage of the circus.
Media circuses are created for the viewer, not for their news value.
During the Simpson saga last week, Hillary Clinton, who very well could be the next president of the Untied States, released her health care plan. It received almost no attention, unable to escape the shadow of the O.J. saga.
Unfortunately, the production of media circuses is still a thriving business. Ratings are good, and chances are within the next month, you’ll see a completely new one setting up tents on a television screen near you.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Wheel Column: A Win For Team America (9/14)
Last week one of my professors asked our class who thought America was in decline as a world power. Most of the hands in the room shot up instantly. Mine wasn'€™t one of them.
I will readily concede that lately, between the debacle in Iraq, the general incompetence of President Bush, and the rise of China, India and the European Union, America'€™s geopolitical hegemony has decreased a bit over the past seven years. However, any loss of geopolitical dominance is more than compensated for by the near-monopoly America has on the world when it comes to cultural hegemony.
Recently I was in Munich, the capital of Bavaria, where beer is still served after breakfast and many people dress as their fathers and grandfathers have for generations. But even in Munich, America and her cultural icons were everywhere. Riding in on the train from the airport, I saw billboards at nearly every stop for Burger King'€™s new Barbeque Whopper, and everywhere were advertisements for "€œThe Bourne Ultimatum,"€ which had just come out in Germany. And this was just on the trip into the city.
Around Munich, between old churches, beer halls and traditional German attractions like the Glockenspiel, American soft power is in full force. There is a massive Tommy Hilfiger billboard on a church, and American shops like Bose, American Apparel, and Quiksilver have locations right in heart of the city.
Munich is just like so many other cities around the world. The familiar red logo of Atlanta’s own Coca-Cola is everywhere. People walk down the streets sipping their Starbucks’ latte while listening to American music on their iPods. The menu board in a German Starbucks is in English, not German. Munich even boasts two Wal-Marts.
Did you know that there are over 3,500 Starbucks outside of the United States? In China, Kentucky Fried Chicken is massively popular, with more than 1,800 locations. There are McDonald’s in 119 countries. Subway has over 5,000 international locations, each wallpapered with the same images of the New York City subway.
American popular culture is also extremely prevalent overseas. MTV has channels around the world. Many Germans currently love American rock and roll from the 1960s and €˜70s, and television shows from the €˜80s. Current American television shows are being broadcast around the world, further spreading our culture.
If you think of the countries that are rising powers, theoretically at the expense of the dominance of the United States, how much of an effect do they have on our culture? Do our hardcourt stars go to play in the Chinese Basketball Association? Are we listening to Chinese pop music?
India'€™s Bollywood films have a niche audience here, but nothing even close to the popularity of the movies produced in its California namesake. These rising powers just do not have the same cultural power as the United States.
They don'€™t have the same political, economic, or military power either. All throughout the 20th century we heard that America was falling as a power and would be replaced. Germany, military Japan, the Soviet Union, Red China, economic Japan and now rising powers China and India have all at one point or another been mentioned as contenders for America'€™s spot as hegemon.
But now, China has severe issues -- terrible environmental policies and growing social unrest -- that could prevent growth. India is gaining wealth, but that wealth remains very concentrated. Meanwhile, the educated middle class is demanding raises, which makes India less competitive globally.
I'€™m not convinced our nation is a falling power in any aspect. America’s soft power has the ability to reach where its political, economic and military power can’t. And these should continue to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world for the foreseeable future.
I will readily concede that lately, between the debacle in Iraq, the general incompetence of President Bush, and the rise of China, India and the European Union, America'€™s geopolitical hegemony has decreased a bit over the past seven years. However, any loss of geopolitical dominance is more than compensated for by the near-monopoly America has on the world when it comes to cultural hegemony.
Recently I was in Munich, the capital of Bavaria, where beer is still served after breakfast and many people dress as their fathers and grandfathers have for generations. But even in Munich, America and her cultural icons were everywhere. Riding in on the train from the airport, I saw billboards at nearly every stop for Burger King'€™s new Barbeque Whopper, and everywhere were advertisements for "€œThe Bourne Ultimatum,"€ which had just come out in Germany. And this was just on the trip into the city.
Around Munich, between old churches, beer halls and traditional German attractions like the Glockenspiel, American soft power is in full force. There is a massive Tommy Hilfiger billboard on a church, and American shops like Bose, American Apparel, and Quiksilver have locations right in heart of the city.
Munich is just like so many other cities around the world. The familiar red logo of Atlanta’s own Coca-Cola is everywhere. People walk down the streets sipping their Starbucks’ latte while listening to American music on their iPods. The menu board in a German Starbucks is in English, not German. Munich even boasts two Wal-Marts.
Did you know that there are over 3,500 Starbucks outside of the United States? In China, Kentucky Fried Chicken is massively popular, with more than 1,800 locations. There are McDonald’s in 119 countries. Subway has over 5,000 international locations, each wallpapered with the same images of the New York City subway.
American popular culture is also extremely prevalent overseas. MTV has channels around the world. Many Germans currently love American rock and roll from the 1960s and €˜70s, and television shows from the €˜80s. Current American television shows are being broadcast around the world, further spreading our culture.
If you think of the countries that are rising powers, theoretically at the expense of the dominance of the United States, how much of an effect do they have on our culture? Do our hardcourt stars go to play in the Chinese Basketball Association? Are we listening to Chinese pop music?
India'€™s Bollywood films have a niche audience here, but nothing even close to the popularity of the movies produced in its California namesake. These rising powers just do not have the same cultural power as the United States.
They don'€™t have the same political, economic, or military power either. All throughout the 20th century we heard that America was falling as a power and would be replaced. Germany, military Japan, the Soviet Union, Red China, economic Japan and now rising powers China and India have all at one point or another been mentioned as contenders for America'€™s spot as hegemon.
But now, China has severe issues -- terrible environmental policies and growing social unrest -- that could prevent growth. India is gaining wealth, but that wealth remains very concentrated. Meanwhile, the educated middle class is demanding raises, which makes India less competitive globally.
I'€™m not convinced our nation is a falling power in any aspect. America’s soft power has the ability to reach where its political, economic and military power can’t. And these should continue to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world for the foreseeable future.
Wheel Column: For Bush, Who Will Be the Last Man Standing? (9/7)
Last Monday, I awoke to the news that embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had finally decided to call it quits. This took place only a couple weeks after another controversial administration ally, top adviser Karl Rove, announced his resignation from the Bush White House.
Now the only question is: Who will be left to turn off the lights? The exodus of some of President Bush's closest friends and confidants make it seem like Bush'€™s A-team has departed 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It seems even those closest to the President now think he’s a lame duck.
As if the high profile departures of Rove and Gonzales were not enough, last week White House Press Secretary Tony Snow announced he was leaving. The charismatic former Fox News anchor said he was leaving due to financial reasons, citing that the job'€™s salary was less than what he made as a TV anchor and public speaker. Apparently Mr. Snow doesn€'t think a measly $168,000 a year is enough compensation to wait around as the Bush administration slowly sinks over the next 15 months.
It can be argued that once a second-term president starts heading for the home stretch, people in his administration should start to look for their next jobs, and often enough senior staffers leave before January 20. But for this many high-profile staffers to leave this early is unheard of, and seems especially odd when taken into account Bush’s well-documented loyalty to his people. In addition to the big three departures, several lower-profile figures, such as White House Budget Director Rob Portman and White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, have also departed in the last eight weeks.
As for Rove and Gonzales, I was shocked to see them go. Rove has been at Bush’s side since 1994. He'€™s been called Bush’s brain, even though he denies such claims of his own import. Rove was the one responsible for the robo-calls in South Carolina that alleged that John McCain had an illegitimate black son; these calls helped stop McCain’s momentum after his New Hampshire primary win in 2000. It'€™s safe to say that without Rove, Bush wouldn'™t even have been elected president once.
In 2002, Rove helped the Republicans pick up seats in the midterm elections, marking only the third time a president’s party has picked up seats in a midterm election. Rove went on to engineer Bush'€™s 2004 win over John Kerry and earned the title "the architect"€ from Bush.
Rove was technically only the deputy chief of staff, but his influence over the administration is so great that many pundits have said his departure marked the beginning of the end for Bush, with the President conceding that he was unlikely to advance any other major accomplishments during the remainder of his term.
It seemed not long ago that Gonzales had weathered the storm of representatives and senators calling for his resignation. Gonzales lied before Congress and made a complete fool of himself by saying "€œI don'€™t know"€ more than 100 times in Congressional testimony about the firing of U.S. Attorneys. He took something that the President had every right to do -- fire the attorneys -- and turned it into a giant scandal.
Should he have resigned? Absolutely. He was unfit for that office because he seemed to believe that the attorney general is little more than the President’s personal counsel. But Bush remained firm in his support of his old cohort, and therefore I thought he'€™d serve out the final 15 months. Gonzales'€™ resignation must mean he merely tired of serving as a punching bag for legislators infuriated with the conduct of the executive branch.
With Rove, Gonzales and Snow gone, replaced by a set of nobodies who will never be heard from again, who will be around to turn the lights off on January 20, 2009? Or will the president, alone and abandoned by all his lackeys, be stuck with the task himself?
Now the only question is: Who will be left to turn off the lights? The exodus of some of President Bush's closest friends and confidants make it seem like Bush'€™s A-team has departed 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It seems even those closest to the President now think he’s a lame duck.
As if the high profile departures of Rove and Gonzales were not enough, last week White House Press Secretary Tony Snow announced he was leaving. The charismatic former Fox News anchor said he was leaving due to financial reasons, citing that the job'€™s salary was less than what he made as a TV anchor and public speaker. Apparently Mr. Snow doesn€'t think a measly $168,000 a year is enough compensation to wait around as the Bush administration slowly sinks over the next 15 months.
It can be argued that once a second-term president starts heading for the home stretch, people in his administration should start to look for their next jobs, and often enough senior staffers leave before January 20. But for this many high-profile staffers to leave this early is unheard of, and seems especially odd when taken into account Bush’s well-documented loyalty to his people. In addition to the big three departures, several lower-profile figures, such as White House Budget Director Rob Portman and White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, have also departed in the last eight weeks.
As for Rove and Gonzales, I was shocked to see them go. Rove has been at Bush’s side since 1994. He'€™s been called Bush’s brain, even though he denies such claims of his own import. Rove was the one responsible for the robo-calls in South Carolina that alleged that John McCain had an illegitimate black son; these calls helped stop McCain’s momentum after his New Hampshire primary win in 2000. It'€™s safe to say that without Rove, Bush wouldn'™t even have been elected president once.
In 2002, Rove helped the Republicans pick up seats in the midterm elections, marking only the third time a president’s party has picked up seats in a midterm election. Rove went on to engineer Bush'€™s 2004 win over John Kerry and earned the title "the architect"€ from Bush.
Rove was technically only the deputy chief of staff, but his influence over the administration is so great that many pundits have said his departure marked the beginning of the end for Bush, with the President conceding that he was unlikely to advance any other major accomplishments during the remainder of his term.
It seemed not long ago that Gonzales had weathered the storm of representatives and senators calling for his resignation. Gonzales lied before Congress and made a complete fool of himself by saying "€œI don'€™t know"€ more than 100 times in Congressional testimony about the firing of U.S. Attorneys. He took something that the President had every right to do -- fire the attorneys -- and turned it into a giant scandal.
Should he have resigned? Absolutely. He was unfit for that office because he seemed to believe that the attorney general is little more than the President’s personal counsel. But Bush remained firm in his support of his old cohort, and therefore I thought he'€™d serve out the final 15 months. Gonzales'€™ resignation must mean he merely tired of serving as a punching bag for legislators infuriated with the conduct of the executive branch.
With Rove, Gonzales and Snow gone, replaced by a set of nobodies who will never be heard from again, who will be around to turn the lights off on January 20, 2009? Or will the president, alone and abandoned by all his lackeys, be stuck with the task himself?
Wheel Column: Are We There Yet? (8/27)
While you were slaving away at that internship or summer job during the past few months, twenty of our country'€™s most prolific€” -- and in some cases not so prolific --€” politicians have hit the trail: answering questions, attending debates and trading insults in an attempt to win the hearts and votes of the American people.
Yes, the race to succeed President Bush is already bustling even though we still have five months to go before the first primary and fourteen before the general election. This election season started a year and a half before November 2008! Do we have to put up with this nonsense for that long?
For lovers of politics like myself, an elongated primary campaign may seem like a windfall. After all, it'€™s gives the voters a better chance to examine the candidates and the candidates more time to win our votes. But these primaries are ridiculous. The length of this campaign season is actually hurting voters.
Some candidates are a joke; even more have no chance of winning, yet they continue to waste our time in the debates and on television news shows day after day, week after week. Voters are tuning out of the national conversation. It'€™d probably be better, both for the candidates and the voters, if they all just went away until after Thanksgiving.
One of the reasons this presidential cycle started so early is because it’s the first race since 1928 in which neither an incumbent president or vice president has declared for the race. Dick Cheney long ago announced that he has no plans to seek higher office, so both parties are kicking off this election season with a full primary, with no candidate having with the political head start incumbency provides.
But since we are so far from the election, most Americans don’t care about the massive fields of candidates on both sides of the aisle who are jockeying to become their party’s nominee. Who cares what former Alaska Democratic Senator Mike "€œthe rest of the Democratic field scares me"€ Gravel (who took a train to a South Carolina debate since his campaign couldn’t afford a plane ticket) and Republican Representative Ron "I'€™m popular on the internet, but not in polls"€ Paul have to say about what they hope to accomplish as president.
Each party has held a multitude of debates and forums for its candidates, most of which have featured little talk about actual plans and policies and rather a lot of sweeping generalizations. We’ve had a YouTube debate, the sole highlight of which was a question on global warming from a talking snowman, and a giant AFL-CIO “forum†held on a football field, where Democratic candidates told the union members exactly what they wanted to hear, without any explanation on how these statements would actually be implemented.
How is it possible to have a debate with nine people? They give the platform to the Paul'€™s, Gravel'€™s, Tancredo'™s, and Kucinich'€™s, who use it to spew impractical and unrealistic ideas that they will never have to live up to because they aren’t going to get elected. They also make picking a winner a lot more difficult since they deny the front-runners the opportunity to actually debate.
Ready or not, the race to replace George W. Bush is in full swing. Hopefully its length won'€™t tire the American people out before the end.
Yes, the race to succeed President Bush is already bustling even though we still have five months to go before the first primary and fourteen before the general election. This election season started a year and a half before November 2008! Do we have to put up with this nonsense for that long?
For lovers of politics like myself, an elongated primary campaign may seem like a windfall. After all, it'€™s gives the voters a better chance to examine the candidates and the candidates more time to win our votes. But these primaries are ridiculous. The length of this campaign season is actually hurting voters.
Some candidates are a joke; even more have no chance of winning, yet they continue to waste our time in the debates and on television news shows day after day, week after week. Voters are tuning out of the national conversation. It'€™d probably be better, both for the candidates and the voters, if they all just went away until after Thanksgiving.
One of the reasons this presidential cycle started so early is because it’s the first race since 1928 in which neither an incumbent president or vice president has declared for the race. Dick Cheney long ago announced that he has no plans to seek higher office, so both parties are kicking off this election season with a full primary, with no candidate having with the political head start incumbency provides.
But since we are so far from the election, most Americans don’t care about the massive fields of candidates on both sides of the aisle who are jockeying to become their party’s nominee. Who cares what former Alaska Democratic Senator Mike "€œthe rest of the Democratic field scares me"€ Gravel (who took a train to a South Carolina debate since his campaign couldn’t afford a plane ticket) and Republican Representative Ron "I'€™m popular on the internet, but not in polls"€ Paul have to say about what they hope to accomplish as president.
Each party has held a multitude of debates and forums for its candidates, most of which have featured little talk about actual plans and policies and rather a lot of sweeping generalizations. We’ve had a YouTube debate, the sole highlight of which was a question on global warming from a talking snowman, and a giant AFL-CIO “forum†held on a football field, where Democratic candidates told the union members exactly what they wanted to hear, without any explanation on how these statements would actually be implemented.
How is it possible to have a debate with nine people? They give the platform to the Paul'€™s, Gravel'€™s, Tancredo'™s, and Kucinich'€™s, who use it to spew impractical and unrealistic ideas that they will never have to live up to because they aren’t going to get elected. They also make picking a winner a lot more difficult since they deny the front-runners the opportunity to actually debate.
Ready or not, the race to replace George W. Bush is in full swing. Hopefully its length won'€™t tire the American people out before the end.
Friday, July 13, 2007
A response to the hooligans...it's called my opinion.
To all of those friendly people who posted comments in response to my MLS post,
Wow. Your responses, with the notable exception of two reasoned posts, were just as pathetic as the game you love. Since you don't have facts on your side, you resorted to personal attacks on me. Very mature. So what if I'm a college student and I'm here in DC interning this summer. Does that make my observations invalid?
I'm entitled to my opinion. You are entitled to yours. There was nothing "uninformed" or "communist" about my post . It was my observation after going to one game. There were not 15,000 people in RFK. We all know that. They may have sold 15,000 tickets, but that's very different from 15,000 people being there. The place was almost empty.
The MLS is not very popular in DC or across the United States. That is a fact. In DC, they are the fifth team behind the Redskins, Wizards, Nationals, and Capitals. Sure you can say the sport is growing, but that's what unpopular sports everywhere say (see Major League Lacrosse). Even with Beckham coming to the MLS, it's still an afterthought. Wow, a washed up European star. I'm impressed.
So keep attacking me or my writing. That is your right. If you enjoy going to the games and can defend the MLS rationally, good for you. I respect that. But if all you are going to do is go to the games, get trashed, act like a moron, and then launch ad hominem attacks on me while responding to my post in the middle of the work day, shut up and get a real job.
Wow. Your responses, with the notable exception of two reasoned posts, were just as pathetic as the game you love. Since you don't have facts on your side, you resorted to personal attacks on me. Very mature. So what if I'm a college student and I'm here in DC interning this summer. Does that make my observations invalid?
I'm entitled to my opinion. You are entitled to yours. There was nothing "uninformed" or "communist" about my post . It was my observation after going to one game. There were not 15,000 people in RFK. We all know that. They may have sold 15,000 tickets, but that's very different from 15,000 people being there. The place was almost empty.
The MLS is not very popular in DC or across the United States. That is a fact. In DC, they are the fifth team behind the Redskins, Wizards, Nationals, and Capitals. Sure you can say the sport is growing, but that's what unpopular sports everywhere say (see Major League Lacrosse). Even with Beckham coming to the MLS, it's still an afterthought. Wow, a washed up European star. I'm impressed.
So keep attacking me or my writing. That is your right. If you enjoy going to the games and can defend the MLS rationally, good for you. I respect that. But if all you are going to do is go to the games, get trashed, act like a moron, and then launch ad hominem attacks on me while responding to my post in the middle of the work day, shut up and get a real job.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Scooter Skates
This was the headline the other day on CNN.com. Yes, President Bush let his buddy off the hook so he wouldn't have to spend time in the slammer like Paris Hilton. But wait you say, he only communed his sentence so he would not have to go to jail, he still has to pay a $250,000 fine and cannot practice law since he's a convicted fellon. Big deal. Realistically, Libby won't spend a cent from his pocket for that fine and I fully expect a Bush pardon to follow (probably early in the morning on January 20, 2009). Libby got away with perjury. But then again, so did Bill Clinton. They both should have gone to jail.
This is just another example of Bush & Co. thinking they are above the law. Cheney claiming his office isn't part of the Executive Branch and therefore he doesn't have to archive his documents, domestic wiretapping (over the objections of John Ashcroft...you know it must have been illegal if he wouldn't have signed off on it), torture, signing statements, etc....the list just goes on. Mr. President, you may be the decider, but even the decider has to follow our laws and constitution. Letting Libby off is just another example of the disrespect our President has for our country and laws.
This is just another example of Bush & Co. thinking they are above the law. Cheney claiming his office isn't part of the Executive Branch and therefore he doesn't have to archive his documents, domestic wiretapping (over the objections of John Ashcroft...you know it must have been illegal if he wouldn't have signed off on it), torture, signing statements, etc....the list just goes on. Mr. President, you may be the decider, but even the decider has to follow our laws and constitution. Letting Libby off is just another example of the disrespect our President has for our country and laws.
Major League Soccer is Pathetic
So last week I went to my first and last Major League Soccer (MLS) game. It was an enlightening experience that helps to explain why no one cares about soccer in this country. First of all, RFK stadium was nearly empty. There couldn't have been more than 5,000 wasting their money to watch a bunch of soccer players not good enough to play in Europe. It's not cheap either. Furthermore, soccer is terribly boring. Worst of all, there are a small, but annoying loud number of wannabe soccer hooligans.
It started on the Metro when a moron started screaming about DC United. It was so lovely to have some idiot yelling chants in a packed Metro car. But when I got to the stadium, it got worse. There were probably 250-300 people drunk off their asses, standing on their seats yelling chants, jumping up and down, throwing beer in the air when DC scored, yelling the most vulgar things at the referees (F*ck the ref, etc), and acting like British soccer hooligans (but unlike Britain where lots of people care about their teams, these people are in a very small minority). They were extremely annoying and hurt the appeal of the MLS because I sure wouldn't take my kid to the game to watch them act like that. Oh well, the MLS is a joke. No one watches, no one cares. Americans like their baseball, football, and basketball (and even hockey) more than a bunch of second-rate soccer players and their obscene, drunken faithful.
It started on the Metro when a moron started screaming about DC United. It was so lovely to have some idiot yelling chants in a packed Metro car. But when I got to the stadium, it got worse. There were probably 250-300 people drunk off their asses, standing on their seats yelling chants, jumping up and down, throwing beer in the air when DC scored, yelling the most vulgar things at the referees (F*ck the ref, etc), and acting like British soccer hooligans (but unlike Britain where lots of people care about their teams, these people are in a very small minority). They were extremely annoying and hurt the appeal of the MLS because I sure wouldn't take my kid to the game to watch them act like that. Oh well, the MLS is a joke. No one watches, no one cares. Americans like their baseball, football, and basketball (and even hockey) more than a bunch of second-rate soccer players and their obscene, drunken faithful.
Space Travel is Dangerous...Thanks NASA for being Paranoid
This post is tardy, so it will be short. Space travel is dangerous. It always has been dangerous. It always will be dangerous. Many astronauts have died these dangers. It's part of the deal with space travel, there's an inherit risk.
But ever since the Space Shuttle Columbia accident in 2003, NASA has been overly paranoid about space travel to the point where every mission is scrutinized in orbit and it makes news daily. The Shuttles that have been launched since the Shuttle started flying again (after an ungodly amount of time) always have some issue with foam breaking off and hitting the Shuttle. So it makes the news as NASA tries to figure out if the Shuttle is okay. It seems to me that NASA is so paranoid that they are more focused on if there is anything wrong with the Shuttle than if we are accomplishing anything in space. I'll be honest. I'm sick of hearing about foam breaking off the Shuttle. That's one of the risks of space travel. The Shuttles have been successful on 116/118 missions. That's 98.3%. The two accidents were of course terrible, but even without all the paranoia, the Shuttles have proven to be safe and effective nearly all of the time.
But ever since the Space Shuttle Columbia accident in 2003, NASA has been overly paranoid about space travel to the point where every mission is scrutinized in orbit and it makes news daily. The Shuttles that have been launched since the Shuttle started flying again (after an ungodly amount of time) always have some issue with foam breaking off and hitting the Shuttle. So it makes the news as NASA tries to figure out if the Shuttle is okay. It seems to me that NASA is so paranoid that they are more focused on if there is anything wrong with the Shuttle than if we are accomplishing anything in space. I'll be honest. I'm sick of hearing about foam breaking off the Shuttle. That's one of the risks of space travel. The Shuttles have been successful on 116/118 missions. That's 98.3%. The two accidents were of course terrible, but even without all the paranoia, the Shuttles have proven to be safe and effective nearly all of the time.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Why I love DC
Today I arrived in the nation's capitol for my eight-week internship at the EPA. Just a couple things I love about DC in the first few hours....
-Taxis have NPR or C-SPAN radio on when you get in...nearly all of them...find another city where that happens.
-You see famous people (well famous in a political sense, not a celebrity sense). Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) was on my flight from Detroit with his wife. While walking around Pentagon City this afternoon I saw CNN's John King loading up his car with his daughter. It's just refreshing to realize that people you see on television are real people like you and me.
-There's a sense of energy and purpose in the air. This is by far my favorite part about DC. You can feel the power in the air and it's a very neat thing.
-Taxis have NPR or C-SPAN radio on when you get in...nearly all of them...find another city where that happens.
-You see famous people (well famous in a political sense, not a celebrity sense). Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) was on my flight from Detroit with his wife. While walking around Pentagon City this afternoon I saw CNN's John King loading up his car with his daughter. It's just refreshing to realize that people you see on television are real people like you and me.
-There's a sense of energy and purpose in the air. This is by far my favorite part about DC. You can feel the power in the air and it's a very neat thing.
BVDH The Blog Summer Edition
So here's the deal for my blog over the summer. During the school year, I mainly post my Wheel columns that have to go through my editors and I spend lots of time writing and refining. It's the summer. I don't have an editor and I don't have columns to write. So I will write plain old blog entries. They won't be as refined and probably more personal and controversial.
I hope you enjoy these entries. Feel free to shoot me an email with your thoughts.
Benjamin
I hope you enjoy these entries. Feel free to shoot me an email with your thoughts.
Benjamin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)