Shame on the Media

NBC News sunk to a new low at the Democratic presidential debate last week. We've all grown accustomed to Fox News' normal propaganda, but to see NBC resort to that sort of yellow-journalism was very upsetting. Where are the American people going to turn for news when all the national news outlets are pushing an agenda instead of delivering objective news?

Case 1: Fox News hosted a GOP Debate on September 5, 2007. At the conclusion of the debate, Fox News polled viewers to see who they thought won the debate. Surprisingly, Ron Paul ended up polling 34% leading the other GOP candidates by more then 15%. In an attempt to downplay the poll, not only did Fox News stop showing the results on the screen once they noticed Paul wasn't budging, they also begin airing anti-Paul rhetoric. This took place on Hannity and Colmes, the show that ran post-debate coverage. Once they pulled the statistics supporting Paul off screen, they began showing clips of an argument on the Iraq War between Paul and Mike Huckabee in which they asked viewers if they approved or disapproved with Paul. In this individual case, all of the views disapproved of Paul and approved of Huckabee. They then cut to a different clip from the debate between Paul and Giuliani and did the same exact thing. Fox News did this because they do not want Ron Paul elected as the GOP candidate. By selecting to show only clips where viewers disapproved of Paul, Hannity and Colmes were able to make it seem like he was the least favorable candidate when, in actuality, he won the post-debate poll.

Case 2: At the end of the October 31, 2007 Democratic debate, Tim Russert asked this question to Dennis Kucinich: "Congressman Kucinich, I want to move to a different area, because this is a serious question. The godmother of your daughter, Shirley MacLaine, writes in her new book that you sighted a UFO over her home in Washington state, that you found the encounter extremely moving, that it was a "triangular craft, silent and hovering," that you "felt a connection to your heart and heard directions in your mind." Now, did you see a UFO?" Here is the next question Russert asked to a "respectable" candidate..."I'm going to ask Senator Obama a question, in the same line. The three astronauts of Apollo 11 who went to the moon back in 1969, all said that they believe there is life beyond Earth. Do you agree?" Is it just me or does it seem like Obama got a much more intelligent, serious version of the question? Russert essentially asked both candidates the same exact question: do you believe in extraterrestrial life? Look at how drastically different Russert worded a question to a so-called "viable" candidate as opposed to a so-called "joke" candidate. The most astounding thing is that the reason Kucinich is considered to be a "joke" candidate in the first place is because the news media does not take his candidacy seriously! The question Tim Russert asked Kucinich (in the way he asked it) served only one purpose - to illegitimize Kucinich's campaign and make him look like a Looney Toon so that no one takes him seriously. Just read the question yourself and justify why Russert would ask a question this way. Has Obama never said anything outlandish? Has Clinton never said anything silly in her life? Has Edwards never told his kids that he believes in angels? What Kucinich said about his UFO experience has been echoed by Democratic and Republican candidates alike when they are asked about their close religious connection with God. Why is Kucinich labeled a nutcase for talking about UFO's while other candidates talk about even wackier "mystical experiences" regarding their spiritual beliefs? And why do the media choose to ask questions for the sole purpose of discrediting candidates they don't want to see elected? Shouldn’t that be a question left up to the citizens of the country, not the media?

What Fox News and NBC did is comparable to a scientist who only uses data from experiments that fit her hypothesis. Just like the scientist, news anchors talk about specific things that fit with their agenda. This would not fly in the scientific arena and it should not fly in the political arena either. The media has a lot of power in the United States, more so then in other countries such as England. The American people need to trust the news media to help them make informed decisions. The people should have the opportunity to make their own decisions based on the real news, not the news that the networks want people to hear. Unfortunately, most American citizens are sheep to the system. They don't even realize how much the media manipulates and brainwashes them. In the events leading up to the Iraq War, the media, instead of reporting the actual facts, all decided to support the war effort – lone behold the American public (because they weren’t given the real facts) all supported the invasion based on what the news networks reported. Look what happened as a result. It was all propaganda; fed to the American populace by television, radio, internet, and print media - and people believed it. It all starts with the networks though. If they news networks present genuine news with as little slant as possible, then the American people will be forced into making there own assessments and think for themselves. There is great responsibility given to the press in this country. Once the media and press are disingenuous with the American people, the people have no where to go for information.

As we've seen in the case of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, the news networks have an agendas they are trying to push. It is a threat to both fairness and democracy if the news is allowed to continue to operate like a Michael Moore film. We are in desperate need of some sort of "fairness doctrine" to try and set things straight. If we continue down this path America could become nothing more then a bunch of mindless drones dictated to by the powers that be at NBC and Fox. Overall the whole system is broken. There is so much big money in advertising that news organizations can't seem to say no to corporate lobbyists. That’s another topic for a different time though. Either way, something needs to change and fast.

Its time for the American people to wake up and realize how much control the media has over their decisions and its time for the news media to stop undermining our democracy.

-tg

Debate at Drexel

Had two big exams towards the end of the week so I was unable to write about my experience at Tuesday’s Democratic Presidential debate in Philadelphia until today.

This was my first time in a Spin Room after a debate and it was as just as chaotic as I imagined. As the spinners walked into the lobby they were all immediately bombarded with reporters. It was nearly impossible to get to Clinton's or Obama's campaign in the beginning so I went to talk to Kucinich's campaign where I discussed the World Trade Organization with Dennis' wife, Elizabeth. As the night continued it became easier to talk with representatives of Clinton, one of which was Gen. Wesley Clark. I was also able to get a few comments from Democratic Chairman Howard Dean but there was really nothing of substance I could use in a news segment. After about a half-hour a few candidates begin filing in. First was Dennis Kucinich (ironically he would be the last one to leave the room at around 1 AM). Chris Dodd also stopped by to make a few comments as well as Joe Biden. I had the pleasure of seeing Biden backstage at Mendell Theater later that night - he was surprisingly more personable then I would have thought. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson did not make any appearances in the Spin Room.

I know this may seemed biased but I’m attempting to remain as objective as possible when I say Dennis Kucinich seemed the most down to Earth personable candidate after the debate. Not only did he spend the most time out of any other candidate talking to reporters himself, as opposed to sending representatives, he was also the last candidate to leave the room. I overheard one Drexel student outside the lobby as I was leaving say, "I tried to get to Obama to shake his hand but he left too quickly." Kucinich on the other hand, waited until all the media left the Spin Room and then invited any student who wanted to have a picture with him into the room. As I left the debate he was still posing for pictures. Whether you agree or disagree with his policies he is willing to actually sacrifice his own personal time to listen to what citizens tell him. I'm not saying that the other candidates don't care about the people, but I was shocked to see how important it was for Kucinich to hear what every person in the room had to say – regardless of age. Just some first hand experience to think about come Primary time.

Now onto the debate itself. Obama looked like he got a lot better as the debate went on. It seemed like he started out a little tentative but got comfortable as things unfolded. Edwards came out as combative as usual which was not a surprise. For Obama to catch Clinton in the polls he is going to have to engage her in a debate directly the way that Edwards has been doing. Instead of saying "there is someone on this stage who voted a certain way and I tend to disagree" he should just say "Clinton voted this way and it was wrong." Obama just dose not seem to have that combative edge he needs to take on someone as feisty as Clinton. The sad part about it is Obama's doing the right thing. By highlighting his positives rather then attacking the other candidate’s negatives he is taking a sort of "political high road" over mudslinging. It really is disappointing that Obama's "be the bigger man" approach isn't working, because in my opinion it is exactly what this country needs in politics. Obama has promised he is not going to play "politics as usual" and he has valiantly kept that promise. Its ashame people aren't catching on, and its even more ashame that Obama has to chose between being the respectable politician he is and wants to be and being the muckraking politician he needs to be to beat Clinton.

Even if most of the debate remained cordial, it did get a little testy towards the end. Edward's and Obama's eyes both immediately lit up when Clinton gaffed the Eliot Spitzer illegal immigration question. They both saw this as the opportunity they were looking for and when politicians smell blood, they go in for the kill. Her inability to answer the question honestly really hit her hard. This is not going to do much in the polls, but her gaffe did something much more telling. If the final 20 minutes of the debate showed nothing else - it showed that a Clinton nominee is not inevitable. Before the debate she had pretty much ran a textbook campaign with no real slips. Even though her mishap during the debate will not do too much for her support in the polls it showed everyone watching that she is not immune to faulting. This is a sign that should invigorate the other candidates.

Taking the whole debate into account I think if I had to choose a winner it would be Joe Biden. Not only did he have the humorous one liner of the night with "The only things out of Rudy's mouth are noun, verb, 9/11," he also looked the most polished and presidential. He had a great command of the stage, looked very comfortable answering questions, articulated his policies well, and was able to avoid bluntly dodging questions. He didn't get to speak as much as Hillary and Barack but given the time he portrayed himself as an extremely strong and competent leader. It seems like he is gaining more and more support as Richardson is dropping in the polls. Should not be long before Biden moves into the number four spot if he continues to run a strong campaign and Richardson makes no adjustments.

On a final note, Tim Russert's question to Kucinich about a UFO sighting was unconscionable. I'll explain why next post.

Me and Charlie (Turkish Daily News Reporter)

Backstage during "Hardball" with Chris Matthews

CVA outside the Debate Hall

Media Filing Center

In the Spin Room with Howard Dean

Me and Dennis Kucinich

-tg

As Lincoln said, "A house divided cannot stand"

This debate has spurred from one of the recent posts, so I decided to move it here where I can clearly explain why I oppose Joe Biden's plan to partition Iraq into three regions.

President Lincoln once said "A house divided can not stand." We need to open lines of diplomacy in Iraq between leaders to unify the country behind a constitution. The Sunni leadership has already opposed the current constitution because the establishment of their self-governoring region would crumble. I agree with Biden that oil revenues need to be equally divided among the three sects, however that does not mean all three must be partitioned. The Shi'ite have such a disproportional majority in Iraq that a Kurdish or Sunni region would never be strong enough to stand without the threat of sectarian violence. Using this sort of de facto segregation fosters not only tension between the three regions, but also economic conflict. I am not comparing Iraq's government to the "Articles of Confederation" when I write this, but there is an underlying similarity. A weak central government did not work in America due to individual economic sanctions relating to import tariffs etc. How are all three regions expected to comply with a national federation’s distribution plan when the population among sects is so disproportional? With crude oil making up 84% of the countries export commodities, what would happen if one region, upset with the deal, decides to place restrictive trading on the other? Not only will the country be thrown into a even more bloody war, but the economy of Iraq would completely collapse.

I also do not understand how HR 1585 would prevent genocide. There is so much violence still taking place in Iraq, I struggle to comprehend how sending peacekeeping troops to enforce a partition would actually be successful. If American troops cannot put a stop to the violence, how can peacekeeping troops “keep” peace where peace does not exist? The situation in Bosnia in the early 1990's is a tough comparison for people to make. What is taking place in Iraq is totally different then any other situation anyone has seen in the 20th century. What we need to do in Iraq is get out. It is time to bring American troops home and allow the Iraqi's to make decisions on their own. A civil war is inevitable, whether the United States pulls out of Iraq now or ten years from now, it will be no difference. There will be a civil war when we leave. If genocide starts then the international community must take action. I do not think that the United States government really cares about preventing genocide though, since everyone is twiddling their thumbs regarding the atrocities in Darfur.

-tg

Debate Rages Onward...

I've been really busy recently with work and have not been posting much, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to touch on a few things I noticed about last nights GOP debate in Florida.

It was nice to see Hume and his cronies actually trying to create a debate between some of the upper-tire candidates - even though it didn't work. Giuliani immediately attacked Fred Thompson on his stance regarding Tort Reform. This was interesting since Giuliani is probably the most liberal of the GOP bunch - thus, it's really odd he is comparing Thompson's conservatism to his own. Thompson's response to these attacks seemed quite odd. His defense against his position on Tort Reform narrowed the question down to specific cases where he went against his "usual" conservatism. He took the same type of approach in responding to Giuliani’s attack on his litigation concerning "Planned Parenthood," in which he responded in saying that his private law practice does not necessitate action in public office. It begs the question of where he really stands on some of these issues on a personal level. Unlike Giuliani, who has publicly admitted his personal beliefs are different then his public stance (regarding abortion), Thompson has made no such admition. If he is a "closet" liberal in his private life regarding some of the issues, it is ungenuine for him to continue to act like his personal convictions are in harmony with his public record. It could be something that the other campaigns could use to their advantage. Whether Republicans are smart enough to figure this out or not is a different question entirely.

Aside from that, Giuliani really didn't say too much regarding his stance - but he did manage to make a complete dumbbell of himself midway through the debate when he thanked Florida for electing Bush in 2000. What ever support I had for him before last night pretty much disintegrate with that statement. How can an intelligent person with all their faculties functioning properly possibly think the country would be worse off with Al Gore as President? Has Giuliani completely lost his mind!? Bush currently has the worst approval rating of any sitting president (somewhere in the low 20's) and will probably go down as, if the not the worst, at least the second or third worst president ever. How can someone assume that Al Gore, after winning the Nobel Peace Prize of all things, would have gone down in this sort of infamy? Plus, the events in Florida that got Bush elected in 2000 where illegal! It went down as one of the worst election debacles of all time...and Giuliani is thanking them!? I'm getting myself too worked up while typing this so I'm gonna move on.

Romney looked really flustered last night for some reason. First, his hair was messed up, his face looked tired, and his appearance was generally disheveled. People shouldn't judge a president on looks, but don't forget about 1960. John McCain seemed to admit he is trying to rebuild his relationship with evangelicals. This is an honest approach because there is no way to alter his rather liberal voting record on certain issues; but I don't think voters will accept this. There is really no reason to believe that as president he will change his ways. Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul didn't really add much of anything new. I don't really care that Brownback dropped out, but I do miss laughing at Tommy Thompson during these debates because the four mentioned above are all pretty boring most of the time (Huckabee can sometimes bring laughs and Paul always seems to excite the crowd but thats about it).

I think the debate can be summed up with one quote from Fox Noise (to quote Olbermann) anchor Brit Hume: "can you tell us what your "beef" is with Rudy?"...Yep, we're dealing with the cream of the crop of news here.

-tg

Democratic Debate Analysis

Let’s look at the Pro’s and Con’s of the Democratic Primary candidates from the debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire last night.

Hillary Clinton

Things I liked: Mentioning Congressman Kucinich was probably the best thing she said the entire night (well, second at least). Other then that it was the same old rhetoric. She did, however, take a firm stance against torture when asked if it was a necessary policy to stop terrorists. The most important thing to take out of the debate for Clinton was her response to her husband’s opinion. Moderator Tim Russert read a quotation relating to foreign policy which Hillary disagreed with. After hearing Hillary’s disagreement, Russert mentioned that the statement was made by Bill Clinton in which Hillary responded in saying “Well he isn’t the one standing up here right now.” She could not have answered that question any better.

Things I didn’t like: She seems to have this arrogance whenever she is criticized. The same way President Bush would scowl whenever his policies were questioned in debates, Hillary mockingly laughs. The American people do not need another overly arrogant president. As far as her policy goes: she refused to say the troops will be out of Iraq in the foreseeable future, thinks the Democratic party is pushing “hard” to change Bush’s Iraq policy (which is total rubbish), refuses to answer certain questions, and has made a laundry list of misjudgments regarding policy in her past and refuses to take responsibility (I am referring to the 93-94 Healthcare push, the Iraq War vote, and war funds voting). I guarantee that if elected Clinton will not end the war in her first term. That’s five more years of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed. On a side note, she voted yes to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. This is just opening the door for a war with Iran.

Barack Obama

Things I liked: Did a nice job responding to the criticism that he lacks that judgment through experience to lead a nation.

Things I didn’t like: Obama is my number two candidate, but last night was awful for him. Every political analysist agrees the only way Obama will win the primary is if he engages in a debate with Clinton and challenges her stances. Another missed opportunity last night for the Obama camp. He showed no enthusiasm in answering any questions and not only seemed very whimsical in explaining his position but also seemed tired and boring. When asked about nuclear power he responded saying that nothing should be taken off the board. It’s the 21st century and there is still no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, why is this even still on the board in the first place! Obama also failed (like most of the other candidates) to actually give a viable plan for Iraq. Oh ya, and…rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Why can none of the top tire candidates ever be honest with the American people? P.S. – he joined Clinton in voting yes to Lieberman’s Senate Bill regarding Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Not a very peaceful move if you ask me.

John Edwards

Things I liked: Edwards really impressed me last night. He was the only candidate that actually attempted to start a debate with Hillary. He appeared very presidential and constantly elaborated on the differences between his own policies and the policies of the other candidates. One thing of importance which he mentioned was his plan for healthcare. Edwards criticized the other candidates for making decisions regarding Healthcare in Washington with lobbyists while the American people are kept out of the loop. Whether he actually would get the American populace involved in deciding how to solve the country’s healthcare crisis remains to be seen, but it is a great way to think about solving our problems.

Things I didn’t like: He sounded very hostile toward Iran last night. Clearly we need a president that will not be bullied by Iran, but threatening sanctions seems the wrong way to go about it. Making threats will only increase tension between the United States and foreign countries. He also seemed to display somewhat of a short fuse last night when Tim Russert began questioning his $400 haircuts - responding in explaining how hard he worked to earn that money to get the haircut. It just seems disingenuous for someone to run on a platform of understanding the American people and bringing politics back to them while he spends money like a celebrity. Do not misunderstand me, it is his earned money and he could spend it as he likes, but that does not mean he can not be openly criticized for it.

Bill Richardson

Things I liked: Separated himself from the other top three candidates by promising to bring the troops home unlike Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. He also hit the nail on the head when he criticized Clinton for saying the Congress has done everything it can to change course in Iraq. A few times last night he played the ambassador card, which I find acceptable because he does have the experience in foreign relations that some of the other candidates lack. Unfortunately, this card does not work against Biden or Clinton.

Things I didn’t like: Did not rule out supporting an Israeli strike against Iran as a matter of past United States policy. Wouldn’t his job as president be to alter policy? He also supports increasing the bureaucracy to solve the immigration dilemma. Using economic growth to solve the immigration problem will not work and he needs to find a better way to address the problem. Richardson is not a bad candidate but he doesn’t seem to have a well enough developed platform to really make a push for the presidency.

Christopher Dodd

Things I liked: He was one of the candidates that made the pledge to get the troops out of Iraq by 2013. He also supported a temporary suspension of imports from China until the products are deemed safe. Those seem to be the only two issues where he separated himself from the other candidates last night.

Things I didn’t like: Like almost all the other candidates Dodd does not give any actual plan to solve the crumbling infrastructure of Iraq. I am also very skeptical about his Social Security plan. It is hard to criticize him since none of the candidates really have a realistic solution to the Social Security crisis, but using $97,000 for the cut-off mark in Social Security seems unfair to the poor class. Like Richardson, Dodd does not have enough political “umph” to really gain anywhere. I also liked that he voted against Lieberman’s bill earlier in the week.

Joe Biden

Things I liked: Biden was one of the only candidates to support a carbon tax to try to wean Americans off their dependency on energy which is detrimental to the planet’s environment. I also really like Biden’s foreign policy experience opposed to both Obama and Clinton. It seemed like he was very relaxed last night and handled his questions very well. Also; along with Dodd he voted against Lieberman’s bill in the Senate.

Things I didn’t like: Continually votes to fund the Iraq War and explained last night that he could not promise to bring the troops home in his presidency. Biden also opposed security cities and seems to be clueless on the immigration issue (meaning he doesn’t seem to have a plan). Biden is a very smart man, but I can not get over his inability to vote against the war. It seems like he is doing what is politically right for him, not necessarily what is right for the country. It was good to see him bring forth a proposal for Iraq to be voted on, but I do not agree with it. Segregating Iraq is just asking for more inter-country violence.

Mike Gravel

Things I liked: Call him a nutjob if you like, but it seems like he is only candidate that takes the death of American soldiers personally. It’s ashame that his passion regarding bringing the end to the Iraq War is not echoed among the other candidates. He really took on Clinton last night, criticizing her war plan and also her (and Obama’s) yes vote regarding the American declaration of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. Gravel also mentioned he was “ashamed to be living in an America” that is building a fence to keep people out. None of the other candidates mentioned the proposal. His comment regarding the credit card company deserving his bankruptcy claim was also pretty bold – even if political irresponsible.

Things I didn’t like: Lets face it; Gravel is not running a real campaign. His campaign video’s look like Louis Bunuel films; he already missed a debate for not turning in proper paperwork; and has no real platform other then the war. Though he has good intentions, he presents himself as a loose cannon during the debates and is running a sloppy campaign. Even so, I’m incredibly happy he is running and I fully support him in his mission. His only goal is to put pressure on congress to bring an end to the war. Like him or not, you have to respect him for what he is doing.

Dennis Kucinich:
Thing I liked: I’m going to keep this short because I am preparing a full post explaining why I am supporting Kucinich for President. In a nutshell: Unlike all the other candidates he has presented a real plan to bring an end to the Iraq War within HR1234; promises to have the troops home within three months of his presidency; opposes Joe Biden’s bill to segregate Iraq into three regions (Russ Feingold was the only Democratic Senator to vote against it); supports sanctuary cities until the immigration issue is solved; refuses to privatize Social Security; supports lowering the drinking age to 18, and the voting age to 16 (will further explain in future post); fully opposes the use of nuclear power; and was the only candidate to give an example of a time he sacrificed his political career for the good of the people. He also added his typical humor into the debate which some of the other candidates severely lacked.

Things I didn’t like: Was not one of Dennis’ better debates. Didn’t do a great job articulating his reason for not selling the Cleveland electricity system – this was an opportunity to really show how much he cares about the people he represents over his self interest but it didn’t seem like he capitalized. He also could have done a better job contrasting his plans with the (lack of) plans of the other candidates. For Dennis to become the Ron Paul of the Democratic Primary he really needs to play off his candidness as opposed to fellow Democrats secrecy.

-tg

President's (lack of) plan for Iraq

I guess the President hoped eight times a charm. Unfortunately for dear old Bush, anyone paying attention knows better. In his address tonight he spoke of the supposed advancements in Iraq and the plan forward. His main talking point: General David Petraeus. Throughout the whole address the President mentioned General Petraeus’ report regarding the steps taken to stabilize Iraq. Anyone watching Petraeus’ report to Congress’ Joint Committee knows that his hands have been tied. The President has accepted that fact that he no longer has any political credibility with the American public; so he turns to a new strategy. What is this new strategy? Putting all his eggs in General Petraeus’ basket. He mentioned his name eight times in the course of the entire address and used this as his main support for the continuation of the current troop surge. It’s unfortunate that such an honorable man such as Petraeus is having his named used for political purposes. As I watched the report earlier this week given by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, one thing was evident to me – they do not believe in the President’s plan. Their reports lacked both confidence and conviction. If Bush is really relying on Petraeus and Crocker to sell his war to the American people (which is certainly unfair to them both) then he needs to find himself better sales people. The American people are not buying it. Those who know politics can see right through the superficial, unmoving support given by two usually resolute leaders.

The second part of W’s new strategy rests on success in formally violent stricken regions such as Fallujah and Anbar. Though the President repeatedly assured the public that efforts in stabilizing Anbar have been successful, every piece of evidence shows the contrary. Just yesterday Islamic Sheikh Sattar Abu Reesha was murdered in Anbar only ten days after meeting with the President. Since when does the whole country rest on one region? The reason Bush continually spoke of the Anbar region was to divert the attention away from the many other regions which have continually gotten worse such as Sadr, Haswa, and Diyala. How can anyone possibly believe the words coming out Bush’s mouth at this point?

The most poignant point of the address in my opinion was when President Bush thanked Congress for giving him the funding to continue the war. This was probably the most truthful thing the President said all night. It really is ashame that so many Democrats lack the courage to do what is right for the women and men in the US military. The way to end the war is to cut funding - plain and simple. If the Democrats, collectively, had any backbone troops would already be on their way home. They have control of both houses and do have the votes to bring the war to an end. Most Democrats won’t vote against funding the war for one reason: self interest. By voting against war funding, Democrats give Republican challengers the opportunity to use the vote against them in the upcoming election (by saying voting against funding the war means voting against the troops). Clearly being re-elected is more important then the lives of American people to most elected officials.

On a final note…Bush mentioned Al- Qaeda. It’s been 6 years since 9/11/2001. Where is Osama Bin Laden Mr. President?

Regarding the response from the Democratic Party given by Rep. Jack Reed from Rhode Island - I do not have much to say. He mentioned that the Democrats wanted to change course. The Democrats were not elected last November to change course. They were elected to bring an end to the war. This is a sad time for the American populace.

Overall it was the same rhetoric we’ve heard from the President the past seven speeches. There is a new catch to the President’s plan this time around though. Civil War in Iraq at this point is inevitable. There are two political scenarios that can take place: One, Republican’s continue the war effort indefinitely costing the lives of thousands more of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, or Two, Democrats bring an end to the war and Iraq falls into a all-out Civil War, at which point the Republicans pull the “I told you so” line even though remaining in Iraq only holds off the unavoidable chaos. It’s a political game where the lives of innocent civilians and American sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers are the pawns.

Its time to stop playing politics and save lives, this goes for not only Mr. Bush but all 535 elected officials.

-tg

GOP Candidates Pro's and Con's From Debate

Let’s look at the Pro’s and Con’s of the candidates from the debate at Durham University in New Hampshire last night:

Mitt Romney

Things I liked: Took a more practical approach to the illegal immigration debate by not supporting the multi-billion dollar waste for a fence between Texas and Mexico.

Things I didn’t like: Wants to reduce federal funding for cities that are not tough on illegal immigration. Shouldn’t more money be given to those cities’s that need more help with solving the immigration problem? Maybe these cities cannot be tough on immigration because they don’t have the human-power or the money to be tough. Taking federal funding away from those cities certainly doesn’t help. Also wants to overturn R v. W and eventually make abortions illegal in all the United States. Not enough space here to explain why I disagree with that.

Mike Huckabee

Things I liked: Said he was unhappy with the many conservatives whose anger against illegal aliens is rooted in racism. I completely agree with this statement. If illegal immigrants where from the United Kingdom, I think many would have a completely different opinion (even if the crime rate among illegal’s was exactly the same). I also like that Gov. Huckabee referenced the “honor” that should be attributed to Sen. McCain.

Things I didn’t like: Completely disagree with his proposed “Human Life Amendment.” He also supports continuing the troop surge to Iraq despite National Intelligence Estimates that show it would be a negative for the efforts in the Middle East…Ya, there’s a good leader – ignore the national intelligence statistics and get more Americans killed.

John McCain

Things I liked: One, he is looking at some sort of “Temporary Workers Program;” he even went to the extreme of saying he was “proud” of illegal immigrants that serve in the military despite the status of their citizenship. Two, I’ve always agreed with McCain’s position on torture. The only people supporting torture as a method of gaining information are those who have no experience in the situation. Someone like McCain and Colin Powell have first hand experience with torture. There again really isn’t enough space for me to fully explain my position, but personally I am morally opposed to torture.

Things I didn’t like: He didn’t really explain how he was going to secure the boarders. The main point, however, that I totally disagreed with was his stance on the Iraq War. According to McCain, Bush’s troop surge in Iraq is working and it is a good strategy. This is in complete conflict with the Government Accountability Office (G.A.O.) who, as of September 5th, ranked 10 benchmarks for Iraq as being “not met,” 4 benchmarks as “partially met,” and 3 benchmarks as “met.” How is a troop surge working when the G.A.O. and internal military affair organizations continue to publish statistics showing otherwise? It is clear McCain is trying to backtrack and rebuild his severed relationship with the base of the party, but even party faithful are jumping ship on the war issue.

Sam Brownback

Things I liked: Nothing, elect him and the United States of America will become the United Stated of Kansas. Nothing against Kansas (I’ve never been there) but God help us all if their laws are applied to the whole nation.

Things I didn’t like: First off, he said Sen. Craig has taken responsibility. Larry Craig has in no way taking responsibility for his actions. His resignation would be forced due to public outcry from GOP leadership, not because he admitted to acting inappropriately. Brownback also supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. I still do not understand how this is even a constitutional matter. How can anyone in the United States invoke the “sanctity of marriage” argument when the divorce rate of the US continues to climb? He also considers gay marriage to be a “social experiment.” This may be true, but how was integration between whites and blacks in the 50’s not a “social experiment”? If he doesn’t support same-sex marriage solely on the basis that it would be a “social experiment” then he would most likely oppose the “social experiment” of desegregation. Those people were called racists. The same way Sen. Brownback is, in essence, a “racist” against gays.

Duncan Hunter

Things I liked: Nothing

Things I didn’t like: He wants to spend millions of dollars completing a 854 mile long fence between Texas and Mexico. When high positioned Texas officials working on the fence published a report proving that the fence would be impractical and a waste of taxpayer’s money, he responded by saying “it’s the law.” Keep in mind that this fence will not continue the whole length of the United States/Mexico boarder. His strong support of prisons such as Gitmo also alarms me as someone who believes that the constitution should apply in all instances.

Tom Tancredo

Things I liked: He accused his fellow Republican candidates for “going with the wind” on important decisions.

Things I didn’t like: Well, to start he said that he would respond to a terrorist attack on US soil by bombing Mecca and Medina. This is absolutely the most absurd statement I have ever heard out of a presidential candidate. Not only is this Saudi Arabia (not Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Iran) it honestly could lead to Armageddon. I honestly don’t feel like wasting my time typing why this would be kind of a bad idea. He also does not feel that US involvement in Middle East affairs had anything to do with 9/11. This is almost as stupid as saying the US was attacked because terrorists “hate freedom.” I’ll further explain my opinion on this issue under the Ron Paul segment. Having this guy in office would be outright dangerous for the United States. I’m shocked he actually is pulling some percentage of the vote…he belongs in a loony bin.

Rudy Giuliani

Things I liked: He is very moderate on the immigration debate. He did a great job on solving New York City’s immigration issues; especially crime. I also really liked his response to Fred Thompson’s criticism regarding NYC gun control laws. After the Virginia Tech massacre, Thompson proclaimed that students at colleges should be allowed to carry guns for protection. That may work in Wyoming, but it would certainly backfire in a city like New York. When Giuliani’s family life was questioned (regarding his three wives) he responded by admitting that he’s made mistakes in his personal life and then gave a laundry list of examples showing that his personal life never interfered with his public life and ability to strengthen NYC. That was a great way to handle the question. It is clear that Giuliani did a great job as Mayor of New York regardless of his personal life - therefore, if he is the best candidate for the job among Republicans, his personal life should be irrelevant. I also don’t understand why so many people are saying he shouldn’t be “running on 9/11.” Certainly it’s an issue with the campaign – however, he is also running on lowering taxes 23 times in the city, drastically decreasing crime, passing the budget, cleaning up the subway system, and drastically improving the welfare system. These are all pros he accomplished while the executive of US’ most famous city.

Things I didn’t like: I don’t like the idea of having special “ID cards” for immigrants, before and after they become citizens. The whole concept is very 1984ish. It also relegates immigrants to a different class of citizenship. Could you imagine if all women had to carry around special ID cards that men didn’t just because they were a woman? Another thing I don’t like is his war strategy. Its time to get out…plain and simple. A Giuliani presidency would have us in Iraq for the next 4-8 years. He is also dead wrong when it comes to giving the reason for the 9/11 attack. Whenever Rep. Paul talks about how 9/11 was partially caused by the US’ involvement overseas, steam starts to bellow out of Rudy’s ears as he states “how dare you say that the United States is somehow partially responsible for September 11th,” when in actuality Ron Paul is dead right.

Ron Paul

Things I liked: His plan for the War in Iraq. He is the only Republican candidate who supports a full withdraw. I don’t necessarily agree that the United States should be strict isolationists, however, his comments regarding September 11th are true. We were not attacked on 9/11 because terrorists hate freedom; we were attacked for political purposes and jealousy. Throughout history terrorism has been used as a means of political action. This was no different on 9/11. The United States’ involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, especially Israel-Palestine, was one of the reasons for 9/11. The other reason was out of jealousy. Capitalist countries of the west have left the Arab nations behind due to their refusal to accept things that are not true Islam (according to radical Muslims). Rep. Paul is 100% correct in his statements and I am pleased that he does not back down despite the boo’s. Iraq is a lost cause – its time to get out and Ron Paul knows that.

Things I didn’t like: Ron Paul’s social policies. He is very pro-life, against gay marriage, anti-progressive taxation, and generally conservative regarding all social issues.

There’s my rundown of all the candidates that took part in last night’s debate. I plan on making another post regarding the debate later on today.

-tg

Newark March for Peace, Equality, Jobs, and Justice

Some pictures from "The Peoples March for Peace, Equality, Jobs, and Justice" in Newark New Jersey. Over a thousand people from more then 150 organizations showed up for the march. I attended it with my friends John and Allie, and we went up with the "Princeton Peace Coalition," http://www.peacecoalition.org/. It was great to see so many people showing their support for our troops and calling for an end to violence both domestic and abroad. Some people say that protesting doesn't really do a lot, but I say something is better then nothing. Its a lot better then just sitting around and taking no action at all. The more protests - the more media coverage. The more media coverage - the more public pressure on elected officials to take action. The only three presidential candidates that have promised to bring the troops home are Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and GOP underdog Ron Paul. Keep that in mind as we get closer to the all-out campaign season.

Me, John, and United States Congressman John Conyers (D-MI)

Princeton Peace Coalition

Allie and John marching down Broad Street

-tg

My Response to the Senator Craig Sex Scandal: Uhhh....What???

What in the world is going on with our elected officials? Another "family values" Republican gets himself into trouble with some sort of sex scandal. The situation involving Senator Larry Craig is probably the most ridiculous scandal I have heard of in a long time. Let me try to sum up what took place:

1. Sen. Craig enters a bathroom stall and sits down.

2. Sen. Craig then proceeds to begin tapping his foot next to the man in the neighboring stall.

3. Sen. Craig then reaches under the barrier separating his stall from the neighboring stall and begins to rub his hand under the stall barrier.

4. Sen. Craig then proceeds to move his foot under the neighboring stall making contact with the foot of the man next to him.

5. At this point the man in the neighboring stall pulls out his police badge and flashes it under the stall - still no words have been spoken.

6. Sen. Craig then responds by pulling out his Senate business card and proceeds to slid it under the stall saying "what do you think of this?" -

- At which point the officer then leaves the stall and puts Sen. Craig under arrest for lewd conduct. Did I fall into some sort of black hole here? I don't think I've ever heard of such a ridiculous bathroom exchange in my life. According to the police report this was a sting operation trying to catch people soliciting sex in public restrooms. Tapping your foot while in a stall is apparently some sort of male-bathroom-seduction ritual. Little did the officer know he was going to end up catching a United States Senator.

According to Sen. Craig this is all "a big misunderstanding" and the police report "misconstrues facts." So what is Sen. Craig's defense? He entered the stall to relieve himself. The tapping of the foot was just some sort of subconscious act. He happened to touch the foot of the man in the next door stall because he has a "wide stance" while in the bathroom. I have no clue how he justifies giving the officer his business card. Keep in mind he also plead guilty to the charges to try and make it go away as quick as possible.

I only have one thought regarding this situation: .....uhh.....what? This is the leadership of our country? Where do these people come from!? Is this really the way an elected official is supposed to behave? Sen. Craig has been defending accusations regarding his sexual preference since 1982. These actions are from the same man who is one of the biggest supporters of the anti-gay legislation "Defense of Marriage Act." The hypocrisy among these people is astounding. I wonder who the genius was who told Craig to use "I have a wide stance on the toilet" as his defense?

I just want to ask Sen. Craig one thing: what were you thinking? What could possibly be going through your mind while this took place???

I think we can describe Sen. Craig in one exchange that took place on "Meet the Press" in 1999 regarding President Clinton's sexual affair:



-tg

Gonzales...Gone!

Wow. I had no idea that my simple post last week on our beloved AG could have had such an impact. I really don't know what I enjoy more, Gonzales finally resigning or the opportunity to comment on Bush's press conference announcing the acceptance of his resignation. As I've said before, Gonzales is a very smart man. It really is a shame he did not resign immediately after this story broke. He probably would have been able to save his reputation. Unfortunately for him, his loyalty to Bush has cost him his career and, to a certain extent, his dignity. I say dignity because he had to present himself to the whole nation as an incompetent moron. And for what? All to protect the President? There is always a tipping point as to how much someone can take before they jump off the bandwagon. I guess he finally just decided to cut his losses and do what is best for the country.

Bush is another story altogether. He didn't even accept Gonzales' resignation the first time he sent it. I would usually say "I couldn't believe my ears when I heard the President's press conference" but at this point there were no surprises. It might not have been the best idea to honor Gonzales by using the Patriot Act as one of his accomplishments and then tell the country he made "enforcement of civil rights laws a top priority."

Bush went on to say that while in his capacity Gonzales "aggressively and successfully pursued public corruption." I find this ironic since the reason for his resignation surrounds a conspiracy of public corruption involving him. Guess he didn't recall how to "aggressively and successfully" pursue himself. Bush is so quick to bring up the supposed "unfair treatment" of Gonzales yet forgets to mention the unfair treatment of the eight United States attorneys who lost their positions for doing their jobs ethically.

Bush claims that Alberto's name was "dragged through the mud for political reasons." Maybe his name was dragged through the mud because he dishonored the justice department, or disrespected the constitution, or involved himself in a conspiracy of corruption, or committed perjury?

Sen. Arlen Specter, a republican I actually respect, has already told the media that he will not accept the AG position if it is offered to him. Who can blame him? No one in their right mind would want to get a position anywhere in the Bush administration. Who knows what’s going to happen to the justice department now. History will look back on Alberto Gonzales’ tenure and deem it a very dark and depressing time for the judicial branch........ok, maybe that’s a little much. Nonetheless, I am very happy to see him gone - it should have happened months ago.

-tg

Vick is Despicable

Michael Vick should get no plea deal. There are some acts that are illegal but not immoral, ie. smoking marijuana. There are some acts that are not illegal but are immoral, ie. United States Government's use of torture. And then there are some acts that are both illegal and immoral. One example of this is "animal cruelty." People who carry out acts in the third category should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Why is what Michael Vick did immoral? I really don't want to get into a philosophical dissertation here, but in a nutshell - a dog is a sentient enough creature to understand pain and pleasure - under the confines of a certain moral school (which I believe) actions that lead to the increase of unwanted pain are immoral - dog fighting leads to an increase of unwanted pain - therefore dogfighting is immoral. That really is a watered down version, but it is the general gist of the argument.

Now to the legal aspect of Vick's actions. During his confession it is important to note what he was really saying. He told the public what he did was "immature" and that he "needed to grow up." What he did wasn't immature! Making farting noises at the dinner table is immature. Torturing animals is not immature its immoral. This displays Vick's lack of understanding regarding the true nature of his actions.

I also do not believe that Vick is truly sorry for what he did. He never actually apologized for hurting and killing animals. He just apologized for embarrassing his head coach, teammates, and the NFL. There is a huge distinction between apologizing for an action and apologizing for offending people due to the action. This shows that Vick is not upset over the regret of what he did - he is merely upset because he got caught and will have to face consequences. If I was Judge Henry E. Hudson, I would throw him behind bars for five years. I would also send him to counseling. I would also take his $171 million worth of contracts and donate them to charity. And if I was the NFL, I would permanently ban him from the game - the same thing the MLB did to Pete Rose. He shouldn't ask for forgiveness for offending people, he should ask for forgiveness for committing an act of animal cruelty.

I know some of the pictures are hard to look at, but only when people see them can they truly understand the magnitude of Vick's actions. Micheal Vick is a despicable human being and I hope his life is ruined by this incident.

-tg

I Don't Recall Our Justice Department Ever Being This Bad

If you weren't keeping count Attorney General Liar said "I do not recall" 72 times in one hearing. There are only two possible explanations for the lunacy of this video. One: Alberto Gonzales is an incompetent nitwit with a severe case of amnesia, or Two: He's a perjurer. Either way he should be thrown out of his position. In my opinion its the latter case. Gonzales' credentials and past experience in his various capacities within the justice department could not be accomplished by someone as dumb as the video tells. I think Gonzales' is an intelligent man who knows exactly what he is doing. He knows what George Bush did was wrong, he knows what Karl Rove did was wrong, and he knows what Dick Cheney did was wrong (interfering with internal affairs of the Department of Justice for partisan reasons). Subsequently, him allowing the administration to influence his decisions also made his actions, as the AG, wrong as well. Some will argue that he is not a perjurer based on the fact that he didn't actually say anything of substance during the hearings, therefore avoiding any spoken slip-ups. Remember, however, that he is under oath, and responding to a question with "I do not recall" when he really DOES recall, is lying; making him a perjurer.

We all knew this was going to happen during the proceedings. His loyalty to the President outweighs the public embarrassment of looking like a complete nincompoop on national television. All this is very calculated and he knew exactly what he was doing. Gonzales' even started laughing a few times during the preceding. He wasn't laughing because he thinks its all a big joke - he understands how serious these hearings are - he was laughing because he knew how asinine his responses were to some of the questions. For example, one such exchange took place when Senator Chuck Schumer asked whether it was President Bush who sent Gonzales to John Ashcroft's bedside while in the hospital. Gonzales responded by saying "I was sent there on behalf of the President," thus refusing to answer the question. As Schumer continued to ask the same question (getting the same lack of an answer) Gonzales actually started to laugh while giving his response. He also started to chuckle to himself after he explained to Schumer that he misspoke in a press conference, then clarified his statement to a Washington Post reporter two days later, but did not know what his clarified statement was (this of course regarding his first "misspoken" statement). He knew how dopey he sounded.

I think the whole hearing can be summed up in one exchange between Senator Diane Feinstein and Gonzales:

Feinstein: Were any other attorneys asked to leave?

Gonzales: I am not aware sitting here today of any other US attorney who was asked to leave...uh...except though there were some instances of people who were asked to leave quite frankly because there was legitimate cause...

Feinstein: So you're saying that some were asked to leave because the cause was not legitimate?

Gonzales: I'm not..now, what I'm saying is wrong doing, misconduct..there may have been..in fact I'm sure there were others...

Feinstein: What kind of misconduct?

Gonzales: Well..(He pauses and looks up to the ceiling)..and I'm not suggesting any of this conduct happened..but for example, an inappropriate relationship, taking action when you have a direct conflict of interest to help out a buddy, you know, something like that I would say would constitute misconduct, and there...

Feinstein: Were those specific things involved in any US attorney that was terminated?

Gonzales: (After a long pause)...No

So then what kind of "misconduct" got the US attorneys fired? Last time I checked (and it was this morning) remaining apolitical, not showing loyalty to the President, and investigating scandals is not "misconduct," its called abiding by the law judicial officials are sworn to protect. I believe somewhere along the line Alberto and W. also took this oath. The saddest part is, there really is no action anyone can take. Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton were cited with "Contempt of Congress" for their refusal to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The catch is, the Attorney General is the one responsible with enforcing a Contempt of Congress. Something tells me that Gonzales won't be too quick in enforcing this citation since it would force Miers and Bolton to testify at HIS hearing. What happens when the person in charge of the laws, breaks them? I like the steps Senator Schumer is taking in citing Gonzales for perjury. We all know nothing will happen with it though. The bureaucratic hoops that elected officials have to jump through to force any accountability on the Bush administration is too much for even the most courageous representatives. All we can do is wait. We made it through 7 years, one more can't be that bad...Or so I hope.

-tg

Mercer County Prosecutors Office, Are you for real?

You’ve got to be kidding me. That was the only phrase that came to my mind when I heard about the charges against Rider University Dean of Students Dr. Anthony Campbell. He is being charged with fourth-degree hazing in result of the death by alcohol fraternity pledge Gary DeVercelly. This could not only lend him 18 months behind bars but even more importantly – it could ruin his reputation, and along with it his career. Mercer County Prosecutor Joseph Bocchini once again showing the public how much of an incompetent fool he really is. Here is what I don’t get about the whole case:

How can university officials, who know nothing about these frat parties, be held accountable for the actions of other legal adults? (I say legal because I question whether college students can really be considered "adults") If the family of the victim wanted to sue the University for allowing Phi Kappa Tau to remain a sanctioned frat despite their hazing rituals, it would be a valid case. But how can an individual administrator possibly be made accountable for the actions of the students in the frat? Here is a list of people I hold responsible for the death of the victim before Dr. Campbell:

1. The frat brothers who instructed the victim to drink.
2. The other people at the party that watched the victim drink himself to death without taking any action.
3. Friends of the victim for not advising him against consuming that amount of alcohol.
4. The victims parents for not teaching him to drink responsibly.
5. The victim himself for putting himself in the position in that dangerous first place.
6. The police for not breaking up the party when there were underage drinkers.
7. The ambulance for not getting him to the hospital on time.
8. Construction workers repaving route 206 which made the ride more difficult for the ambulance driver
9. The Alcohol industry for glorifying drinking
10. And any people under the age of twenty one who showoff and boost about how much they can drink, thus putting societal pressures on freshman to follow the crowd and drink as much as possible.

I’m not actually saying I blame any of these people; merely I would blame all of them before I blame Dr. Campbell. That’s right, I would blame every frat boy who ever boosted about drinking with phrases like “I got so trashed last night,” or “Wow, did you see how much I drank?” before I blame the Rider Dean of Students. He did not know of the party, did not know of the drinking, did not authorize the hazing, nor did he ignore information pertaining to the party. He did nothing wrong, legally or morally. People are not omniscient and cannot be blamed for something they had no knowledge or control over.

The point is this: Dr. Campbell will win the case because it is groundless - but at what cost to his reputation? Many times merely making public accusations can be just as career ending and life ruining as actually being found guilty. This was a tragic incident and I feel much sympathy for the victim and his family and friends. I understand that authorities are looking for someone to blame but to scapegoat a man who has dedicated 17 years of his life to the students of Rider U. is despicable. Besides blaming Mercer County’s moron of a prosecutor, Joseph Bocchini, I also blame Judge Andrew Smithson. The case should be thrown out. There is no judicial precedent leading anyone to the belief that the county actually has a shot of winning this case. There is no legal evidence, nor is there any possible testimony that could be presented to help the prosecution. Honestly, I’m also upset as a taxpayer. This is a waste of my tax dollars.

This whole incident is tragic, and thanks to the irresponsible leadership of Bocchini and Judge Smithson there is now more then one victim.

-tg

Technology and Blogs

I do not like technology interfering where it does not belong. Don't get me wrong, technology is great and has done great things for people; especially in the medical field and expediency within information transfer. I use a computer as much as anyone else and I would be quite upset if all my music download forums disappeared. Using microsoft word is much easier then hand writing everything.

However, technology sometimes oversteps its boundary. Take for instance, cell phones. Now that people text message everything, there is no need for any real human interaction, nor communication which helps build healthy relationships with others. Its this lack of communication which divides us as a society. Most do not see a connection between people helping others on the street and cell phone use. I do. By communicating face to face there are levels of non-verbal communication that make sub-conscious impressions on those involved in the conversation. Though to a much lesser extent, there are also subliminal imprints made on peoples minds when they talk via telephone due to voice intonation, etc. Even writing a hand written letter to some one has a level of personalization that cannot be matched (this is of course due to the time, thought, and effort that goes into writing and mailing a letter to someone.)

"Texting" does not take any effort to send or receive. Therefore, it does not have the inter-personal connection which writing letters does. Nor does it involve any body language, therefore lacking the non-verbal aspect so important to good communication. Nor does it involve any speaking, therefore lacking in voice modulation and any real life emotion which is essential to truly interpreting correctly. Rather, what you are left with is a superficial SOS of "Omg, u r so rite" which lacks any depth within the scope of true human interaction. People that communicate like this on a daily basis fall into a trap of "non-personal communication." This type of correspondence leads to a lack of communication between members of a society as a whole. This is one of the reasons why people no longer know how to be friendly and helpful to strangers. It stems from a lack of real intimate human interaction.

For example, it is much easier to ignore starving children in Africa, then it is to ignore starving children living in ones own town. One of the reasons is the "reality" behind the poverty. Both can equally be imagined, but actually seeing it in someones own town adds an intimate human aspect to the problem. It is this real human level of connectedness that brings prospective to the people. This real perspective causes people to develop emotions for the children they see while others overseas do not get the same level of emotion.

Like the people who never experience poverty first hand, sending a text message does not allow for the human level of interaction to flourish. The people that actually speak to each other in conversation, or write letters, retain that real human connection which brings them closer to other humans in society. Communicating via "texting" does not give a real human feel to communication. The inherently superficial nature of texting keeps people isolated from each other, and subsequently isolated from the human species. This is the reason that so many people go about there daily lives lacking genuine friendliness and a sense of unity among other humans. Just walk around in a big city like New York, Philadelphia or Chicago, watch as everyone from big executives to high school teenagers walk past homeless people sleeping on the sidewalks as they text message their co-workers or friends. The people that stop to help have come to realize that we cannot live in isolation and cannot function as a society, or species, if we only send superficial messages to each other and never develop the skill of real intimate communication and contact.

What does this have to do with blogs? Well, blogs are a technology of the 21st century, much like cell phones. I am defending the claim that I am not hypocritical for using a blog. Blogs are not superficial. Blogs are more like writing letters then texting. Blogs are also not used as a conversation tool, merely as a tool in expressing an opinion for the outside world to digest. I will stick to my guns and remain a person who sends hand written letters, someone without a myspace, someone who does not actively use facebook, and someone who has never sent a text message.

I will, however, begin to communicate my ideas and opinions to the outside world through this blog, but at the same time I will always remember the famous words of Stephen Hawking: "all we need to do is make sure we keep talking."

-tg