The Tragic Tale of Headline News

As the days of summer become almost unbearable, I have actually begun watching TV news.

I actually swore off of televised news earlier this year when Headline News -- the last bastion of real news on the tube -- fell victim to the wave of idiocy that is overwhelming the medium.

Headline News used to be what news should be. It used to be a guy sitting behind a tesk, telling you what the hell happened in the world today. There were no pundits, no cult of personality, just reporting.

Now, Headline News consists of exactly that. There's Robin Meade, the perky, "sassy" anchor who repeatedly comments and ad-libs on every story. There's AJ Hammer and his lackeys who employ the same journalistic techniques and cover the same stories as the tabloids. And there's Lou Dobbs, who I can't watch without being eerily reminded of the proganda-head "Voice of Britain" from the movie V for Vendetta. Dobbs, by the way, has styled himself as "

Then there's Nancy Grace, who has truly raised the bar in terms of journalism-destroying inanity. The drawling, self-styled "Defender of Justice" relies almost entirely on her strength of personality (read: aggravatingly intense hubris that overwhelms any discussion). She routinely calls up investigating officers, repeatedly grilling the officers, investigators, and lawyers involved in the case for their supposed incompetance.

In many ways, the fall of Headline News is symptomatic of the fundamental flaw in TV journalism -- it has become entertainment, rather than journalism.

The executives that run this show are hardly at fault for this. They are businesses, and if they were to acutally maintain the highest standards of journalism, then they would fail.

So the fault is yours, America. The fault is yours for caring more for about laughs and listening to pundits rave than for getting real news. The fault is yours for following the people who tell the news rather than the news they tell.

Stop it. I want my boring -- but useful -- old guy behind the desk back.

WTF? Responsibility?

Ok, I'm really going to start working on this thing now.

Anyway, Barack Obama is doing the unthinkable. He officially called the handling of the Daschle appointment his own fault.

He is admitting he made a mistake. Not something we're used to seeing from our politicians.

Obama's apology is like getting into a pool after relaxing in the hot tub. The water seems a lot more cold, snaps you awake a lot faster than it would had you not been broiling earlier.

In the same way, we as a country have been sitting in a political hot-tub where our politicians never -- ever -- claim responsibility for policy decisions.

We've been living in a just-passed presidency that saw a myriad of problems, none of which elicited any apologies or admissions of responsibility.

We're talking about a war that was justified largely on the existence of WMD's that were never found. We're talking about an absolutely bungled response Hurricane Katrina.

Granted, Bush himself isn't at fault for all of the problems that occurred during his presidency. But neither he nor any of the people who worked for him took responsibility for any of it.

Granted, Obama here is fessing up to making a bad decision that was mostly political, rather than a massive policy blunder.

Maybe the water's not as cold as we think it is, but after sitting in that hot-tub, it sure feels that way.

Walking in a Winter...Warzone?

It’s Christmas once again, and you know what that means; and no I don’t mean Santa.
It’s time again for the annual exercise in pointless debate, where narrow minds and righteous indignation take their yearly place amidst the tinsel and holly.
I’m speaking, of course, about the debate concerning the dirty word that pervades our hallowed halls of learning during this season. I’m talking about calling this wonderful time of year, this wonderful season of joy and happiness, etc., Christmas.
It surprises me to no end how vehement this debate gets every year. Anytime a public institution mentions the word “Christmas”, atheists cry bloody murder as if the government were suddenly replaced by the Pope. In response, religious folk cock their rhetorical shotguns as if humanity were taking a pot-shot at God himself.
The problem, as many social ills are, is rooted in the polarized nature of American culture these days. On the one hand, you have militant atheists who view religion as the ultimate childish farce, out to prevent any vestige of its clearly unreasonable logic from entering their country. On the other hand, you have fundamentalist Christians who “believe that the nation was founded on Christian principles” (translation: America should be Christian), and who picture atheists like orcs from Lord of the Rings.
Normally these people, on the fringes of the political spectrum, would be ignored for what they are; radicals out to make mountains out of mole-hills. Yet for some reason, as they seem to be doing a lot these days, these radicals are hogging the spotlight.
The simple fact is, there are two different Christmases that just so happen to occur at the same time. There’s the religious Christmas, the celebration of the birth of Jesus (the one with Baby Jesus and wise men and the candles). Then there’s the secular Christmas (the one with Santa and Frosty and presents and such). What was once a purely religious holiday has now evolved into two entirely separate phenomena.
Think about it. The last time I checked, Santa had nothing to do with Jesus. The last time I checked, you didn’t have to be a Christian to give presents to each other. And I don’t care what last year’s Reveille opinion columnist said, I don’t in any way connect a wreath to anything even remotely spiritual.
Even if you feel the need to make Christmas a religious thing, the simple fact is, in most cases, the whole thing is blown way out of proportion. In most cases that reach the papers, the debate isn’t over anything that is really an affront to free speech; it’s usually over the simple word Christmas. People get up in arms that a store advertises a “Christmas Sale”, instead of a “Holiday Sale”, or that LSU decided to call the colossal tree in front of the clock tower a “Christmas Tree”, instead of a “Holiday Tree,” or if somebody hangs a gigantic wreath from the Law Center.
Does it really matter whether it’s a “Christmas Tree” or a “Holiday Tree”? If you’re an atheist, is calling it a “Christmas Tree” like quoting the Bible? If you’re a Christian, is calling it a Holiday Tree like denouncing your faith?
In all honesty, it kind of saddens me to see this debate. In the universally accepted season of caring and giving and brotherhood, we bicker amongst each other about something trivial. On our own campus, we hear about accusations of infringement of basic rights over, ironically, something that the administration puts up as a symbol of our common love for each other.
Can’t we just once let it rest? Can’t we just once let it go, and sip eggnog together instead of fighting about minutia?

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Mr. Obama.
Congratulations on winning the election. The campaign was long and grueling, for you and for all of us.
As you have said before, this nation faces unprecedented challenges. We have troops fighting and dying in far off lands. We continue to face terrorist threats from abroad, and we face an Iranian nation that threatens the balance of power we have known for over half a century. Meanwhile, at home we are enduring the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
And still problems remain that have been left unsolved for more than a decade.
We have watched as Social Security and Medicare inched ever closer to collapse and yet seen nothing done to fix them. We have watched as our education system continued to go unattended. We have watched the impending energy crisis go unsolved. We have watched as a fiscally irresponsible government racked up a record deficit. We have watched voiceless as our leaders remained too absorbed in partisan machinations to move our nation forward.
We will no longer watch.
The costs of inaction are ours to bear. We will be the ones caring for our parents when Social Security and Medicare collapse. We will be the parents of children who attend schools with no money. We will be the ones to deal with the climax of the energy crisis when it inevitably comes to a head. We will be the ones trying to find jobs in a collapsing economy.
We cannot afford to accept the irresponsible, gridlocked inertia that is our political inheritance.
If there is one thing our generation can learn – must learn -- from the previous one, it is that we cannot afford to be as divided as it has been been. We must seek to change not just the way politics works, not just the way Congress works, but we must reform the very way we as Americans think.
In this, our first chance to voice our opinion, we were not idle. We watched expectantly, carefully observing both candidates. When you spoke, we listened.
We listened to you speak of a truly United States of America. We listened as you were lauded as a post-partisan candidate, a candidate who cares not about politics or business as usual but about what is right and what is good for the country.
We did not do it blindly. We did not vote mindlessly, in bloc, as some of our elders would suggest. We are not your personal army.
Yet as a whole, our generation has given you an unprecedented vote of confidence, in keeping with the unprecedented challenges that must be overcome through your leadership.
There are those who have called us starry-eyed idealists. There are those that do not believe that in this modern world a post-partisan candidate is possible. There are those who say your sweeping rhetoric is simply empty talk.
Prove them wrong. Validate our trust that your words are not empty, that you honestly believe “that we are not as partisan as our politics suggest.”
Show our fledgling generation the path to an undivided America. Cast aside the bonds of partisanship that have so long paralyzed us. Change this nation, not merely in terms of what party is in power, but change the very way we think about ourselves and each other. Show us conservatives and liberals can peacefully coexist, that is possible to disagree without believing the other person is a fool. Show us that cooperation is not a dirty word, that compromise does not mean failure.
I know that is difficult. I know that, especially given that you will have a Congress stacked with politicians of your own party, the temptation to simply reverse course and pursue your party’s agenda will be overwhelming.
This is not the mandate we have given you. This is not the change we demand.
Our generation has learned that we cannot continue down the forked path the previous generation has led us down. In order to emerge transformed from the dark days looming ahead of us, we must come together and walk down one road -- together.
And it is the mandate of our generation that you be the one to lead us down that single road. It is the mandate of our generation that you do not renege on your promises of unification.
Do not fail us. Our nation depends upon you.

Obama: Where does he go from here?

The Republicans have finally lost.

It's obvious, and it was expected. Ever since the Democrats overthrew the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, every sane person who followed politics knew that the Democrats would sweep Congress in November. Although it may not have been the massacre some pundits have predicted -- the Republicans can still cherish their right to a filibuster -- Obama crushed McCain in the electoral college and the Democrats now have an overwhelming congressional majority.

Now Barack Obama, as our new president-elect, faces an interesting choice. Does he change the nation merely in terms of left and right? Or does he follow his rhetoric and cause change by bipartisan means?

Throughout his campaign, Obama has been lauded as - and has couched himself as - a "post-partisan candidate." The best example of this is his victory speech in front of a colossal, jubilant crowd. When he could have gloated over the stunning victory he had accomplished, could have so easily reveled in a massive win for his party, Obama said this:

"while the Democratic party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility, and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress."

Great words, but does he mean them?

The idealist in me -- the idealist that wrote the open letter to Mr. Obama -- believes that he does. Though that piece was written in the immediate aftermath of Obama's speech (which is in my estimation the greatest of my lifetime so far), and is thus rooted almost entirely in emotion instead of logic, a part of me really believes it. Certainly all of me hopes it is true.

Yet the rationalist -- the cynic -- in me is not convinced. We are, after all, talking about a junior senator who has not once challenged his party on major issues. We're talking about a legislator who's biggest non-partisan bill is creating a Rosa Parks postage stamp. We're talking about a relatively new politician inheriting the reins to our government, whose workhouse is a decidedly partisan congress lead by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, some of the most entrenched partisans in the system.

With these kinds of factors, what chance does the nation have of a truly post-partisan government?

Although it is a deeply held tenet of mine that a post-partisan future is the only one that can remedy what is broken with our government, such a government is rooted in self-interest as a disenfranchised independant. What then, is Obama's interest? To whom is he accountable? In what direction should Obama go to achieve the most reform and, more realistically, in what direction does the most political benefit lie? Is the right path for our new president the left or the center?

The easy answer is the left. It would be easier for Obama to fall into step with his party and merely force the political pendulum back towards the left. Attempting to push anything but a strictly Democratic agenda is bound to mean fighting his own party, which means a great deal more effort and expenditure. But more importantly, doesn't the overwhelming support for Obama and his party mean a drift in public opinion to the left?

Not necessarily.

Whether it's deconstructing exit polls or looking for tides in public opinion, pundits and politicians alike should be wary of interpreting the Democrats' landslide victory as a significant swing to the left. Instead they should interpret it as a reaction to a wildly unpopular Republican president. Let's face it, any candidate running under the Republican label did so with a 300 lb. weight across their neck. Except for maybe 3 or 4 states, every single state in the Union went more Democrat this election than the previous one.

The entire nation doesn't suddenly like the Democrats -- they hate Republicans, or specifically, Bush.

In the next series of elections, the Republicans will not be the incumbents, so the overwhelming advantage that the Democrats had in this race will not exist. If the Democrats have any inclination to hold their power for more than one term, they need to court the center.

Yes the center. Remember us?

What both parties seem to have forgotten in recent years is that a center does exist within the American electorate. Although it is true that the Democrats won partially because of a rabidly excited base, its no coincidence that Obama won the election handily among undecideds. McCain attempted to follow the outdated strategy of firing up the base, his choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President being the most desperate attempt to that end. Yet the once-mighty socially conservative base finally failed the Republicans, and their neglect of more moderate voters -- even less devoted voters in their own party -- left them with no recourse.

All of the exit polls indicate that Obama obliterated McCain in terms of the independant vote.

The reason is simple: Obama's message of post-partisanship and cooperation speaks powerfully to the considerable portion of the electorate that isn't religiously partisan. For people tired of divisive politics, a unity candidate like Obama was the perfect choice.

If Obama drifts far to the left, as his party leadership likely proposes, he will be committing the same mistake that has led to the collapse of the Republican party.

If the new president maintains the partisan status quo -- if he attempts conventional Democratic solutions to the problems of our day -- he exposes himself as just another politician. His mantras of fundamental change and post-partisanship ring hollow, and those that supported him begin to question his legitimacy. The only people who would whole-heartedly support a partisan Obama would be the staunch Democrats - moderates and the young voters that so heavily bolstered his ranks would be disillusioned, and would be at the very best apathetic to re-electing him.

As the Republican party self-destructs, Obama and his party can do one of two things: they can revel in its chaos and attempt to push through a highly divisive, far-left agenda while the opposition recovers. Or, they can analyze the fundamental factor in the party's collapse, learn from their opponents mistakes, and avoid making the same error themselves. If the Republican part is to survive, it can, must, and will cease to rely as heavily on its fundamentalist base, and become more moderate; when it does, the Democrats better have done the same, or the Republicans will take back the power that they lost because of their folly.

October 7, 2008: An American Travesty

I am furious.

I am so furious that it is late at night and my body is literally quivering with anger. I am so furious that I will likely not sleep tongiht unless I use some very heavy medication or some kind of self-inflicted blunt force trama.

I am so angry that I am resurrecting this poor, neglected blog.

With a reaction like this, you might think I've failed a test. You might think I'm high on something. You might think that perhaps something horrible has happened to me.

It has. And it has happened to every one of us, every American who even pretends to give a damn about the direction our nation is headed.

I am talking about the ludicrous farce that the American people were presented with as the second Presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain.

I watched the debate by myself, laying out on a couch in front of a television. I began serene, expecting a stimulating debate on the pressing issues of our time, expecting two politicians that I have grown to respect more and more on the campaign trail speak openly, and frankly about the unprecedented challenges our nation faces. I expected the two to discuss the recent economic catastrophe in measured, yet still intense terms. I even had some hope, some slight vestige of belief that maybe, just maybe, the down-to-earth war hero and the charismatic orater could cast down partisan rancor and maybe, just maybe give the American people some kind of hope.

What the hell was I thinking.

Instead of my perhaps too-lofty expectations, I watched as a politician I have admired above all others since I became politically sentient, a man who I have seen consistently be a force of unity and bi-partisanship, a man who I had hoped might bring some kind of unity to a polarized country degenerated before my very eyes into a bickering, finger-pointing monster. I watched him fling barb after barb at his opponent, desperation tactics that I had thought the man was above.

To my horror, I found myself praying that John McCain would be ignored.

Yet under the barrage that my now-fallen hero hurled at Barack Obama, he eventually responded in kind...how could he not, when McCain was throwing out bombshell accusations that were, if not blatantly untrue, then spun until the facts were left dizzy and broken in a muddled pool of propaganda.

Because my own words are fast turning into hysterical gibberish, let me use some of theirs. Yes, I took notes... I recorded every misguided, malicious barb that I caught during the debate on my text phone.

I filled up 5 different documents on the notepad software.

Here are some of the gems; they are not related to each other:

John McCain claimed that Senator Obama received the most money from large companies of any senator in history.

After one of McCain's quotes, Obama said, and I quote, "I have to correct John on this, not surprisingly."

McCain: "I want you to see the letter that several other senators and I sent that warned that this might happen. Guess what, his (Obama's name) isn't on it.

McCain: "Obama has the most outrageously liberal record in the Senate."

McCain likened an Obama presidency to that of Herbet Hoover.

Obama: "John says government hasn't done anything about alternative energy in 30 years; he's been there for 27 of them!"

The candidates began to rail so heavily against each other that they utterly abandoned the debate format, leading Tom Brokaw, one of the most venerable journalists alive today, plaintively begging them to stay on topic. Like children, they utterly ignored the established rules in order to hurl accusations at each other, hoping to get in the last damning word before their opponent could respond.

When they did discuss their own policy issues, it was largely the exact same stump speeches we have heard since the first rumblings of the campaign. Many times, it was word for word exerpts from previous speeches and debates. Even though between the two debates a financial meltdown of almost apoctalyptic proportions occured, the speeches, the phrases, the stances were almost identical.

What is most disturbing, and what has me so furious, is the utter disregard that the candidates had for any refreshing debate or any real answers to tough questions. Call me an idealist, but when we face the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression, when our own citizens are losing jobs and homes, when we are still embattled in dangerous conflicts abroad, isn't it time to cut the political crap and actually answer something? Isn't it time to abandon the stump speeches and "facts" blatantly twisted in your own favor? With the American people staring into the inky black void of an unprecedented recession, isn't it time to show them that they are humans, not dogma-spouting machines?

Apparently not. Apparently the two men who are running to lead our nation believe that in the face of challenges that Americans have not faced for generations, bickering, mud-flinging, demonizing politics as usual are still the right way to proceed. And this from two candidates who claim that to be the sworn enemy of the political status quo.

It's true that every debate is like this, and it's true that I have watched those debates without nearly this level of disgust. You may be wondering why I'm all of a sudden so vehement about this.

Maybe it's because I'm in a bad mood. Maybe it's because I was alone, and didn't have any way to diffuse my frustration.

Or maybe it's because I have finally had enough, and, as we stand at the brink of another Great Depression, I am just too furious to stomach it any more.

Ahh, Religion

Sorry for not posting in awhile.

After going through Reveille training, I am definately pumped about being an opinion columnist, and I couldn't be happier about my beat. Religion....

I know that this is going to get me a good sack of hate-mail...which only adds to the allure.

Here's the deal. No matter how you look at it, religion in any meaningful form is essentially ludicrous. Since virtually no fundamental aspect of religion can be verified scientifically, human experience, emotions, and, frankly, imaginations are free to run wild. The result? Probably the most staggeringly diverse, and, to be honest, wierd stuff in existence. The unadulterated potential of the human mind translates relatively freely into religious experiences, leading to a wealth of intellectual and emotional material...material that is fascinating to discuss.

This is, of course, only possible in an environment where open discussion is not only permitted, but encouraged. Religion is utterly empty and virtually meaningless if it is not discussed honestly and seriously. And any religion is intellectually inferior if it is never challenged, if presiding doctrine chokes out freedom of discussion.

That is the one basic rule that I will try my hardest to stick to in my writings...I will not attack anyone's beliefs about the existence of a higher power, no matter how ludicrous it may be. Even if Tom cruise believes that we are actually the imprisoned spirits of extra-terrestrials, I will not question his sanity, as tempting as that may be.

That does not, however, mean that I will not criticize any religious view. Especially in the more well-established faiths, certain views may be (as I perceive them), contrary to the teachings of the mainstream faith itself. Christianity is likely to bear the most discussion in this manner, as it is personally the faith I am most familar with (because I am personally a Christian).

In addition, as it is an opinion column, I may on occasion point out what it is that would prevent me from ascribing to a particular faith tradition. I might, for example, say that I take issue with the Catholic Church's religious totalitarianism as I percieve it, or perhaps take issue with the fundamentalist obsession with intervening in issues that I believe to be inherently secular.

If I do happen to disagree with a particular faith, I am in no way, shape, or form contending that a person who believes in that faith is a fool. I am likely not even contending that they are necessarily wrong. It is one of the fundamental truths as I see it that to claim you know, for a fact, that you are right, and that everyone who does not believe like you is not just wrong but stupid, is foolishness on a staggering level. Unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, using physical evidence (sorry folks, there ain't such proof about the Bible) that something is a fact, then calling someone a fool for not believing as you do is utterly conceited.

In the end, I firmly believe that we'll all show up in the afterlife, and all of our petty claims to understanding will be laid bare for the half-truths they are. Like a parent patiently explaining the ways of the world to his bickering children, God will reveal that all of the hatred and conflict caused by religious differences is pointless and infantile.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try. I believe firmly that, even though it may be futile, there is something inherently noble about trying to attune ourselves to something beyond ourselves.

So, anyway, I thought I'd lay out my broadest views on religious discussion, so that you know where I'm coming from when...if...you read my columns.

See you this semester.