Liberal College Kid

During my recent adventure through the Black Sea I had the great experience of being able to talk with people who lived in the Soviet Union about what life in the USSR was like compared to life now in the Ukraine. The country’s politics are fascinating. Basically, the country is split into East and West camps: the East favoring Russia speaking mostly Russian and having strong pro USSR and Russian leanings. The West, by comparison, favors independence for Ukraine and most people’s first language is Ukrainian. This struggle is the key political devision in the country, which prompts the question: What do people really think of the former Soviet Union.

To be fair, the two Ukrainians I spent the most time with were both from the South of Ukraine, an area with a pro-Russian leaning, however, I was assured that especially among the older generation these views hold consistent throughout the country. I was surprised to hear some of what I heard about the perception of the Soviet government, especially growing up learning how horrible it was supposed to be. Of course, I was only five when the Soviet Union fell, so I never really had the whole Red Scare thing going on.

There are still monuments to Lenin in several cities in the Ukraine, as they are seen as important history landmarks. But that’s not all. When the Ukraine became a capitalistic state very few people had enough capital to really invest in anything which created a huge level of poverty that the people had never faced. Because of this, many older people felt that life had been better under the communists, a belief that is still widespread among the older generations of Ukranians.

One younger person, however, put it into a different context. She said

When we were the Soviet Union we were part of one of the most powerful contries on Earth.  We were respected, feared, in some ways admired. Who is saying that about the Ukraine now?

Of course, she also said that she was very young when the Soviets were in power and can’t remember that much of it. She’s gone on to become involved in the tourism industry which really didn’t exist until the demise of the USSR. She said that her parents are both happy with the Soviet Union’s demise, but that her grandparents miss the Soviet days.  Of course, it’s what they grew up with so they will have a natural bias, however, I see it slightly differently.  For me, this is similar to the stance that so many Americans take today.  The whole idea that we are the “best country in the world” just seems naive and childish.  According to what?  We spend the most money and make the most trash, but we’re the fattest country and we don’t have the best health care… Of course there are many wonderful things about our country, one of them being that I can write all this and put it on the internet without fearing that the government will put me in prison for holding these beliefs.

That said, there’s no reason to even call ourselves the greatest nation; so I’m proposing we stop today and get over ourselves.  If we can do that maybe we can actually learn from other countries whose currency is on the rise unlike ours or who have better healthcare systems.  I digress, back to the Ukraine:

So much of the time in America we write off the Soviet Union without really talking to the people that lived there. Anti-Soviet sentiment dominated our culture for years and now it seems hard for many people to get past that. I think that that is part of the cause for all the recent issues with Russia.  The Ukraine today is very large country with a functioning democracy that the population is directly involved in.  Perhaps that’s the biggest thing we can learn from them, they value their new given rights enough to vote.

Posts about my trip to come: Turkey: Asian or European, and Seniors and what they spend their money on.

• Leave a comment... (4)

I’ve never been a big reader of the Wall Street Journal; after all I majored in political science not business. I have, however, read an article here and there and, for the most part, I’ve enjoyed what the Journal has put out. Regardless of how much I did or didn’t read the WSJ I always respected it and looked at it as an honest and straightforward (albeit slightly conservative) paper which occupied the top tier of publications in this country along with the New York Times.

That’s why I’m sad that it now appears that Rupert Murdoch will be successful in his bid to take over the paper. I’m not sad that it will now act as Fox News in print form. I’m not sad that the Bancroft family has been forced to sell the papers because of fledgling sales. I’m not even sad that the paper will be nothing more than a gussied up mouthpiece for Murdoch. I’m sad because the paper instantly loses all of its credibility.

Gone. In a flash.

How can it not? Murdoch is notorious for prodding (and sometimes ordering) editorial boards to toe the company line on a wide range of issues. The Journal now goes, in the amount of time it takes to sign on the dotted line, from an honest, slightly right leaning, paper with an independent editorial board to the Factor of major newspapers. It loses all trappings of legitimacy and can no longer be considered one of the nation’s preeminent publications, that’s why I’m sad.

Pundits and talk show guests who speak about how this move is a boon for Murdoch’s empire- his pièce de résistance at the end of his career- couldn’t be more wrong. Nor could those who say that this move will give conservatives a stronger voice in the national debate be more incorrect. All this move does is ruin the Wall Street Journal. It can no longer be taken seriously and therefore has no chance of influencing policy or even acting as the final feather in Murdoch’s already plumage laden headdress. It won’t influence decisions in Washington (or anywhere else in the country) any more than a Talking Points Memo could.

I’m not sad because Murdoch, or the Right, is gaining a prominent newspaper. I’m sad because the country is losing one.

• Leave a comment... (3)

Greetings all, and first and foremost: SORRY!!

I spent the last two weeks plus traveling in Greece, Ukraine, and Turkey. I returned with many post ideas, so please know that our huge decrease in posts is not a permanent phenomenon.

That said, the night before I left I made a comment on a small blog written by a man named Gary Foust on a post he had written about liberal college campuses. Of course, I left the country and wasn’t able to participate in the dialog that took place there after, but you can read the comments here.

Following that a woman named Susan Baldwin picked up on the post from Gary’s site and responded with her own responses which she has titled the Liberal College Kid trilogy where she thinks being liberal is naive. You can read that post here. I’m actually really bummed I wasn’t around to mix it up with some of our conservative readers, but I’m sure the chance will spring up again.

Here is my response to Gary’s initial post:

First, it is not un-American to protest the government. In fact, that’s how a democracy is supposed to work. For centuries universities and colleges have served as places where democracy can be truly seen as people from all sides of every issue are able to participate in the market place of ideas. The fact that there are groups who are anti-American is in and of itself what is so great about living in a society that protects freedom of speech.

Next, as far as liberal professors go; you should know being on a college campus that there is a direct correlation between education and tolerance as well as education and liberal leanings. It seems, the more people know the more they care about other people, thus making them more liberal. That being said, the idea that we should question professors is a fine and noble idea. However, these people have the academic background that qualifies them to instruct in a collegiate setting, thus they should in fact be trusted and their opinions do carry an added amount of validity. It is very possible to learn from people who are from a different political party. Otherwise, someone like me could never have taken economics.

I have not met a single person who has entered a classroom a conservative and left a liberal or vice versa. That’s not where political ideologies are formed, its where they are discussed and the sooner the radical right realizes this we can move on from this war on progressive professors and start talking about things that matter: like healthcare and Iraq.

Thanks for your continued reading and I promise to not have another dry spell like this again. Later today I’ll post my first reaction piece: What the Ukraine Really Thinks about the Soviet Union.

• Leave a comment... (2)

Well I guess the White House has officially run out of excuses. F.B.I. head, Robert Muller testified yesterday that Alberto Gonzales’s testimony on Tuesday, regarding the purported controversy inside the Justice Department over the secret NSA wiretapping program was, at the very least, not entirely forthcoming. A little background is necessary in order to illustrate the complete ineptitude of the Bush Lie Team at present and explain why the Judiciary Committee is pushing for an investigation into Gonzales’s actions.

In 2004, when Gonzales was White House Counsel and John “I Don’t Dance” Ashcroft was the A.G., Gonzales and Andrew Card went to the sick bed of Ashcroft for a meeting about the program. If you listen to Gonzales then the meeting was run by Ashcroft while Gonzo and Card simply briefed him on both the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Presidents wishes for the reauthorization of the program. If you listen to former Ashcroft deputy James Comey, though, you get a different story. According to Comey, Ashcroft and Card went into Ashcroft’s hospital room after he has endured gallbladder surgery and was still heavily sedated to try and “take advantage of a very sick man” by getting him to reauthorize the NSA wiretapping program (which he had refused to do until substantial changes were made to it) and head off a Justice Department revolt, presumably (and I’m just spitballing on this one folks) because they felt it was illegal.

Flash forward to Tuesday when Gonzales was questioned about Comey’s accusations in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked if it was the NSA wiretapping program which prompted the threat of mass resignations in the Justice Department and required Gonzales and Card to rush off to Ashcroft’s sick bed Gonzales said that it was another secret program which caused the uproar. Because of the classified nature of this “other” program though, Gonzales couldn’t talk about it.

Apparently Team Bush has run out of good lies and are now pulling ideas from Top Gun out of their back pockets in order to evade Congressional oversight. Isn’t it just the tiniest bit convenient that Gonzales can simply fall back to an excuse of “that’s classified, I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you” in order to sidestep the repercussions of his actions? At this point the Bush administration is simply engaging in a high level shell game where they attempt to bury lies and misconduct under the guise of national security, and it’s worked so far. With Muller coming out against Gonzales, however, this could quickly change.

Gonzales is in enough hot water as it is over the firings of U.S. attorney’s and, as Senator Arlen Specter (a Republican) said, his “credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable”. Now with the head of the F.B.I. coming out and saying that Gonzales lied to the Congress, coupled with the White House’s refusal to let former aides testify in front of the Judiciary Committee things could rapidly unravel for Gonzo. There will no doubt be a plethora of individuals calling for Gonzales’s resignation; enough to make the prior uproar over the U.S. attorney fiasco look tepid.

What is even more interesting about this situation, though, is that it illustrates how detached the Bush administration has become from reality, and how long the break between Rove & Co. and the rest of the world has existed. As far back as 2004 Bush had already decided that he was going to do what he damn well pleased and no one was going to stop him. The fact that there were as many as 30 top DOJ officials ready to resign after news of the Ashcroft visit spread (separate from the resignation talks in regards to the wiretapping program itself) alone should show that Bush has isolated himself from the government he installed. Even more shocking is the fact that Ashcroft, who is about as conservative as you can get, refused to extend the program unless it was changed in order to make it something that approached legal. This was all the way back in 2004, just imagine how much more isolated and stagnant Bush has become now.

This is why Gonzales will never be forced out by Bush, why it will take a criminal indictment (or something of that caliber) to get him out of his post. The only people who will go along with Bush’s insane ideas are those who feel personally obligated to remain loyal to him. If Ashcroft refused to endorse the President’s version of the wiretapping program just think about how much trouble Bush would have getting illegal programs OK’d by a Justice Department headed by an individual approved by a Congress led by Democrats. Bush will fight for his buddy Alberto to the end because he knows that without Gonzales at the helm the Executive branch would no longer be able to run roughshod over things like the Constitution and civil liberties. He also realizes that he wouldn’t be able to circumvent the law via signing statements either. Gonzales is Bush’s last line of defense between both what he hopes to do before leaving office as well as covering up everything he has done while President thus far.

• Leave a comment... (3)

This political cartoon is a great representation of the ridiculous effort in America’s public schools to Un-separate church and state…to move hundreds of years backwards in our efforts to create a free democracy. This country was founded on the idea of religious freedom, but lately it seems that “the powers that be” are trying to make us forget that.

The teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools is a debate that should not even be a debate. There is no scientific debate that Evolution by Natural Selection and that changes in allele frequencies over generations of a population are the causes of speciation, including the divergence of our own species. Let me reiterate, because this concept can apparently be misleading…THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. Research done in fields of science is guided by evolution…Genetics, Conservation Biology, Ecology, Pharmaceuticals, etc, etc. There seems to be confusion about the fact that a Scientific Theory is not just someone’s WILD GUESS. . .

This is a great explanation of the true definition, which is NOT what most high schoolers are taught when they learn about Evolution in their schools (if they do at all)…

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity’s effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
Here’s a video excerpt that, ridiculous as it is, did not shock me that much, knowing the statistics of how many citizens of this country do not “believe” in evolution, even though it’s not a belief system to begin with, but rather a testable, working Scientific Theory.

Humans’ impact on environment is reaching its tipping point, and if the same politicians that claim to want to work for alternative fuel and new scientific innovation that will allow us to continue our society through major environmental change simultaneously say that they don’t “believe” in evolution then there’s no hope for our future….If they don’t recognize one of the most applicable scientific ideas of all time, how can they even think that they will be able to have an impact on the future of science? Or a better question, how can the citizens that are voting for these guys think that they aren’t utterly and completely full of …it?

WHO doesn’t Believe in Evolution? - GOP Debate show of hands….

Tancredo, Huckabee, Brownback…..Link to Tonight’s debate picture:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/03/who-doesnt-believe-in-evolution/

Because: That’s why they don’t believe in evolution - their leadership becomes less fit over time…..

ev_cartoon2.gif

• Leave a comment... (13)

I had said I wasn’t going to watch the debate on CNN tonight because of CNN’s run up to the debate. Well tonight I sat down to fold laundry, one thing led to another and the next thing I know I’m watching the debate. I’m not going to review the entire debate but I do want to make a comment about one particular question.

Bill Richardson answered the question first and sidestepped the question saying we needed UN troops and the America needs to respond “with diplomacy”- in other words, “no America shouldn’t send troops”.

Joe Bidden answered the question second and continued to gain points in my book by saying emphatically that we need to send American troops on the ground.

Mike Gravel (who came off like a total douche bag tonight by the way) said something about how America shouldn’t go in because African countries are afraid of us; personally I think he may have gone off the deep end so I’m going to chalk his answer up to being straight crazy.

Hillary Clinton answered last and said that we should have a U.S. backed no-fly zone but, when pressed, said that “American ground troops… don’t belong” in Darfur.

Why are we still ignoring this genocide? How people sit back and acknowledge that there is a genocide in Darfur and yet not fight to stop it? If the Democratic candidates are in a position to stop the genocide (which they are) and do not act they have blood on their hands, it’s as simple as that.

I’m sick and tired of hearing about how there isn’t an American interest in Darfur as if it matters. We are entangled in a mess in Iraq that was started purely for American interests and look how well that’s gone. Our nation was founded on principles that require us to get involved. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed simply because of their ethnicity, even more have been driven from their homes and have little hope of ever returning. If we are a nation which still wants to be a “shining city on the hill” as Republicans would love to have us believe then we absolutely, without question, must get involved.

There may not be an American interest in Darfur but there is a moral interest for every American to try and end the suffering in Sudan, why can’t our leaders acknowledge this?

• Leave a comment... (0)

I’ve been suffering from a major case of writers block lately and I finally figured out why.

CNN.

Ted Turner’s news network keeps running endless specials about the rundown to the YouTube debate which take place tonight. At this point I’m 99.9% sure that I won’t watch the debate because the way CNN has acted recently. In a campaign season which has already seen four major debates as well as a slew of other might-as-well-be-debates CNN needs to get out of its marble tower when it comes to having a debate where the questions come “directly from the people”.

If memory serves me correct every night last week CNN ran a “Countdown to the Debate” hour long special. Every night. Is this really necessary? Of course it’s not, it’s total overkill and starts to muddy they news/advertisement line that a station like CNN should leave well defined.

I find it extremely off putting, and approaching unethical, for a station like CNN to talk about their upcoming publicity stunt as if it qualifies as actual news. Sure every station on television plugs their upcoming ratings grabbers but when you start to cover it like a news event before it’s even happened, that’s when you start to have problems. Just because you keep running new clips of “possible questions” submitted by YouTube users doesn’t mean it’s a news story, let alone a news story worth devoting an hour towards.

I can only hope that we’re not in for months and months of this commercials masquerading as news events business, because I might just get frustrated enough to cancel my cable (and with the EPL season starting soon that would be quite a sacrifice). For now, though, I’ll simply refuse to watch the debate tonight.

• Leave a comment... (4)

The New York Times ran a story today spotlighting the slow march away from abstinence only education. The article reported that birthrates in American teenagers has been steadily falling since 1991 but that the state of Texas has seen the smallest decline despite receiving the most money for abstinence only education. This, in a nutshell, explains the absolute absurdity of abstinence only education.

If a teenager wants to wait to have sex before they get married, great. Good for them, it’s nice to see the youth of America having principles and sticking to their guns when these principles are called into question. Why on earth, though, would we want our federal government to have a policy stipulating that kids can’t have a real sex education class (I would challenge anyone to show me how abstinence only education can actually be considered educational) in school? Let’s face it most kids don’t want to go to their parents to talk about sex and most parents feel equally as awkward having the birds and the bees talk with junior.

Kids aren’t going to decide to have sex simply because they know how to do it safely. That’s the biggest flaw in the AO argument. It’s as if AO proponents fear that by telling kids how STD’s are contracted and how to use a condom correctly or what other means of birth control are available the students will run out and start shacking-up as soon as class gets out. Have a little more faith in your kids America. If a child is staying abstinent for moral reasons then telling he or she how to put on a condom shouldn’t change that. However by not teaching a child who has no intent on saving it until marriage how to have safe sex you’re not only doing huge disservice to the child but you’re also burdening your community with undue healthcare and social service costs which will come from the unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. A condom is a lot cheaper than maternity care for an uninsured woman.

I have no problem with including an abstinence portion included in a more rounded sex education. After all, the only 100% surefire way not to contract a sexually transmitted disease or to get pregnant is by not having sex in the first place and teens should know that condoms don’t work every single time. This mentality that if we only talk about abstinence with our children then they won’t have sex before marriage (or before they’re ready) is ridiculous. We need to stop being a nation of ostriches in give teenagers the information they need in order to be healthy.

After all this is NOT a moral issue, it’s a health issue and the government needs to realize this.

• Leave a comment... (32)

I’m bummed, America. Here I am, thinking that our generation actually pays attention to what’s going on in the world, and then the New York Times comes out and tells me otherwise. Sure, we may all have opinions about what’s going on in the world—Establish universal health care! Legalize same-sex marriage! Change the course!—but how well do we follow the events that decide the fates of these issues? How well do we know the cold hard facts? Apparently not too well. The Times writes:

Only 16 percent of the young adults surveyed aged 18 to 30 said that they read a newspaper every day and 9 percent of teenagers said that they did. That compared with 35 percent of adults over 30. Furthermore, despite the popular belief that young people are flocking to the Internet, the survey found that teenagers and young adults were twice as likely to get daily news from television than from the Web.

Now, before you aim a troop surge at my face, let me be clear: I recognize that you’re here, reading this, and, as such, that you must be at least reasonably on top of what’s going on in the world. That’s good. Pat yourself on the back.

Of course, if this is the first place (or the second or third place) that you get your news, you are sorely misguided. (We’re still very flattered.)

Yes, we try hard here at LCK. Sometimes we even breed fair, intelligent discussion. But as much as the blogosphere has revolutionized the media, it’s meant only to complement—not replace—traditional journalistic reporting (read: newspapers). I realize I’m asking to be attacked on this point, but I’ll firmly defend it.

So go out and buy a paper, or subscribe to one online (a real one, like the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal). Turn on Frontline. Make time for the news. You (and the nation) will be better for it.

Link.

• Leave a comment... (8)

Call what follows a naive and idealistic suggestion if you like but I think it’s worth some consideration. Paris launched a program this past weekend which could translate well to some cities on this side of the Atlantic. The program is called Vélib (an amalgamation of the words vélo [bike] and liberté [freedom]) and gives both locals and tourists alike a different way of getting around in the city of lights. I won’t take too much time describing how the program works; both the New York Times and Charles Bremner do a great job of that on their own. Suffice it to say that after buying a reasonable priced pass for a given length of time (a day, five days, a month) you’re able to pick up a rental bike at a station and ride it for “almost free” (it’s free providing that you return it in half an hour and seeing as how the stations will be no more than 300 yards apart from each other when the project is completed, that shouldn’t be much of a problem) all over the city.

The cost of the program is being deferred through the sponsorship of a French advertising company that gets advertising rights on all city owned billboards in return for paying for the program. This program is almost perfectly suited for Paris; the wide, Haussmann built boulevards, the exorbitant taxi rates, the millions upon millions of tourists that pour into the city every year, the beauty of the city which is missed when riding on the Metro, all of these factors make the Vélib program ideal for the French capital. This program, however, is one that should be considered in U.S. cities as well.

Cities such as New York, Boston, Chicago, Miami, San Diego and others could use a program such as this one to both decrease traffic congestion and help the environment at the same time. Granted winters in the northeast and August in the Deep South may cause a slump in ridership but if cities can get large, private sector, contributions to pay for the program why not go for it? It could be used to draw tourists to cities by promising them freedom and independence from rental cars and mass transit systems. It would promote the exploration of the city as a whole rather than just the main tourist attractions. For those that live in the city it would provide residents with a cheap and easy alternative to trying to find a parking space when going to a restaurant or movie.

Obviously cities like LA, Phoenix and Houston- where sprawl is so great as to necessitate a car- and San Francisco- where insurance issues would arise with thousands of tourists careening down Nob Hill- might not be well suited for a bike rental program but that shouldn’t stop other cities from trying it out. Why not encourage a little exercise for a population which desperately needs it? Why not empower people by letting them make a tangible contribution to the environment by trading in a day or two of driving per week with biking? Why not, if you can find a private backer for the program, (which I believe could be done through a variety of methods) go for it? I realize my optimism and enthusiasm for a bike rental program is probably making some of you a little queasy at this point so go ahead and bring me down off the cloud I’m currently perched upon. Explain why a program such as this one wouldn’t work in the U.S., as Darrell Hammond says while doing a great O’Reilly- “tell me where I’m wrong”

• Leave a comment... (1)