No connection between Hussein and al-Qaida

This is obviously very old news, but also very notable. It was announced around March 14^th by the Pentagon. Apparently they can definitively say that there never was a connection between Saddam Hussein, former leader of Iraq, and al-Qaida. I think that many people suspected this, but there’s just something about hearing the government come out and say it. We have been in this war for five years now and the majority of the United States’ rationales for entering it have been disappointed. After September 11^th, we were told that those who were responsible for the deaths would be held responsible. We were later lead to believe that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the terrorist group responsible for the attack and therefore was responsible himself. Now we find that this isn’t the case. We were also told that Iraq had the now famous (or infamous) “weapons of mass destruction.” We have yet to ever find those either. Remarks have been made that people in Iraq hid them, but I am curious to know how one effectively hides and moves excessively potent atomic or biological weapons. I’m guessing they’re pretty big. So now that these are disproved the only rationale we’re left with is that we’re spreading freedom to the people of Iraq. Congratulations. We’ve finally found a rationale that no one could possibly argue with without being an evil person.

Dividing the Democratic Party

Apparently former Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd has announced that the Democratic Party should declare a candidate before the caucuses finish. He also believes that this candidate should be Obama.

To some extent, I can agree with him. His reasoning is that the Democratic Party has become very divisive in the past couple of months and will only continue to worsen. I would definitely agree with this assumption (I believe my first post on this blog was centered on my irritation at the bickering between Obama and Clinton). I hope that the current relationship between Obama and Clinton won’t last the entire process of the caucuses, but I guess that no one really knows. I can only assume that things will become even more aggressive as the Democratic convention grows nearer in the same way that Clinton became more aggressive as Obama caught up to her lead. A poll by CNN showed as many as 16% of polled Democratic voters saying that they would not vote in the 2008 election if their chosen candidate isn’t picked (whether that candidate is Obama or Clinton). This is rather alarming for, although it probably has some errors and is only accurate as to people’s current beliefs, it seems to be a fairly accurate representation of how things stand. I mean, after all, how different are Obama and Clinton from each other? Yes, they obviously have some different ideas and their supporters would be quick to find them. But they’re both moderate Democrats who are going after similar ideals, just in slightly different ways. Is this enough to keep you at home? Is it really better to just pout and sulk in a corner?

At any rate, I do see Dodd’s point in his reasoning; this constant bickering has become destructive. However, I don’t think that the answer is to claim that Obama is obviously a shoe-in for the presidential candidate when the race is so close. I also do not agree with the idea that we should completely disregard the states that have yet to vote in a caucus and just pick. That is entirely against the caucus system and would most likely lead to an even more divided party than before.

Youth Vote

I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve heard an older person make the comment that my generation lacks the political awareness and action of older generations. This is obviously coming from the generation who lived during the Vietnam War and participated in many protests. While I don’t think this is entirely accurate, there are a few grains of truth with it.

There is something wrong with the percentage of those between the ages 18 and 30 who vote. When you look at South Carolina, for example, this age group made up 9% of voters in 2004, but this increased to 14% in this year’s primary. There are two ways to look at this. First of all, 9%?! This percentage is much lower than our actual representation. But you can also look at the trends. Many organizations about the youth vote, such as CIRCLE, are reporting a larger amount than usual of young voters, often doubling or tripling past participation numbers. And the majority of these voters are democrats for Obama. For once, it feels like my generation truly is stepping up to the plate to change the face of politics.

Clinton Under Fire

Anyone who is vaguely familiar with the elections will know that Clinton's main point of attack against Obama is his experience, especially foreign experience. And now we find that she has been exaggerating a description used to describe her wealth of experience. For a brief summary, she had told an anecdote about her arrival in Bosnia during the Clinton administration in which they had to run as they were fired on. The media has apparently uncovered a videotape of their landing which shows them not to be rushed at all and that she actually stopped to talk to an eight year-old girl. She says she misspoke, but has used the story more than once.

So what do we make of this? Obviously it isn't a giant lie. Is this just another example of the media being tough on Clinton? Or is this another example of Clinton manipulating the general public? It is probably both to some degree. It is obvious that Clinton knew that she was stretching the truth and is now trying to feign ignorance in hopes that we'll just leave it alone. I personally don't think that it is such of a big deal, but it just adds to the general atmosphere of her administration. It's just politics as usual, which is disappointing.

"A More Perfect Union"

Although I missed the original speech by Obama on the 18th, I was luckily able to find a full version. I rarely actually say anything about the links I hyperlink to, but I have to stop and say that I highly recommend taking the time to watch this speech if you have not done so already.
Perhaps it is from the years of painfully watching President Bush give speeches and talk in an impromptu fashion, but every time Obama speaks I can hardly believe my eyes or ears. It isn’t full of embarrassing Bushisms (or Obama-isms, I suppose) and it isn’t awkward. It is the way one would always picture the American president to speak. It was sincere and touching.
The speech was in response to the media criticism of his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the following criticism of Obama (cough, Fox News, cough). However, the speech was not about him trying to necessarily apologize for the pastor, but to talk about the conditions of race in this country. After all, this is why the Reverend made these comments. This led to the most candid and eloquent speeches about race I’ve ever heard, especially in a country where it is taboo to discuss such things.
“This church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.”
I thought that this was one of the most effective words of the speech. I obviously have no idea what it is like to be African American but this helps me understand. That African Americans, especially of the pastor’s generation, want to make this country a more equal place, but they are also held back by the bitterness that has come from having to fight so much for their civil rights.
This, however, was my favorite quote of the entire speech and on this note I will leave you:
“For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." "

Romantic times in the Afghanistan War

One of the most recent bushisms really isn’t even something that he misspoke. In a recent videoconference with U.S. soldiers in Afganistan, he said the following.

"I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger.”

When I saw this quote on the “Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger” (by the way, I really recommend this link, it's hilarious) on the Colbert Report, I must say, I was completely surprised. Granted, I was getting my news from a liberal talk show, but still. I understand that President Bush wishes to raise the morale of the troops, but pretending like they’re having all made-for-touching-movie special moments is ridiculous. Obviously I don’t understand what troops are going through any more than he does, but at least I admit that I’m sure they’d rather be home with their friends and family. What can I say? Sometimes I am utterly shocked and alarmed at the things that come out of his mouth.

Eliot Spitzer Sex Scandal

So obviously there has been a lot of news about the sex scandal involving Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York. This scandal caused him to announce his resignation on Monday. Now, there seem to be a few questions following this news: is infidelity enough reason to cause a political official to resign? And the question that really irks me: why is it that their wives are standing next to them during their political address/apology?

This incident reminds me (and I’m sure many other people) of the Clinton sex scandal. The main difference is that President Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, a woman who worked with him. But his main problem was that he lied in legal proceedings which is, obviously, against the law. But with former Governor Spitzer, the problem in legality comes from the fact that he had hired prostitutes, which is punishable under the law. But even if he hadn’t hired a prostitute and cheated on his wife with a colleague, like Clinton, would it have made a difference? The public already gets outraged at the mere presence of infidelity, which is understandable as we expect politicians to hold up to our moral expectations. But does the action merit an expulsion, or are they able to do just as well? You often hear remarks of President Clinton’s supporters that the infidelity incident does not affect how competent he was as a president. I go back and forth on this issue. On the one hand, politicians are human too. But on the other hand, they knew going into this profession that they would be held to a high standard. After all, isn’t that a large part of the appeal of Obama? People want a president/politician who will give them hope and set a new standard for politics. We don’t want to feel like we need to always be suspicious of our government and actually feel like it’s working to help us. We need honest people to do that.

But the thing I also think is very bizarre is that Spizter’s wife stood beside him as he apologized to the nation…for cheating on her. I’m sure that it’s humiliating just to know that your husband cheated on you with a prostitute. Then everyone in the nation finds out about it and your husband goes on T.V. to apologize for it. And it’s your job to look very forgiving and accepting so that everyone feels like they should do the same. It seems like you’re just getting salt rubbed into the open wound.

Research Stuff

After doing a bit of research, I think I can narrow my very large topic of poverty down to possible scientific solutions to poverty/what they’re attempting now. This is still a pretty big topic, but it seems to be one that people would be less familiar with (as opposed to political solutions, such as the One program and Free Rice). It’s very research papery so far, but it’s interesting.

One of the places I found a lot of information was on the BBC News website. A large problem for countries is that they are very hard hit by natural disasters as they typically have very little warning and prevention programs. Another huge problem with poverty is that people are unable to find clean water, much less food. This has caused some new water treatment plans to start.

I was also very surprised to read about the effects of global warming currently affecting poverty and agriculture today. I had realized that this definitely was expected to affect places like Africa in the future, when a few degrees in temperature change could mean significant droughts. But apparently scientists believe that global warming may already be a cause of increased drought and risk of famines in Eastern Africa.

But there’s also the question of how much can scientific discoveries do if the underlying social and population issues are still present and keeping the poverty alive.

Spring

I think everyone around me would agree that it is definitely time for spring. As the temperatures begin to peak over their usual maximum of 10° with a wind chill under 0, everybody is anxious for the snow to finally melt. This is especially true for runners who have been battling a combination of snow, ice and wind chill all winter. So on the days that we can actually make it out our door, we must jump over a snow bank onto an icy sidewalk where we immediately trip and fall. And even when it hasn’t snowed in days, the sidewalks are still covered due to the fact that people don’t think it is necessary to take the half an hour to shovel their sidewalks. But all of that will soon be over!

Yesterday, the afternoon heat reached over 30°, with temperatures rising throughout the week. I may sound like a weatherwoman, but right now 50° sounds awfully close to summer weather. Finally the ice has melted off the sidewalks so that you can actually run down them instead of doing some horrible version of a slip and slide. Sure, everything has turned into a muddy, slushy mess, but most importantly it is a warm muddy mess. Finally, the sun feels warm.

The War in Iraq? Never heard of it.

Whatever happened to the War in Iraq? Although it was an extremely important and often talked about issue early on in the election, it seems to be a taboo topic anymore. And this doesn’t just include the political candidates but in the media as well. It seems to be almost possible to forget that we are even in a war that has dragged on for around 7 years.

What news you can find reporting on the subject says that there is less violence, especially in Baghdad where there are an increased number of troops actively securing the city. But others claim that the lower occurrences of violence are superficial. Since the basic root of the violence is conflict between the Sunni and the Shiites and corruption in general, are we really solving these problems? Of course the lower violence is good news but one has to wonder why the violence is decreasing. Is it simply because we have upped the security in this major city and mainly separtated the groups? And if that is true, then what happens when we leave? And even if this war does turn out alright, does this mean that we should just forget about the lack of morality surrounding its beginning?

American Gods

I just finished the book American Gods by Neil Gaiman. I have previously read his books Neverwhere and Stardust, so it was interesting to note the different tones of the novels. The first book of his that I read was Stardust which is a fairly short book that is very light. While there was conflict, it wasn’t exactly bloody or anything like that. When I read Neverwhere, I noticed that it was a lot darker than Stardust. Not only was there more blood but it was it was just darker in general. For example, two men (although obviously not human) are following the girl Door and engage in torture/are generally creepy.
But American Gods was even darker than Neverwhere. It follows a man who leaves jail and becomes employed by a man named Wednesday. He gets caught up in this struggle between Gods. Once again, the characters were unlike any I have met before and were exceedingly vivid. Many of the characters he meets are Gods of some sort and their personality fits accordingly. That is something that I really enjoy about Neil Gaiman’s writing: his characters are always very unique so that the reader can picture them in their head.
The only thing that kind of put me off in American Gods was some of the crudeness that was present in the first half of the book. These scenes were usually very explanatory sex scenes which generally added nothing to the story line of the book. It is not as if I found them offensive, but they didn’t really seem to add anything to the story and just added to the dark atmosphere of the book. But, I did enjoy the book despite these random scenes scattered throughout the first half of the book. Like Neverwhere, you were never really sure whether you should trust people other than protagonist and Gaiman really keeps you eager to know how everything will end. The book especially seemed to really pick up during the last half, as conflict increased. Although I liked Neverwhere and Stardust better that isn’t really saying much because those are two of my favorite books. I enjoyed the book and would definitely recommend it, especially if you are a fan of fantasy.

Research Topics

The research topic that I am most interested in is probably poverty. I recently attended a Hunger Banquet put on by my school's National Science Honors Society. It was really interesting and shocking at the same time. It isn't as if I didn't understand that poverty was a problem before, but I honestly had no idea that it was as extensive as it is. Poverty just seems like it would be a topic that I could really get into and it would be an easier essay to read. But if that doesn't work out then my second choice is the role of women in Islam (completely random, but I always wondered about this and don't know quite as much as I should about the religion) and Alzheimer's Disease.

Battle of the Democrats

As more and more primaries come in and we count up the delegates, it seems like things are getting really heated...at least on the Democratic side. While the Republican standpoint seems to leave little doubt as to who will end up with the most delegates (McCain), the Democratic race is very obviously in a dead heat. As of February 25th, CNN shows that the number of delegates for Obama is 1,378 and for Clinton is 1,269. While it seems like many hopefuls for Obama see this as a victory, it's still a far cry from the 2,025 needed to actually win the presidential spot. So understandably it's getting a bit tense between the candidates.

I understand tension, but this is just getting ridiculous. It began with former President Clinton jabbing at Obama and accusing his supporters of supporting him on the basis of his race. After that, it seems to have completely gotten out of hand. Every single time I turn on the news or look at an online source, I hear about the two of them trading jabs or that one of them has attacked the other and now the other is responding. This culminated into my favorite "Shame on you, Barack Obama" Clinton moment (which you can't help thinking while you're watching: My God, that is one pissed off woman) to which Obama responded that this is "silly season" for politics. Granted, a lot of my information was first introduced by my Obama-fan boyfriend, so it's mostly skewed in a Clinton-attacks-Obama way. But the thing that bothers me most is the unveiled animosity between two halves of the Democratic Party. How on Earth is everyone going to pull together as a group for the election if we all hate each other?