New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Popularity: 39% [?]

This is just a brief conservative reaction to tonight’s Democratic Debate on MSNBC.
Let me start out by saying what candidates do not stand a chance of earning the nomination. While Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) is well spoken and he has ideas that fall along the party lines, he is simply unelectable. There is nothing about him that makes him to stand out of the crowd and he is ultimately too boring of a candidate. Also, when he attempted to interrupt Barrack Obama during Obama’s thirty-second rebuttal he seemed childish and in fact I felt that he made Obama look like a powerful, mature, and experienced politician. Joe Biden is known to be crude and does not come off with the unflappable nature that can be seen in Hillary Clinton, in fact his most impressive performance occurred during a one on one with Chris Mathews after the debate, however most people will not have seen this. In general, Biden and Chris Dodd (S. CT) are not enticing and it is doubtful that either would even carry their own states in a general election, let alone the primary states next January. There is always one Howard Dean in the political arena and in this debate it was clearly Mike Gravel. He is far too radical to even get a percentage in the general election, but there are many democratic primary voters who would love to see him in the oval office. Come early Super Tuesday, Biden, Dodd will be out and while many in the far left would love to vote for Gravel they will vote for one of the front-runers to ensure they have the best chance at winning the white house.

I still stand by my belief that Bill Richardson (Gov, NM) is currently the premier vice presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. Richardson’s responses on foreign policy were some of the strongest of the night and he was honest in his beliefs on Alberto Gonzalez. For instance, when he was questioned about an Iraq withdrawal he utilized his previous foreign policy experience as a UN ambassador to explain how the international community can come together to stabilize Iraq. I also thought the fact that he is favored by the NRA will help to gain a number of western votes who like his executive experience and his stance on not raising taxes. It is important to note that he is the only governor running on the Democratic side and given that it is almost certain the Democratic presidential candidate will be a senator they will need someone on their ticket with proven executing experience.

John Edward’s has a nice southern drawl, but unless the primary voters in New Hampshire and states of the like decide they think that a woman or a black man are not capable of being elected, he will not get the nomination. John Edward’s two Americas speaks to many people and does recognize the gross divide between the rich and even the middle class in this country. However, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama actually gave a better explanation on how they would enact universal health care and actually I agreed with several of the points they mentioned such as allowing Americans to buy into a nation wide pool for healthcare along with Hillary Clinton’s statement that we have to fix the outrageous costs for people who even now have healthcare before we spend more money on another program. Edwards is a looser in this debate because he was not a winner. To clarify, he is trailing Clinton and Obama in the polls and he had to do something tonight to separate himself from the pack so that he can make some headway; he failed to do so and so while he didn’t loose altogether, he didn’t say anything to further his campaign. As the primary season approaches more democrats will move their support from Edwards and towards either Clinton or Obama.

Hillary Clinton did what she had too do, not stir a controversy and more importantly, maintain her composure. She made good points tonight and she also succeeded in not coming off as overly aggressive. Her answers were rehearsed but they didn’t sound practiced and memorized, which made her seem much more likeable. Her position in the race did not change.

Obama did very well tonight. He has to clarify on policy, but as Chris Mathew’s observed he gave multiple part answers to the questions he was asked and he came off as being knowledgably on foreign policy and willing to conduct diplomacy, and also he clarified that his pro-Israel stance (which he needed to do) and he came off as hawkish on the topic of Iran (a popular position in the US and even in Europe). The most impressive part of the entire debate was when Obama was asked to give a rebuttal to Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich attempted to interrupt Obama multiple times and it made Obama appear stronger, more mature, and even more experience. It put Obama in a position of power and he came off with an air of authority and a hue of gravitas that I believe a lot of people noticed.

As predicted, I do not think this debate did anything to change the landscape of the field for the democratic primary. Obama shinned, but not brightly enough to black out Hillary Clinton, and neither of them delivered any significant blow to Edwards that would remove him from the race. The damage done to Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel were self inflicted, and Richardson made it even more apparent in his coherent arguments that he is the vice presidential candidate.

Popularity: 29% [?]

Last week, after calling the African-American members of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos,” Don Imus was fired in a storm of controversy. Imus’ comments prompted a frank discussion of race in America. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, two black individuals at the head of the African-American lobby, immediately chalked up Imus’ comment to overall racist sentiments. They called for rallies and boycotts. Imus, simulcast on MSNBC and broadcast over CBS radio, faced a two-week suspension for his misconduct. Sharpton, even after interviewing Imus, refused to back down. Reacting to pressure, MSNBC fired Imus. Several days later, Les Moonves, the President of CBS, did the same, claiming that the network didn’t support the racial injustices Don Imus had mentioned.

The incident, however, seems to have stirred up activists throughout the country. It’s not out of character for “shock jocks” like Don Imus to discuss controversial topics. Rush Limbaugh, perhaps the best known conservative commentator, has been caught doing far worse. Limbaugh’s numerous offenses include criminal acts (illegal painkillers). What’s worse, however, is the way he speaks on the radio, often maligning those who don’t think the way he does. Unlike Don Imus, who most view as an “equal opportunity offender,” Limbaugh offends only those who dare to disagree with him. Groups that come to mind include blacks, homosexuals, and liberals. Imus, however, makes one slip-up and he’s without a job.

I’m not doubting Imus’ malfeasance. It is, however, rather shocking how quickly the entire ordeal was over. I find Al Sharpton’s immediate success with this issue disheartening. Days after he threatened a boycott for advertisers on Imus’ program, Don Imus was fired. CBS and MSNBC should have stood up for Imus, a character who brought them millions of dollars in advertising revenue throughout the years. The networks, afraid to lose millions, canceled Imus’ recently signed (5-year $50 million) contract. Standing up for free speech wasn’t a priority. As is the case with most corporations, profit was the priority. Yet the two networks failed to stand up for a principal that their very organizations rely on. Caving quickly to Sharpton’s pressure shows the existence of an overly strong race lobby. Never should one organization be able to fell a giant corporation like MSNBC or CBS.

Sharpton’s actions are besides the point, however. What shocked me about the situation is the new double standard, this time one overwhelmingly in favor of minorities. For hundreds of years, blacks fought for equality. I’ll be the first to admit we’re far from it. Creating a double standard with affirmative action, however, is not the way out. Several commentators, among them the conservative Michelle Malkin, have drawn attention to the words contained in rap music. “Ho,” the word Imus used, appears dozens of times in popular rap songs.

Disrespecting women and blacks seems to be the norm in rap music today. The n-word, once taboo (as it should be), has begun appearing in rap songs. Several pundits claim rap music publicizes rather sordid aspects of our society, including drug dealing and violence. Yet rappers like Mims, whose new top 10 hit “This is Why I’m Hot” single includes (by my count) six mentions of the n-word in four minutes of music, go unpunished. The aforementioned article by Michelle Malkin has YouTube videos of several other offensive songs.

Sharpton, just like the rappers, enjoys immunity when it comes to racial issues. As he criticizes Imus, rappers record new songs with the very same parlance he sought to ban from the airwaves. America, for some reason, sees the music industry and pop culture as exempt from the tolerance status quo. While the rest of America must adhere to a strict set of racial tolerance guidelines, the music industry is free to parade racial slurs and degrading images all over our television sets.

The double standard is visible yet again in the Duke rape case. The case, stoked by racial issues, made national news and provoked critiques from Sharpton. Sharpton’s somewhat inflammatory comments fueled the fire that snowballed into national news. Last week, however, the Duke students were acquitted of all charges. Now, the prosecutor in the case, Attorney General Michael Nifong, faces a lawsuit for misconduct. Yet the most vocal critics of the Duke students, Al Sharpton and others, have yet to come forward. Imus himself, several days before his show was cancelled, wondered where Sharpton’s apology was.

It’s clear that something has to be done to race relations in the US in order to move on. Hate-fueled incidents like those caused by Imus and the purported Duke rape case continue to fill our media. It shouldn’t be this way. Unfortunately, nobody’s leading the charge for equality. Activists like Al Sharpton demand more than equality. They demand the double standard; one that’s clearly shown itself in Imus’ proceedings. One can only hope that the future will destroy this new impediment to racial equality and bring real equality to all Americans.

Popularity: 46% [?]

United States presidential candidate Ron Paul, an outspoken libertarian, has called for removal of gun laws which he claims oppose civil liberties and encourage shootings. Paul stated that more guns could have prevented tragedies such as 9/11, or this week’s killing at Virginia Tech: “A concealed gun carried by a responsible person — that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed.”

But the key in his strategy is the word “responsible.” It requires the general public to be able to make informed decisions, and separate emotion from logic and reason, something currently only mandated to the police. Despite the large potential corruption of cops, there is far greater possible harm from arming everyone with a gun who wants one.

Having easily available guns in tense situations is just a recipe for disaster. I do not believe that the majority of people would be “responsible” with a gun, especially in America. Frankly, I would not want to enter a country that had such lenient laws towards something as life-threatening as a gun. I can just imagine a situation with a group of people all at gunpoint with each other.

I believe that nobody should have a gun. Maybe even in an ideal society, police would only need tasers (and far less harmful ones at that). There is certainly no need for the public to have them. Even hunting, I don’t see why they exist. Why does someone feel such an intense need to kill another animal? Can’t they just go pick up a less destructive hobby, like golf? And if you live in a place where you think you need a gun for personal protection, what does that say about you, your neighborhood, local police, and country?!

I simply feel like more can be achieved through education. If a truly intelligent and altruistic society did exist, where we all got along and were really able to make informed decisions by separating emotion from reason, would there even be a need for guns? People would be able to agree to disagree, and just get on with their lives.

If there was a reformed education system in place to nurture such a society, and drugs were legalized to eliminate the gang culture that supports the destructive use and illegal distribution of guns, then there would no longer be a need for the general public to have guns for self-protection. Then maybe we can put those gentler tasers in the pockets of police instead of guns.

Popularity: 66% [?]

The shooting at Virginia Tech is undeniably one of the worst tragedies American students have ever faced.  Stories of heroism make their way out of the situation, but the media is focused on the death and destruction caused on the campus of Virginia Tech University. One thing, however, should give Virginia Tech students, and Americans throughout the country, something to be proud of.  In the absence of professional newsmen, students took control of the media, showing an unprecedented ability to shape the coverage regarding their event.

In the wake of the worst campus massacre ever in the United States, dozens of news organizations flocked to Virginia to cover the tragedy. Before they arrived, however, the mainstream media relied on reports from those already on the ground: the college students themselves. Armed with the video and still cameras on their mobile phones, dozens of students set out to create their own coverage of an incident that was very much their own. The first audio and video accounts of the incident aired by CNN came from iReport, their citizen journalism program. The video, shot on a Nokia smartphone, made its way around the networks, all courtsey of a Virginia Tech student named Jamal Albarghouti.

Dozens of similar stories are to be told. In the hours preceding the arrival of professional reporters, Virginia Tech students had, unfortunately, the opportunity to shape the world’s news. Their coverage helped to show the world how terrible the massacre was and helped to qualm some fears about students that were safe. Twitter, a “stream of consciousness” blogging tool by Obvious Corp (utilized mostly by web celebrities such as Robert Scoble and Thomas Hawk), served constant updates to the internet, courtesy of a user named Tom Markiewicz. Chris Pirillo, a web celebrity in his own right, helped to stream live coverage with a tool called UStream.tv. His conversation with Planet Blacksburg, a new student-run publication from Virginia Tech, captured nationwide attention as sections were aired on various evening news programs.

What most surprised me, however, was the caliber and tenacity of the coverage coming from the students themselves at Virginia Tech. Via the aforementioned Planet Blackburg, they helped to broadcast news of the tragedy throughout the world, becoming the go-to site for immediate updates. The Web2.0 movement, which many experts see as a bubble ready to burst, finally showcased its effectiveness yesterday. YouTube has showed its staying power by drawing users in to watch videos on their website. The entire citizen journalism movement, however, displayed its prominence yesterday with the Virginia Tech shooting. Never, in years past, would internet surfers be granted the same hard-hitting coverage as Planet Blacksburg provided yesterday.

In this day and age, everyone is a reporter. Yesterday, as CNN broadcast video from a student’s cellphone video, and as Planet Blacksburg updated faster than the almighty network news, it became apparent. The “new media” is here to stay, and, from the looks of it, it’s ready to provide better coverage than had ever been imagined. The shooting at Virginia Tech has caused incredible sadness and grief. It has, however, caused something else: the birth of a new generation of reporters.

News of the incident continues to stun the staff here at New School Politics. In the coming days, we’ll be doing everything we can to help, but for the moment, the best we can do is to give our condolences to those involved in the tragedy at Virginia Tech. On April 30th, we’ll be participating in One Day Blog Silence, a day of quiet on the blogosphere dedicated to the memory of those who lost their lives in this terrible tragedy.

Popularity: 87% [?]

Late last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed that “black culture” is causing many of the recent murders in London. With harsh frankness in his final weeks at the top of Britain’s Parliament, Blair was not afraid to confront political correctness head on. Meanwhile, a large majority of responses disagreed with the Prime Minister, declaring the real problem was “social deprivation”. In staunch retaliation, Blair stated that “Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don’t think it’s the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation. I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them.”

I find it particularly intriguing how politicians tend to let their true feelings known when they have the least to lose. Their thoughts are always provocative, and Blair’s message was head-on with one of the largest issues concerning crime in developed countries. Frankly, I do basically agree with him, although I would perhaps word it differently. The problem here is the gang culture, which you can be born into or just as easily dragged into. It’s almost as bad as the poverty cycle. However, the fact remains that the majority in this culture are black people.

Not to blame pop culture, but just listen to the lyrics of rap music. That is the prime example of what gang culture is. Whether or not a teenager falls into it during drug experimentation relies very heavily on his or her upbringing and current situation in life. Although, if born into it, it’s quite natural that you yourself would join in the “family business”.

Obviously, the whole issue is quite a large and hard one to tackle. But, I assume one would want to eliminate the gang culture itself to make any real progress. Drug legalization would go quite far in reducing what is the main feature of the culture. With no drugs to deal, or perhaps rather far less people to sell to, the market would be literally destroyed. This would immediately reduce the number of gang attacks.

From here, by properly funding and aiding organizations who help people get out of the poverty cycle, we could ensure those formerly in the gang culture get proper training or education to get real jobs. This in turn helps create a stable financial situation in which a more acceptable lifestyle can be adopted.

Of course, it’s necessary to boost policing to get the crime leaders off the streets and into a rehabilitation process. Couple that with proper education to teenagers about drugs, alcohol, sex, and the law, as well as extracurricular activities abound. Ta-da: Gang culture eliminated!

Whatever the case, I think the PM made a very strong and important statement by throwing political correctness out of the window. It needed to be said by someone.

Popularity: 64% [?]

America once again felt insecure today as 33 lives were taken on the campus of Virginia Tech University. Several notable things occurred in the immediate aftermath of the event. First came an outpouring of grief from Americans and foreign nationals. Governor Tim Kaine, away in Tokyo, immediately jumped on a plane to fly back to Virginia. The President of the United States read from a prepared statement. Campus officials held numerous press conferences to keep America briefed. As the gravity of the massacre became clear, America collectively wept for the deceased at Virginia Tech.

The inquest into the behavior of the Virginia Tech Police Department began next. An e-mail was sent to students approximately two hours after the first shooting occurred. Although it’s not immediately clear, one must wonder whether the two shootings are connected. If so, shouldn’t the college have taken more action? Several in the mainstream press have wondered. It’s not time for an investigation into misconduct just yet, however. What is important is an investigation into the motives and reasoning of the killer. Pajamas Media & Boing Boing have terrific ongoing coverage on the shooting while Planet Blacksburg, a student run publication, is the place to go for eyewitness accounts.

Some, however, weren’t content to leave the situation without debate. Immediately, the shooting was transformed into the trigger for a nationwide argument about gun control. If given more rights, could students with guns have protected themselves from the impending threat of a shooter on the loose? Dozens of blogs seem to be intent on debating the subject, paying little attention to the tragedy itself. Michelle Malkin, one of the conservative movement’s leading bloggers, seems to be leading the charge. Instapundit chimed in as well, noting that “had the bill [one that planned to allow college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus], “things might have turned out differently.”  There is no official word on the weapon the gunman used, so gun control activists are unable to protest.  What if, however, the gunman was never allowed access to the gun in the first place?  I, similar to Eugene Volokh (of the Volokh Conspiracy), wonder whether it’s too soon to create debate. The nation has just witnessed the worst mass-shooting on a school campus in its history. It’s certainly too soon to stir up controversy.

Is That Legal? has more on the other tragedy, the shift from the massacre to a gun control argument. Along with President Bush, Govenor Kaine, and all of America, I send my sincere condolences to the victims of an attack that viciously took the lives of 32 college students and professors. I hope that this event will serve not as a catalyst for further debate but as a sign of our twisted society. May the victims and their families take solace in knowing that America is with them.

technorati tags:education, shooting, virginiatech, guncontrol

Popularity: 53% [?]

Schools in the UK are planning to drop the required teaching of the Holocaust and the Crusades in an effort to dodge any criticism from religious parents. One school was “strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the State of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination.”

The teachers who refuse to explain to students the seriousness of these issues, out of fear from any religion, should immediately have their teaching certificates revoked and be fired. Schools have an essential responsibility to society to provide an unbiased understanding of society and prepare children for life in the real world. This is one reason why I disagree with certain private schools, as they are allowed to bend what’s taught. However, with true “separation”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-state_separation of religion and state, there should not, in any circumstance, be the removal or addition of curriculum simply based on religion. Private schools provide a venue for religious teachings. This should not be intersecting with secular, government-run schools.

This argument is quite similar to the Kansas School Department agreeing to teach intelligent design, alongside evolution, based on the demands of local Christian parents. It’s not right to advocate a theology that completely eschews the fundamentals of science. It should not be part of the science curriculum, just as schools should not be sidestepping history in the history curriculum. Something as important to the 21st century as the Holocaust simply cannot be ignored into today’s world.

The UK Department of Education’s submission to the religious demands is simply sickening and deplorable to the fundamentals of true, transparent education. This should not be happening anywhere in the world. The people of England should be demanding that ALL of their schools refuse to rewrite history just because a few loud theologists demand it, out of respect to their religious beliefs. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

Popularity: 70% [?]

1. Initiate a National Service
2. A single State Solution between Palestine and Israel
3. Ensuring an end to energy dependence in the Middle East
4. Increasing abilities of non-governmental organizations, and US government organizations to provide immediate and effective disaster relief around the world that promotes pro-American imagery.
5. Outlawing Shari Law in the United States
6. Forming a joint anti-terrorism act with China, Russia, Japan, and the EU to ensure a task force greater than Interpol with no objective but to prevent global terrorism and also to create a multinational counter-terrorism task force capable of responding to nuclear, biological, chemical, and hostage crisis’s in every corner of the globe within 24 hours.
7. Providing cold-war level funding to form and operate pro-American television, Internet, and print sources outside of the United States.
8. Using covert military action and government sponsored economic means to open up rogue terrorist states to capitalism and western values.
9. Securing major American sea and airports to scan one hundred percent of cargo, also ensuring that the southern boarder of the United States is secure.
10. Rebuilding the national intelligence, enforcement, and emergency response community from the ground up to increase response time, preparedness, and capabilities, while balancing cost.

In the coming days I will create an in dept explanation of how to accomplish the steps I have outlined.

Popularity: 91% [?]

There are times when political correctness goes to far, the incident that occurred with Imus last Wednesday is one of them.
According to MSNBC.com Imus has had his morning show suspended for two weeks because of the ‘racist’ comments that he made last week. Today on Al Sharpton’s radio show Imus attempted to defend himself and to apologize while Al Sharpton did nothing but ask for his resignation.
Al Sharpton is nothing but a hate monger, if anyone should be arrested for instigating violence it is Al Sharpton who years ago caused a near race riot by exploiting a situation between a Jewish landlord and African-American tenants so that he could get attention. Al Sharpton does nothing but make situations worse by pulling the race card out again and again. His actions and the actions of hate mongers like him do nothing but polarize Americans and directly lead to violence and anger.
Al Sharpton has made many anti-Semitic comments in the past, but more importantly why is it only when a possible “black” racist comment is made that Imus is taken off the air. What does it say about our society as a whole when Imus has in the past made racist comments about Jews and Mexicans, and also sexist comments about women and his wife? Where is Al Sharpton when racist comments about every other group but African Americans are made?
Another important question that I want to ask is, if Imus is not allowed to use national TV and radio to sound his “racist” remarks, then why is Rosie O’Donnell allowed to conduct treason and spread enemy propaganda over a broadcast channel and on radio? Is this the direction our society is heading? One stupid comment on a comedy radio show about a basketball team is turned into a national scandal, while we can have people hurting the very fabric of our nation on daytime television with millions of viewers?
Either way, if Al Sharpton wanted to demonstrate the integrity of the black community he should accept Imus’s apology. Even if he did make one racist remark, Imus has done more for sick children, the armed forces, fundraising, and brining political and cultural awareness to Americans of all skin tones. If I were someone with honor and integrity such as Barrack Obama, I would be ashamed to have someone such as Al Sharpton representing not just my race, but also my country.

Popularity: 54% [?]