Bright Hall

Tea Parties Planned for Tax Day

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-15T08:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Breaking News, News, Media, Notre Dame

The Internet has been buzzing lately all about parties happening on Tax Day. Tea Parties, to be exact.

I never got an invitation, but I'm more of a coffee drinker. It'd be a bit of a pain to purchase tea bags just to dump them in a body of water.

Like the great pre-Revolutionary War colonists who came before them, American taxpayers are up in arms and want to protest "higher taxes and out-of-control government spending," according to a column in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday. It's hard to tell who exactly started this movement, but the columnist asserted that this is not the work of a "right-wing conspiracy," but rather, average Americans who are using the expanding power of the Internet to organize an imitation of an event that took place in 1773.

According to the Wall Street Journal column, the protests began in mid-February with bloggers in Seattle, Wash., then grew when CNBC commentator Rick Santelli delivered his now famous rant against President Obama's policies, advocating that people organize a tea party in Chicago on July 4.

From that rant, a movement was born. Now these flash mob protests are apparently planned across the country on Tax Day. The Tea Party movement is one of the top trending topics on Twitter, and on Facebook a group called Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party has more than 35,000 members.

I'm always up for a party. And those are big numbers. I'd love to fly home to watch protesters dump a million tea bags in Lafayette Square in Washington D.C, as the protest organizers say they will, according to a Washington Post story.

Imagine if we took that tea and, provided it was caffeinated, gave it to American workers. Think of the productivity we'd see on Tax Day!

On second thought, the people organizing the Tax Day Tea Party probably don't need any more caffeine. This grass-roots movement has grown surprisingly quickly. A lot of people are comparing it to Obama's use of the Internet in 2008 to increase enthusiasm for his campaign. Except, with Obama, there were a lot fewer teabags. And fewer unfortunate inappropriate jokes. (I'm not explaining it. Look it up.)

A Web site called Tax Day Tea Party purports to be the online headquarters for the tea partiers. A "revolution is brewing at a city near you" they say. Besides being clever at wordplay, the site's creators have also done a good job of listing Tea Party events occurring in every state.

Over on her Web site, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin has a playlist of songs for the Tea Parties. I recommend the reader-suggested rendition of "American Pie."

If you cannot make it out to a local Tea Party, the Republican National Committee has a way for you to participate. Go to their Web site and you can mail a postcard to President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Harry Reid or Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Best of all, you can choose one of four varieties of tea bags to send along with your postcard.

At the White House briefing Tuesday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he is not sure if Obama knows about the planned parties, but Gibbs said he personally is not monitoring them.

If the Tea Parties don't work, perhaps some other famous event in American History can be re-staged? A flash mob to cry that the British are coming or a re-enactment of Washington crossing the Delaware?

If nothing else, all this flash-mobbing will improve our collective knowledge of this country's history.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Brown University Faculty Votes To Hijack History

Joshua Chaney — 2009-04-14T21:50:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Breaking News, News, Brown University, Microtrends on Campus, American University, Muskingum College

An obsession with political correctness at American universities has rapidly become a national phenomenon in recent years. A few colleges have really taken it too far.

Brown University's faculty voted last week to rename Columbus Day "Fall Weekend" on the University's calendar, a move that apparently was in step with the wishes of students according to a poll by the college newspaper The Brown Daily Herald. The poll revealed a majority of students disapproved of continuing to call the holiday Columbus Day.

The decision came after weeks of pressure from student groups proposing change.

American University's Undergraduate Senate passed a similar resolution a few years ago declaring the holiday "Indigenous People's Day" instead.

Columbus Day is named of course after Christopher Columbus, the man incorrectly attributed with discovering North America. As we know today, Columbus was tied to the enslavement and abuse of native inhabitants of the West Indies. Columbus Day has been celebrated since 1971.
But really, Columbus Day? It seems strange that academics would be so willing to hijack history for the sake of an extremist obsession to purify it. Owning a history book doesn't give one the right to rewrite it, however. Columbus Day still exists as does U.S. history in its entirety - dark spots as well as bright.

The faculty might have instead used the day instead to ... oh, I dunno, teach? Since when is it an acceptable standard in American academia to ignore history instead of use its errors as a basis to teach and educate?

"Brown University made itself an example to the nation by carefully exploring its ties to the slave trade and using that process to promote greater understanding," Providence mayor David Cicilline, a 1983 graduate of Brown, said in a press release last week. But the decision to "simply erase the celebration of an incredibly significant moment in world history and Italian-American culture for the sake of political correctness does just the opposite," he added.

While Columbus might not be credited now with being the first person to discover America, many Italian-American organizations still credit Columbus, an Italian explorer, as a major historical influence on western civilization's introduction to a new part of the world.

Providence newspaper columnist Bob Kerr called the decision "detached," especially because of the large number of Italian descendants residing in Providence. Rush Limbaugh also opined on the decision, attacking the students who urged for the change.

One Brown student said Columbus is "undeserving of a holiday." Another said "what they teach us in elementary school is misleading - hero worshiping."

The decision was "a progressive step," he added.

I couldn't disagree more. The most feasible part of the students' argument is that Columbus wasn't deserving of the holiday in the first place. But what is certain is that the holiday is also is a yearly reminder of how far we've come. It provides a basis on which teachers can educate their students.

A much greater injustice is done in ignoring the sacrifices made at the hands of the ignorant. Their story deserves to be told, not swept under the rug and the best way to do that is for Columbus Day to remain untouched. It is not an elementary teacher's place to go all philosophical on an 8-year-old, and I don't think children are educated to idolize Columbus - at least I wasn't.

At a higher level of learning, the flaws of such individuals need to be observed and critiqued.

The decisions by both American University and Brown University were more accurately in step with those attempting to censor historical scars, and call it cliche, but those who ignore history are, indeed, destined to repeat it.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Okays Purchase of 17,600 American Cars

Adam Kirchner — 2009-04-11T15:31:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, The Economy, Towson University

The Obama Administration pledged to buy thousands of cars from American automakers that have been practically insolvent for months, in a press release dated April 9.

"The General Services Administration will spend $285 million of Recovery Act Funds to purchase about 17,600 commercially available fuel efficient vehicles for the government fleet before June 1, 2009," the press release states. "All purchases will be made from manufacturers with an existing contract with the GSA, which are General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. This includes the purchase of 2,500 hybrid sedans that will be ordered by April 15. This is the largest one-time purchase of hybrid vehicles for the federal government fleet in history."

Chrysler and GM had already been collectively granted $17.4 billion worth of Troubled Asset Relief Program loans in December, with the obligation to present the Obama Administration with restructuring plans to avoid bankruptcy by March 31. Having missed the deadline, they were granted another 30 and 60 days, respectively.

In other automaker bailout news, "the IRS is launching a campaign to alert consumers of a new tax benefit for auto purchases made between February 16th and the end of this year: if you buy a car, you may be able to deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes," president Obama said in his remarks on March 30 regarding the failure of Chrysler and GM to restructure before the deadline. "This provision could save families hundreds of dollars and lead to as many as 100,000 new car sales," he added.

What part of spending $17.4 billion and then another $285 million in public funds saves taxpaying families hundreds of dollars? Or is "saving" a euphemism for relatively less rampant government spending?

And is that 100,000 new car sales plus the 17,600 purchased by the government, or is that actually just 80,000 new car sales plus the 17,600 purchased by the government to total "as many as 100,000 new car sales"? Because that sounds like the administration will be responsible for about 20% of what it suggests the private sector will do.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

North Korea Launches Rocket, Prompts Famous 3 a.m. Phone Call

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-06T00:06:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, News, Media, Notre Dame

Hillary Clinton saw this coming.

President Barack Obama got his 3 a.m. phone call, albeit at 4:30 a.m. Sunday morning in Prague, Czech Republic, when North Korea launched a long-range rocket. That's a sudden way to remind someone that being president isn't all about the economy.

Last year, when Obama and Clinton were still vying for the Democratic nomination, Clinton put out an ad saying she was the best one to answer the theoretical 3 a.m. phone call because she had the experience. Obama replied to her political advertisement with a nearly identical one that said he should answer the theoretical 3 a.m. phone call because he had better judgment.

The scenario became reality Sunday when North Korea launched the rocket they'd been threatening to launch for several weeks. The North Korean government said they had conducted a successful, peaceful launch of a satellite into orbit, CNN reported. But the United States and South Korea characterized the launch as a "provocative act" and said the rocket's payload failed to enter orbit, instead falling into the Pacific Ocean near Japan.

CNN quoted a State Department spokesman as saying the launch was in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution on North Korea's weapons program, which prohibits the country from conducting ballistic missile-related activities.White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he personally woke Obama to tell him the launch had been confirmed, and that Obama then consulted with his top aides, including Clinton, who was in Prague with Obama to participate in the European Union summit.

Obama responded strongly to the North Korean actions, which weren't much of a surprise since the North Koreans had been talking about the launch for weeks. His statements focused on the need for an international response to North Korea's rogue behavior.

"North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons," Obama said, according to a CNN report. "All nations much come together to build a stronger global regime. That's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course."

A few days before the launch, FOX News's Greta Van Susteren asked former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich what he would do about North Korea if he was president. Gingrich criticized Obama for his foreign policy approach towards North Korea, which he said entailed "being courteous to them and communicating with them."

If he were president, he told Van Susteren, he would have used "whatever methods were necessary for the missile never to be launched." That could mean using the military if necessary, he said.

"If I can't find a way to bribe somebody to blow it up, I'd find a way to have either a small team go in, or a way to deliver a laser or another kind of device," he said on FOX. "That is a missile that is sitting there on that launch pad, and I think you could take it out with very, very minimal risk to anybody."

There's been some speculation that Gingrich will run for president in 2012. If he does, I propose he runs an ad showing Obama taking 4:30 a.m. phone calls while Gingrich is fast asleep--because he already took care of the problem with lasers.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Iowa Clears Way for Gay Marriage (Really? Iowa?)

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-03T22:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Breaking News, Local, Notre Dame

The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled Friday that a 1998 law which limited marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional, stating that same-sex marriages may begin in Iowa in as soon as three weeks.

Tonight I happened to attend a dinner with a professor from the University of Iowa. He told me that when he heard about the decision on CNN, he was more surprised that his state was making national news than to hear that gay marriages would soon be legalized.

A lot of people, he said, misjudge Iowa. So it's not a rural state with a lot of corn, wondered one of my dinner mates. Yes, it is, he said. But it's also the state that helped propel Barack Obama to the presidency. In January 2008, Obama won Iowa's Democratic caucus, and many political commentators saw his win in Iowa as a sign he could win the country. Obama won the state of Iowa 10 months later in the general election.

In this context, it's not as surprising that this state smack dab in the middle of the Midwest will become only the third state in the country, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to permit gay marriage. (Of course, California's decision to allow gay marriage was overturned in November.) The full text of the Supreme Court's decision can be read here.

Lambda Legal, an organization that works to gain civil rights for lesbians, gay men and people with HIV/AIDS, filed a lawsuit in 2005 with Iowa's Polk County Court on behalf of six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Iowa, with the argument that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates liberty and equality guarantees in the state's constitution.The Iowa Supreme Court opinion states that the legislature enacted a law that excluded gay and lesbian people from marriage, the executive branch of the state enforced the law by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and the judicial branch had the responsibility to determine if the law violates the Iowa Constitution. The Court decided that it did.

"A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated beliefs and popular opinion," the court's opinion read.

A poll taken in February 2008 showed that 62 percent of Iowans believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman, while 32 percent said they believed same-sex marriage should be allowed, the Des Moines Register reported. Six percent were unsure.

Once gay marriages are allowed, 21 days following the Supreme Court's April 3 decision, it seems likely that gay marriage will remain a right in Iowa for several years, since a constitutional amendment banning it would require the state legislature to approve the ban during two consecutive sessions, and then the voters would be asked to weigh in, the New York Times reported. A CNN report stated that the earliest the issue could get on a ballot would be 2012.

Iowa has no residency requirement for getting a marriage license, so people from other parts of the country might be making their way to the Hawkeye State to get hitched.

In other Midwestern news this week, the University of Notre Dame rejected students' petition to add sexual orientation to the school's nondiscrimination clause.

Who knew there was so much diversity in the Heartland?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

What's Really Funny About Tribune's April Fools' Prank

Matt Negrin — 2009-04-03T03:11:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News, Boston University, Media, The Economy

The bankrupt brains at Tribune Co. sure had a laugh Wednesday. After filing for bankruptcy, shrinking their papers' Washington bureaus and firing hundreds of employees across the country, Tribune thought it could make it all better with a joke.

So on April Fools' Day, they issued a press release -- accompanied by a mysteriously well-designed homepage -- that boasted the creation of something called the "Accelerator," some kind of super-communications thingy that threatens to make the Internet obsolete in a year. It uses nanotechnology, it displays holographs, it has voice recognition in every language, and it has a plutonium battery. All this (and so much more) is detailed on Tribune's release and website, which looks like it took hours, and maybe days, to perfect.

When crafting this prank, Tribune's idea men -- Sam Zell, Lee Abrams and Randy Michaels -- must have put a lot of effort into it, maybe even working overtime. Michaels, the chief operating officer, says in the fake news release that the Accelerator team "put in long hours, many of them sober. And this marvelous device is the result -- The Accelerator(TM) will mean billions in revenue, and the end of the extremely competitive advertising environment in which we've been operating."

Nobody laughed very hard upon reading this. And given Abrams's propensity for writing "think pieces" full of misspellings, ALL-CAPS DECLARATIONS and stream-of-consciousness ideas from a dream-like state, it's no surprise that the Tribune team made its highest priority for April 1 wiping out its Tribune.com website to promote a product that isn't real. (Abrams's style is not representative of the papers his company owns; in addition to not proofreading, he also doesn't check facts, which is evident in this January blast about a quote from Mariah Carey that she never said.)

So who was the joke intended for? Investors who wanted to see how the flailing company is performing after the first three months of 2009? Editors of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times who wanted to see if their newsrooms would be losing more money this month?

Perhaps the group laughing the least is the growing number of laid off journalists who have felt the slice of the mighty Tribune sword. Former reporters of the Tribune's Hartford Courant, which fired 100 employees in February, have formed an "Alumni Association and Refugee Camp." One of them, noting that the folks in the Tribune Co. tower have more time on their hands than those at the struggling papers who are picking up more work for less wages, visited the Hartford newsroom and saw that the journalists "are in no mood for jokes -- at least corporately produced jokes."

(I know for a fact that Courant reporters love good fun; when I was an intern there last summer, the staffers dug out the eyes of CEO Zell's face on a cake before devouring it, in between two waves of buyouts.)

For what it's worth, though, the press release for Tribune's phony gadget has a glimmer of truth in it -- but not for the Accelerator. Rather, for Tribune.

Take, for example, this quote from Tribune Interactive President Marc Chase (real person): "There are still a few bugs to be worked out." Like the billions of dollars in debt that Zell heaved onto the company when he overtook it in December 2007?

Chase also says, "We're confident that we're in the end-stage development phase." That may be a bit foreboding for a company operating under Chapter 11 and not showing any signs of ever seeing numbers in the black again.

Michaels, though, was more direct in his triumph. "The game is over," he said. "We win."

Hilarious.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Debate Over Obama Notre Dame Commencement Address Heats Up

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-24T01:03:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, Culture, Religion, Breaking News, News, Local, Notre Dame

The White House and Notre Dame announced last Friday that President Barack Obama would be the main speaker at the May 17 Commencement ceremony and would be awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree, a decision that has caused controversy among many in the Catholic community.

Though many students and alums of the University are pleased to have the president speak at Commencement, those opposed to the decision have been far more vocal, as students, alumni and people not affiliated with Notre Dame voiced their protestations loudly throughout the Internet and in Notre Dame's student newspaper.

Fr. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, gave an interview to The Observer, the student newspaper, Sunday in which he responded to the criticism and said he did not "foresee" circumstances in which Notre Dame would rescind the invitation to the president. (Full disclosure: I work for The Observer.)

"We have invited the president and he's honored us by accepting," he told The Observer.

There's been an uproar about the decision, judging by letters to the editor, blog posts and petitions, due to Obama's pro-abortion stances. Jenkins defended his choice, saying the invitation to Obama does not signify an endorsement.

"The invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research," Jenkins told The Observer.

The protestations against the choice of Obama have been very loud, especially in the opinion section of The Observer, but it should be noted that in a mock election held by Notre Dame's student government last October, Obama won 52.6 percent of the vote compared to McCain's 41.1 percent.

Not everyone is protesting Obama coming to campus; many are thrilled. A Facebook group titled "We Will Be Honored To Have President Obama at Notre Dame" has 1,389 members. Several Facebook groups, however, have been created to protest Obama as Commencement speaker.

All I wanted was a nice, quiet, peaceful graduation day, a time to celebrate with my family and friends, without posters of aborted fetuses. Such a simple request. But it won't be so.

Already, pro-life activists are making plans to come to South Bend to protest.

A Web site called notredamescandal.com has set up an online petition to ask Jenkins to rescind the invitation, saying it is in violation of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' 2004 document called "Catholics in Political Life," which states that "those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions" by Catholic institutions.

The Web site, launched by the Cardinal Newman Society, claims it has nearly 48,000 signatures. The Cardinal Newman Society, established in 1993, is "dedicated to renewing and strengthening Catholic identity at America's 224 Catholic colleges and universities," according to its Web site.

National Review Online, the Web site of the conservative magazine, asked various commentators to give their views on Notre Dame's speaker choice.

It's become popular in American discourse to invoke Hitler when making a point about something one views as egregious. On National Review's Web site, Fr. George W. Rutler, a Catholic priest in New York, skipped that tiresome cliche and brought back an oldie:

"If a Midwestern school seeks attention by granting Obama an honorary doctorate in law, the next logical step would be to grant Judas Iscariot posthumously an honorary doctorate in business administration," he wrote.

This is only day three of the Great Obama Debate; there is no end in sight. Outside the Notre Dame bubble, I'm sure, no one is talking about the Obama Commencement speaker choice. But it's hard to see reality beyond the bubble while on campus. Here, it is the primary topic of conversation.

Anecdotally, I'd say most seniors I've talked to are excited about Obama coming to speak at graduation. But those who are against Obama speaking are making a lot more noise in the student paper and on the Internet.

My advice to Fr. Jenkins is to fire Charlie Weis and re-hire Ty Willingham. There's nothing like breaking football news to change the topic of conversation at Notre Dame.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Students Must Now Pay On Loans In College

Joshua Chaney — 2009-03-23T16:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News, Muskingum College

Despite the wave of political rhetoric flying around calling for an increase in college affordability and availability, both might have become ever harder for the average student borrower today.

Sallie Mae, the nation's largest private student lender, is replacing its signature loan with a shorter-term version that requires students to make interest payments while still being in school.

Sallie Mae's chief lending officer Jack Hewes claims the upside is that the cost of a private student loan will be cut by about 40 percent. Repayment terms are also cut from 15 to 30 years to now five to 15 years.

Another upside, is that despite being on a shorter term, the monthly bills upon graduation wouldn't rise dramatically because the interest payments students will make while in school would avoid negative amortization - or the loan balance growing because of deferred interest.

In 2006 - 2007, around 60 percent of bachelor's degree recipients borrowed to fund their education. The average debt per borrower rose 18 percent from $19,300 to $22,700 in 2007 and average debt per bachelor's degree recipient increased from $10,600 to $12,400.

Sallie Mae gives the following example of how the loans, to be available in the 2009-2010 school year, will work for a student borrowing $17,000 over two years:

For the first semester of freshman year, the student would pay $40 a month. That figure would rise each semester reaching $160 by the second semester of sophomore year. The $160 monthly payments would continue until graduation.

Once out of school, the student would owe only the principal of $17,000.

This would be paid off over the next six years at $328 a month. Under the previous setup, the student would have repaid the money over 15 years at $250 a month.

The new requirement will lower the total cost of the loan to $28,000, compared with the previous $45,000.

Why do this? The interest payments from students while they're in school improves cash flow for the company. The loans are also less risky because families that can't pay while in school are weeded out. The company expects its default rate to take a big drop. The last fiscal quarter, 4.5 percent of the company's private student loans defaulted.

The company predicts that it will issue between $5.5 billion and $6 billion - down from $6.3 billion last year.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Survey Shows More Claiming "No Religion"

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-10T11:51:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Religion, Breaking News, Notre Dame

"One nation under God" might still be accurate, but more of those "under God" are claiming to belong to "no religion" than were twenty years ago.

The American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., reported that 75 percent of Americans call themselves Christians, down from 86 percent in 1990.

I don't think it's time to panic yet that Americans are losing God, or at least the Christian God. If this economic downturn keeps up, I think a lot more Americans will find Him. Or go to church to find Him.

The survey, conducted between February and November of 2008, found that the percentage of Americans claiming no religion jumped to 15 percent from 2001, when it was 14.2 percent. (The percentage of Americans who claimed no religion was 8.2 percent in 1990.)

According to the survey's press release, the jump in the percentage from 2001 to 2008, give the estimated growth of the American population from 207 million to 228 million, reflects an additional 4.7 million claiming no religion. The survey reported that Northern New England has surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious section of the country, with Vermont, at 34 percent claiming no religion, leading all other states by nine points.

The survey found that the percentage of Catholics in the United States has remained steady at about one in four since 1990.

The Muslim populations has grown from .3 percent in 1990 to .5 percent in 2001 to .6 percent in 2008.

Mark Silk of Trinity College told CNN it has become more socially acceptable than it once was to admit having no religion.

"You're not declaring yourself a total pariah," he said. "The culture has changed in a way that makes it easier to say, 'No, I don't have a religion.' Even in the past year, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama feel obliged to talk about 'those of no faith.'" CNN added that Obama mentioned people without faith in his inaugural address in January.

Silk said the the rise in those giving the "no religion" answer is the only trend the survey shows across every single state.

"One nation under God?" Yes. One nation of church-going, collections-donating individuals? Maybe less than 20 years ago.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Carly Fiorina "Considering" Bid to Oust Barbara Boxer in 2010

Joshua Sharp — 2009-02-21T19:36:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, Breaking News, USC

SACRAMENTO, CA -- Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina indicated today that she might seek the Republican nomination in 2010 to challenge incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

In a meeting with California College Republicans, Fiorina acknowledged that she is "considering a run for Barbara Boxer's seat" in the U.S. Senate. The room of young Republicans erupted with applause at the mention of Boxer's name. The Senate Democrat is a staunch liberal and the subject of much ire in conservative circles.
The California Republican Party Convention this weekend is playing host to a number of 2010 hopefuls. The halls are covered with competing campaign posters for California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, both of whom have started exploratory committees for a possible gubernatorial primary bid.

Poizner also spoke to the College Republicans, calling California's special-session budget deal "one of the worst pieces of public policy" in recent history and citing his own record of cutting the insurance department's budget by 10 percent.

The mood at the convention is a combination of angst and optimism. Two others who spoke at the College Republicans meeting, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (who has declared his candidacy for Sen. Boxer's seat) and California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring, engaged in a friendly competition over who had more Facebook friends and Twitter followers.

DeVore is ahead, with over 1,500 Twitter followers and almost 3,000 Facebook friends, but the anecdote speaks to the Party's understanding that a technological revolution is necessary to secure electoral victories.

Meghan McCain will be pleased to know that all is not lost.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Bush Actually Not Nation's Worst President, Historians Say

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-02-19T21:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, Notre Dame

For all the Bush bashers out there who say George W. was the worst president America has ever had, hold up. C-SPAN has a rebuttal.

C-SPAN, the cable television network devoted to televising government proceedings, released its Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership a few days ago in honor of Presidents' Day.

According to the votes of 65 presidential historians, George W. Bush was the country's 36th best president. That would make him, with 42 presidents total in U.S. history, the 7th worst president.

So don't call him the worst, at least for now. Unless you are willing to tango with 65 historians who together say otherwise.

Bob Woodward,one of the journalists who covered the Nixon Watergate scandal for The Washington Post, once asked Bush how history would judge the Iraq War. "History," Bush responded. "We don't know. We'll all be dead."

He'd probably be surprised to see this survey. (By the way, Nixon was ranked 27th overall).

After the jump, let's take a look at the rest of the list.Everyone's favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, came in first, followed by George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. James Buchanan came in last, at 42.

The historians also ranked the presidents in terms of 10 leadership characteristics. Bush didn't do that well on the rest of the tests, but Bush-bashers, let it be known, he was never the worst.

In the area of public persuasion, Bush was ranked 30th. FDR was first and James Buchanan last.

In the area of moral authority, Bush was 35th, George Washington was first and Buchanan last.

In the area of relations with Congress, Bush was 36th, FDR was first, and Andrew Johnson was last.

In the area of performance within the context of time, Bush was 36th, Lincoln first and James Buchanan last.

In the area of crisis leadership, Bush was 25th, Lincoln first and Buchanan last.

In the area of vison/ setting an agenda, Bush was 25th, Lincoln was first, and Buchanan last.

In the area of economic management, Bush was 40th, Washington was first and Buchanan last.

In the area of administrative skills, Bush was 37th, Washington was first and William Henry Harrison last.

In the area of pursued equal justice for all, Bush was 24th, Lincoln was first and Buchanan last.

In the area of international relations, Bush was 41, George Washington was first and William Henry Harrison last.

William Henry Harrison died after 32 days in office, so is it really fair to count him? I don't think so.

Bush bashers, if you want to say Bush was the worst president in the area of international relations, I'll let that slide.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Analyzing the Facebook Terms Skirmish

Tony Romm — 2009-02-18T13:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News, News, Media, American University

After Facebook quietly introduced a new Terms of Service (TOS) agreement that would have allowed the 175 million-strong social network to retain licenses on user content even after those profiles have been deleted, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has decided to recant those changes, citing considerable user dissatisfaction (see Kaitlynn Riely's prior Bright Hall coverage here and here).

According to Mashable, a Web 2.0 media blog, the social network's primary error introducing the revisions was its tactics, not its specific terms edits. Recalling the site's controversial redesign last year, against which the Facebook community struggled fruitlessly, the site posited that, "Facebook has done a poor job of communicating the changes, leaving Zuckerberg on the defense instead of proactively keeping users informed on potentially controversial moves the company is making." Mashable did add, however, that it was highly unlikely Facebook would have used its questionable "permalicense" condition maliciously.

While Facebook contemplates a more appealing TOS reconfiguration, Zuckerberg has created a Facebook group to cull user feedback -- the Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsbilities (login required). According to the group page, "This group is for people to give input on Facebook's terms of use. These terms are meant to serve as the governing document for how the service is used by people around the world."Already, more than 44,000 users have joined the effort, a sizable fraction of which has shared such TOS suggestions as closing Facebook groups to religions, permitting photos of breastfeeding mothers, installing new user age limits and -- as Zuckerberg predicted in his open letter -- opening Facebook to other social networks and Web services.

The latter concern especially, Zuckerberg said, presents immense legal and logistical challenges to the ever-expanding social network (and its current, rolled-back TOS): "People want full ownership and control of their information... At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them-like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on-to other services and grant those services access to those people's information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with."

Facebook, surprisingly, has already attempted such a system: Facebook Connect, a ramped-up version of the API Facebook previously introduced for third-party application developers. According to TechCrunch, "[Facebook Connect] will allow users to "connect" their Facebook identity, friends and privacy to any website. Third party websites will be able to implement and offer more features of the Facebook Platform off of Facebook - the same features available to third party applications today...." A handful of Web communities, including MyWorkster -- a more social LinkedIn -- have already applied this new, experimental Facebook service to their online communities, albeit with mixed (and vastly unreported) success.

Yet, for the new technology to work on a larger scale, Zuckerberg hinted, Facebook must revise its TOS -- and, as such, edit its licensing policy. As Mashup explains, "with Facebook Connect in place, it's likely that Facebook simply must do this in order to avoid possible lawsuits over content that isn't even stored by them anymore." The network expansion for which users have long pined, in other words, is not plausible under the current TOS agreement.

But persuading users this trade-off is necessary might prove considerably more difficult than first anticipated. In a CNET poll (posted on Facebook earlier this week), 56 percent of respondents indicated they wanted the social network to revise its "permalicense," if not altogether quash the idea. A more telling 38 percent answered "I don't know." No matter what the reply, though, Facebook must still convince its 175 million users en masse that lateral expansion and increased Web integration is worth the weight in lost content licenses. And that rationale, presumably, is going to require more than just an open letter and subsequent Facebook group to sell.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Stimulus Signed, Sealed ... Delivered? Not For Years

Joshua Chaney — 2009-02-17T20:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, News, The Economy, Muskingum College

MSNBC's David Shuster - a self-described neutral journalist - discussed President Obama's bill-signing ceremony on his extremely partisan show, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, with a segment called "Signed, Sealed, Delivered."

He even had the similarly titled Stevie Wonder song playing during the segment. It was rather cute.

The problem of course is that Obama's stimulus for the most part won't be "delivered" anytime soon.

Portions of the $787 billion stimulus bill, which the White House estimates will save or create 3.5 million jobs, will take years to effect the U.S. economy.
A report by the Congressional Budget Office - the same group that estimated the stimulus would hurt the U.S. economy more in the long run than doing nothing - found that less than half of the money allocated for infrastructure and other so-called discretionary programs would be spent before Oct. 1, 2010.

Economists are predicting that the package will be most effective to the economy in 2010, and Obama admitted that recovery would take some time.

He also suggested that more is to come. Before he signed the bill, he said the stimulus "doesn't constitute all we're going to have to do to turn our economy around."

On Wednesday, the president will travel to Arizona to to unveil his plan to spend more money helping millions of homeowners fend off home mortgage foreclosures.

"We owe it to ... every single American to act with a sense of urgency and common purpose," Obama said back in January. "We can't afford distractions and we can't afford delays..."

Urgency indeed. So urgent, in fact, that Obama waited four days and traveled over half way across the country to sign it.

Then again, if nothing is going to be delivered for years, why rush?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Stimulate This, McCain Tells Obama

Joshua Chaney — 2009-02-07T16:47:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, Muskingum College

Sen. John McCain had a few words for his formal rival in response to Obama's temper tantrum the night before: chill out.

Obama ditched his beloved teleprompter at a Democratic pep rally Thursday night In Williamsburg, VA, to instead mock Republicans criticism of the bill as just another spending bill saying, "What do you think a stimulus bill is? That's the whole point. No, seriously, that's the point."

Evidently still a bit high on himself from the big win and inauguration, Obama must have realized that there are really people who don't agree with him on absolutely everything. This whole being-president thing is a bit harder than he must have thought it would be.

McCain, in what was his first jab at Obama since the campaigning, responded sounding extra maverickey.

"The whole point, Mr. President, is to enact tax cuts and spending measures that truly stimulate the economy," McCain said. "There are billions and tens of billions of dollars in this bill which have no effect within three, four, five or more years, or ever. Or ever."

Obama also spoke Thursday of the necessity for Republicans (to borrow a line from Steve Winwood) to just roll with it, baby.

"Here's the point I'm making. This package is not going to be absolutely perfect and you can nit and you can pick," he said. "That's the game we all play here. What I'm saying is we can't afford to play that game. We've got to pull together."

Translation: There is indeed wasteful spending in this $1 trillion bill that you won't like. But instead of debating, I need you to submit and join my fan club of yes-sayers immediately. Afterall, I need to keep some of the promises I made during my campaign. I'm Barack Obama. Trust automatically I know what's best.

Most would probably rather see this thing debated and reviewed. Spending $1 trillion with the deficit we face probably shouldn't be a decision we make in a day -- or a week for that matter.

In fact the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office believes that Obama's stimulus package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he would doing nothing.

That's not a typo -- the nonpartisan budgetary folks think spending $1 trillion will hurt more than spending $0.

Case closed? No way. The Democrats' proverbial runaway spending train is full steam ahead and Obama says you better jump on board before it's too late. It would seem there's no turning back.

Lets just hope the train doesn't jump the tracks.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Be Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-02-05T08:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, News, Media, Notre Dame

Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again.

The former vice president hasn't been seen in public since Inauguration Day, when he was rolling around in a wheelchair due to an injury sustained lifting boxes. But a few days ago, he gave an interview to Politico, in which he warns there is a "high probability" that terrorists will attack with biological or nuclear weapons in the next few years. He worries that now that his boss is out of office and back in Texas, the Obama administration policies will make the attacks more likely to succeed.

"When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to doing anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry," Cheney said.

I think he's just worried we are not worrying enough now that he's not there to worry us.

But for all his worrying, Cheney is a confident man. Saturday Night Live recently mocked Dick Cheney, parodying him as a man with no regrets from his often-controversial eight years in the Bush administration. He told Politico he still thinks Guantanamo is a "first-class program" and said he believes one day files will be made public that show that policies like waterboarding were directly responsible for preventing another Sept. 11-like attack.

Cheney reminds me of another SNL creation: Debbie Downer.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

GOP's First Black Chairman Annoying GOP's Racists

Matt Negrin — 2009-02-01T21:20:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Culture, Breaking News, Boston University

It ain't the best time to be a white supremacist.

As if the inauguration of the country's first black president isn't enough to make you yearn for the days of Jim Crow and racially divided water fountains, the Republican Party sure isn't helping by electing the first black chairman of its national committee.

Michael Steele, black and a former Maryland lieutenant governor, took the helm of the RNC last week. Certainly his victory was propelled by Barack Obama's election, although the GOP's rife racist bloc is sick of all this change and equality.

David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and Republican congressman from Louisiana, called Steele -- or "Obama Junior" -- a "radical Black racist" who will spur the majority of Republicans to leave the party and start their own (presumably racist) political group.

Duke claims to have told a Washington Post reporter, "I am glad these traitorous leaders of the Republican Party appointed this Black racist, affirmative action advocate to the head of the Republican party because this will lead to a huge revolt among the Republican base," as posted on his website.

He continues: "As a former Republican official, I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore! We will either take the Republican Party back over the next four years or we will say, 'To Hell With the Republican Party!' And we will take 90 percent of Republicans with us into a New Party that will take its current place!"

I'm going to go ahead and call this bluff straight up. Ninety percent of Republicans are going to leave the party and join your hate-filled mayonnaise fete, huh, Duke? How'd that work out for you when you served in the U.S. House 20 years ago?

Maybe I shouldn't be so pessimistic. In Duke's many losing political campaigns, he garnered heavy populations of white voters. In 1991, when he ran for governor of Louisiana, he took 671,000 votes in a runoff with the former governor of the state. He lost, but claimed, "I won my constituency. I won 55 percent of the white vote."

And of course there's no denying some Americans' rampant racism today. Politico's Ben Smith called the Republicans' "real committed racists" a "small, but real and voting, minority."

You can see it in people like Jeremiah Wright, or the skinheads who plotted to kill Obama during the campaign, or even in some readers of this very blog, including one who commented about Obama, "He should be nervous with every sniper in the country after his black ass."

Grand wizard or not, some people just can't change.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Steele Wins! "Change" Coming to the Republican Party

Joshua Sharp — 2009-01-30T16:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, USC

Exit, another old white guy. Enter, Michael Steele.

The Republican National Committee took a major step toward rebuilding its brand with growing voter groups by electing former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele as chairman Friday. The five-man race whittled down in later rounds to two choices: one, an articulate, more moderate conservative and African American who had won in a left-leaning state (Steele); and the other, a white Republican from the South who belonged to an all-white country club until he began running for RNC chair (South Carolina's Katon Dawson).

Frankly, I'm a bit insulted the election was so close. It took six rounds of voting for Steele to squeak past Dawson and achieve a simple majority, 91 votes out of 168 total.

But Steele's election provides the Republican Party with a talented communicator and a fresh new face for conservative ideals. Steele will undoubtedly become an even more popular booking on the Sunday morning talk shows, with plenty of experience in that medium. And he seemed to be the popular choice among young Republicans, dominating many of my Republican friends' Facebook status updates in recent weeks and the only name mentioned at a recent USC College Republicans meeting.

Steele has also appeared on The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert's Comedy Central fixture popular among many politically-savvy youth. And while I'm not sure it swung the election, he was also a key part of my "Grand New Party: Ways to Win" series.

Said the outgoing chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan, the aforementioned old white guy referenced at the top of this post: "The winds of change are blowing at the RNC."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Will Bush Be Tried as a War Criminal?

Adam Kirchner — 2009-01-23T01:01:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, International News, Towson University

Within the first 48 hours in office as the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama issued five executive orders, three of which effect the U.S. Naval Base and detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. In short: the Guantanamo Bay prison is to try or release all prisoners and close within a year.

The Guantanamo base became infamous during the term of Obama's predecessor for its circumvention of basic human and civil rights by indefinitely detaining roughly 800 people, only three of whom were convicted of a crime in a court of law (although not an international court), and subjecting them to cruel and unusual punishment. Basically, under the direction of then-Commander in Chief Bush, the United States Armed Forces captured hundreds of people from around the world, locked them up for however long they wanted, for whatever reason they wanted, without granting those detained individuals the right to prove their innocence.

The Washington Post reported on January 14, 2009 that Susan Crawford, the senior-most authority on Guantanamo military commissions, labeled interrogation methods at Guantanamo Bay as "torture." This is problematic since the United States ratified the United Nations' Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture a decade and a half ago.

The United States agreed that committing torture = bad. The United States (under the steady guidance of George W. Bush) committed torture. The United States (under the steady guidance of George W. Bush) = bad.

George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley has taken a hard line in public statements regarding Bush and his administration's activities: "If you go abroad and try to travel, most people abroad are going to view you, not as former President George Bush. They will view you as a current war criminal." Obama's executive orders underscore this condemnation of the United States' 21st-century detention practices.

Will George W. Bush become the first former-president of the United States tried as an international war criminal? Will the United States grant fundamental human and civil rights to humans? Stay tuned as these questions and more will be answered in the next four to eight years!

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Inauguration Week Not Without Bush Bashing

Joshua Chaney — 2009-01-20T20:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, National News, News, Muskingum College

A day meant to be one of renewal and unity did not go without a final word from Bush-bashers.

A part of the crowd on the west side of the capitol mocked President George W. Bush, chanting "Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, good-bye" as he took to the inaugural stage next to his outgoing vice-president, The Hill reported Tuesday.

Left-leaning groups made several special efforts to get parting shots at Bush with several failed attempts to hold rallies. One group, AfterDowningStreet.org, planned to throw shoes at the outgoing president Monday.

Throwing shoes isn't even enough anymore nor is the fact that Bush isn't even president anymore.

A coalition of activist groups planned an event called "Yes We Can Arrest Bush," in front of the FBI Building. The group is a part of a somewhat more serious effort to get now-President Obama to prosecute Bush and members of his administration for what they characterize as war crimes.

New York Times' Paul Krugman recently called for an inquest into the charges against the president. If we don't have one, it gives credit to the belief that those in power are above the law, he said.

"I'm sorry," Krugman wrote in his Times' column last week, "but if we don't have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years - and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama's remarks to mean that we won't - this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don't face any consequences if they abuse they're power."

The big party wasn't without its witty Hollywood celebrities as well. Denzel Washington, Usher and Oprah were on hand for the swearing-in. Known more for his role in major movies than his political prowess, Samuel L. Jackson added "We're part of the world community again," in an on-air interview with Access Hollywood.

Columnist Robert Shrum called the tendency of democrats to anticipate setback as a result of a "stolen" election in 2000 and close defeat in 2004 "Battered Liberal Syndrome," in his column today.

Currently, democrats are anticipating the "devaluation of last November's victory, a scenario in which progressive policy is undermined and Democratic dreams are once again deferred," Shrum said.

It almost seems the only thing deferred is the whole "unity" thing we've been talking about for months.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Students Pack Classrooms and Coffee Shops

Joshua Sharp — 2009-01-20T11:10:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Small Campus, Big Story, Breaking News, USC

Joshua Sharp is reporting live from the University of Southern California as students gather to watch today's inauguration ceremonies. Check back throughout the day for more updates and student reactions.

8:10am PST / 11:10am EST
The student coffeehouse Ground Zero is serving as the main watch party for USC students willing to wake up at this unseemly hour, and the room is already packed to capacity. USC professors Dan Schnur and Roberto Suro are opening a discussion at 8:30am, with a huge projection screen displaying a C-SPAN feed of the inaugural festivities. There is a palpable feeling of nervous excitement in the air.

Other watch parties are being held around campus, in apartments and in my COMM-375 Nonverbal Communication class. Next update coming from there...

9:06am PST / 12:06pm EST
Our 9:30am class has opened early to host a live watch party. A few chuckles after Obama stumbled through the oath of office, but his speech delivery is almost flawless so far... lots of proud smiles around the room.

9:45am PST / 12:45pm EST
Laughter in the classroom as CNN displays the temperature in Washington, D.C.: 28 degrees Fahrenheit, feels like 17 degrees.

Los Angeles today is overcast with a high of 75 degrees. It's a bit chilly inside for us, too, though: Someone left on the air conditioner...

9:52am PST / 12:52pm EST
It's odd to see President Obama and former President George W. Bush walking side-by-side as they exit the inauguration ceremonies. As I remarked in an earlier post, Dubya was the first president that my generation of college students have really ever known. Times, they are a'changing...

My initial reaction to Obama's succinct, powerful inaugural address? Three parts of the speech really stood out to me:

"Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things ... "

An early challenge to his critics:

"... [T]here are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done ..."

And, a passage that could easily be voiced by Bush 43:

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Share your comments below, and stay tuned for instant student reaction over the course of the day.

11:56am PST / 2:56pm EST
Either "The Speech" was overhyped or Trojans are just hard to impress, because my conversations with students and staff around campus indicate a lukewarm, almost indifferent reaction to Obama's inaugural address today.

"It was good," shrugged Tyler Deutsch, a senior majoring in communication who watched Obama's speech over the Internet while at work.

Other students and staff members said the speech wasn't exceptional, but that they felt at least "satisfied" and more interested in seeing how the Obama Administration's policies actually develop. One student said she still hadn't watched the speech, but would after classes today.

Everyone expressed awe at the historic nature of Obama's presidency, but the tepid responses to his speech surprised me. We knew the immense hype surrounding Obama's inauguration would make it difficult for Obama to match expectations, but my impression was that he delivered a sharp, forceful address and met all of his objectives. Post your thoughts in the Comments section below...

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments