Bright Hall

The Future of Student News

BH Staff — 2009-04-29T10:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, Media

Bright Hall has evolved, has a new home and a new name. We are now part of Politics Daily, "a political news magazine for the general reader updated every day, throughout the day...offering a thoughtful take on events." We're honored to be a part of this adventurous and forward-thinking site launch.

Henceforth, we will be know as The Cram, but our purpose remains consistent:

"The Cram is opinion and analysis from accomplished student writers at higher learning institutions across America, where the future of politics is taking shape every day over collegial debate and caffeinated study. Join us as we break down the news cycle with an eye on campus issues and enough energy to conquer any syllabus."

You will find your favorite writers and new faces on The Cram, as well as a beat on the topics that interest you most. This week we've covered the continued controversy over Notre Dame's selection of President Obama as this year's commencement speaker, how the New York State budget is aversely effecting the state's student population, the continued towering tuition increases at our nation's universities, an exclusive speech made by the Bush Administration official who deemed waterboarding legal, and, right now, we're tweeting live from Obama's "100th Day" town hall in St. Louis.

We hope you'll continue to follow us in our new form. We promise to deliver the same brand of insightful campus coverage that you came back for.

The Editors

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?

Matt Negrin — 2009-04-26T17:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Boston University, Media

Matt Negin is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.

But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.

That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.

Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)

But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?

Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).

For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.

Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.

One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.

These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'Waterboarding Memo' Author Speaks to College Republicans

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-26T00:36:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, USC

Joshua Sharp is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

Former Bush Administration official John Yoo, author of several Justice Department memos determining waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be legal, addressed the California College Republicans as the keynote speaker at their statewide convention in San Francisco this weekend.

Author's note: In addition to political commentary, I'm a member of the USC College Republicans. Views posted here are my own.

Two dozen protesters gathered outside the Hyatt Fisherman's Wharf hotel where the convention was being held, holding signs calling Yoo a war criminal as they chanted, "Jail John Yoo!"

Yoo was actually remarkably soft-spoken compared to the protesters outside. He described his background and his support of key Bush Administration policies, saying, "Sometimes in war, you have to take pre-emptive action to stop someone from trying to harm our country." He pointed out that al-Qaeda had deliberately targeted civilians on Sept. 11, not combatants or military troops.

Putting perspective on enhanced interrogation techniques, Yoo said the United States interrogates detainees "not because we're trying to get a confession [for use in the courts], we're trying to get information to prevent the next attack."

Yoo closed with a question: "Were those policies successful?" It's been almost eight years since 9/11, he said, and our nation has not seen another domestic terrorist attack "because of the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies."

Yoo also encouraged young conservatives to "have the courage of your convictions" and engage in free speech and open debate with "the people who would shout you down."

Earlier in the day, hundreds of College Republicans took to the streets of San Francisco for an anti-bailout "Tea Party" protest, holding signs with slogans like, "You keep your Hope, I'll keep my Change."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Former Space Man Talks Politics, Accomplishments

Joshua Chaney — 2009-04-23T17:28:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Culture, The Economy, Muskingum College

Perhaps one of the most distinguished and certainly one of the most recognizable people in American history spoke humbly of his life accomplishments and reviewed Obama's first 100 days earlier this month.

On April 9, 2009 - 50 years ago this month - John Glenn was named a member of the Mercury 7, the United States' first astronauts. Glenn grew up in the village of New Concord - a small, college town in southeastern Ohio. He was a member of the village band and eventually a student at Muskingum College.

Since those days, his name has been one that is familiar to most anyone. He was a fighter pilot, a test pilot, one of America's first astronauts, the first man to orbit earth in space, an Ohio senator, a presidential candidate and later the oldest man to fly in space.

"It's hard for me to believe it's been that long," he said. "Part of that is because it seems to vivid to me."

One thing made clear by speaking with Glenn is his keen interest in politics and history. In fact, Glenn, a former Ohio Senator from 1974 to 1999, ran for president in 1984 but was unsuccessful. A close friend of the Kennedy family, Glenn was with Robert Kennedy when President John Kennedy was assassinated in Texas.

Glenn campaigned for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 and President Barack Obama in 2008. Glenn has said Obama is "doing an exceptional job" dealing with America's economic crisis.

"I can't speak with any certainty about the economy, because nobody knows what's going to happen, and I think we had to do something because this was the biggest drift down since the Great Depression."
Glenn's father was a plumber without work during those days. Eventually, Glenn explained, he found work through Roosevelt's Work Projects Administration program.

"There were things like that that really primed the pump and helped things and it took awhile," he said. "We didn't recover for many years after that"

Pundits have already started rating and reviewing Obama's first 100 days in office with mixed reviews.

"I think he had to do something and I certainly hope this works," Glenn said. "What he's doing to try and prime the pump now is running up an enormous national debt that we're going to have to deal with, but that's something I think he had to do. I don't think we could let this thing go the way it was. Even in just the last few weeks here I've noticed in the papers and magazines a lot of talk now about that this is a recovery that is starting and things like that and I certainly hope it's true."

Glenn's service was marked most notably for his work in foreign policy. While in office, Glenn was the chief author of the 1978 Nonproliferation Act and served as the chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1987 until 1995, and sat on the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees.

"I think his first foray into foreign policy in Europe and Turkey and those areas has been a big success from everything I can read," Glenn said.

Obama's effort to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons in the world "strikes a very responsive cord with me because that was one of the areas I worked very hard on all the time I was in the Senate, nuclear nonproliferation."

Glenn serves on Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, which he explained has met for more than a year, toured various nuclear development locations around the country, and is to decide whether or not the current military weaponry arsenal is adequate or can be adjusted.

Sen. Glenn is an adjunct professor of political science at the Ohio State University, where he helped establish the John Glenn School of Public Affairs, a wing he started in 1998 to encourage public service.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Debate over Interrogation Tactics Continues

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-21T08:43:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, News, Notre Dame

President Obama is making a mistake by not pursuing any prosecutions for those responsible for the harsh interrogation techniques that were used during the Bush administration.

Last week, I posted a blog piece about the legal memos released by the Justice Department that detailed the interrogation techniques used by the United States on people suspected of involvement in terrorist acts or planning. Obama reportedly agonized over the release of the memos, weighing whether their release was necessary for transparency of government or whether releasing the memos would compromise the security of the United States.

When he did release them, he announced that those who had carried out the torture, believing their actions were lawful, would not be subject to prosecution.

George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC's "This Week," asked White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on Sunday whether the president also ruled out prosecution for the officials who devised the torture polices.

Emanuel responded: "He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided."

Stephanopoulos followed up with the same question.

"Yeah, but those who devised the policy, he believes that they were, should not be prosecuted either," Emanuel said.

Obama visited the Central Intelligence Agency Monday to thank agents for their service and to offer reassurance about the after effects of the release of the memos.

"Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes," Obama said. "That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA."

If the policy in place before was a mistake, if it was wrong, if it was torture, how can we just "move forward" without anyone facing retribution for their actions, or for what they allowed to happen?

If there's no penalty for breaking the U.S. law against torture, the law will be hard to enforce in the future. News sources have reported that two captured al Qaeda operatives were subjected to waterboarding 266 times. If waterboarding is torture, then the law has been broken, and someone, or multiple people, must face the consequences.

A day after Emanuel's interview, The New York Times reported that White House aides did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush-era lawyers who legally justified using the harsh interrogation techniques.

The change to U.S. interrogation policy is a good step forward, but if Obama allows those who developed the interrogation policy used under the Bush administration to go unpunished, then the United States' past mistakes will not be fully corrected, and our moral standing in the world will be questionable.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

No Handshakes Allowed, Mr. President!

Matt Negrin — 2009-04-21T02:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, International News, Boston University

The president of the United States may be the most powerful person in the world, but there are still things he's not allowed to do -- like trade stocks while knowing insider information, or throw Naked Thursday dinner parties at the White House.

Now, add to those taboos shaking hands with leaders of certain countries.

It was only recently at the G-20 summit that Barack Obama was "bending his tall frame" to the king of Saudi Arabia. But on Friday, Obama shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at a summit in Trinidad and Tobago.

As the fair and balanced network Fox News objectively told us in a headline, "Handshake With Obama Belies Chavez's Contempt for America."

And Dick Cheney, who like Santa Claus apparently has a list of things that are naughty and nice, told that same award-wanting news network that the handshake "was not helpful."

The Angler added, "I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they're dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America's interests."

So there you have it, Obama. Be very careful. Next time a foreign leader who says bad things about the United States reaches out his hand to extend diplomatic politeness, you know what to do.

The snub.

There are several ways to effectively perform a snub. The first, and most obvious, is to ignore the outstretched hand of the anti-American figurehead. You stand there, and you say something nice, like, "Nice to see you." If it gets awkward, take a drink of whatever's in the glass you should always be carrying for situations like this.

But this is the Venezuelan president, the man who Fox News kindly reminds us called the United States four years ago the most "murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world." A simple snub won't do; you need finesse. Take one out of the junior-high playbook and reach out to shake Big Hugo's hand, then spike it up in the air and comb it past the back of your head, exclaiming, "Psyche!"

Another good phrase to yell is, "Not!!"

If he tries it again, use the King Cobra: Stare him down until his hand starts twitching, then jut your head and torso forward abruptly and pull it back. Give out a, "What?!"

That'll teach Chavez not to call capitalism "the devil."

Update: Jimmy Fallon and I evidently share a sense of humor (view the April 20 monologue).

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Miss California & The Gay Rights Thought Police

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-20T20:22:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, USC, News

OMG! Miss California is a social conservative!

Last night, the Miss USA pageant was held -- unbeknownst to me, since all I know about pageants is what I've seen in Little Miss Sunshine. Near the end of the pageant, celebrity judge Perez Hilton was tasked with asking one question of then-frontrunner Miss California Carrie Prejean. He decided to lob a question about one of the most politically controversial issues of our time; Prejean's response may have cost her the title:

Hilton: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?"

Prejean: "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."

Now, most politicians don't like answering that divisive question in front of a split audience, and typically squirm while doing so. For Prejean to have the courage to (even somewhat inarticulately) frame the issue as a state-by-state choice while acknowledging her honest personal beliefs, I think, shows a lot of strength and reflects well on her character.

But the beauty pageant judges were aghast at Prejeans' lack of political correctness, and retribution was swift.

"I think it did lose her the crown," Hilton said today on MSNBC. On a webcast posted late Sunday night, he ranted against Prejean, saying, "She lost not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage; she lost because she's a dumb b****."

More from Hilton: "... [T]hat is not the kind of woman I want to be Miss USA. There's a difference between running for president and being a beauty queen.

"A president is affiliated with a political party, that political party has ideologies, they are in favor with or against. A beauty queen, a beauty pageant queen, Miss USA, should represent all Americans. And with her answer, she instantly was divisive and alienated millions of gays and lesbians, their family, their friends, and supporters."

I have a much simpler answer: Why not avoid the hot-button issue during a beauty pageant in the first place? By asking that provocative question, Hilton was giving Miss California an ultimatum: answer correctly, or risk the crown.

Hilton claims no political bias, saying, "I was not upset or frustrated with her disagreeing with me about gay marriage. I was just upset and frustrated with how she answered the question."

Um, that's essentially the same thing.

Regardless of one's personal views on the issue, and whether we agree or disagree with Prejean's opinion, it's extremely troubling to see someone answer a question honestly -- articulating a viewpoint consistent with roughly half of the voters in her home state -- only to be punished by those who disagree.

It is hypocritical to fight for freedom of speech and freedom of expression if one has no tolerance for those with opposing views, and I am deeply concerned by the gay rights movement's overall decision post-Prop 8 to begin blacklisting political opponents out of anger and vengefulness.

Let's cut out the litmus test, and leave politics in the political arena.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

U.S. Cabinet to Eliminate Dozens of Government Programs

Adam Kirchner — 2009-04-19T13:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Money, Towson University

President Barack Obama announced an initiative to reduce "wasteful" government spending in his weekly address on Saturday.

"Billions are squandered on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a lobbyist or interest group," Obama said.

An agenda topic at Monday's first full Cabinet meeting will be budget cut proposals from each federal department and agency.

In his Saturday address, Obama named two specific budget cuts recently made: firstly, the Department of Homeland Security is no longer spending $3 million on logo updates. The DHS was created less than 7 years ago and the reason that the logo needed a $3 million update so soon remains to be seen.

The second budget cut is the saving of an estimated "hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful spending and cost overruns" in the Department of Defense. According to the DoD's FY 2008 Agency Financial Report, the Department's available resources were $1.1 trillion, which primarily consisted of $736.4 billion in appropriations. The net cost of operations was $676 billion. A possible budget cut is no longer appropriating $736.4 billion to tally $1.1 trillion in resources when net operating costs are only $676 billion.

Obama pledged to announce "the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective. In this effort, there will be no sacred cows, and no pet projects."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Espionage: Iran's New Word for, 'We Got Nothing'

Matt Negrin — 2009-04-19T08:51:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, International News, Boston University, Media

It's difficult to take a country's court system seriously when it convicts defendants in secret trials. It also doesn't help when the president of that country is a Holocaust denier and suspected terrorist. And it really doesn't look professional to accuse the defendant -- a journalist -- of "espionage" without providing a single piece of real evidence.

But such is the perplexing case of Roxana Saberi, the Iranian-American reporter who was convicted of spying by Iran's shady court this week. The prosecutors accused the 31-year-old journalist of passing along secret information to U.S. intelligence agencies.

Spying is a pretty serious career choice, not to mention time-consuming. For Saberi to successfully spy on the Iranian government, she would have to maintain a cover, make contacts and stay under the radar for most of the six years that she's lived in the country (at least, according to the Spy Museum tour I took in D.C.).

So if suspected spy Saberi was supposed to lay low, why was she filing dozens of stories each month for news organizations like the BBC, NPR and Fox? In June 2007, she was on the front line in Tehran when Iranians burned down gas stations in opposition to fuel rationing. And she was on the scene when the Islamic country banned women from soccer games the year before, too.

Either Roxana Saberi is a terrible spy, or she's not a spy at all.

That might explain why the Iranian government first arrested her on the charge of buying a bottle of wine. They continued to hold her by claiming that she wasn't a real journalist like she claimed because she didn't have press credentials. Well, that's true -- because Iran's government had revoked her press pass in 2006.

But maybe the Iranian government does have a case after all. As revealed by a simple Google search that I can only imagine is the sole tool Iran's prosecutors used, Saberi told the U.S. government two years ago detailed information about Iranian weapons. Prepare for damning evidence:

Specifically, she mentioned "missiles that are hard to track with radar, super-fast torpedoes recently tested in war games, and other domestically produced weapons" in addition to its "tanks, armoried personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane."

But when I say that Saberi told the U.S. government about those weapons, I mean that she told anyone who was listening to NPR -- or even Iran, which was boasting its weapons as part of its annual Army Day Parade when she reported that story. So scratch that line of argument.

So if it's nearly impossible to make the case that Saberi is a spy, why did Iran charge her with "espionage?" Aren't there other serious crimes to commit against the Iranian government, like celebrating Passover, or acknowledging the Holocaust, or buying a bottle of wine? According to Saberi's father, the charges were so ludicrous that she had to be "tricked" into confessing.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that she's "deeply disappointed" in the ruling. I'm going to have to agree -- disappointed in the lack of creativity on Iran's part.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Tea Parties: Conservatives' New Media Launch?

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-19T00:20:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, USC, Media

The "tax day tea parties" this week marked arguably the most visible sign of a conservative uprising since before Bush 43's presidency, with over 300,000 estimated attendees across nearly 350 cities nationwide.

But the larger impact embodied by these protests is a bit more subtle: It shows that conservatives have discovered new media in a very powerful way.

Political campaigns of all ideological viewpoints have long gathered e-mail lists of supporters and built professionally-designed websites to serve as their online presence. But only recently has the Internet evolved to serve as a global town hall, with activists uploading pictures and videos from events held around the world, and networking tool, with registered organizers pooling resources and sharing plans.

In the last election season, both Barack Obama and John McCain created social networking sites and event registration tools in addition to Facebook pages and a YouTube channel. The Obama campaign was more successful with these tools for a variety of reasons (younger base of supporters, ridiculous talent on staff), but the online media landscape is changing so rapidly that conservatives have a real chance at surpassing the most impressive techniques of the '08 cycle.

Beyond the ideological debate behind Wednesday's protests, the fact remains that hundreds of events, sometimes thousands of miles apart, were linked together by the power of social media, as organizers coordinated events online and exchanged pictures (video, stories, etc.) afterward.

More on new media after the jump...
Politico's Jonathan Martin co-moderated a panel Wednesday -- the same day as the tea parties -- with USC Unruh Institute of Politics director Dan Schnur on "Political Organizing in the Internet Age." I served as a panelist alongside some more experienced campaign experts; here are a few highlights:

- Message still paramount. Almost every panelist agreed that campaigns must use new media to reinforce an established, compelling campaign message. Creating an account on Twitter is useless if it does not engage the campaign's followers in a unique and ongoing way.

- 'Day-to-day combat.' Modern campaigns now have to hire extra staff to manage the 24-hour chatter generated by blogs and online news sites like Politico, said Jennifer Palmieri, senior VP of communications at the Center for American Progress. Leslie Miller, senior communications director at Obama for America, noted that Obama's "bitter" comment went viral on a late Friday afternoon, when campaign staff would normally be winding down from a long week. Instead, the campaign was forced into a flurry of action.

The instantaneous speed of modern messaging creates both a challenge and opportunity in the "day-to-day combat" of contemporary politics, added Adam Mendelsohn, former communications director for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Though harmful news can spread like wildfire, a campaign's response can be delivered just as rapidly through similar channels.

- Endless opportunities... to succeed, and to stumble. Palmieri suggested that new media makes each individual interview less important, but I disagreed, noting that George Allen is no longer a presidential contender after a certain "macaca" moment, and Sarah Palin's turkey pardon interview is permanently embedded in the public's memory, thanks to YouTube and other media outlets.

Toward the end of the panel discussion, Schnur pointed out that the former managing editor of USC's student newspaper, the Daily Trojan, was present and live-blogging for a new online media outlet run through the USC Annenberg journalism school. Her shift from print to online, Schnur said, was representative of a greater, global transformation.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Actress: Tea Protestors Were Redneck Racists

Joshua Chaney — 2009-04-17T23:17:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Culture, Media, Muskingum College

Don't like high taxes or runaway government spending? You're a dumb, redneck racist.

That's essentially what liberal actor Janeane Garofalo said on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night. She was prompted to give a response on the Tea Party protests after Olbermann ranted on about the protesters "seething with hate." This from Olbermann, who essentially built an entire show around an hour-long, hate-filled rant about then president George W. Bush.

Olbermann still rants about Bush in a daily segment each on his show - 100 days after Bush left office, mind you. At what point is he forced to give it up? Still somehow - after Olbermann had finished his numerous immature references to male genitals, which he evidently thought were funny - Garofalo upstaged Olbermann on who could be the nuttiest hypocrite on stage.

"You know there is nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry," she led off with. She went on to describe how none of the protesters could tell what the speakers were saying, or knew history at all.

"Let's be very honest about what this is about: It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about, they don't know their history at all. This was about hating a black man in the White House," she said pointing her finger. "This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks and there is no way around that."

She couldn't just leave it at that, no way! She had much more hate left before she would be ready to give up the floor.

"You can tell these type of right-wingers anything and they'll believe it except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire -- they become confused and angry and highly volatile...The limbic brain of a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist. Their limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person and it's pushing against the frontal lobe so their synapses are misfiring."

There is nothing that can be done to fix conservatives -- or just people who think they pay too much in taxes, she said, because it's about racism.

If you are concerned about runaway government spending, you evidently are an uneducated, brain damaged, redneck, racist who is unable to decipher truth from fiction.

Paul Begala got a little worked up over the tea protests on Imus in the Morning Wednesday as well saying that Tax Day was "the proudest, most patriotic day for 99 percent of Americans, that we have all year."

Are 99 percent of Americans really going to think of tax day as the most patriotic day of the year? Not in this lifetime. What about real patriotic days like July 4th, Armistice Day, Veterans Day, Memorial Day, etc.?

Begala went on to a call tea partiers "Wimpy, whining weasels" who "don't love their country."

One thing is certain: Begala and Garofalo didn't seem to have a problem with whining throughout the past eight years.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Conservative Filmmaker Tries To Get Arrested, Succeeds [Updated]

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-17T18:45:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, USC

John Ziegler is an idiot.

The conservative filmmaker/activist managed to get himself arrested Wednesday after trying to rile up opposition to a journalism award given to Katie Couric for her Sarah Palin interview. Now he's pushing a 20-minute video of his antics and subsequent arrest, claiming anti-conservative bias.

As a senior at the USC Annenberg School for Communication, I know almost everyone featured in the video, including the university officials, event organizers and campus police who Ziegler claims "literally abused" him. Not too surprisingly, Ziegler is wildly exaggerating what really happened:

In the days leading up to the event, Ziegler had announced his intention to protest the award. USC provided a gated space near the entrance of the event for demonstrators, but Ziegler and his film crew were the only ones to show up. So Ziegler started calling himself a journalist and demanding full access to the event.

Conveniently enough, a film crew is on hand to document Ziegler's plight, either brought by Ziegler or hired for the occasion. Ziegler, microphone in hand, repeatedly tries to get university officials to say something controversial, pouncing at every opportunity and offering slanted commentary to the camera.

Meanwhile, Zeigler still refuses to move to the area provided for visiting demonstrators, ten feet away. After putting up with Ziegler for nearly an hour, campus police tell Ziegler that he's made his point and is no longer welcome on campus. Of course, the university is well within its rights; Ziegler is standing on private property.

Ziegler cries foul and resists arrest, grunting, "You guys realize you're breaking all sorts of constitut-- I'm not gonna move!"

He's promptly escorted off campus. Feigning outrage, he went to Greta Van Susteren and Fox News for a softball interview so one-sided that it insults the journalism profession far more than any award.

The Drudge Report did its part by posting a link to the video, and Ziegler's website now reads: "I am simply shocked and horrified by what happened here, as should every freedom loving American. I did absolutely nothing wrong and I was handcuffed, detained and literally abused by law enforcement at the event."

What a joke.

Yes, the award was silly. But its actual title was "Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign." Though I don't think Couric deserves an award, it's a bit ridiculous to protest Annenberg for recognizing the national impact of the Couric interviews. Let's remember, Palin botched interviews on plenty of other occasions.

As I've said before about Zeigler, claims of liberal bias can usually be substantiated with the facts. As a registered Republican, I'm usually sympathetic to these claims. But Ziegler seems more intent on generating publicity stunts and manufactured outrage than actually serving any legitimate public interest.

It's an embarrassment to fellow conservatives.

* Update: USC Annenberg professor Marc Cooper writes on his personal blog that campus police responded poorly, but Ziegler showed up "hoping to goad the cops into action." Cooper also links to a revealing April 2005 profile of Ziegler in The Atlantic, which confirms some nagging suspicions about Ziegler's mental stability (remember the Nate Silver interview?).

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Announces $13 Billion Train Project

Adam Kirchner — 2009-04-17T00:11:00+00:00

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

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced a $13 billion high-speed American rail transit development project on Thursday.

The transportation project will be funded by an initial down payment of $8 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds and an additional $1 billion per year for five years, beginning with the 2010 budget.

Ten regional rail systems have been identified for the project: the California Corridor, the Pacific Northwest Corridor, the South Central Corridor, the Gulf Coast Corridor, the Chicago Hub Network, the Florida Corridor, the Southeast Corridor, the Keystone Corridor, the Empire Corridor and the Northern New England Corridor.

Amtrak, the passenger rail system founded in 1971, operates with revenue below expenses and receives an annually increasing federal subsidy reaching $6.3 million for fiscal year 2013, as mandated in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

Additionally, Amtrak received $1.3 billion of the 2009 ARRA funds.

The difference between the existing rail transit system that operates at a $6.3 million annual deficit and the proposed rail transit system which will presumably operate at a staggering deficit, as well, is that the new rail transit system will have 150-mile-per-hour trains. Why have one underutilized, operationally inadequate transit system when American travelers can have two that are rarely used?

Of course, the new $13 billion high-speed train system is meant to serve as a disincentive for American travelers to drive the 100,000 automobiles that the Obama Administration encouraged them to buy three weeks ago.

Spend lots of money on more cars, while already spending lots of money to subsidize one underutilized rail transit system, then spend lots of money to build another rail transit system, then stop driving the cars that cost lots of money and ride the new underutilized rail transit system that cost lots of money to build and costs lots of money to operate, instead, while there already was an underutilized transit system?

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

Help Us Find the 17 'Socialists' in Congress

Matt Negrin — 2009-04-09T23:33:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Boston University

The witch hunt has begun.

Channeling Joseph McCarthy, one of Alabama's Republican congressmen declared Thursday that no fewer than 17 socialists are roaming the corridors of the House of Representatives.

"Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists," said Rep. Spencer Bachus at a Birmingham breakfast. When asked to clarify his comments, he said he knows of 17 socialist House members, The Birmingham News reported.

This statement lets us know two things about Bachus: He believes there are socialist members of Congress, and he doesn't think socialism is very good.

But, wanting to keep the big secret to himself, he didn't give any names. So, it's time to dust off the old shoe leather and do some investigative reporting. Where can we find a group of 17 socialists on Capitol Hill seeking to undermine the American way? I did some gumshoe digging through congressional groups and found two subcommittees with exactly 17 members. Coincidence?

The first is the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, a division of the Agriculture Committee. But one of the members is Mike Rogers, one of Bachus's fellow Republicans from Alabama, and it's unlikely that Bachus would want to implicate a like-minded politician. So scratch that.

The other one I found was the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, part of the powerful Appropriations Committee. Now we're talking. No chickens and yogurt for these 17 policymakers; we're talking ballistic missiles and heavy-armor tanks, just the sort of thing a group of socialists would want to mess with. But unfortunately, a Google News search for "Subcommittee on Homeland Security + socialists" returns hardly anything. Seeing as that is the extent of my investigative capabilities, I was resigned.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the 17 socialists whom Bachus knows about are interspersed in clandestine ways among Congress's 435 House members. Well, 434 -- assuming that Bachus, the top Republican on the Financial Services Committee, does not suspect himself of being a socialist.

Or does he? A staple of socialism is controlling the media and the flow of information. The more censorship, the better for socialist leaders wanting to shape public opinion. Knowing that, take a look at Bachus's website, similar to the other websites kept by all members of Congress. When I tried to find out Bachus's recent committee news -- in "Committee News" under the "Press Room" tab -- I was greeted with this charming message:

"Not Found

The requested URL was not found on this server."

Now, hold on to your subpoenas, Justice Department officials. That broken link appears to lead not to Bachus's main page, but instead to something called "republicans.financialservices.house.gov." Now all we have to do is figure out who those guys are, and we're on our way to finding some answers.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Will Bright Hall Win a Pulitzer?

Matt Negrin — 2009-04-08T02:48:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Boston University, Media

First, to answer the question: Probably not -- but only because the Pulitzer Foundation refuses to accept blog entries.

Still, nobody knows for sure, because this year, the list of Pulitzer finalists has not been leaked. Usually, the chief of Editor & Publisher, Joe Strupp, names them on his media-focused website after Pulitzer jurors slip him the nominations anonymously. This lets journalists and readers debate over who they think deserves which prize for which scoop, and it can be fun.

Not this year. "They all shut their mouths," Strupp told Roy J. Harris Jr. on Romenesko. "It's the tightest it's been for leaks in years."

There's still about two weeks left until this year's best-in-journalism prizes are announced, and anyone and everyone is eligible. For those of you upset that March Madness is over and want to play some pick-'em games, that's what the "comments" section is for.

Here are some starters, brainstormed in the spirit of Joseph Pulitzer, a sensationalist yellow journalist who threw wild accusations around in his papers during the Spanish-American War:

Best Objective Reporting - Chris Matthews's "Oh God" moment introducing Bobby Jindal.

Best Scoop - Sarah Palin's allegation that Barack Obama is "palling around" with Bill Ayers.

Most Politically Correct Editorial Cartoon - The New York Post's dead-monkey drawing.

Most Sincere Apology - The one for the New York Post's dead-monkey drawing.

Most Relevant/Senseless On-Air Rant Against the Bailout - This guy.

Strongest Solution to Save the News Industry - Jon Stewart, or possibly The Onion.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Aaron Schock Adds Sex Appeal to Republican Party

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-07T22:19:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, News, Media, Notre Dame

The Republican Party keeps getting sexier.

They've had an uphill battle. In the fall, John McCain had to compete with the sex appeal of Barack Obama (those abs!) and Joe Biden (those teeth!), but McCain proved he had more sexy in reserve than America has oil in reserve offshore when he introduced Sarah Palin (those legs!) as his running mate.

But Americans voted "Yes, we can" instead of "Drill, baby, drill," and Palin retreated back to Alaska, so the Republicans were left with a sexy deficit (except for when Palin family scandals pop up in the news once a week).

That deficit has been filled. Aaron Schock is in the House.

Of Representatives, that is. Schock represents Illinois' 18th District, and at 27, he is the youngest Member of Congress and the first to be born in the 1980s. He's not just a pretty face, hair and body. Not surprisingly, Schock is your typical over-achiever. He graduated from Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. with a B.S. in Finance, a four-year degree, in two years.

In his early teens, he began working after-school jobs and invested the money he made, making his first real estate purchase at age 18, according to his official House Web site. He entered public service by serving on the Peoria School board starting when he was 18 years old.

When he was 23, he was elected to the Illinois House, where he shared the 2007 award with then-Senator Barack Obama from the Illinois Committee for Honest Government for his "Outstanding Legislative and Constituent Service." He spoke at the 2008 National Republican Convention, and now that he is in Congress, he is sitting on three committees: the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Small Business Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He's also been named Deputy Republican Whip.

And, perhaps most notably, he's been named "hottest freshman in Congress" by the readers of the liberal blog site Huffington Post.

Schock has been getting a lot more attention in the media than the average freshman Member of Congress, due to his good looks and young age. Meghan McCain wrote a blog post for The Daily Beast about "The GOP's House Hottie." I opened the Chicago Tribune yesterday to find an article about Schock, asking "Has GOP found its rock star?"

TMZ has been following Schock as he walks between his office building and the Capitol, and a few weeks ago posted a picture of Schock in his bathing suit (Schock gives shirtless Obama a run for his money).

Schock appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz, also of the Washington Post, who asked him about his appearances on TMZ. In a weird moment, Kurtz asks Schock if he wants to take off his jacket and roll up his sleeves to give TMZ more footage. Luckily, Schock had the common sense not to disrobe for a Sunday morning show. Save it for the late night shows.

Schock has a Doogie Howser meets Brad Pitt thing going on. He should own it. In the Chicago Tribune Monday, he told reporter James Oliphant he's using the media coverage to keep communication channels open.

"First, you've got to get their attention," he said. "Step one in getting anyone's vote is getting their attention."

First Barack Obama. Now Aaron Schock. Illinois' prime export is quickly becoming hot, young, driven politicians.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Mapping the Gay Marriage Debate

Tony Romm — 2009-04-07T21:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, News, American University

First Iowa, then Vermont -- two states, in less than two weeks, have conferred marriage rights to same-sex couples. In the nation's capitol, meanwhile, the D.C. Council has approved a measure that would recognize gay marriages performed out of state -- a decision that, while unanimous, is still subject to a final vote and Congressional approval.

In 29 other states, however, constitutional bans still prohibit in-state gay marriage, fail to recognize out-of-state gay marriage contracts, or bestow no domestic partnership benefits upon same-sex couples.

The following map outlines those states in which gay marriage-related laws have been passed:

View Larger Map (Please note that due to the size of the window, Alaska and Hawaii were omitted. Both states have banned gay marriage)

How to use: Click on each state to read any applicable information, or click on the map to open a larger window.

Legend:

Green - State performs gay marriages
Yellow - State performs civil unions
Blue - State endows same-sex couples with domestic partnership rights
Red - State bans gay marriage
Pink - State recognizes out-of-state gay marriages and/or civil unions

INFORMATION COURTESY OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

"House" Star Leaves Show for White House

Tony Romm — 2009-04-07T11:48:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Odd News, American University

From Entertainment Weekly's Michael Ausiello comes news that last night's plot twist on House -- Kutner's (Kal Penn) seemingly unprovoked suicide -- was hardly the result of cast infighting or creative conflicts.

Rather, as the EW blogger unveiled during an interview published this morning, Kutner's death was purely... political?

"Yes. I was incredibly honored a couple of months ago to get the opportunity to go work in the White House," said Penn, still famous for his role in the "Harold and Kumar" films. "I got to know the President and some of the staff during the campaign and had expressed interest in working there, so I'm going to be the associate director in the White House office of public liaison." [sic]

Specifically, Penn will reprise his role as an Obama spokesperson and coordinate the administration's outreach efforts with the "Asian-American and arts communities," the Chicago Sun-Times reported on Tuesday. He'll serve directly under Valerie Jarrett, chief of the Office of Public Liaison.

Penn, however, gave no indication of when he will officially assume his new position -- and, most important to the Hollywood types, whether it signifies an end to his acting career.

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