My Blog Reflections...

So this little experiment is coming to a close... I have worked on blogging, and I am not even sure anyone is really even reading this thing. But the truth is I have learned a few lessons, and as I close my blog I thought I would go ahead and post them. This has nothing to do with politics - but who cares...

1. Blogging ain't easy - I had a very different image of blogging before I actually got involved in one myself. I figured it was just a place for people to rant, and I would easily be able to post everyday. In reality - the really good blogs - require alot of thought and work. Research is extensive - and if one plans to post everyday it can be very time consuming. I have struggled simply to post once a week. Hats off to those of you political junkies out there who do post everyday - its quite a feat to find something "intelligent" to say and support it with enough evidence. I certainly don't think I have been able to do that.

2. I'm not very good at the blog thing - Honestly, I don't want my thoughts in writing for other people to read. If you learn anything through watching politics or studying law its that you never put anything in writing. I can be anonymous - but then who really is going to read this thing. Nobody reads it as it is, and I have my name on it.

3. If done right, blogging is an awesome venue for free speech and the free-sharing of ideas. Its the ultimate form of democracy - an open forum where a discussion is held and ideas are shared. But there is one caveat - not everyone's opinion is heard equally. If your blog does not get any traffic - then you are just talking to the wind. Your words are unheard and nobody cares. But to get traffic it requires alot of work - and sometimes people just don't have the time or energy to dedicate to that. Democracy comes with a cost - and that is time.

4. To the company out there looking to post on a blog - buyer beware. This is open season - no limts, no restrictions on content. Engage the blogosphere at your own risk - and be willing to take criticism when it arises. If you handle it appropriately - you stand a chance of improving your corporate image. If handled poorly - you are in some deep crap. Good Luck.

The Nuclear Dilemma...

The American nuclear arsenal is reaching a turning point. Cold War era bombs are beginning to age and become outdated. As technology advances, these bombs are qucikly becoming obsolete, and are certainly not applicable toa post-9/11, post-cold war environment. The questions is, do we update our nuclear arsenal with new nuclear bombs or do we simply allow these bombs to expire and begin the process of dismantling our nuclear weapons cache? The Bush Administration has decided that we should modernize our nuclear arsenal through a program called Reliable Replacement Warheads (RRW), but a report released Tuesday by a panel of nuclear weapons experts displays a great deal of skepticism to the Bush plan.

Nuclear policy is always a touchy subject for the United States. As teh first to develop the bomb and the only to ever actually use it in a time of war, we hold a unique position in the international community - one that many see as hypocritical. The real issue here is not whether or not we need to modernize our nuclear arsenal - thats simply not a question worth debating. The fact is that our warheads are aging, they were designed specifically for an era of warfare that was targeted at Russia, and are relatively useless as a deterrent in the modern era of terrorism and guerrilla warfare. The fact is that strategic weapons designed for state based warfare are not useful in the modern battlefield. Our military is revolutionizing its structure - and it is becoming more flexible in how it responds to crisis situations. Our nuclear arsenal currently does not reflect that flexibility. So the question is not do we need to modernize - because at some point we do.

The real question is whether or not we need to do it right now? If it will save us money in the long term? And, more importantly, if we can use this opportunity to reduce the size of our arsenal to legal disarmament requirement as established by the United Nations. In the past, the United States has been criticized as being a hypocrit - working to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while continuing to test, develop, and build a large stockpile of the very same weapons. States like India and Pakistan, now a part of the nuclear club, refused to sign onto international nonproliferation treaties - like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) - because they discriminated against non-nuclear states, preserving the nuclear authority of those privileged states who had alreaddy developed the technology. Our unwillingness to disarm continually undermines our stance abroad as we criticize countries like Iran and North korea for developing nuclear weapons.

The chance to modernize our arsenal certainly presents us with a chance to change this image abroad. While it is a costly endeavor - a multibillion dollar project that will take at least a decade. I believe that pursuing RRW's is a way for the United States to change its position on nuclear weapons use. As a member of the NPT it is time we start honoring our commitments to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal. Many fear the the RRW program will spark an international arms race, but if it is prefaced with a statement of disarmament I believe we could avoid this unlikely scenario. The common misconception is that disarming means completely eliminating the nations nuclear detterent. This simply is not the case. Disarmament as defined by the UN is reducing your arsenal to a minimal deterrent level - 270 nuclear warheads. The makeup of those warheads - be it in silos, subs, or bombers - is up to the country to choose. The number still provides a credible deterrent, and enough firepower to destroy the world several times over. Yet, a country gains credibility in the disarmament regime and international community.

The United States' decision to modernize its aresenal, if prefaced by a call for and action towards disarmament, would certainly be respected in the international community. By reducing our arsenal we are taking steps to strengthen the NPT regime, and by modernizing it we are ensuring that it still functions as a credible deterrent in the post-cold war era.

Vigilante justice Mississippi style...

Mississippi mayor is acquitted from all charges after he reportedly took a sledgehammer to a duplex which he thought was a "crack house."

I usually don't post twice, but this was just too good. I hadn't heard about this, but my roommate is from Jackson and filled me in. Apparently the mayor of Jackson walked up to this house, which he just "knew" was a "crack house," and with his bodyguards started demolishing the place with sledgehammers. Nuts. They arrest him and charge him with everything from burglary to conspiracy, and now he is acquitted of all charges. What does that say about Mississippt justice?

I mean, the image of a vigilante mayor wreaking havoc in the criminal underworld of Jackson, Mississippi is a little bit "wild west" for me. I can just see him walking up to a house, sledge hammer in hand, saying "the law has come back to town, boys." Like something out of Tombstone. Or better yet, why doesn't he just put on a batman mask and cape. As mayor is it not his duty to "uphold the rule of law" in his city. How does this sort of justice uphold that rule of law? If the mayor can take a sledgehammer to any house he thinks is a "crack house" what prevents him from instituting a terror-like rule and targeting innocent citizens to keep them under his control? It's extreme, but its the logical extension of allowing such behavior.

Apparently a Mississippi jury isn't afraid of that. Lets see what happens.

Burnout 2008...

Democrats had their first political debate last night... and guess what, I didn't watch it.

I normally really enjoy watching debates between candidates, regardless of political affiliation. I enjoy the tact of the responses, and trying to figure out what they are "really" saying, and not jsut the political bullshit they expect most Americans to believe. It is a test of wits, and really shows the measure of a candidate.

But, honestly, I am just burnt out on this election. Election day 2008 is so far away... and yet the media hype and buzz over candidates has already killed any desire for me to learn anything about what is going on. I am sick and tired of hearing all the talkign heads debating the candidates pros, cons, and missteps. Everytime I turn on the TV or read the paper, it is right there, like an incessant buzzing in my ear.

Candidates need to just stop... stop spending money, stop camapaigning, and wait. Go back to your JOBS in Washington... vote like you are supposed to and get some stuff done. Come back in a year and maybe I won't be so tired of hearing what you have to say. Hell, you might even have something to say and some real solutions!

Blah... for those of you who did watch the debate, congratulations. Let me know how it went... or better yet, just let me know when you get burnt out on the election too. We can have a party.

Please don't dance Mr. President...

Found this on The Drudge Report and it made me laugh... Bush dancing.

At least he is trying... Although, when he tried to play the Djembe is when I lost it. He really has absolutely no rhythm, and should not be anywhere near that drum.

On the other hand, I like the beat - maybe I can learn it.

A little something called parenting...

A Knoxville father decided to take an interesting measure to punish his middle-school aged child who he found was involved in drug use.

The father, who found on his child's MySpace page that his son had been using and selling marijuana and Oxycontin, forced his child to stand outside of his middle school with a sandwich board sign that said "I abused and sold drugs." Some called it an extreme measure... I say the punishment fits the crime.

Drug abuse is a serious crime, and as a parent you have a duty to make sure your child learns the lesson. Grounding them, taking away their television, or doing something more mundane doesn't carry the same threat level as forcing your child to stand in front of his school and embarass himself. At least the father didn't make the kid sit in jail.

Another thing, what the hell was the kid putting this on his MySpace for? I think the kid was screaming for attention... Beyond that, why does a middle school kid have a MySpace page in the first place? Internet sites like MySpace and Facebook are dangerous places for young children who don't quite understand the social ramifications of what they post. Thank god the father was monitoring it.

Parents should take a lesson from this Knoxville father though. Watch your kids. Don't let them watch TV or get ont he internet unoomnitored. And if you find them doing something extremely harmful, take extreme steps to stop it.

Too little too late?

Al Gore has finally decided to try to change his energy-guzzling mansion into something that sort of resembles the environmentally friendly houses he tells people to live in. He has requested for a permit to install solar panels on his house.

Gore, the self-made poster child for global warming awareness, caught a lot of flack when someone looked at the power bill for his gigantic Belle Meade mansion. Lets just say it is less than efficient. The man just looked like a hypocrit.

Gore claims that he purchases "carbon offsets" so that his environmental footprint is technically zero. Honestly, I am not buying this, nor his recent attempt to install solar panels. If he really walked the walk he would give up the big mansion, and move into a space that suits his needs. While he encourages reducing and living with less, he is living the life of excess that contributes to the environmental problem he so avidly fights to cure.

Some might think Gore is truly green, but I'm not buying it.

Congressional diplomacy? Where in the constitution is that?

Last time I checked, the president was responsible for diplomacy and executing foreign policy - not the speaker of the house! Where in the constitution does it say that the House can negotiate peace deals or treaties? Apparently, Nancy Pelosi thinks it does. Someone needs to send her back to grade school and give her a lesson on the role of the legislative branch.

While I highlight Pelosi, my criticism applies across the board. The power to conduct foreign diplomacy resides in the executive branch. There is a reason why the legislative branch does not share this negotiating power. Pelosi's trip does nothing but send mixed messages, and decrease the credibility of the White House. Whether you agree with Bush's policy towards Syria or not, is irrelevant. Pelosi should not be taking matters into her own hands. We might be divided as a nation internally, but abroad we need to projecting a consistent, clear message. That message is set by the President.

Who knows what will come of this, but it must be stopped. Seperation of powers lies at the heart of our governmental system, and quite frankly Nancy Pelosi needs to learn that lesson!

Now Viacom is getting sued over Youtube...

I love Youtube. As most can tell from my past three post subjects, but here is an interesting twist on the Youtube/Viacom showdown. Now activist organizations are suing Viacom for requesting the removal of a parody of The Colbert Show. While it contained clips from Colbert, they groups claim that they were protected under "fair use" doctrine and that Viacom erred in requesting its take-down.

Got to love it when trying to protect your copyrighted material comes back to bite you in the ass. For me this just illustrates another flaw in the "take-down" request logic embodied in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Inevitably someone (one of these Youtube scanning employees at these big time corporations) is going to screw up and request that something be taken down that probably has a right to be there. With the volume of take-down requests that go out every single day, it is unlikely that there is much oversight. One employee steps on the wrong persons toes, and the company gets tied up in a free speech lawsuit potentially costing it big bucks. Damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of a scenario.

Ultimately, I think this just adds fuel to Viacom's larger complaint/suit against Google and Youtube. Now, take down requests come with teetch if they are not executed carefully. THis limits the ability of the copyright holder to effectively manage the massive volume of postings each day on Youtube. Inevitably copyright privileges will be violated, and there is not much the company can do about it under current law.

Political advertising not just for the rich anymore...

The dimensions of political campaigning are transforming yet again as tech-savy activists exploit Youtube as a forum for posting cheap, provocative campaign ads. If you haven't seen it yet - here's the link for the new "1984" Anti-Hillary Youtube ad.

Whether you support Hillary or not, I think, is pretty irrelevant to the discussion over this ad. What is most fascinating is what it says about the changing landscape of campaign politics. It used to be that big money was the key to winning an election. More money meant more ads. While money still is essential (hence all the campaign laws), Youtube has now opened the door for an increasing number of grassroots organization to make thier voices heard to millions of online users. All they need is a tech-savy geek who can digitally manipulate film and post it on Youtube. Cost and copyright infringement don't seem to be much of a deterrent - especially for Youtube users (see previous post on Viacom lawsuit), and once the media picks up the clip exposure is inevitable.

Certainly this new forum for broadcast is a triumph for free speech and equity in campaign politics, but yet also it raises questions about how these ads might cross the line. How do they fit into current campaing laws? How must these ads be attributed? Do they even? Who can track this attribution? How do "take-down" requests from copyright holders apply? Can Apple request that this ad not be shown? What about the politicians? What sort of an impact will these ads actually have on the opinions of voters? Does this mean that a smaller candidate has a greater chance of being heard?

Keep an eye on the web to see if more of these sorts of ads pop up as the campaign trail continues. The discussion should be interesting - and more than likely some sort of scandal will arise.

Youtube under fire...

I wondered how long it would take for someone to attempt to slay the internet video goliath ... and once Google bought Youtube the money got real big.

Does Viacom really stand a chance? The Viacom lawsuit certainly raises interesting questions concerning internet copyright laws and whether or not techonology holders are responsible for copyrighted material posted on their websites. But, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act seems fairly clear... as long as Google/Youtube responds to the "take-down" requests of copyright holders then they are not liable for copyright infringement. Despite providing the medium for communication of the material, Google is not posting the copyrighted films. Individuals are posting this material, and rightly, should they not be the ones liable?

In the end, it all comes down to money - Google has it and the individual does not. If Viacom sues Joe Bob they are likely to get nothing, but if it sues Google and wins - we are talking billion dollar settlement.

While Google does seem insulated for the time being, keep an eye one this case. My bet is it will end up in the Supreme Court. The mass popularity of Youtube means that the "take-down" request protection is truly inadequate. No copyright holder can possibly keep track of the thousands of posts a day. Google bears some responsibility. Thus, Google might win a few battles, but ultimately - Viacom is going to win the war.

How not to sell "Brand Romney"

If there is one thing the 77-slide Romney powerpoint illustrates - leaked to the Boston Globe - it is how not to go about "selling Brand Romney." I realize that today we have started to commodify presidential candidates. We wrap them in a nice, shiny packages for the public and sell, sell, sell! We have taken the lessons of advertising, public relations, and branding to heart in how we structure political campaigns. Campaign politics have become more about creating a "brand" identity, then actually talking about meaningful issues.

It seems to me though that people are tired of being treated like idiots. We ahve heard enough about character and looks qualifying a president. We are tired of being told that we should elect a candidate because he has good or bad hair. Hair has nothing to do with POLICY. Yet, for corporate CEO's, it is all part of the packaging - which at times sells the product more than the actual qualities themselves. This "branding" notion is reflected in the misguided Romney campaign strategy.

Ultimately, the powerpoint presentation is just an example of bad PR. The fact that the document was leaked, alone is a PR nightmare. But, for Romney's sake, it might be better that the strategy was leaked - at least now he has reason to start over and change what was a surefire strategy for defeat.

So here are some suggestions for the Romney campaign - lets call it PR 101.

1. Next time you write a PR plan - DON'T LEAK IT! Lock down a reliable campaign staff that will be honest with you. The key words here: trust and honesty. You need people who you can trust not to leak sensitive information, and who will tell you the honest truth when it comes to how you can best present yourself to the American public. In my opinion - Romney does not have that.

2. STOP WORRYING ABOUT HOW YOU LOOK! Perot had big ears, Kerry had perfect hair, W looked like a monkey - in the end it doesn't matter with a majority of the voters. People are going to find ways to ridicule you, looks are an easy target. You counter this by talking about sound policy options, and inspiring hope for the furture.

3. Stop trying to spin that you are not really flip-flopping, when you are! Instead just be honest, if you support gay unions, if you are cool with abortion then just say so. Or take the Guiliani strategy and just ignore the social issues all together! Either way, you will be rewarded more for your honesty then for trying to spin the issues like a typical politician. Nothing will kill your chances in the Republican party like insincerity.

4. Distinguish yourself positively - forget the attacks. This is already going to be a bloodbath of an election, there is no need to start it by turning on your own party. If you see yourself as innovative, as different, as being the future of a new type of politics - then say so and act so. Make that fresh, smart, inspiring image show through in your campaign by refusing to stoop the usual drudgery that is American campaign politics.

In the end, I like Mitt Romney. I wish he stood a chance of getting the nomination because I do think he is a unique politician. I hope he takes this chance to change his campaign strategy.

A tragic loss for America...

Today America has lost a great Congressman. This summer I was given the privilege to work in the office of Congressman Charlie Norwood, and it was there that I was given hope again that politicians could actually serve the best interests of this nation.

A simple dentist from Georgia, Charlie was not your typical politician. A pitbull in committee, he stood up for and fought for all that he thought was right in America, even through his battles with lung cancer. He was a Congressman who truly listened to and cared about not only his constituency, but the American people. Known for his battles to improve our nations healthcare system, Charlie's wisdom and insight will surely be missed in the coming years as we attempt to once again grapple with this pressing issue.

I ask for your prayers and condolences for his family and lovely wife Gloria.

A little more talk and alot less action...

Like I do on most days, today I picked up a copy of the New York Times on my way to class. While I generally only glance over most political hoopla involving the War in Iraq (mainly because it is alot of yelling and screaming without action by politicians) I decided to read the front page article over a Senate vote Monday to bring about debate on the President's "troop surge" plan.

Sen. Harry Reid was quoted on the floor as saying to Republicans, “You can run but you can’t hide. We are going to debate Iraq.” Didn't we just do that this past summer? I sat in on those debates in the gallery of the House, and the same debates occurred in the Senate. The arguments have not changed much since the first non-binding resolutions were debated. Republicans want to stay in Iraq, and Democrats want out. Why do we have to debate it again?

Before I go any further, lets just say I love the art of the non-binding resolution. It is so tactful, so safe... so much bullsh*t. Here are our newly elected Senators, who might I remind you ran on platforms of CHANGE IN WASHINGTON, voting on and debating resolutions that in effect accomplish NOTHING! Oh, but it sends such a strong political message... yeah, and so do the obscenities I shout from my couch at various politicians on TV every night.

Ultimately, all this resolution is going to do is give Senators one more chance to stand up and express their disapproval of the war on Congressional Record before ELECTION 2008 roles around. We ask for change... and we get more rhetoric. Here's an idea, if you want to send a political message how about voting on something that might actually change the President's plan - like removing funding!

Secondly, what the threshold for bipartisanship? Because you get someone of the opposite party to agree in writing a bill - does that make it bipartisan? One person, two? How many does it take? What meaning does this term have left? It seems to me that bipartisanship requires a little bit more muster than we give it on Capitol Hill to be meanigful. Bipartisanship engenders a sense of cooperation between the parties on a much larger scale than simply a few republicans or democrats crossing the line. Rhetoric used in the Times article characterizing the resolution as bipartisan I think misses the point. When only 2 republicans voted for the bill, it says something. The bill is partisan! It divides the Senate. This is not a bipartisan issue. If it were bipartisan politicians would not be arguing so fervently. So lets not sugar-coat it. This is a bitter partisan struggle.

My view...

Peanuts & Politix... being from Georgia it seemed like an appropriate title. Yet, beyond the obvious reference to one of our beloved state crops, Peanuts & Politix refers to the resemblance of American politics to any modern "spectator sport." Sit down with your bag of peanuts, turn on your choice news program, and put your feet up as you prepare to watch what resembles a cage death-match in professional wrestling. Lock those politicians in the chamber, and whoever comes out alive from the partisan bickering gets to go back again tommorrow! No one survives and no one wins.

While I am exaggerating to an extent, the truth is that something is wrong with our current political system. The partisanship on Capitol Hill has pushed us too far apart and meaningful policy change seems even less likely of a possibility. We are obessessed with "bloodshed" - something goes wrong and someone must be too blame. Republicans blame democrats... Democrats blame republicans... and in the end both come out tattered & worn, leaving the AMERICAN PEOPLE who they represent... uninspired.

Well, I am tired of being uninspired. I am tired of the bickering. I am tired of people not truly THINKING, and EVALUATING meaningful policy options. I vote. I participate when I can in the policy process... and now I am entering the blogosphere.

I am here to make my voice heard, my opinion public, and my ideas available for discussion in the marketplace of ideas and knowledge. This blog will be my ideas, my opinions, and my thoughts on the salient issues of our times. As a reader, I encourage you to comment, questions, and challenge my opinions and assumptions. Please do so respectfully and I will provide you the same courtesy. It is only through open, honest discussion and a willingness to examine an issue from all possible angles that I believe we can change American politics. The change starts here. Put down the peanuts, and lets inspire Americans once again.