Written: 09/10/2008
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: October 1, 2008
Just as the world seems to be falling into a routine and Americans grow more predictable than ever before, the blinding light of change encompasses us! However this is not just any change, but rather the kind wrapped in a bow and stamped with political seal of approval. Who started all this talk of change anyway I ask? Perhaps it began years ago when Americans began to realize that the neo-conservative big wigs in Washington where no longer listening to their cries. Or maybe it started when Al Gore made a pathetic attempt to inform the public about global warming, while squeezing out some sympathy for his failed white house jaunt. Perhaps the “change” mentality came from one of these other reasons: American’s uncertainty about the war in Iraq, the shaky economy, the failing housing market, or maybe it was just the Chupacabra…
Whatever the reason, change is occurring all around us. In fact, the United States is in a constant state of volatile change. Though many of America’s youth will vehemently argue this notion, it is true. Simply look at the current presidential candidates and their running mates. Announcing his run for the presidency back in February 2007, senator Barack Obama, became the first black man to win the democratic nomination for president. If not historic enough, a political first was borne of the Republican camp with the assignment of governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate. Shocking many conservatives and liberals alike, Palin’s nomination seemed almost surreal.
To fully understand why governor Sarah Palin had been chosen as John McCain’s running mate, one must look at the circumstance to which the governor was hurled into the presidential limelight. Forgoing the normal absent-minded statements that have cluttered the news channels and opinion pages alike; statements such as “she has no experience” and “she is a bible-thumper,” let us attempt to analyze the motive behind her nomination.
So what is the real problem with vice presidential pick Governor Palin? As traditional American political logic dictates, a vice president must fulfill two tasks. First, they must not create turbulence and second, they must be vetted. So far Sarah Palin (or “barracuda” as she is more affectionately know) has come into this race with guns blazing. She has badgered Barack Obama’s track record and stirred up debate among the conservative base. Some may say her exuberance has been a good thing, creating a new excitement within the party. I disagree.
With the exception of vice presidential hit men like Richard Nixon; the vice president should not “rock the boat.” Sarah Palin seems to be vainly lashing out against the democrats in order to show some sort of dominance or strength. The only thing that has grown out of her argumentative nature is a separation between herself and pro-Hillary voting Americans which she may had wanted to gain. At least “tricky dick” was quiet about his dirty work.
The second criterion for a vice presidential candidate, logically, is to be vetted. Governor Palin has had very little national media coverage prior to McCain’s “great revelation” that she would be his running mate. This can have dire implications for any politician seeking a seat in the white house. Simply put, the media have not exploited her yet and her “dirty laundry” has not been aired to the public. Also, by simply throwing in a candidate that no one has ever heard before, many citizens will think she was selected more for her gender than her actual intelligence.
Will the choice of Sarah Palin go down as the worst political blunder in history or the best one-two punch to the Democratic Party? Only time will tell. Nevertheless, certain questions must be asked of the Republican Party. Was Sarah Palin picked as the vice presidential running mate simply to “shock and aw” the public? Or is she really the “great reformer” we are being promised will change Washington? Whatever the answer, Sarah Palin defies traditional politics. However in this age of rapid change, politics in 2008 defy most “normal” conventions.
Respectfully,
Mr. Madison
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Olympic Politics
Written: 04/18/2008
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 25, 2008
After leafing through the previous issue of the Spectator, I became worried about America's mindset. Perhaps it is ignorant for me to think that the Olympics have always been fueled by political rhetoric or that Americans gloss over international problems concerning human rights. Human rights, which I might add, that have a direct impact over international unity. Looking back, I began to think about the first Olympic boycott. It happened in 1956, when the Olympic Games were held Melbourne. The Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, supported the boycott, because of the repression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union. In a nutshell, the uprising in Hungary involved a spur-of-the-moment national revolt against their Soviet-imposed government policies. If Soviet repression of a nations uprising will cause an acceptable Olympic boycott, why is the Tibetan protest any different?
Let's take a look at another example. The 1980 Moscow Olympic Games were protested by 65 nations, due to cold war tensions and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Though Afghani freedom may be hard concept for many Americans to swallow, America and many other countries were angered by the Soviet Union and their blatant disregard for human rights. This boycott lowered the number of competing nations to 81, lower than that of the 1956 games. My last example shows how politics is directly involved with the Olympic Games.
The Olympic Games did not become a mega event until 1932 when they were hosted in Los Angeles California. The games, believe it or not were politically driven and intended to bring the economically hard pressed Los Angeles area out of depression. The 1932 games were witnessed by German ambassadors, who in turn brought the games to Berlin in 1936. It is hard not to associate the 1936 Olympics with a runner named Jesse Owens. However the 1936 games were more than just an American underdog and a tale of patriotism. The games brought economic prosperity and credibility to Berlin. Hitler even sought to create the largest Olympic stadium in the world, but as we all know World War II put a stop to that.
Sure the Olympics call for a "fun" evening, where people can sit inside and watch athletes play tennis for hours. Heck, I myself am a huge fan of the Modern Pentathlon, but please America open your eyes. Stop living in some ethnocentric fantasy and learn more about what is going on in the world. Human rights are being taken from people and all we do is sit on our hands and wonder what time the table tennis event will start. I am not a liberal person and I am not a conservative person - I am a practical person. People should be allowed to protest for something they believe in, even if it is during a torch run. As Malcolm X once said: "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."
With The Utmost Respect,
Mr. Madison
And by the way the cartoon captioned above the article on page 10 was a total contradiction to the ethos of the editorial. It obviously showed Chinese Olympiad killing a Tibetan monk. Why would anyone use that picture and expect people not to protest? Perhaps next time a picture of an American flag wrapped around a baby, wearing a cowboy hat and eating a hotdog would be more suitable. However that is just a suggestion.
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 25, 2008
After leafing through the previous issue of the Spectator, I became worried about America's mindset. Perhaps it is ignorant for me to think that the Olympics have always been fueled by political rhetoric or that Americans gloss over international problems concerning human rights. Human rights, which I might add, that have a direct impact over international unity. Looking back, I began to think about the first Olympic boycott. It happened in 1956, when the Olympic Games were held Melbourne. The Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, supported the boycott, because of the repression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union. In a nutshell, the uprising in Hungary involved a spur-of-the-moment national revolt against their Soviet-imposed government policies. If Soviet repression of a nations uprising will cause an acceptable Olympic boycott, why is the Tibetan protest any different?
Let's take a look at another example. The 1980 Moscow Olympic Games were protested by 65 nations, due to cold war tensions and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Though Afghani freedom may be hard concept for many Americans to swallow, America and many other countries were angered by the Soviet Union and their blatant disregard for human rights. This boycott lowered the number of competing nations to 81, lower than that of the 1956 games. My last example shows how politics is directly involved with the Olympic Games.
The Olympic Games did not become a mega event until 1932 when they were hosted in Los Angeles California. The games, believe it or not were politically driven and intended to bring the economically hard pressed Los Angeles area out of depression. The 1932 games were witnessed by German ambassadors, who in turn brought the games to Berlin in 1936. It is hard not to associate the 1936 Olympics with a runner named Jesse Owens. However the 1936 games were more than just an American underdog and a tale of patriotism. The games brought economic prosperity and credibility to Berlin. Hitler even sought to create the largest Olympic stadium in the world, but as we all know World War II put a stop to that.
Sure the Olympics call for a "fun" evening, where people can sit inside and watch athletes play tennis for hours. Heck, I myself am a huge fan of the Modern Pentathlon, but please America open your eyes. Stop living in some ethnocentric fantasy and learn more about what is going on in the world. Human rights are being taken from people and all we do is sit on our hands and wonder what time the table tennis event will start. I am not a liberal person and I am not a conservative person - I am a practical person. People should be allowed to protest for something they believe in, even if it is during a torch run. As Malcolm X once said: "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."
With The Utmost Respect,
Mr. Madison
And by the way the cartoon captioned above the article on page 10 was a total contradiction to the ethos of the editorial. It obviously showed Chinese Olympiad killing a Tibetan monk. Why would anyone use that picture and expect people not to protest? Perhaps next time a picture of an American flag wrapped around a baby, wearing a cowboy hat and eating a hotdog would be more suitable. However that is just a suggestion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
