STANDING UP FOR HEALTH CARE

Today, I feel two extreme opposing emotions about the United States of America. For the first time in a long, long time, I'm proud of our government. And for the first time in a while, I'm severely disappointed at the stupidity and shortsightedness of our populace. Of course, I'm referring to the health care bill which, with some political strong-arming, just squeaked through Congress last night. Do I agree with all the methods used to get it though and its entire content? No. But I think it is what needed to be done, and will set us on a path where we can grow.

Before I begin, anyone who knows me understands that universal health care is something I've been a proponent of since the mid-1990s when Hillary Clinton attempted reform, and my belief has grown even greater since I graduated from college and have had to enter the health insurance market on my own. Now before anyone starts calling me a whiny liberal who understands nothing about cost and just wants to have everything handed to her, let me cut you off right there - I actually have excellent health insurance, which is provided to me FREE OF CHARGE by my employer. When I first interviewed for my job and inquired about employee benefits, I was floored when I was told our health and dental were paid 100% by the company, meaning I don't pay a cent out of my paycheck for medical or dental coverage. I didn't even realize that was an OPTION, and it was the reason that, after plowing through graduate school hoping I never got a cough or a cavity, I am finally able to afford to go for routine exams (and no, I don't work for the government, although their plan is even more stellar than my own). So if this is not my plight, why do I care so much about it? Allow me to explain.

THE UNITED STATES IS THE GREATEST COUNTY IN THE WORLD ...SO START ACTING LIKE IT

First, I, like many democrats, believe universal health care must exist in the United States, if not for any other reason, than principle. We are still, despite our recent decline, the greatest county in the world, yet we are the ONLY developed country which does NOT provide government health care options to its public. If you fall down a staircase in Italy, they will take you to the hospital, fix you up, and only upon leaving ask, "So, need any help with the bill?" In America, you can die bleeding from a head wound in the waiting room trying to fill out your credit card forms in triplicate. Of course, I'm being flippant, but the reality is every day Americans have to choose between buying groceries or buying their medication. Someone gets cancer and their families spend their savings, sell their home, lose everything - to get them treatment, or worse, have to forgo it because they can't pay for it. People can't afford insurance costs being lopped off their paychecks so they go without..and don't receive the annual monitoring which can catch problems early. In the richest country in the world, this is abhorrent. No one in the United States should have to worry about losing the shirt off their back because they happened to get sick. Whether this is currently true or not, health care should be a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE for the wealthy.

PRIVATE INSURANCE IS OUT OF CONTROL

Second, private insurance is expensive, VERY expensive. Ask anyone who has ever lost their job and tried to replace it; even part-time carryover policies meant to retain your insurance for a brief period while you find a new job, like COBRA, have prohibitive fees that the majority of anyone in the middle class and below cannot hope to afford. The only way most of us can pay for health insurance is when it is subsidized by our employers, which means most of us have NO CHOICE as to our health plans, which are dictated by the corporation we work for. These plans choose what they will pay for and what they will not pay for, and they decide which doctors we can and can not see. They decide which procedures are necessary and unnecessary. Doesn't this sound like the Big-Brother-esque system opponents of government health care try to scare people with? Well guess what - WE ALREADY HAVE THAT SYSTEM NOW, except currently, we have no alternative. In addition, we become slaves to our jobs because we are terrified of losing access to health care should we choose to pursue another career path. Does this sound like freedom to you?

Finally, insurance companies have the right to deny you coverage, for almost any reason, even though you're PAYING for it. This is akin to going to the grocery store and trying to bury groceries, but when you go to pay, the cashier says, "I'm sorry, you can't buy groceries here. You've got a pre-existing condition where you tend to slip on grocery store floors and fall." So you go to the next grocery store, and they say the same thing. You go to every grocery store, and none of them will give you food which you need to survive and are willing to pay for because there is a slight risk you may fall and potentially file a claim for money because you slipped on their floor. It's a silly analogy, but it's accurate in that insurance companies are so obsessed with the bottom line that even if you sign up when healthy should you then become sick, which is the point of having the insurance in the first place! There has even been recent revelations of insurance companies making up reasons, or not even bothering making up reasons, to drop customers who receive an HIV positive diagnosis. Government insurance, since it is funded with public money, will not be allowed to deny anyone coverage for their state of health.

MEDICARE/MEDICAID LEAVE OUT THE MAJORITY

Some critics argue that we have government options already - Medicare and Medicaid - which are in place to take care of those who have difficulty accessing health care. Well, these two options, despite their problematic parts, have helped millions of people but they leave out millions more. They were basically designed to help the elderly cope with prescription drug coasts and assist poverty-level families in getting basic check-ups for young kids. They do not have the design and scope to provide coverage to the majority of middle America who earn too much to qualify for poverty assistance and not enough to opt in to traditional insurance. Simply enlarging these programs also only patches leaks in the system by throwing money out the window while ignoring the larger problem - health care is not affordable enough to adequately care for the majority of Americans and is only getting worse. The entire system needs to be reevaluated if we want any long term success.

OUR COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD NOT TO UNIVERSALIZE HEALTH CARE

That said, the biggest problem most people have with our government providing health care is affordability. Who's going to pay for such a large program? We're healthy, why should we shoulder the burden of someone else? These are legitimate concerns; yes, a universal health care plan is expensive, and yes, it will be funded by tax dollars which you and I pay for. HOWEVER, the flip side to this is WE ALREADY PAY FOR IT NOW. Although a lack of insurance can deny people access to routine care, hospitals can't refuse to treat people who come into their emergency rooms, even if they have no means of paying for the hospital's services. Those bills are then swallowed by both the hospital and the government, which are both funded by our tax dollars. If these uninsured people had the opportunity to buy into an affordable government insurance option, they would be taking less of our money because they would be contributing some of their own. In addition, if these people had access to routine health exams which are cheaper than expensive emergency care, many of their problems could be prevented or treated earlier, and save us from paying for more costly procedures later on. Not only would this save our budget billions a year, but it would have the added benefit of cutting down overcrowding and waiting times in emergency rooms, as only people with actual emergencies would be there.

Also, by allowing the government to centralize the system in which hospitals keep track of medical files and records, we would save even more tax dollars. Many of these records are not even currently computerized! Allowing doctors to have up-to-date and accurate access to our medical histories would not only give us all better care, but would cut administrative costs and money wasted on unnecessary tests or procedures which doctors currently prescribe patients because they do not have access to their full records. This might sound like just a drop in the bucket, but financial experts have calculated that the federal government currently wastes tens of billions of dollars on these administrative discrepancies each year. In fact, many analysts believe that in the long term, a universal health care plan would PAY FOR ITSELF with the money we would save from doing away with all of the practices mentioned above. Eventually the new system would be a much cheaper institution to run than what we currently have, which we cannot afford to maintain. To me, that sounds like a pretty damn good investment for my tax dollars, which I'm going to lose whether we keep the old system or not.

BIG BIRD AND COOKIE MONSTER AREN'T SOCIALISM

Finally, instituting this system has the potential to SAVE US ALL MONEY on our health insurance, because it sets up the government as a competitor to the private insurance companies, hopefully drive everyone's costs down. Since the current system generally has corporations at the heart of the insurance purchasing and not the individual person, this will be the first time companies will be forced to court YOU, the beneficiary, as the customer, as you can choose the government's plan over your employer's plan if you so prefer. Let me be clear: a government option is just that, an option. No one is forcing you to buy into the government's plan; you can keep your Tufts or Blue Cross or Pilgrim plan if you want to, but if they want to keep your patronage they are, for the first time, going to have to cut you a deal.

And before you say this is Communism, please let me remind you that Communism is an economic system in which citizens cannot own private property. It has nothing to do with social institutions, or the government funding a public alternative to a private commodity. If you are going to use the correct term and call this a form of Socialism, then it is...slightly. But social equality does not equate a Socialist society. A perfect example is PBS and NPR - the public broadcasting and national public radio stations. They compete for viewers with NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX, but are funded by the government and are kept affordable so low budget programing can have equal access to a national media forum. So does that make Big Bird and our other friends at Sesame Street Socialists? No, it doesn't. Social Security, FDIC, unemployment benefits, anti-trust laws and other social programs are also slightly Socialist, but I don't see people lining up to protest those. People called FDR a Communist and claimed he'd bankrupt the county for instituting social reforms that helped pull our nation our of the Great Depression, but we did not become a Bolshevik nation as a result and his reforms are now institutions we take for granted. Equal opportunity is one of the core foundations of our democracy, and its not in and of itself a slippery slope to Socialism.

SOMETIMES IT TAKES A STRONG ARM TO GET THINGS DONE

Now, I understand that many people like the idea of instituting universal health care but don't like the current plan which passed through Congress or the tactics used to get it there. To you, please count me as a sympathizer. I am not 100% happy with the current plan, and I don't think any lawmaker in Washington is either. The problem is it will never be perfect, and no one is ever going to agree on it completely. However, almost any Congressman since the 1970s could tell you that the current system is broken. Efforts to fix it many times since then have wasted away in Congress as no one can agree on a plan. The same arguments - affordability, Socialism, competition, etc, have been made again and again and again and again to no avail. Many lawmakers, including the late Ted Kennedy, have lamented opportunities to put a new structure in place, even if it was something they didn't completely agree with, as a base which they could shape and mold as time passed. Now, however, we have reached a breaking point with our current health care system; our efforts to modify and patch it together over the years have created a mess that can no longer sustain itself. Obama and the Democrats saw an opportunity to finally put that new base structure in place, and for once, an administration and a party had the courage to actually follow that plan through.

Watching this, I, for the first time, had respect for President Obama. If anyone followed me during the campaign, you would know I have never been his biggest fan. But here is a guy who basically just committed political suicide to do what he thought was right and best for the nation. Now that takes guts. With this in place, the Republicans, moderates, and everyone else can now work on making the new structure the best system they can...if they can stop pointing fingers long enough to do it. It's hard for me to sympathize watching Republican Congressmen get red in the face because they have lost a battle, when those same people were calling Democrats un-American when they dared protest President Bush's unchecked spending of billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq searching for weapons which only existed in the twisted mind of Dick Cheney. Why was it okay for the White House to take over then? Because Iraq was a threat? Well I'm more scared of getting cancer than getting blown up by a terrorist. How about that for a reality check?

Plus, under all the mudslinging, some very positive parts of this bill have gone unnoticed. For starters, kids can now remain under their parents' insurance plans until they are 26, when before they expired at 23, which is usually around when a young adult graduates from college. Considering my first few jobs didn't pay me enough to allow me to afford health insurance, even with a graduate degree from an Ivy League school, this should be a huge benefit to recent college graduates trying to get a start in a bad job market and saddled with student loans. Also, the bill makes it illegal for private insurers to deny coverage to customers based on preexisting conditions, which benefits everyone. Finally, it patches many of the holes which exist in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which many on both sides of the aisle agreed needed fixing.

Finally, for the American public, I understand everyone's concerns, and I hope everyone keeps talking and thinking about this issue, because this is new territory for our nation and this is as system which is going to need constant tweaking until we figure it all out. But please don't listen to every pundit or fall for every scare tactic, and investigate everything yourself. Agree or disagree with me for your own reasons, not because CNN or Fox News told you so. And don't go screaming "COMMUNISM!" and demanding Obama's birth certificate...come on. You're wasting Hawaii's time and our tax dollars every time you make them mail you a copy. And for those of you who don't feel you should have to pay for somebody else's problem....well, the status quo is all well and good until you're the one who's sick. If it was your kid in the hospital bed...wouldn't you want the freedom to do whatever you could to make it better? I'd hope that's something we all can agree on.

BASIC CABLE SMACKDOWN: Entertainment vs. News

Being a liberal twenty-something professional, it likely goes without saying that I’ve long been a fan of Jon Stewart, political satirist and host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show. Despite the fact that many critics have labeled his audience as uninformed and impatient sound byte-grabbers who take a comedy show as serious news, researchers have actually found that most Daily Show viewers, myself included, are well-versed in current events independently of Stewart’s program. This rarely-quoted fact comes as little surprise to me; if I didn’t regularly read the newspaper or watch mainstream network news programming, I don’t imagine I would find any of Stewart’s jokes remotely funny. Simply put, if I was truly ignorant of the situations and the people being lampooned, the punchline would go right over my head. That said, however, the critique that Daily Show watchers take Jon Stewart seriously is not completely off-base. Although I watch the show to laugh at the verifiable shitshow which has been current events of late, I have always respected the fact that Stewart’s comedy is secondary to his intelligence. As a viewer, I’m not stupid enough to view his sarcasm as fact – a realization which many conservatives who believe Stewart’s counterpart, Stephen Colbert, is serious have failed to make.

However, although I may not take the CONTENT of the Daily Show seriously, I do hold its’ host in high esteem. For the better part of the last decade, Jon Stewart has made his living making political fart jokes, but has made an impression by being a serious critic of the U.S. mainstream media. Although he readily acknowledges that his own work is fake, the well-educated and hyper-informed Stewart passionately believes that it is the responsibility of “real” journalists to inform and educate viewers about politics and the state of the country in a serious and non-partisan manner. During an appearance as a guest on the CNN program Crossfire in 2004, Stewart accused these types of partisan programs of “hurting America;” the twenty-four hour news networks are full of Cross-fire like shows, in which pundits engage in one-sided screaming matches for shock value rather than holding an honest debate: "[Your show], it's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery." He also pointed out journalists’ reluctance to criticize public policy on-air and to hold the country’s leaders accountable on the tough issues: "You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably...we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to a actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy." When one CNN journalist accused Stewart of “coddling” Democratic Senator John Kerry when he appeared on The Daily Show, the comedian responded, “I didn’t realize the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. You’re on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls! What’s wrong with you?”

While it’s a pathetic commentary on our journalists, during the last eight years of an inept presidential administration propped up by an inept media, it has been Stewart on the puppet-crank call network who has been asking the tough questions. At times it has seemed like Stewart who, as one blogger put it, has become “a voice for the people among the useless talking heads.” Whether Stewart coddled Kerry or not, The Daily Show’s host does not habitually allow his guests to coast through an easy interview if he believes there is something important which must be addressed. Most recently, Jon Stewart's serious side has come out to play in an on-air feud between himself and cable television’s number one financial news network, CNBC. Although originally played for laughs with Stewart ridiculing Jim Cramer, host of the network's most popular investment program Mad Money, and other CNBC personalities by airing video clips of them making exuberantly bullish statements about the market and various investment banks shortly before they collapsed, Stewart has raised the serious question of whether the experts on television’s number one financial news network should have seen the meltdown coming and warned the public. When Cramer blew off the criticism as that of a hack comedian with a staff of people editing television clips out of context, Stewart came back to charge that people at CNBC knew what was going on behind the scenes on Wall Street but didn't tell the public. Although that may sound like a stretch at first, Cramer’s appearance as a guest on The Daily Show only served to make it appear more creditable. First, Stewart cut into Cramer for falsely advertising himself as a market consultant (his show’s slogan is “In Cramer We Trust”) when in reality he places producing an entertaining program above giving viewers the best advice.


Then, Stewart accused Cramer of incompetence for his bad call on the future of Wall Street giant Bear Sterns, playing clips of Cramer telling viewers to “go out and buy Bear Sterns right now!” three days before the investment firm collapsed. However, everyone makes a bad call now and then, even supposed “experts” like Cramer. That’s when Stewart began hammering Cramer of being an inside player; a figure who pretends to be on the side of his audience when, in actuality, he is part of the machine whose selfish motives led to the current financial crisis. To back up these claims, Stewart played unaired footage of Cramer giving “workaround” and “loophole” advice to inside investors which was barely legal at best. “I would never say this on TV,” the taped figure of Cramer says. As the blood drained out of the real Cramer’s face, Stewart kept at him. “Play clip number 6,” Jon called out to his tech staff, like a prosecutor at a populist trial.

When an uncharacteristically quiet and repentant Cramer claimed that he just tried to give people the best advice, he stupidly admitted, “You have these CEOs, I’ve known these guys for years – they come in and say everything’s fine. They lie to the public – they lie in front of me, what can I do?” That’s when Stewart went in for the kill: "That’s my point - you walk away from talking to a CEO and you know he's lying. So my question is, if you know the truth, and you do, because otherwise how would you know he's lying, why don't you report THAT and not just be the CEO's stenographer? When I went to journalism school the lesson was, ‘If they don't want it printed, it's news; if they want it printed, it's propaganda.’" By just backing up the fake stories the CEOs created, Stewart claims, CNBC gave them false credibility, which is what got us into this mess, when they should have been calling out these people YEARS AGO.

Whether you buy into the overreaching accusations that Jim Cramer is partially responsible for the nation’s economic collapse or not, Jon Stewart’s central critique that CNBC falsely advertises itself as an authority on money management when in truth it is an entertainment network more interested in catering to Wall Street insiders than providing its viewers with any real information is not only damning but accurate. Mad Money is the complete opposite of The Daily Show; while Stewart claims to be a crank even as he gives his audience valid information, Cramer puts entertainment ahead of intelligence and yet is advertized as a serious investment consultant. Making matters worse, CNBC viewers, unlike Daily Show audiences who are often well-informed about current events outside of Stewart’s news reporting, do not investigate the economic network’s investment advice. I personally know people who sit in front of Jim Cramer’s program, laptops at the ready and logged into their E-Trade accounts, ready to follow whatever advice their guru is prepared to offer. It's embarrassing that a basic cable comedian had to point out that one of the top financial news networks failed to fulfill its journalistic duty--to provide people with the information they need to make informed decisions. Furthermore, its embarrassing that the fart joke guy is, at times it seems, the only one willing to hold pundits’ feet to the fire.

This isn’t going unnoticed; The Daily Show episode featuring Cramer made its presence known at the offices of President Barack Obama. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he had spoken with President Barack Obama on Thursday about watching the Stewart-Cramer showdown. The spokesman added: “Despite, even as Mr. Stewart said, that it may have been uncomfortable to conduct and uncomfortable to watch, I thought it was — I thought somebody asked a lot of tough questions.”

Well, I’m glad SOMEBODY is.

THE POPE GOES TO AFRICA

Although a spiritual person who believes in God, I have, for the latter half of my life, been anti-organized religion, as I find that these organizations almost universally do two inexcusable things:

1) They forget their answers to the unanswerable questions of life are only theories created by man, not God, and are thus fallible and need to be adjusted as man discovers more about himself and his universe.

2) They get so caught up in their own skewed agendas that they forget the people they are intended to serve.

Although I could go on until I run out of space on the internet for all the instances of this among religions – both mainstream and cultish alike - the most recent appalling move by a major religion towards its own people occurred during the Catholic Pope’s tour of Africa last week. The African continent, with widespread poverty, disease, war, corruption, and unparalleled human suffering is full of a people – understandably – looking for some sort of spiritual guidance, and as such has become the fastest-growing population of Catholics in the world. However, rather than use this as an opportunity to bring positive comfort, the Pope, addressing these people, chose to criticize the use of condoms which have been distributed by international aid groups and warn Africans that these devices do not prevent, but rather spread the onslaught of the deadly AIDS virus. To say this to a society which has been completely decimated by AIDS is verging on unforgivable.

In the last twenty-five years, while education programs in developed countries such as the United States have helped slow the spread of HIV to a crawl by advocating both sexual abstinence and the use of condoms, Africa’s lack of access to education, prevention, and treatment has led to a pandemic. In 2007, about 21,000 people, including children, died of AIDS in North America. By comparison, 1.6 MILLION people died of the virus in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Of the 36 million people estimated to be living with HIV globally, 68% are living in Africa. For an organization which claims to champion the cause of life and the alleviation of suffering, it’s unbelievable that the Catholic Church should be so petty as to value its own dogmatic teachings over the lives of millions of people. The idea that AIDS is a just punishment for sexual promiscuity is a moot point in a society where the disease is so rampant, many victims are innocent recipients to their own fate, including rape victims and children who are born HIV positive or become orphaned to parents who have fallen victim to the disease. Also, such a large percentage of the population is infected that even monogamous married couples spread the virus. At a time when the crisis has reached critical levels, preaching the idea that sexual abstinence will put a halt to the AIDS epidemic is foolish at best and likely closer to morally bankrupt. On a semi-related note, infamous porn star Jenna Jameson, who recently gave birth to twins, has claimed to be a “devout Catholic.” Well, if the definition of Catholic is lies, hypocrisy, and sexually transmitted diseases, then maybe she is.

Now some have defended the Pope, claiming that he is only preaching the standard of behavior dictated by his own religion. “What would you have him do?” these proponents claim. “Support condom use in the African population when the law of the Church globally is that birth control, in any form, goes against its fundamental teachings?” Well, yes, on one hand, he is being consistent with the Catholic stance on birth control. However, I take issue with this rather flimsy excuse on two levels. First, I am outraged by the methods the Church uses in order to deliver its message; rather than relay on its own Biblical teachings to dissuade sexual behavior which it does not approve of, it instead utilizes dishonesty and scare tactics. For example, “In 2003, a Vatican official [speaking in Africa] told Catholics that the AIDS virus could escape through tiny holes in condoms.” Not only is the claim completely false, but a deliberate attempt by the Church to frighten its followers away from a practical solution to stopping the spread of the disease. On his more recent visit to the African continent a few weeks ago, the Pontiff himself claimed that condoms “spread AIDS rather than prevent the disease,” another flat-out lie completely disproven by scientific study. Although the Church has an infamous history of lying to the public in the face of scientific fact, the idea that the Earth was the center of the Universe as opposed to the Sun wasn’t responsible for the deaths of millions of people; conversely in this case, the Church’s hypocrisy is directly contributing to countless human suffering. This, in my opinion, is inexcusable; if you believe that you should abstain from using birth control because it is God’s Will, that is just fine. But if you play to the fears of a desperate and uneducated public by telling them they should abstain from using birth control because it will kill them, that is immoral.

Secondly, as a non-Catholic, I question whether such a strict policy towards birth control is even practical in the twenty-first century. Most Catholics in the developed world, married or not, use it openly, and either do not acknowledge this portion of their chosen religion or rectify this supposed transgression by saying the reticent number of prayers assigned to them every time they visit the Confession box. Most educated Church-goers would rather say a few “Hail Marys” and “Our Fathers” every week than end up with AIDS, any numerous other sexually transmitted diseases, or children they cannot afford – physically, emotionally, or economically - to provide for. However, in these poverty-stricken and uneducated portions of the world, this choice is not necessarily readily available (no 24-hour CVS in Sudan) or readily understood (no high school sex education class to co-opt the Sunday School abstinence course). The idea that the Pope’s hands are tied in this matter is ludicrous; the Voice of God on Earth or not, the Pope effectively serves as President of the Vatican and the Catholic Church, and he individually has the power to change the rules as he sees fit. The fact that the “modernization” of Church teachings generally happens centuries after such adaptations have been accepted by the rest of the human civilization is the result of pompous old white men in robes stubbornly sticking their heels in the ground in the name of “morality” when the real issue isn’t religion - its that they are deathly afraid they might have to admit they were actually WRONG about something. Some recent examples of this lunacy include:

(1) Pope John Paul II recognizing Galileo was correct about the movement of the planets in the 1990s. . . more than 400 years after the fact.

(2) The current administrations’ reluctant acceptance of the Holocaust which is more akin to a “we’re not saying it didn’t happen” attitude than actually admitting that it did.

(3) Vatican officials looking the other way rather than dealing with acts of sexual assault among their own clergy until finally called out by the secular justice system.

In fact, none of the items mentioned above are even issues of faith. No where in the Bible is it written that the Earth is the center of the Universe, that priests should be celibate, or that atrocities committed against Jews are acceptable. For that matter, no where in the Bible does it state that contraception – a precaution which is not, as some believe, a modern invention, but dates back to Biblical times in which condoms were most often made from animal intestines or bladders and used to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of syphilis – is sinful. In fact, the Catholic Church had no official opinion on the matter for almost 2,000 years. . . . until 1930, when the Anglican Church decided to sanction and promote the idea of condom use for married couples. Since if the Protestants do it, it must be evil, Pope Pius responded by slapping Catholic followers with the Casti Connubii later that same year – the first official doctrine banning contraceptives. Therefore, the only challenge which the previous examples place on religion is that they have the potential to be embarrassing for the Church’s government . . . and Heaven forbid they admit to human fallacy.

Unfortunately for Africa and its mushrooming Catholic population, millions more will suffer and die for the Pope’s twisted idea of pride.

Now that is truly sinful.

CRYING WOLF: A Former Professor's Lawsuit Cheapens Discrimination At Dartmouth

When it comes to racial and gender-based issues, Dartmouth has had more than its fair share in the four years I’ve been on campus. Blowups which come to mind include the Native American incidents exacerbated by the ultraconservative Dartmouth Review, protests regarding illegal immigration, the bashing of Asian students for supposedly lowering the GPA of the school, and the voluntary ignorance of the many incidents of rape and sexual assault on the part of the Dartmouth administration - to the extent that the former head of sexual assault up and quit in frustration. All of these are worrisome occurrences of discrimination that deserve to be addressed by Dartmouth students, faculty, and staff. However, out of all these issues, it is the most recent incident - the threat of a lawsuit by former writing professor Priya Venkatsen, 39, for racial and gender discrimination which has generated the most media buzz and has proposed actual legal action. Unfortunately, because the incident is completely baseless and ultimately an inane attempt to promote Venkatsen’s own publications, the professor’s complaint has only succeeded in degrading the value of legitimate complaints of racial and gender discrimination filed by Dartmouth women and minorities.

Priya Venkatsen quit her teaching and research position at Dartmouth in March after a brief stint at the college, but not before e-mailing several freshman students in her winter term writing class threatening to sue them for being disrespectful to her in class - an attitude which she attributes to her gender (female) and her ethnicity (Indian). Venkatsen's complaints included her irritation with students who questioned her ideas and interpretation of assigned classroom texts. Although none of the students’ comments ever mentioned her race or gender and instead focused on the reading material, Venkatsen believes the students’ questioning was an attempt to undermine her authority.

First of all, as an English writing student and former Dartmouth teaching assistant for the same type of class (freshmen writing) which Venkatsen taught, I am shocked that this kind of behavior by students would be deemed unacceptable. Humanities professors have traditionally been less of authority figures in their classrooms than debate moderators;, and it the job of humanities students to have different interpretations of texts and question the opinions of both their peers and their professors. Freshmen often have to be encouraged to contradict a professor’s views, as they are often overly concerned with approval and grades. As my writing professor at Dartmouth, Gary Lenhart, often told our students, “Writing is easy. It’s thinking that’s hard.”

However, apparently this is not how things worked in Venkatsen's classroom, much to the confusion and ultimate frustration of students whooften disagreed with Venkatsen's opinions and felt that they weren't allowed to express their own ideas. Things came to a breaking point when one student spoke out in a lengthy explanation of his point-of-view on the text and made an argument as to why he disagreed with the professor's interpretation. When he was finished, the class applauded in appreciation of the student’s courage to stand up to, what the class felt, was the professor's intolerance of their opinions. Venkatsen, however, was so "horrified" by the class’ reaction to the student’s tirade that she reprimanded the students and canceled the next several meetings of the class. Her distress ultimately led her to quit her job, but not before sending several e-mails to students threatening to both take legal action against them and publish a book on her experience in which the individual students would be named. The freshmen were “shocked” and “upset” by the e-mail, though official Dartmouth legal council has met with the students involved and has called the professor’s claims "baseless." “Imagine you're an 18 year old away from home and your professor is threatening to sue you," the lawyer commented. “No wonder the students are upset.” For, what would seem, simply participating in a valid academic argument. Venkatsen’s intention to profit on the controversy by writing a book only further discredits her motivations.

To further weaken her argument, Venkatsen complains that when she reported her students behavior to Thomas Corman, the director of Dartmouth's Institute for Writing and Venkatsen's boss, her concerns were ignored and Corman "made comments himself which caused discomfort." Venkatsen reported that Corman related a story to her about a class he taught where students discussed racism in baseball. "It made me very uncomfortable," Venkatsen states. "Why would he be saying 'racism in baseball?' He is intimating that my being a fan of baseball is inappropriate. By saying that, what he really means is, 'don't you know that people like you would never be let into baseball because of your
ethnicity?'"

Excuse the capitals, but, WHAT!? Wasn't Cormen simply trying to relate to an upset woman by giving her an example of the time he taught a class which became racially charged?

That's how Cormen saw it.

"I taught a first year course on baseball,” Cormen explains, confused. “Some of the students wrote papers on racism in baseball. Why that offended her is beyond me." Unfortunately, Venkatsen is clearly someone who thinks the world is out to get her a priori of anything actually happening. As such, she has kept everyone around her wound so tight they can't express any kind of opinion on anything. No wonder her students felt so frustrated. Plus, if she manages to take such obviously-intended interactions with peers and students and interpret them so wildly, I can only imagine how she twisted the meanings of classroom texts. It is easy to understand, in that case, why students would disagree with her interpretations and vocalize them, causing Venkatsen to skew their protests in an even wilder direction, and interpret them as racial discrimination.

However, the real travesty of this case is that it sheds a poor light on true cases of discrimination. It is cases like these which promote the “Nazi feminist” and “PC sensitive” stereotypes which cause people to roll their eyes and ignore legitimate complaints of women and minorities being mistreated. In addition, Venkatsen has helped sow the seeds of discrimination in her students by giving them a reason to mistrust female and Indian authority figures. I know if some teacher wrote a book slandering me because of an opinion I expressed in class about a piece of literature, I would have a hard time not letting that affect my personal bias against said teacher, and, by extension, those who reminded me of her. Let’s hope we can leave our assumptions behind along with Ms. Venkatsen’s resume.


A real incident of racism: The Dartmouth Review, circa 2006.

SIGNS OF LIFE: Studying Maori Culture in New Zealand

*NOTE: Much of my blogging absence is attributed to the fact I've been abroad touring New Zealand with my dance company. For a portion of our tour, we lived, danced, and learned in a native Maori Marae. This is my feeble attempt to share that overwhelming experience.

After three days of being rushed around, crammed into various airplanes, painfully separated from the luxuries of toothpaste, deodorant, and clean underwear, I had finally arrived in what is arguably the most beautiful country on the planet: New Zealand. Now, standing outside a wooden stockade fence made from tree branches and squinting my eyes in the afternoon sun as the warm breeze filtered through the flax trees swaying under a picturesque blue sky, the first thing I noticed was just how warm and comfortable silence felt here.

I had traveled to New Zealand not as a tourist but as a dancer with the Dartmouth Dance Ensemble as they embarked on an international cultural outreach tour. Through dance, we hoped to study the culture of New Zealand's native Maori tribes, and in exchange, share with them our own approach to the art. Unlike neighboring Australia, where the native Aboriginal population was severely suppressed by the colonial government to the extent that native children were forcibly removed from their homes and reeducated by the British, New Zealand's Maori people experienced a much more tolerant regime. Nevertheless, unfair government policies (including land disputes) coupled with generations of intermarriage between tribes and Europeans diluted Maori cultural knowledge to the extent that, until recently, it was in danger of being lost. However, in the last fifty-odd years, the Maori have worked diligently to bring their culture back from the brink, and it now flourishes in native tribal communities scattered across the country. It was thanks to this cultural resurgence that I now found myself here: at the opening in the fence outside a native Marae.



The Ensemble and I had touched down in the city of Auckland at 6 AM that morning only to fly a half hour south down to the capital city of Wellington, then drive to the Maori-dominated village of Lower Hutt. After the stagnancy of airports and modern city neighborhoods, Lower Hutt certainly looked the part of an exotic land; nestled between looming green mountains and situated along the edge of a small river, the modest suburban neighborhood was saturated in an old-fashioned sense of domestic peace. At the epicenter of the 1970s one-family homes stood the fence, peppered with red totems carved with tikis (human figures), their shell eyes bulging and tongues hanging out to intimidate enemies. As we peeked around the edge of the largest totems marking the fence's entrance, we saw a short, smartly-dressed older woman navigating the narrow dirt path which led from the gate up to the front steps of the Marae, its long sloping eaves spread wide as if awaiting an embrace. The analogy is appropriate; each Marae is named after an ancestor, and its physical design is representative of the human form. The large center beam which runs the length of the building's roof resembles the spine, the painted rafters which slope away from the beam form the ribcage, and theoutside eaves are the arms. At the apex of the eaves over the front porch sits a carved wooden head. When entering a Marae, the Maori believe visitors are literally entering the ancestor.



The woman approached us at the gate, her shiny black pumps scraping the dirt path. She greeted us with a warm smile and explained that her husband, Terri, the tribe's leader, would lead the welcoming ceremony. With that, she led us up the path, past the peaceful white grave of Terri's father who had the Marae built in the 1950s. As we approached the shadow of the building, we were instructed to remove our shoes before entering. As Terri later explained, the Maori believe that the world outside of the Marae is ruled by the spirit of war, while the world inside is ruled by the spirit of peace. Removing our shoes was done "not just to help keep the floors clean," Terri joked, but "to prevent tracking the war spirit inside." Unshod, we followed her up onto the Marae's stone porch and into the arms of the Ancestor.

Passing through the large front door, Terri, dressed more casually than his wife in blue jeans, a button-up shirt and baseball cap, greeted us in the traditional manner by clasping right hands and touching the foreheads together, eyes downcast. We then arranged ourselves in lines on chairs set out on woven flax mats - boys in the front, and girls in the back. As per tradition, only men are allowed to speak during the ceremony, and each group nominates one speaker. Terri spoke for the Maori, welcoming us first in his nativelanguage and then again in English, before he and his wife performed a beautiful Maori song. "We hope that was kind on the ears," he commented.

It was.

Then our director, Ford Evans, spoke for our group, thanking our hosts. We were then required to perform a song representative of our common heritage, and we bumbled through the Dartmouth alma mater. "That was very pleasant on the ears," Terri remarked afterwards.

He was being kind.

After the ceremony was complete, Terri invited us to move our luggage into the Marae and settle on the beds which ringed the main room in the Marae - fluffy mattresses covered in colorful hand-sewn quilts. After three days of sleeping upright on planes, they looked like the most comfortable beds I'd ever seen. I also took an opportunity to really study the intricate carvings, weavings, and paintings which covered the walls and ceilings of the building. Once we were settled, Terri's wife went to the kitchens to help finish preparing our dinner while Terri told us more about his people, the Marae, and traditional Maori stories. However, there was one comment Terri made which struck me as particularly poignant: "We don't shoo away spiders," Terri said. "We enjoy seeing a spider spinning a web in the corner. It's a sign that even when no one was home, there's still life happening in here."



There is certainly plenty of life happening in this place. Even as we were listening to Terri's stories, the sound of laughing school children and the smells of home-baked bread were carried in on the breeze through the Marae's open windows. Some of Terri's grandchildren scampered through the Marae to see us, other members of the community joined us for dinner in the Marae's dining room, and people were constantly passing in and out of the place, giving the sense of one large family. Terri's wife summed it up well: "If we need something and holler out the door, somebody will come running." Most of the tribe spoke Maori amongst each other, a language which, a couple of generations ago, was nearly lost. Now, however, the tribe's children
are bussed to a school where they are taught in their native tongue, and are raised fluent in both Maori and English - complete with its unique down-under twang.



Also recently revived has been the native weaving, done entirely by hand without the aid of a loom. The art form experienced a resurgence partially from the efforts of Terri's sister, who used traditional techniques to create modern works of art. Her work became known both nationally and internationally, and she toured with her pieces all over the world. We were able to see some of her work at a small art gallery down the street from the Marae, which displayed traditional carving, jewelry, and weaving. The main material used in Maori weaving is flax, which is harvested, boiled, dyed, dried, and braided to make up the base of the weaving. Other materials, including shells, beads, and feathers decorate the weaving, especially on traditional cloaks. The most beautiful cloaks were decorated with feathers from New Zealand's native Kiwi birds, which are endangered. Unfortunately, their ecological status makes the feathers difficult to come by; weavers must possess a special permit to use Kiwi bird feathers, and the feathers themselves are distributed to weavers by the government. Then, although the weaver is allowed to keep their creation, the final product is, by law, the property of the government. Although the Maori support conservation efforts, they have difficulty accepting this policy. In fact, they view the cloaks, with their feathers fluttering in the breeze, as living tributes to the birds, and a more respectful end for their feathers rather than just allowing them to decay. Also, flax harvesting to make the weaving fiber has grown more difficult since large stretches of land where flax grows wild are currently under government protection.



The next day we found ourselves warming up for dance class on the shiny wooden floor of the Marae while Maori dance students practiced their moves nearby. The high-school age group had recently qualified for the national competition, and were excited to practice their pieces for us. For them, we performed some choreography by modern dance luminary Twyla Tharp, and also demonstrated and taught the students some of our own original work. Their performance began when their coach blew from a large conch shell, speaking in the native tongue. The group demonstrated dances featuring the patu - a wooden paddle-shaped weapon used by the ancient Maori in battle, and the poi - small balls hung on an end of braided flax. Although the poi were originally used for strengthening the wrists of warriors to help them wield the patu, poi dances are now considered feminine and are performed by women. The group also sang several songs, accompanying themselves on guitar.



When they were finished, it was our turn to try to learn their repertory. The first dance I attempted was with the poi. The swiftly spinning flax balls were deceptively difficult to manipulate; being handmade, they varied slightly in lengths and weights and it took all of my coordination to keep both my poi spinning and going in the direction I wanted. The patu was slightly easier for me, being somewhat similar in wrist movement to baton twirling. However, the uneven weight and fingering were completely unique. "If you drop your patu, you have to do ten press-ups," their coach warned, as he demonstrated several deft twirling moves. Sure enough, one of the dancers' patus swiftly clattered to the floor. In response, she dropped and gave him ten. "The press-ups aren't so bad," the coach joked. "We used to kill you." He wasn't completely joking; in battle, if you dropped your patu, you were as good as dead. The Maori were famous for being fierce warriors, intimidating their opponents with their patu twirling, bulging eyes, stuck out tongues, and stomping legs. The Haka, or Maori war dance (now most commonly seen being performed by teams at the start of rugby matches) which involves communal chanting, stomping, and other intimidating tactics, is frightening enouth when being performed by a friendly group of high school students - one can only imagine how it must have appeared to have hundreds of warriors shaking the ground with it.



A couple of days later, I found it difficult to leave this exotic place which had so quickly come to feel like home. I would miss the sight of the mountains rising out from behind the stockade fence, the multicolored birds playing in the small river, the sounds of children playing and the musical Maori language. I would miss the sense of community which arose between the tight-knit homes, communal dinners, and waking up together to the sun glinting off the shell eyes of the red tikis. But most of all I would miss the people who had so openly welcomed us, taking us hiking up their mountain for a view of the town, who stayed up late talking drinking hot tea and eating homemade cookies with us after taking cold showers in the Maori bathhouse, and whose children had slept next to us in the Marae.

I would miss the comfortable silence.

During the goodbye ceremony, we sang our songs more fully than the tentative attempts at our first meeting. As we touched our foreheads goodbye, our hands were clasped more tightly and were followed by a kiss on the cheek and a hug. And as I stepped off the front porch of the Marae and put back on my shoes, I looked back at the empty entrance and noticed a small spider weaving an intricate web off the nose of one of the elaborately carved poles. For the first time, instead of frowning at the web or moving to bat it away, I smiled warmheartedly.

A sign of life.

Top Five Novels #2: The Kite Runner

NOTE: I've decided to review my top five favorite contemporary novels. Given my absence, I've currently posted, completely out of order, number two: The Kite Runner.

I originally had no interest whatsoever in reading this novel despite its obvious popularity; it seemed to me just another half-rate book whose otherwise meager readership was artifically swollen because of its topical setting: Afghanistan. Since 9/11 and the start of President Bush's War on Terror, countless novels have been written about life in the Middle East, and Americans have flocked to them - perhaps out of a sense of curiousity, a need to have their suspicions confirmed, or maybe even in an attempt to understand the people whose leaders had caused so much physical and emotional distress as of late.

The Kite Runner, upon first glance, seemed to fit into this category; although written by a man who had actually grown up in Afganistan, the story about two young boys - Amir and Hassan - whose childhood is interrupted by the invasion of the Taliban seemed just so quasi-political that I remained skeptical. As a result, I completely ignored the book until its, for lack of a better word, "sequel," A Thousand Splendid Suns, was released last spring. The week the book was to go on sale, at least twenty people a day came in begging to know if they could purchase it yet; the day it was put on the shelves it sold out in a matter of hours. The fervor of The Kite Runner fans sparked my curiosity; perhaps there was something more about this particular novel that I had missed. Intrigued, I picked up a copy of The Kite Runner and threw it onto my summer reading pile. When I finally opened it up on the beach some time in mid-August, not only could I not put it down - I didn't want it to end.

Rarely do I enjoy the process of reading a book so much that my desire to prolong the experience overrides my more basic need to find out what happens in the story. But a good story, like a good meal, is something to be savored, and The Kite Runner is a three-course entree. Told from Amir's point-of-view, the story follows the boy as he transitions from childhood to emotional maturity. Intrinsic to the novel is Amir's relationship with two men: his father, Babba, and his best friend/servant boy, Hassan. The Amir/Babba relationship is interesting but not unique; Amir idolizes his father and fears he is consistently a dissapointment to him. Amir is, by nature, undeniably his father's opposite in personality and talent, and fears Hassan, who is more like his father, is the son Babba wished he had. This dual role Hassan plays - at once Amir's most loyal companion and his arch rival for his father's affections - sets up a much more complex relationship. Added to this dynamic is the fact that Hassan is ethnically of a lower class than Amir and is considered his servant (he makes Amir's breakfast for him, for instance) which complicates their friendship further as Amir struggles with his own concept of Hassan's role in his life - a role Hassan never thinks to question.

The Amir/Hassan relationship and Amir's inherent personality flaws bring me to the thing which amazed me most about The Kite Runner as a story: how much the author allowed his audience to HATE his main character. Since the entire story is narrated by Amir, the novel's success practically hinges on the reader's ability to empathize with the Afghani boy. As a writer, I can't imagine taking a bigger risk than by making my main character a loathsome individual... but that's exactly what author Khaled Hosseini does. Had I been Amir's mother I would have slapped him saying, "What is WRONG with you?!"; I can't count the number of times I was so mad at Amir that I threw the book away from me and nearly howled in frustration. Amir is the antithesis of everything we expect from our children, especially our sons. He's meek, he's cowardly, he's selfish, he's cruel, he lies, he cheats, he steals, he blames others rather than take responsibility for his own actions, he refuses to stand up for himself, and he abandons the friends who stand up for him in their own times of need. To steal a line from J.K. Rowling, creator of children's hero Harry Potter, when given the choice between doing what is right and what is easy, Amir picks what is easy every single time.

However, the billiance of Amir is that he hates himself for all of his weaknesses even more than we do. He doesn't commit reprehensable acts with relish; rather, he knows exactly how wrong the things he does are, and tortures himself relentlessly over them to the extent that his self-punishment causes him to make the situation worse. The result is that as a reader I couldn't completely condemn Amir; not only is it difficult to kick a boy who's already beaten himself to death, but the situations which Amir finds himself in are such that I can't honestly say I would have acted differently. Instead, as readers we are waiting for his redemption even as we wonder what Amir could possibly do to make up for the pain he's caused. His quest for forgiveness keeps us reading, but its the heartfelt and honest way which the book describes the responsibilities of brotherhood which make us fall in love. It's a man's story that even women can appreciate.

The New Hampshire Primary: On The Front Lines

I realize I've been noticably silent about my opinions on this year's political race for the party nominations. Perhaps a surprise, given not only my strong convictions about this election, but my close proximity to the eye of the storm: New Hampshire. I must admit, my privileged location has allowed me, for the first time, to involve myself in the electoral process much more closely than in the past. With all the major candidates personally courting my vote (many of whom have actually called me on the phone), I've also realized how lopsided this makes the preliminary electoral process; that my vote supposedly
counts more than if it was cast in Massachusetts (where, given my absentee voter registration status, it will actually be counted) or wherever else, and therefore I somehow deserve more attention than my fellow citizens. Even worse, that my fellow NH residents, along with Iowans, are given the right, by some random decision made a hundred years before we were born, to have more of a say in who becomes the presidential candidate than everybody else.

My elite status as a Dartmouth College student has given me an even more unique (though also egregiously lopsided) opportunity to sit in on stump speeches and town meetings with all the presidential candidates, as well as a nationally televised Democratic Presidential debate which brought the entire discussion, quite literally, to my feet as Obama, Clinton, and Edwards mounted a stage I'm usually rehearsing dance routines on. But the experience has been more than just bearing witness to someone who could very possibly become our next Commander-In-Chief; during the last six months I've had the ability to interact with them, talking with both John Kerry and Barack Obama, asking John Edwards questions and hanging out at Hillary Clinton's campaign offices.

So, with all that's been going on, one would think I would be bursting at the seams with witty and insightful commentary about the entire thing. But perhaps I've just been too busy to comment, or maybe I've just been so overwhelmed by all of my conflicting opinions, I haven't been able to come up with a comprehensive entry which would encompass them all. Or maybe, in an uncharacteristic display of indecision, I haven't yet made up my mind on who I want to wholeheartedly throw my support behind. All three excuses would be partially true, but at the same time a cop-out on my part. Given that, I am prepared, on this, the morning of the New Hampshire Primary, before knowing the outcome (although I do predict Obama's projected victory on the Democratic side will become a reality, and that McCain will edge out our slimeball of a former Massachusetts govenor, Mitt Romney, for the Republicans) to lay it all out, so to speak, and break my previous silence with the follwing decisve statements which sum up my opinions on the election thus far:

1. I'm voting for Hillary, but it's not because she's a girl.
2. I like Obama (and I love listening to him), but I think he'll spend half his first term trying to find the bathroom.
3. Edwards is an egotistical dick.
4. The Republican canidates seem to still think that the American public is as stupid and easily manipulated as Jay Leno's Jaywalking segments on the Tonight Show would lead us to believe. I just hope they're wrong.

Now that I've pissed off at least somebody, allow me to elaborate.

1. "GIVE 'EM HELL" HILLARY CLINTON

I realize that there are a lot of Hillary haters out there, and if any of them are reading this, they are probably thinking one of two things; either it's "How can you like someone like Hillary?" or it's "Of course you like her - you're a girl."


I'd like to address the latter statement first, as it's completely inane, but at the same time I've been accused of it several times. I admit that there are plenty of irresponsible Americans out there who are too lazy to actually concern themselves with public policy, how it affects them, and what each candidate stands for, and simply vote for whomever looks most like them. I hold no illusions that many people voted for Bush just because he was from Texas, and that many will vote for Obama just because he's black or Clinton just because she happens to have a vagina. However, I am not one of those people, and the underlying sexism of that statement is insulting. I mean, would I ask an Edwards supporter if he was voting for John because he was a man? Of course not. It may be a given that the first female U.S. President would be a significant event, but most women would want that person to be someone who would be a worthy representative of the fairer sex, not just anybody. Think about it: why would women back a female candidate if they didn't honestly believe they would make a great President? It's critical the first female president do a good job; if they don't, Americans everywhere might question ever letting women out of the kitchen again. So I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton because she is a girl, I'm voting for her because I think she'd make an excellent President. Condeleeza Rice is a girl, and there is no way in Hell I would ever vote for her for anything, because she is an intelligent woman who prefers to ass-kiss her way to personal gain over putting her smarts to good use and standing up for what's right.

But I digress.

So if I'm not voting for Hillary for sisterhood reasons, what do I like about her?

First, I have always had a lot of respect for her as a person; she's intelligent, competative, a hard worker, and knows how to get things done. In addition, her beliefs and positions on major issues closely align themselves with my own. More importantly, I think her stance on policy are what is best for the United States at this point in time. Although a lot of people tend to write her off as some kind of liberal radical, in fact, her policies have always been that of a moderate - something which makes sense considering her Midwestern Republican upbringing. This country has had enough of hard right-wing extremism, and really could use a middle-of-the-road, steadfast leader who will knit together its party divisions organically by moderating their differences, rather than trying to force them into agreement using political strong-arming.

Second, Hillary is uniquely well-suited for the Presidency. Obviously, her history as a political leader - from her time as a campaign volunteer as a young woman and her work as a lawyer, to her experiences as a governor's wife, her eight years in the White House as a Presidential spouse, and her eight years as a U.S. Senator - make her more qualified, in terms of prior experience, to be President than any previous individual who has sought the job. In addition, the most pressing concerns facing the United States at the moment are right up the Clintons' alley. The national Health Care crisis is a problem she's been working to solve for over two decades, and her revised plan has the potential to be a real fix. Having long been advocates of social responsibility, the Clintons will go far towards working to improve failing social institutions such as Social Security. As a woman, Hillary is in a unique position to help halt the rather frightening backslide womens' rights has taken in the last eight years. Both Bill and Hillary's close relationship with the Gore family will give environmental advocates a direct line of communication with a President who will actually listen to the dangers facing our planet, while Bill Clinton - the man who successfully balanced the United States' budget and, for the first time EVER, gave Americans a yearly SURPLUS, is in a perfect position to advise Hillary on how to combat the staggering deficit the Bush administration has managed to accrue.

Speaking of Bill, he's the third reason Hillary appeals to me. I love Bill Clinton, and, despite his personal shortcomings, he was a fantastic President who left office with the highest job approval rating in United States' history. When Bill was first elected in 1992, he famously said America was getting "two for the price of one," meaning Bill and HIllary would both be working to fix the countries problems; as First Lady Hillary was more involved in policy and the President's day-to-day decisions than any before her - or since. Were Hillary to win the Presidency, we Americans would get two for the price of one once more, only this time, one of those two has already BEEN President. No Commander-In-Chief has ever had an advisor that knowledgeable on their team before, and that can not be a bad thing. However, there's more to it than that. I, along with many other Americans, may love Bill Clinton, but, more importantly, most of the WORLD loves Bill Clinton. He is one of the most respected Americans on the planet; if anyone can held fix our horrendously tarnished image in the global community, it's Bill. With Hillary Clinton as President, the first First Man would be able to put his diplomatic skills to good use touring internationally and rebuilding goodwill. That alone will make America safer than any airline security gate ever will.

Finally, I think she can win. Although I realize some voters fear that she's too controversial to get elected, or that a campaign season with her on the ballot will be heavy on the mudslinging, I believe that is just not accurate. No matter who the nominees are, things will get ugly; however, Hillary has a lot of experience dealing with attack dog and coming away unscathed. In all her years in the public eye, the woman has had everything thrown at her but the kitchen sink, and has managed to remain so popular among the general public that she stands today as a strong Presidential candidate. Why? Because she doesn't roll over when things get tough, and despite what people may say, she is good at what she does. When she first ran for New York Senator in 2000, she was widely criticized as a carpet-bagger, and rightly so. She had no other tie to the state at that time. However, she did such a good job that those criticisms died swiftly away, and she won reelection by a landslide - with much of her support coming from conservative upstate NY. Believe it or not, she can appeal to the general populace, across party lines.

You go, girl!

2. BARACK "TRAINEE" OBAMA

About ten months ago, just as Barack Obama announced his intentions to run for President, I wrote a blog entry (see "Outrunning the Obama Train") which summed up my general opinion of the Illinois junior senator: that he had amazing potential, but not enough experience or substance to follow through on his golden promises. I wanted to wait and see if, over the course of his campaign, the glimmer which was Obama would solidify into a strong candidate I would be interested in supporting. A year later, however, after watching his interviews, attending his rallies, and speaking with him, my fears have not been allyed, and, if anything, my doubts have grown.


My main concern with Obama is that despite his honesty, optimism, and promises, he's an inarguably young, inexperienced, and idealistic figure talking in generalized terms about changes which he has no real idea how to successfully enact. However, bouyed on a wave of popularity, he will ride confidently into the White House only to have his bubble burst as it rams straight into the reality of Washington politics, where (as Hillary discovered in the early '90s when she tried to single-handedly restructure Health Care) insiders rule and knowing the the labyrinth-like paths to getting things done is critical - a truth of any bureaucracy which we must accept.

I understand Obama's appeal, especially to a nation disenchanted with its government; he is a refreshing, almost fairytale-like figure who has a captivating speaking voice and a glowing smile. When I attended his rally and met with him (and yes, ladies, he is even more drop-dead handsome in person) I had a REALLY difficult time maintaining my emotional neutrality and really listen to what he was saying with any kind of annalytical eye. He ability to harnass the emotions of a crowd and string them along to hang on his every word is an experience I can only allude to and not fully describe. However, every so often I would shake my head, clear my mind from the mob-induced stupor, and realize that many times he wasn't really saying anything. Although Obama has a way with his voice and his words, his campaign speeches sound a lot like his book, Audacity of Hope - a photograph of what America should be like, without any real plan on how to get it there. Obama likes to say exactly what people want to hear - promises of leadership change, dignity, wealth, hope, happiness - and he makes them in broad, sweeping, generalized statements which cause a hurting audience to choke up with emotion, but which don't explain how we can make these things occur in any kind of realistic way.

In addition, although Obama sounds fantastic in front of a crowd of supporters, his golden voice fails on more important occasions. For example, one would think his ability to speak would allow his voice to dominate the Democratic debates, when in reality, he tends to fade into the background, saying little and impressing no one, and certainly not differentiating himself and his policies from the other candidates. Even more surprisingly, when Obama was finally brought out talk-show diva Oprah to stump for him, her speech (which also marked her first attempt at politicial endorsement) completely outshined his, making him look like second bannana at his own rally.

We have to face reality - the man just isn't ready. We have too many problems right now to waste time "training" a green President during his first year on the job.

My reservations have increased exponetially since Obama's win in the Iowa cacus last week; although I had originally believed I would be happy with either Hillary or Obama as the Democratic nominee, Obama's actions since Iowa have unearthed a problem with him more worrisome than his inexperience: his squeaky-clean exterior is starting to crack. After winning, Iowa, Obama's demenor has begun to change; in interviews and speeches, I've noticed he has been displaying an unattractive smugness, even cockiness, that we have not seen in him before. Suffice to say, he does not wear it well. When interviewed on the New Hampshire campaign trail a few days ago by NBC's Brian Williams, Obama seemed aloof and rather condesecending - completely unnecessary since the tone of the interview was a pleasant "How's it going?" chat rather than a grilling on the issues. Also, in the final debate before the New Hampshire primary, he was downright nasty, throwing unprovoked, high-school worthy sarcastic comments at the other candidates, especially Hillary. Perhaps he was trying to be strong, but he only ended up looking like a complete ass.

Perhaps the pressure and exhaustion of the campaign trail is getting to him, but this ride is nothing compared to the grueling rigor which is actually being President. If this is what Obama's really like, well, I don't think I really like him all that much after all.

3. JOHN "CHECK OUT MY $400 HAIRCUT" EDWARDS:

Before I begin, I must admit I went in to the campaign season not liking John Edwards for completely non-academic reasons akin to the excuses which many Hillary detractors have: he just rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it was his full-of-himself smile, or the used-car-salesman slickness with which he seems to grease all of his campaign promises. However, the reality of the situation was I just had a gut feeling, and it wasn't a good one.


Not wanting to be hypocritical, however, I refused to write him for something so insubstancial. In fact, when he came to speak at Dartmouth, he was a surprisingly good orator, although his policy ideas were unremarkable. Although I appreciated his support of issues such as his environmental concerns, I disagreed with others, including his idea that all employers should be required to provide their employees with health care. Not only will that kill small business, but I think one of the biggest problems with health care in the United States is that it IS connected to jobs AT ALL. This unfortunate arrangement holds workers virtually hostage with the fear that they may lose their benefits should they lose their jobs or seek other employment, and it bars many older workers and those with chronic illness (ie. diabetes, high blood pressure, etc) from being hired on the basis that the company in question fears higher insurance premiums. I also had a problem with his lifestyle a bit, as he seems to talk a nice line, but seems a bit out-of-touch with the common individual in lifestyle choices. For example, someone preaching to return to fiscal responsibility probably shouldn't be blowing $400 on that famously overpriced haircut (that will NOT go over well in Puritan New England).

What did if for me, however (and I'm sure plenty of people will jump all over me for this) was the fact that Edwards decided to continue his run after learning his wife was terminally ill. Hear me out - I have no doubt his wife honestly and whole-heartedly wants her husband to continue his campaign; I met her, and she is not the type of person to bend her will to anyone. I also don't think that her entire family should put a halt to their lives and stand around waiting for her to die - I would imagine dwelling on the inevitiable is the last thing any terminally ill person or their loved ones should do. However, it is one thing to continue to live normally and enjoying what time is left, and another thing entirely to choose to pursue one of the most physically demanding, time consuming, emotionally draining and personally isolating things possible - a presidential campaign. And, were he to win the nomination, or ultimately the presidency, it would almost certainly require that he be absent from his family a large amount of the time, and that organizing his schedule to accommodate for an unexpected emergency - such as a downturn in his wife's health - would be inordinately difficult, if not at certain times, impossible.

Perhaps seeing her husband in the Big Chair is something which would make Elizabeth go out proud, and speaks for her character. However, regardless of her selfless intentions, I don't think I could live with myself if my spouse spent her final days on earth trying to get me a pretigious job, and I missed out on spending much time with her, because I was out also working on getting that job. Given the fact that the Edwards family is more than financially secure, Edwards' policies are not particularly revolutionary, and the Democratic party has plenty of other candidates which they are more likely to select for the nomination, the only reason I can really see for him to run is that he just really, really, really wants to be President, no matter
what. That's very telling as to the type of person he is, and it is not the kind of person I have any significant amount of respect for.

4. REPUBLICANS: "SCREWING AMERICA, ONE SUCKER AT A TIME"

Before anyone starts on me, I don't, on principle, hate all Republicans, or anything like that. Being a person who is consistantly irritated by people who make sweeping generalizations about people based on party affliations, it would be horribly hypocritical of me to say all Republicans are wrong, or have stupid ideas about running the country. Well, as mad as their leadership has made me at times, they're not all stupid and not all of their ideas are bad. Their are plenty of Democrats who don't know their head from their ass either.

However, although not all Republicans should be written off, their major Presidential candidates leave much to be desired. Not only are their ideas on policy completely out of touch with the country's current situation, but I think the general public is tired of them. However, what angers me the most about the current crop of candidates is the little-to-no respect they are showing the American voter. These Presidential hopefuls continue to mislead their audiences, misrepresent the facts, and completely insult the intelligence of America. This slimeball attitude has been clearly shown in the way each of the three major candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, have advertized themselves in New Hampshire.

* Rudy Giuliani:
First, former New York mayor Rudy Gulliani released a campaign ad in which gives the viewer a "history" lesson about famous event in 1979 in which 66 workers at the American embassy in Tehran were taken hostage by Iranian militants. Then-Democratic President Jimmy Carter could not get them released through negotiation, but the day Republican Ronald Reagan was inaugurated President, the hostages were let go. Giuliani ends this little tale by promising Americans that he will follow Reagan's example and not strike deals with terrorists.

WHAT?! How stupid does Giuliani think Americans are? I wasn't even born in 1979, but even I know there are enough holes in this story to sink the Titanic.

First of all, the hostages were released not, as Giuliani leads us to believe, because the very idea of Reagan in power (remember, at this point he was little more than a famous Hollywood actor-turned governor, similar to Arnold Swarchenegger) scared the terrorists so much they were shaking in their turbans, but because the Islamic nation of Algeria intervened, and brokered an agreement between the United States and Iran called the Algiers Accords. Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with it, as he was not even President at the time and thus had no authority to participate in the process.

More disturbing, however, is Giuliani's idea that Reagan didn't deal with terrorists, and that Giuliani would like to follow his lead. Although it is true that Carter conducted negotiations with the Iranians, that does NOT mean Regan didn't deal with terroists. . . he just did it in secret and very, very illegally. In the most famous case, the Iran-Contra Affair, Reagan and his administration "negotiated" the release of American hostages held captive by a terrorist cell of Hezbollah in Lebanon by illegally selling them American weaponry and pledging to financially back and arm the Contras - a powerful group of drug traffickers fighting the communist government in Nicaragua. It created quite a scandal when it became public knowledge later in Reagan's presidency, especially since Reagan vehemenently denied his involvement in the Affair, attempting to place the blame upon others in his own administration until the evidence gathered to the contrary became too numerous to be surmounted.

Does Guliani really think Americans are stupid enough not to remember (or in the case of people my age, know about) Iran-Contra? It was only in my high school history textbook, for crying out loud. Clearly, Rudy is working under the assumption we're either uneducated or idiots, because if we know the whole story, then it would be clear that Giuliani's campaign promise is, in actuality, to buy off extreamists threatening the United States with any weapons - nuclear or otherwise - we happen to have lying around, then lie to the public about it.

What a great guy.

* Mitt Romney
Romney is no better. Okay, being from Massachusetts, it goes without saying - I don't like Mitt. He's always been slimey and underhanded, and a pretty crappy governor to boot. The fact he thinks he can be President is almost laughable to a Masshole such as myself; as I like to tell people, "Romney thinks he can handle Iraq? He couldn't even handle The Big Dig!" A perfect example of the way he likes to twist facts to play into his agenda takes place in his most recent NH campaign ad, which centers on the horrors which the federal "Death Tax" levies on the middle class.

First of all, let's clarify: it's called the ESTATE TAX, not the DEATH tax. And second, Romney makes it sound as if this tax on inheritances effects your average citizen, when in reality, to even QUALIFY for the estate tax, the estate in question has to be worth at least TWO MILLION OR MORE dollars - a situation your average working stiff is not going to find himself in. The Estate Tax was created so that when a Hilton or a Trump dies, the government gets to lop off a chunk of the inheritance money before it falls into the hands of little rich prissies like Paris or Donald Jr. Believe me, they can afford it, and the cash which the IRS makes off of them is money that they don't have to take from normal people like you and me. So if that shit, Romney, gets his way and repeals the tax, he's not looking out for you, middle class American - he's only looking out for himself and his wealthy peers. By repealing the tax, Romney saves himself and his rich buddies from being taxed on their inheritances. However, the IRS is going to have to make up for that lost revenue somewhere. . . and you can bet your last paycheck it's going to come from the pockets of the middle class.

Obviously, Romney is literally banking on the fact that NH (famous for their hatred of taxes in any form) will only hear the part about the repealing of a tax, and not bother to think too hard about its implications.

* John McCain
Although arguably the most respectable of all the Republican candidates, McCain's platform is nevertheless passé and completely out of tune with what America needs in the 21st century. I vehemently disagree with most of his policies, including his desire to OVERTURN ROE VS. WADE (I don't ever want to have to make the horrendous decision to have an abortion, but in the end it is MY body, and the government has NO right to FORCE me to unwillingly have a baby), opposition to stem cell research on embryos which would otherwise simply be destroyed, his support of all levels of gun ownership, his lack of acknowledgment that illegal immigration problems stem not from the nation's borders but from the nation's corporations who employ them, his flawed idea that nuclear energy proliferation is somehow good for the environment (try living next door to a plant like I do, dumbass), and that Americans should be responsible for their own health care (ever try living without that nice government insurance, buddy?).

However, despite his rather backwards-thinking agenda which is more akin to the current administration's policies than the change Americans have demanded that they want, it is McCain's condescending attitude in his campaign ads which is most nauseating; he treats voters almost as if we were children and he a scolding parent, as if to say, "you might not like what I want to do, but Daddy knows best, so just lay back and take it, America." For example, one of his ads focuses on the center of his policy - that all problems can virtually be solved just by cutting taxes. Oh, it's that simple, huh? Democrats don't believe cutting taxes works, but it does, he says. It's good for you, America!

Sounds good, John - but just where is that tax cut money going to come from, pray tell, when our country is so indebted that we're practically owned by China and our dollar has become so worthless even poor nations won't except it as currency? With bridges collapsing and schools losing accreditdation and governmental programs going belly-up and national infrastructure failing, a few extra bucks in my pocket aren't going to mean much when I can't buy a home or send my kid to school or pay for health insurance or even dare to drive over the Charles River.

Thanks, but no thanks, John. In case you didn't notice, Father Knows Best went off the air several millennia ago.

So those are my stances on the major contenders. . . now that I've formed my opinions, presented my case, and, most importantly, filled out my primary poll ballot, the only thing to do is watch the primary season unfold upon our nation, and hope for the best.

Oh, and push for my candidate whenever possible.

I'm sorry, did I run out your answering machine tape again? I'll call back.