Poor Tina Fey

Poor Tina Fey. She's a victim of politics....even though a) She openly
supported Hillary Clinton during the Democrat primary in 2008 b)
She openly supported Barack Obama when he won the primary

Quote from Vogue article:

Ever since her devastatingly funny Sarah Palin impressions, she has
for the first time in her life attracted unwanted attention—and hate
mail. "People started projecting politics onto me," she says.
"There are people who hate me now because of that." Fey's parents
are Republicans, and she herself is an Independent.

Geez, if you don't want people to "project politics" on you, then maybe you
shouldn't be advocating for one side. Just a thought.

This is what Fey said on September of 2008:

"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5, so if anyone could help me
be done playing her on Nov. 5, that would be good for me," Fey said,
adding that she was totally resistant in acknowledging her uncanny
physical resemblance to Palin until her young daughter turned on the
TV and teased "that's mummy."

What is it with comedians? They want to lambaste politicians they don't like while
simultaneously claim they aren't very political. Bull crap.

Cheney: Leahy Merited It

The mainstream media is always wanting politicians to apologize.
Cheney isn't the type to play along. Enough said:

Hollywood Imperialists

This is just a thought I had today while I was reading this column and I wanted
to throw it out there:

You know how Hollywood makes movies criticizing America's supposed
Military-industrial complex. For example, the movie 'Iron Man.' Also, Hollywood
actors like to tell us how to vote. I have another term that academics like to throw
around: Cultural Imperialism. Funny how Hollywood elites are so eager to criticize
American foreign policy but seem to overlook their own "imperialism." A quote
from this article:

In the contemporary world, Hollywood, CNN and Disneyland are
more influential than the Vatican, the Bibe or the public relations
rhetoric of political figures. Cultural penetration is closely linked
to politico-military domination and economic exploitation

That's right! Hollywood you are bunch of imperialists!

Exit question: Do you think we will ever hear George Clooney talk about
cultural imperialism?

When Discussing Politics.....

I have a suggestion for political bloggers:

Perhaps if you are angry or upset about something maybe it's good to take
a step back and breathe for a moment. I think emotions are good, they just
don't make for ideal arguments. After you've calmed down and thought
about it for a moment then it is a good time to write. I think that is a good
way to avoid saying something you will later regret.

P.S. I might need to heed my own advice sometime :)

'Jesus for president'

CNN manages to find a young modern day hippie Christian to interview
to demonstrate that not all evangelicals are Republicans. They sure picked
a winner:

The dreadlocked Christian activist from Philadelphia and his team
parked a black school bus around the back. The hand-painted gold
letters on the side read "Jesus for President."

The bus runs on vegetable oil and, yes, it's a political statement.

"It'll be a long time before we fight a war over used veggie oil,"
says Claiborne with a sly smile.

Hmm. I wonder what Jesus has to say about believing lies?

Later on in the article:

But polls have shown that evangelicals as a whole, following national
trends, are disaffected with Republican leadership and increasingly up
for grabs.

Funny how they never mention a single poll. I found a poll that said the opposite.
Perhaps, they think if they say enough times it will be true.

Claiborne has some more radical views:

Back on stage Claiborne takes the crowd through a multimedia
presentation.

"With the respectability and the power of the church comes the
temptation to prostitute our identity for every political agenda."

Controversially, he quotes Harry S. Truman and Adolph Hitler,
saying each used Christianity to support their ideologies.

Ok, I've heard two different arguments (for and against) Hitler being a religious zealot.
So I just won't go there. However, I've never heard anyone claim Harry S. Truman was
some sort of religious nut. I found this radio address from Truman. It seems like tame
stuff to me. What is this guy talking about?

The next sentence in the article:

The speech is fiery at times, pensive at others. It emphasizes caring for the
poor and the downtrodden.

Yes, Jesus did talk about the poor and downtrodden. However, He never said anything
about government talking away half of someone's paycheck to give it to someone else.
He might want to read Matthew 22:21. Also, the Bible talks about being a cheerful giver.

Clairborne then goes on to compare America to the Roman Empire:

He talks about war and the environment. He also talks about how Jesus
stood up to the Roman Empire, a message he believes is relevant to the
United States now.

"For many of us, Caesar has colonized our imagination, our landscape and
our ideology," he says while a picture of Mount Rushmore flashes behind
him. On the screen "Vandalism" pops up in black letters.

I don't think this guy is an Obama supporter. He sounds more in the Dennis Kucinich
realm. If there's anything I've learned in this election is that conservatives aren't the
only ones enveloping religion and politics together.

The Politics of Character Assassination

"Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word
as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may
give grace to those who hear." - Ephesians 4:29

As I've stated frequently, I'm deeply disturbed that in our current political
discourse people resort to malicious words against their opponents. This is
especially true on the internet. Not only are political opponents wrong but
they flat out have cruel and nefarious intentions. When reading political
blogs you are likely to find words like "warmongers," "war criminals," "baby
killers," "pansies," "traitors," and various others claims to describe their foes.
None of which are true.

Here's some pictures you'll find if you search for some politicians:



If you disagree with me, you are clearly evil. The photos above aren't even the
worst of them.

I believe this can be defined as character assassination because it's not about
people's policies any longer but about their their moral fiber. It's become about
the personalities behind the politics more than the politics. If one can't dismantle
their opponent's view ideologically then do it by getting personal and mean. I
want to take the time to discuss why this is wrong through a moral perspective
and why we must change it.

First of all I want to confess that I've written a lot of harsh words against those
I don't agree with, therefore, I am also guilty of this sin. I just thought I would
get that out of the first. I am not innocent.

I think we must understand the importance of what's in a name and the power
of our words. Proverbs 22:1 says:

A good name is more desirable than great riches;
to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.

I think words have the power to build people up and tear people down. Plenty of
people who defame others claim their free speech rights. They say, "I have the
right to say whatever I want." True, we have a constitutional right to say just about
anything. Also, public figures like politicians have a harder time proving libel and
slander (see New York Co. v. Sullivan) so they are fair game. Sadly, in rightfully
claiming constitutional rights we have lost our morality. Our Constitution can and
never will substitute for morality. Thus, I'm not advocating any type of censorship
but just a self-evaluation on how we conduct ourselves when we discuss politics
online and off-line and the morality of it.

Politics is about gaining power and in order to do that sometimes you build people
up with words and take others down from their high positions. The cycle of building
and verbally take others down has worked, politically speaking, over the years.
However, it has brought nothing but societal frustration towards our government
and no real political leadership.

I also want to make the point I'm not naive enough to believe that this type of
slanderous politics is anything new. I'm sure it's been there since the onset of
governing bodies. Although, the Internet does appear to add some fuel to the fire
because anyone can create content and post it online.

Another point I want to make is that I'm not calling for unity. For the most part I
think calls for unity produce very little. I think both political parties have drastically
opposing views and there's no way we can all agree. People can not unite when they
have honest political differences. What I am asking for us to stop the politics of
character assassination.

Everyone is flawed, including our public officials who we trust with making big decisions.
We live in a wonderful country full of diverse thoughts and ideas. We're not always
going to agree on much. However, how about we start by agreeing that those who are of
different opinion are well-intentioned and not out to get us. Perhaps, if we start there
we can move forward.

The Branding of Obamamania

It's often said that young people are looking for authenticity and want to "keep it
real." For a demographic (for which I'm in) that repeatedly says that we are searching
for something real and authentic, we sure seem to continually seem to fall for mass
produced, aesthetically appealing ad campaigns with awesome slogans. I think this is
the case with Sen. Obama getting the youth vote. I read this interview with graphic
designer Michael Beirut in which he discusses the branding of Obama's campaigning.
Here's a portion:

That's his "logo," right?
Right. A lot of times when he's at a podium what you'll see is, centered
right beneath him, at the very top of the blue field that usually says
something like "Change You Can Believe In," it'll be just that little symbol,
functioning in the same way the Nike swoosh does. People look at that and
know what it means, even though it's just an "O" with some stripes in it.

Has any other campaign ever "pulled a Nike"?
Well, Bush did that the last time around with the letter "W," to some degree.
You would see somebody with the letter "W" on a bumper sticker, and it would
kind of work that way. But Obama has gotten there much quicker and a little
more gracefully, if you ask me.

How else is Obama's design different than what has come before--
or what rival campaigns are doing?
He's the first candidate, actually, who's had a coherent, top-to-bottom,
360-degree system at work. Whereas, I think it's more more common for
politicians to have a bumper-sticker symbol that they just stick on everything
and hope that that will carry the day.

The thing that sort of flabbergasts me as a professional graphic designer is
that, somewhere along the way, they decided that all their graphics would
basically be done in the same typeface, which is this typeface called Gotham.
If you look at one of his rallies, every single non-handmade sign is in that font.
Every single one of them. And they're all perfectly spaced and perfectly
arranged. Trust me. I've done graphics for events --and I know what it takes
to have rally after rally without someone saying, "Oh, we ran out of signs, let's
do a batch in Arial." It just doesn't seem to happen. There's an absolute level
of control that I have trouble achieving with my corporate clients.

Then if you go to the Web site, it's all reflected there too--all the same elements
showing up in this clean, smooth, elegant way. It all ties together really, really
beautifully as a system.

I agree with Beirut that Obama's campaign has the best designed logo, Web site, and
slogan. It's simple and sleek. Beirut suggests his effective campaign advertising means
it could lead people to believe he'll be an effective president.



As a young person, I'm tired of being marketed too. I've grown up with sleek advertising.
It's disturbing when I see this in a political campaign (as noted in the article this is not
the first well-designed campaign advertising) because I'm not being asked to buy a product
but buy into a political philosophy. What also bothers me is how my age group contradicts
itself. We talk about seeking authenticity and substance but when it comes to making a
choice that's not what we choose. There's no longer a place in our society that doesn't
have advertising. Now even our politics is to be sloganeered.

Video added:

Politics: The New Religion?

I've been reading blog posts about how fanatical some Barack Obama supporters are.
They've been compared to religious fanatics. Here and here are two blog posts on
this particular topic (side note: I couldn't link to the original ABC News blog post
because the page crashes on me). One of my favorite bloggers even calls him "liberal
Jesus." The MSM is noticing also. Here's a blurb from a Time piece:

And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass
messianism — "We are the ones we've been waiting for" — of the
Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign.
"This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency
of the United States of America is different. It's different not because
of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague
but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his
ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause
— other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming
dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about
how wonderful the Obama campaign is.

I have also have also noted my concerns of how he uses religious rhetoric. For
example, when he said, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here
on Earth."

I Publius of Obsidian Wings makes an interesting point:

Here then is where Obama comes in. Obama seems to be filling
a spiritual void that many modern secular progressives (like all
humans) tend to develop. Whether the enthusiasm stems from
youth’s susceptibility to romantic idealism, or instead from the
longing caused by the slow lonely grind of professional life, something
is causing these people to see in Obama something more than politics.
They’re seeing – and feeling – something higher.

Religion or spirituality is increasingly becoming less part of American society.
Perhaps, religious fervor is being replaced by the political fervor. The younger
generation is looking for someone to save them. Save them from what? I'm not
sure they know themselves what they need being saved from. They think if
government changes we can experience peace, prosperity, and add some free
health care and some college education to that and we will be healed. I think
Sen. Obama appeals to our want for peace and prosperity and after all the
turmoil we've experienced the past seven years; who can blame the American
people?

The sad thing is that our government can't bring us peace, prosperity and there
is no such thing as free health care. Even if we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan
(which I do hope we will do as soon as it's feasibly possible) that does not assure
us peace. Unfortunately, acts of terrorism will continue to occur with or without
President George Bush in the White House. Fortunately, we will also have periods
of peace, we all desire to have those times again. Also, I believe our government
has no influence whatsoever with one's personal prosperity. However, the United
States government does have control over how they will tax the money American
citizens do make.

You see there is something that God can provide that no politician or government can
ever give. Jesus grants peace in our hearts in John 16:33:

"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this
world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

Can You Spot the Plant?

Can you spot the plant?

Religious Nut

I've heard people make the claim that President Bush is a religious nut
or zealot. I'm not entirely understanding where people who make this
claim are coming from. Help me understand.

People have said that Bush sees the current as a battle between Christianity
and Islam, a Holy War. However, he has said the exact opposite that this is
not a "religious war." In this video he even apologizes for using the term "crusade"
and admits he was wrong:



So, someone tell me please when has the Commander and Chief ever
justified the Iraq war or anything for that matter done solely on his own
religious beliefs? Also, note in the video how he says that he believes people
of all religions can go to Heaven. That does not sound like fanatical Christian
to me. In fact, he sounds just like Oprah! If President Bush is a religious nut
than the bar of nuttiness has been set extremely real low. If that's the
standard Oprah and I need to be institutionalized, quick!

Yes, Bush has used the term "evil" to describe terrorists and state supporters of
terrorism, which does connote religious verbage. But that does not make him
a religious madman but he's using an accurate description of terrorists who kill
innocent people. If terrorists aren't evil than who in this world is? I already know
what some liberals will says: Dick Cheney.

Now some have given presidential hopeful, Mike Huckabee, the "nutty" label
for being a former Baptist preacher. And again I believe it has been unfairly
given. Here is on O'Reilly explaining his religious beliefs when you can see he
would prefer to talk about policy:



Lets be careful who we call a "religious nut" because when a real religious
zealot appears the label might just lose its weight and power. And believe
me there are surely some religious zealots on the world stage.

In the Middle

The Democrats should have the office of the Presidency next year.
All signs point good for them. People want change and Democrats
say they are a good change from eight years of a Republican presidency.
The American people are not in favor of the war in Iraq and most
of the Republican candidates are so they practically got the
election in the bag. It's inevitable, right? Not so fast my friends.

There's so much partisanship going on right now and people are looking
for a voice of moderation. Someone who can work with Democrats and
Republicans alike. If anybody is gonna to lose the election for the Democrats
it's going to be the extremists of the party. Who are the extremists? Well,
it's the Moveon.org and DailyKos.com part of the party.

There is something that the Republican party is doing right with their top
tier candidates. They have chosen political moderates. Rudy Giuliani is the
former mayor of New York City, which is not really know for it's conservative
values. He's also not socially conservative. Mitt Romney has been the governor
of the Massachusetts, a liberal state. While governor he was pro-choice but
apparently not anymore. Senator John McCain often works with both Republicans
and Democrats in the Senate. Although, his attempts to reach across party
lines haven't always been successful.

The Democratic front leader, Hillary Clinton (for those who haven't been keeping
up), on the other hand has negative ratings in excess of 40 percent. Therefore,
I'm assuming she doesn't have bipartisan appeal. I don't think we'll be hearing
about those "Hillary Republicans" like we hear the term "Reagan Democrats"
thrown around. Barack Obama, who's coming in second in national polls, is so new
to the scene I'm not sure if he plays well with others yet. Although, he certainly talks
the talk.

So my advice to all the candidates running for the presidency is to stay at the
center because that is where you will find the American people. You won't
find us protesting with Code Pink, commenting on hate blogs, condemning
General Petraeus in a New York Times ad, or even debating who is the most
anti-abortion like the Republicans did last Sunday. No, you will find the American
public in the middle of life. In the middle of raising families. In the middle of
getting an education. In the middle helping in the community. You will also
find us in the middle when it comes to politics.

Headlines 10-12-2007

Oh so many headlines today with so many controversial
issues.

Al Gore gets Nobel Peace Prize- Last weekend I saw a speech
by Bjorn Lomborg about his book "Cool It" on Book TV (I know
I'm need to get a life). He argues global warming is indeed occurring
but there are other humanitarian issues that should be higher priorities
because they save people right now. I know I'm probably over simplifying
his arguments but I like to keep these headlines snappy. " In the AP article
you will notice that Lomborg is quoted as stating, "Awarding it to Al Gore
cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Awarding
it to the IPCC is well-founded." Agreed.
One in 5 pregnancies worldwide ends in abortion- "Of the 41.6 million abortions
worldwide, 35 million were in the developing countries, and 6.6 million in
developed countries." The WHO study also found the legal status doesn't
deter abortions from occurring.
Atheists radio show goes national- Because really we haven't heard enough
of the atheists' voices in our media. Not in the book publishing world (see
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Julia
Sweeny). There's no atheist talk show pundit (um, Bill Maher). There's no
fictional character's that are atheists in television (see House and Bones).
Oh so underrepresented really.
Let the flip-flopping allegations begin!- And we haven't had a primary yet!

Political Action Committees

I must be in a political email list because I keep on getting email
from political action groups, which is fine because I like to keep
updated on the latests issues. I've received an email from President
Bush via a GOP.com address and I've also gotten one from James
Carville from a dscc.org address. I have know idea how I got into the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee list; they must know behind
all my conservative rants I secretly want to be a liberal. But from
all the political groups that email me American Family Association is
the most persistent. I've already received two emails concerning this
issue.

Here is the email I received earlier today:

The nation’s number one Democrat, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,
is defending the banning of religious references on certificates issued by
the Architect of the Capitol. An Eagle Scout asked that a flag flown over the
U.S. Capitol be sent to his grandfather, along with a certificate bearing the
message: “In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication
and love of God, country, and family.”

Stephen Ayers, the Architect of the Capitol, banned the use of the word
“God” in the certificate issued for the Eagle Scout. Ayers, serving in a
low-level, non-elected position, claims he has the authority to ban the
word “God” from the certificate. This is the first time ever for the Architect
of the Capitol to ban religious references. Ayers said he banned the word
“God” because someone might be offended.

Pelosi defended Ayers’ decision to ban all religious references. Several
legislators signed a letter to Pelosi asking that Ayers’ censorship be stopped.
“The Architect’s policy is in direct conflict with his charge, as well as the
scope of his office and brings into question his ability to preserve a
building containing many national religious symbols,” the legislators said
in the letter.

Instead of stopping the censorship, Pelosi defended it. “It’s not about being
anti-religion,” Pelosi said. “It is just about what the Architect thought was
appropriate for him to proclaim in a certificate.” By saying such, Pelosi
approved the banning of religious references by Ayers.

So do you think Pelosi is taking the right position on this issue?

What a question!

(Via Hotair)
Chris Wallace asked Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi, "Do you pray for our soldiers to win in Iraq?"
I don't think that was a fair question. It is assuming
that she doesn't want us to win in Iraq. She answered
the question pretty well though.

Interviewing etiquette with Jon Stewart

I guess Stewart took a tip from the David
Letterman book of 'Interviewing and Shaming
Your Guests.' Because someone has to do it,
right?

Render to Caesar

Flicker photo by V3ntolin

Another day, another controversial issue. The Supreme Court
will not be hearing two religion and state cases this session. I
thought I would take some and talk about the separation of church
and state. Every American can agree that mixing religion and our laws
is unconstitutional as set forth in the establishment clause. Also, most
would agree it is generally unwise because it would lead to some sort
of theocracy and no one wants that. The problems lies in deciding what
crosses this line in this wall between church and state.

Does prayer in school cross the line? The Supreme Court has ruled
yes decades ago and add school football games to that. Does having a ten
commandment display in a courtroom violate the establishment clause?
The Supreme Court has ruled yes to that one too. Is displaying a nativity
scene in a public space cross the line? New York City Public schools said yes.
Is using the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance in schools? Some Boulder
students thinks so. Is this issue of separation of Church and State being pushed
so much to the point where it is actually bordering on "prohibiting the free
exercise" of religion?

There are very good reasons why the Constitution has set forth these boundaries.
It is so government and politics should not interfere with each other. I shall remind
Christians it works both ways. It is good to protect the Church from government
influence. Remember Jesus said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

However, I hope all these nos to religion will not inhibit people from public expressions
of their faith for fear it might be deemed offensive. I don't think religion should
be diluted to only be practiced at a local church and at home. I wouldn't as far to say
that there is growing hostility to Christianity, although many are starting to believe so,
but from my own observation there is an increased amount of criticism.

The discussion of separation of Separation of Church and State is an issue that
needs to be addressed within the religious community and also with people
outside the community. There should be no fear from any citizen in this country
that his or her government is turning into a theocratic state. There should also be
no fear that religious speech is limited to only a restricted number of places and
is looked down upon. There has to be a way to balance two.

Ok, my next topic has nothing to do with the establishment clause but it does
have to do with the Supreme Court. I watched the 60 Minutes interview last
night with Justice Clarence Thomas and I am glad we have him serving in the
Supreme Court. Here is a clip:

Bill Clinton on the Telly to help change the WORLD!

Bill Clinton was on Oprah today talking about
"Giving," that's the name of his new book.
Excerpt here. Tomorrow he'll be on Larry
King Live. Get your favorite Bible verse ready
Bill!

VIDEO: The CNN/Youtube Debate Videos

Click To Play

In this video I take a look at the CNN/Youtube Presidential
debate questions created by Youtube users, like me! View
all debate videos here. Side note: You can also take a look
at almost all my personal videos here.

Web Poll: Which pundit is the most irritating?

Which television pundit do you find the most irritating?
1. Bill O'Reilly
2. Keith Olbermann
3. Sean Hannity
I created a web poll here. Look at me getting all
interactive!!! If you don't want to take the poll then you
can also just leave a comment answering the question
and tell me why.

Dissecting the Campaign Web sites

Social networking, videos, pictures, online credit card transactions, and blogging all
at one place! One might think I am talking about the online world in general but no
I am talking about presidential campaigns Web sites. I believe this year has been
an innovative year for campaigning in the online world. Political campaigns are
harnessing the power of the web. For example, Sen. Barack Obama during
the second quarter raised $32.5 million, $10.3 million of it came through the website,
according to his campaign Web site.

If I didn't know better I would think these campaigns are being run by a group of
teenagers. Hillary Clinton's campaign made a funny spoof and posted it on Youtube
to get some buzz just like a self-promoting vlogger. Who would have thought that
busy politicians could be my friends but according to MySpace they are. And I have
the bulletins to prove it! Oh and Hillary has so much less pictures (94) on Flicker
than Barack (2,335). These campaigns are being run by people who realize that
word spreads much faster online than any other medium and if you want to reach
young adults you have to be web savvy. There is no doubt about it anymore: the
game has changed and you can't play the game unless you have an online presence.

One observation I do have is it seems that Republicans sites are less innovative
and flashy. That maybe because younger voters usually go to the Democrats and
the online users tend to be a young. Although, Romney does have 'MittWire' and
'MittTV' (complete with a program guide) but not to be outdone by 'BarackTV.'

Exit question: Which campaign has the best designed Web site?