It's 11:13 AM today, Monday, November 24th, 2014, as I'm typing this. The high school's Wi-Fi won't let me publish posts in school. There has been no verdict in the case of Darren Wilson yet. That may not be the case when I get home this afternoon.
The Grand Jury is set to meet today, and they are expected to determine the fate of Darren Wilson, the infamous officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, on August 9th, setting off months of race riots and police militarization. The St. Louis suburb of Ferguson is preparing for the worst: shops are boarding up their windows, people are buying firearms, and protesters are reportedly preparing for battle. Members of the New Black Panther Party were arrested by the FBI for attempting to acquire explosives. The Ku Klux Klan has threatened to use lethal force against the protesters. Jay Nixon, Missouri's governor, has sent in the national guard. And people across the nation are holding their breath.
It's times like these when I really, really hate the media. I always hate it, of course, because all the major stations show one of these two things: socialist garbage or Tea Party hash. There is no sensible middle ground in the modern media. The purveyors of socialist garbage screamed, "It's because he's black!" and people believed it. The dispensers of Tea Party hash screamed, "Look at all these evil protesters!" and people believed it. The biggest problem in our society is that lots of people will believe anything they see on the news. Take the people who watch Jon Stewart like I watch the BBC International news. I love the Daily Show as much as the next guy, and I think Jon Stewart is hilarious. But he isn't a news anchor. He's a political satirist. The thing is, MSNBC isn't all that much better than he is. And I don't think I even have to mention how bad Fox News is. All three - MSNBC, Fox News, and Jon Stewart - only report one extreme view, without paying regard to the logical counterarguments of sensible individuals on the other side. What this nation needs is a bipartisan news network that isn't afraid to call out the mainstream media.
But I digress: back to Ferguson. There are two sides of the story about what happened with Michael Brown. The Far Right's version of the story - that Wilson only fired in self defense - plainly isn't true. The officer got off at least ten or eleven shots at Brown, hitting him with six (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/26/audio-recording-allegedly-captures-at-least-10-shots-fired-in-michael-brown-killing/). Now, I have family members who are police officers, so I know what I mean when I say that eleven shots is a bit much for self-defense. But that doesn't mean the Far Left's take on the tale holds up any better. Forensic evidence makes it pretty plain that Brown wasn't standing still with his hands up - blood was found in Wilson's car. That means that Brown was very close to the car when he was killed, lending some credibility to Wilson's version of the event (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/justice/michael-brown-darren-wilson-account/). That doesn't make Brown's death right, and I would say that it doesn't justify eleven shots fired. Complicating matters even further, witness accounts aren't reliable here. Some eyewitnesses say that Brown had his hands up when Wilson shot him, others claim he was running away, others allege that he charged the officer even after taking a few bullets, and others say that he was at the car before Wilson began firing. At any rate, the witnesses are contradicting each other on every point here.
The disturbing thing is, riots are almost certainly going to occur. The fact that Jay Nixon has deployed the National Guard suggests that a lot of people in high places feel that there isn't enough of a case against Wilson for him to be convicted. A decision will come out later this afternoon, or maybe even tonight. And a lot of people on both sides seem to believe that Wilson will go free. And quite a few people in Ferguson, Missouri aren't very happy to that. So the answer is rioting? A disclaimer for this next bit: as a straight white middle-class male, I'm not the best guy to comment on oppression. But I still don't think that rioting is the answer here. America is about working with the cards you've been dealt and trying to use them productively, not about getting into a fistfight with the dealer. When there's a new president elected, the people who voted for them are happy, and the rest of the country deals with it. Texas threatens to secede, of course, but that's all hot air. Because, as a straight white middle-class male, I can say this for certain: rioting, looting, and assaulting people will hardly gain the protesters any sympathy from the majority of Americans. Sitting down and trying to work things out with the police department, or the state government, or just about anybody, would be much more productive. There would be a chance of making progress in this scenario. And who knows? The verdict hasn't been announced yet. Maybe the protesters will heed the advice they've been given by President Obama, Jay Nixon, and many regional officials, both black and white. People in Ferguson are preparing for the worst. Hopefully, the worst won't happen, and the community can attempt to repair the race relations in Ferguson, in St. Louis, and in America as a whole.
I'm home now. It's 8:23 PM, same day. The verdict hasn't been announced yet, but it could come at any moment now. This is a problem for me, because instead of doing my calculus homework, I'm checking Google News every thirty seconds to see if the verdict has been reached. It may come in a few hours, or it may come in a few seconds. Heck, it may even come as I'm typing this. Let's all hope for the best for the people of Ferguson and St. Louis, regardless of what the jury decides.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Saturday, November 22, 2014
The US This Week: Immigration
Earlier this week, President Obama laid out his plans for immigration reform. The Washington Post makes Obama's plan easy to digest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/22/flow-chart-who-qualifies-for-obamas-immigration-offer/
They also have the full text of the speech:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-immigration-speech/2014/11/20/14ba8042-7117-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html
Of course, this has made big news, and not because of the reforms and what they entail. Not because they were widely broadcast, either. In fact, the only station that aired it was a Spanish-language news station. Apparently, people would rather watch Bones than learn about our government. Nice going, America. No, Obama's plan made headlines for one reason, and one reason alone: he plans to act unilaterally, without Congress, to get this plan into action.
Naturally, this is a pretty big issue. Not immigration. Immigration is a big issue, of course...but I digress. But Obama's choice to outline his plan for reform right after the midterm election raises some eyebrows. Nine days after he joked about sharing some Kentucky Bourbon with Mitch McConnell and working with the Republicans in Congress, there's this. In his speech, he asks Congress to give him legislation to work with. And in all honesty, Congress very well may throw together some legislation - you know, because the GOP will be in control once January third rolls around. Let's be realistic: Obama isn't going to want to put whatever the Republicans hand him into action. He timed this quite well - he beat the Republicans to the punch. He put this out there. And if the Republicans develop a plan that's more conservative than Obama's plan, they'll take an even further hit in the ever-crucial Latino vote. Needless to say, Congressional Republicans are royally pissed off. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place now, and whatever happens will probably make them look bad. At any rate, they're not going to sit down and let Obama put his plan into action without a fight. And so, the Republicans are saying that Obama's plan is in violation of the Constitution and an overreach of executive power. So let's take a look at that: is Obama's plan to act without Congress in violation of the Constitution? If we're going to be literal, yes - there is no explicit statement in the constitution for executive orders in general. But as we know, every president in American history has issued executive orders. And the past three Republican Presidents - Bush Junior, Bush Senior, and even Reagan himself - ordered parallel legislation to what Obama plans to implement, letting some individuals in the country illegally stay. So what's the issue here?
The issue here is that executive orders are technically supposed to be passed in accordance with Congress. I say technically, of course, because there's no set standard for Executive Orders. That aside, I highly doubt the Republicans in Congress had any intention of going against Reagan when he acted before they gave consent. I imagine many of them said, "Whatever you desire, O Supreme Reagan!" Jokes aside, there was no real issue in those cases, because Congress didn't care very much about what the president was doing. That's not the case in today's overly partisan society. At the end of the day, Congress's issue has very little to do with immigration. They don't want Obama walking all over them. That's why they're making a stink. But how will they react? I don't think even they know how. Maybe there'll be another government shutdown. Maybe they'll sue him. Maybe they'll pass legislation that directly conflicts with Obama's plan, which would cancel out his executive order. To the disappointment of extremists like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, impeachment almost certainly won't happen. As I've mentioned in the past, there's a rift between the moderate wing of the party and the extreme right. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell may be right-wingers, and they may be willing to fight against Obama, but the overwhelming odds are that they won't go that far.
The thing is, this may not be the best thing for Democrats in the long run. If Obama goes through with this and isn't stopped, it'll create a precedent. The president will have much more power and much wider control. And there may very well come a day, if this happens, where a Republican president chooses to pass sweeping orders against abortion, or gun control, or a number of hot-button topics. I'm not saying that it's going to happen, but I'm saying that checks and balances aren't a bad thing. We don't want one individual to become too powerful. Because we all know what happens when that sort of thing happens.
They also have the full text of the speech:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-immigration-speech/2014/11/20/14ba8042-7117-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html
Of course, this has made big news, and not because of the reforms and what they entail. Not because they were widely broadcast, either. In fact, the only station that aired it was a Spanish-language news station. Apparently, people would rather watch Bones than learn about our government. Nice going, America. No, Obama's plan made headlines for one reason, and one reason alone: he plans to act unilaterally, without Congress, to get this plan into action.
Naturally, this is a pretty big issue. Not immigration. Immigration is a big issue, of course...but I digress. But Obama's choice to outline his plan for reform right after the midterm election raises some eyebrows. Nine days after he joked about sharing some Kentucky Bourbon with Mitch McConnell and working with the Republicans in Congress, there's this. In his speech, he asks Congress to give him legislation to work with. And in all honesty, Congress very well may throw together some legislation - you know, because the GOP will be in control once January third rolls around. Let's be realistic: Obama isn't going to want to put whatever the Republicans hand him into action. He timed this quite well - he beat the Republicans to the punch. He put this out there. And if the Republicans develop a plan that's more conservative than Obama's plan, they'll take an even further hit in the ever-crucial Latino vote. Needless to say, Congressional Republicans are royally pissed off. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place now, and whatever happens will probably make them look bad. At any rate, they're not going to sit down and let Obama put his plan into action without a fight. And so, the Republicans are saying that Obama's plan is in violation of the Constitution and an overreach of executive power. So let's take a look at that: is Obama's plan to act without Congress in violation of the Constitution? If we're going to be literal, yes - there is no explicit statement in the constitution for executive orders in general. But as we know, every president in American history has issued executive orders. And the past three Republican Presidents - Bush Junior, Bush Senior, and even Reagan himself - ordered parallel legislation to what Obama plans to implement, letting some individuals in the country illegally stay. So what's the issue here?
The issue here is that executive orders are technically supposed to be passed in accordance with Congress. I say technically, of course, because there's no set standard for Executive Orders. That aside, I highly doubt the Republicans in Congress had any intention of going against Reagan when he acted before they gave consent. I imagine many of them said, "Whatever you desire, O Supreme Reagan!" Jokes aside, there was no real issue in those cases, because Congress didn't care very much about what the president was doing. That's not the case in today's overly partisan society. At the end of the day, Congress's issue has very little to do with immigration. They don't want Obama walking all over them. That's why they're making a stink. But how will they react? I don't think even they know how. Maybe there'll be another government shutdown. Maybe they'll sue him. Maybe they'll pass legislation that directly conflicts with Obama's plan, which would cancel out his executive order. To the disappointment of extremists like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, impeachment almost certainly won't happen. As I've mentioned in the past, there's a rift between the moderate wing of the party and the extreme right. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell may be right-wingers, and they may be willing to fight against Obama, but the overwhelming odds are that they won't go that far.
The thing is, this may not be the best thing for Democrats in the long run. If Obama goes through with this and isn't stopped, it'll create a precedent. The president will have much more power and much wider control. And there may very well come a day, if this happens, where a Republican president chooses to pass sweeping orders against abortion, or gun control, or a number of hot-button topics. I'm not saying that it's going to happen, but I'm saying that checks and balances aren't a bad thing. We don't want one individual to become too powerful. Because we all know what happens when that sort of thing happens.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
The US This Week: The Election's Results (And What They Mean)
I called it.
The GOP has swept to power in the senate. With Alaska's Dan Sullivan win in a close race announced earlier today (Wednesday the 12th), the Republicans have a total of fifty-three seats to the Democrats' forty-four and the two seats held by Independents. Only one seat remains - a Louisiana spot, set to be determined in a runoff election come December, in which the Republican candidate holds the edge. Regardless, the Republicans are firmly in control in both houses of Congress, as well as in many states. Many typically blue states, namely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland, elected Republican governors. This puts both parties in an unusually precarious position for the future, and I'll explain why.
1) 2016
The Democrats and the Republicans have the opposite problems when it comes to the next two presidential elections. The Democrats have one candidate (who else but Hillary?) who's in position to receive the nomination, whereas the Republicans have many individuals. This may seem like a good thing for the Democrats. And for the next ten years, it will be. Emily and Jess's film group, in one of their mid-titles, described Hillary as the forty-fifth president of the United States. And that's probably true. There's really no competition for Hillary on either side of the aisle. The GOP is fragmented between the moderate conservatives, like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and the hardline extremists (Rick Perry, anyone?). Say what you will about Romney - he gave the GOP a rallying point, because he united the two warring factions within the party. For that reason, lots of Republicans want him to run again. But he won't, for two reasons: first, he's already said he would never put himself through that process again. And secondly, even if he does, Hillary would cream him. There aren't any Democrats who pose a significant threat to Clinton. Let's be honest here, nobody really wants President Biden. And even though there's been some speculation about Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, she may not even run. And even if she does, Hillary will crush her. Our own Andrew Cuomo wouldn't hold against her. Nor would California governor Jerry Brown. Things are looking pretty good for the Democrats in the next ten years. The thing is, ten years is a blink of an eye in terms of world history.
2) 2024 and Beyond
The thing is, the Republican position right now is what the Democratic position may very well be come 2024. There are a lot of elections between then and now, but as of now, there is no real successor to Hillary. The fact that she has no competition will serve the Democrats well in the next two presidential elections, but once her two terms are up, who will replace her? Many of the figures who would have been in that position by 2024 lost their seats in this election. Governors, senators, congressmen and women...the left took a big hit. There are plenty of Republicans, on the other hand, like Mike Pence and Bobby Jindal (governors of Indiana and Louisiana, respectively), who are relatively secure in their seats, and very well may be come 2024. Either one of these men, or any of the other secure members of the Republican party, could become a serious contender for the unlucky Democrat nominated to succeed Hillary. And odds are, the outcome would favor the Republican. Take Bobby Jindal, for instance. He's a first-generation Indian-American, so he would hold plenty of appeal for immigrants. At the same time, his right-wing views on economics, education and taxation make him a favorite among Republicans around the nation. Some consider him a potential nominee in 2016. If the Republicans are smart, and they're smarter than most of us would like to think, they'll save Jindal for 2024 (or 2020, if Hillary's first term doesn't go so smoothly). The only realistic scenario in which the Democrats will hold the White House in 2024 will be if Hillary's presidency is phenomenal, and they coast to success on the wave of that popularity. If that doesn't happen, we can expect the White House to turn from blue to red come January 2025.
The GOP has swept to power in the senate. With Alaska's Dan Sullivan win in a close race announced earlier today (Wednesday the 12th), the Republicans have a total of fifty-three seats to the Democrats' forty-four and the two seats held by Independents. Only one seat remains - a Louisiana spot, set to be determined in a runoff election come December, in which the Republican candidate holds the edge. Regardless, the Republicans are firmly in control in both houses of Congress, as well as in many states. Many typically blue states, namely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland, elected Republican governors. This puts both parties in an unusually precarious position for the future, and I'll explain why.
1) 2016
The Democrats and the Republicans have the opposite problems when it comes to the next two presidential elections. The Democrats have one candidate (who else but Hillary?) who's in position to receive the nomination, whereas the Republicans have many individuals. This may seem like a good thing for the Democrats. And for the next ten years, it will be. Emily and Jess's film group, in one of their mid-titles, described Hillary as the forty-fifth president of the United States. And that's probably true. There's really no competition for Hillary on either side of the aisle. The GOP is fragmented between the moderate conservatives, like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and the hardline extremists (Rick Perry, anyone?). Say what you will about Romney - he gave the GOP a rallying point, because he united the two warring factions within the party. For that reason, lots of Republicans want him to run again. But he won't, for two reasons: first, he's already said he would never put himself through that process again. And secondly, even if he does, Hillary would cream him. There aren't any Democrats who pose a significant threat to Clinton. Let's be honest here, nobody really wants President Biden. And even though there's been some speculation about Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, she may not even run. And even if she does, Hillary will crush her. Our own Andrew Cuomo wouldn't hold against her. Nor would California governor Jerry Brown. Things are looking pretty good for the Democrats in the next ten years. The thing is, ten years is a blink of an eye in terms of world history.
2) 2024 and Beyond
The thing is, the Republican position right now is what the Democratic position may very well be come 2024. There are a lot of elections between then and now, but as of now, there is no real successor to Hillary. The fact that she has no competition will serve the Democrats well in the next two presidential elections, but once her two terms are up, who will replace her? Many of the figures who would have been in that position by 2024 lost their seats in this election. Governors, senators, congressmen and women...the left took a big hit. There are plenty of Republicans, on the other hand, like Mike Pence and Bobby Jindal (governors of Indiana and Louisiana, respectively), who are relatively secure in their seats, and very well may be come 2024. Either one of these men, or any of the other secure members of the Republican party, could become a serious contender for the unlucky Democrat nominated to succeed Hillary. And odds are, the outcome would favor the Republican. Take Bobby Jindal, for instance. He's a first-generation Indian-American, so he would hold plenty of appeal for immigrants. At the same time, his right-wing views on economics, education and taxation make him a favorite among Republicans around the nation. Some consider him a potential nominee in 2016. If the Republicans are smart, and they're smarter than most of us would like to think, they'll save Jindal for 2024 (or 2020, if Hillary's first term doesn't go so smoothly). The only realistic scenario in which the Democrats will hold the White House in 2024 will be if Hillary's presidency is phenomenal, and they coast to success on the wave of that popularity. If that doesn't happen, we can expect the White House to turn from blue to red come January 2025.
Friday, November 7, 2014
The Accidental Masterpiece: The Routine
The eighth chapter of Michael Kimmelman's The Accidental Masterpiece, which focuses on the comfort people derive from their routine, is entitled The Art of Staring Productively at Naked Bodies. Don't get too excited - the chapter's primary subject is artist Philip Pearlstein, who painted nude portraits in a time when abstract art became the norm. Pearlstein received some flak from the art world for his realistic paintings, but pursued his passion nonetheless. Kimmelman describes many aspects of Pearlstein's process and routine, which he experienced firsthand every Tuesday for several months as part of his research for the book. I won't re-word Kimmelman's work and explain Pearlstein's process here. Rather, I'll discuss the concepts of process and routine. We're all creatures of habit, after all, and we all have some sort of a routine. Mine involves waking up at around 6:30 (because my alarm never goes off), showering and brushing my teeth, surviving the school day, enduring rehearsal, eating some dinner, getting work done, listening to some classical music to wind down, and going to bed. It may not be the best system, but it works for me. And try as I may, it's very difficult to alter my routine. For instance, my alarm actually went off at six morning, but rather than get up with it, I stayed in bed for another half an hour. Our routine gives us something we know well to work with, and we try and stick with it. As Kimmelman mentions early in the chapter, we try to get something constructive out of our schedules, and sometimes we succeed. Oftentimes, we don't. We are creatures of habit, as Kimmelman puts it, and our habits aren't necessarily the most productive things.
Side note: I'm experiencing major technical difficulties. My laptop won't publish the blog post, and my desktop's mouse is basically broken. It's telling me it's low on battery (I put new batteries in yesterday). And it takes an average of thirty seconds of clicking to get five seconds of mouse-use. There's no exaggeration there at all. This sort of thing is the reason why my blog has its particular title.
Side note: I'm experiencing major technical difficulties. My laptop won't publish the blog post, and my desktop's mouse is basically broken. It's telling me it's low on battery (I put new batteries in yesterday). And it takes an average of thirty seconds of clicking to get five seconds of mouse-use. There's no exaggeration there at all. This sort of thing is the reason why my blog has its particular title.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
The US This Week: Midterm Elections
Today is Election Day. You all know what that means...PiG paper stress! Oh, and the fate of the country in the immediate future will be determined. It's hard to say which of these two has more of an impact on my life - as you can probably tell, the PiG paper isn't my favorite thing in the world. But it's easy to see that the outcome of these elections will probably be earth-shaking, regardless of which candidates are chosen.
I'll discuss the House of Representatives first, because there isn't much to discuss. This past term, the House has been held by the GOP. And that's not likely to change. A few seats may change hands, here and there, but the Republican majority can rest at ease in the house. The Democrats do have a chance to win the house, but there's a better chance that my PiG paper stress will completely dissipate in the next day. In other words, don't get your hopes up about a blue House. In the other branch of Congress, things are much more interesting. The Democrats have held the senate for the past eight years. As of right now, they have fifty-three seats to the Republicans' forty-five (Vermont and Maine each have an independent representative in the Senate). But that figure is likely to change. How drastically remains to be seen. Different sources say different things, but the one thing that's clear is that the Republicans are poised to make gains in the Senate. The GOP is campaigning on a strong-defense, anti-Ebola, secure-border platform. Personally, I think the GOP is going to take the majority in the senate. But I don't think it'll be because people agree with their platform. My theory is that a lot of votes for Republicans won't really be votes for Republicans: they'll be votes against the Democrats. One Democrat in particular, really. It's no coincidence that President Obama has stayed off the campaign trail. His popularity - or lack thereof - poses a huge threat to Democratic candidates in swing states across the nation. The fact is, the promises of hope and change haven't become reality for many Americans. The issue over the border is another problem - Rick Perry was complimented for taking action in Texas. Yes, you read that right - Rick Perry was praised for sending the Texas National Guard to secure the border. ISIS and Ebola are big issues in the campaign as well, even though we all know Ebola is hardly a big issue. And then there's the not-quite-smooth rollout of Obamacare. At the end of the day, Republicans are essentially campaigning on the fact that they disagree with the President on such issues. And that seems to be what plenty of Americans want to hear. We'll see how things turn out later tonight.
Don't fret too much about New York itself, though. One thing Rob Astorino deserves credit for is running a race we all know he won't win. Cuomo's chances of holding onto his seat are as good as the GOP's chances of holding the house. The state legislature, in all honesty, will stay in Democratic hands. Because this is New York, and that's how the state rolls.
I'll discuss the House of Representatives first, because there isn't much to discuss. This past term, the House has been held by the GOP. And that's not likely to change. A few seats may change hands, here and there, but the Republican majority can rest at ease in the house. The Democrats do have a chance to win the house, but there's a better chance that my PiG paper stress will completely dissipate in the next day. In other words, don't get your hopes up about a blue House. In the other branch of Congress, things are much more interesting. The Democrats have held the senate for the past eight years. As of right now, they have fifty-three seats to the Republicans' forty-five (Vermont and Maine each have an independent representative in the Senate). But that figure is likely to change. How drastically remains to be seen. Different sources say different things, but the one thing that's clear is that the Republicans are poised to make gains in the Senate. The GOP is campaigning on a strong-defense, anti-Ebola, secure-border platform. Personally, I think the GOP is going to take the majority in the senate. But I don't think it'll be because people agree with their platform. My theory is that a lot of votes for Republicans won't really be votes for Republicans: they'll be votes against the Democrats. One Democrat in particular, really. It's no coincidence that President Obama has stayed off the campaign trail. His popularity - or lack thereof - poses a huge threat to Democratic candidates in swing states across the nation. The fact is, the promises of hope and change haven't become reality for many Americans. The issue over the border is another problem - Rick Perry was complimented for taking action in Texas. Yes, you read that right - Rick Perry was praised for sending the Texas National Guard to secure the border. ISIS and Ebola are big issues in the campaign as well, even though we all know Ebola is hardly a big issue. And then there's the not-quite-smooth rollout of Obamacare. At the end of the day, Republicans are essentially campaigning on the fact that they disagree with the President on such issues. And that seems to be what plenty of Americans want to hear. We'll see how things turn out later tonight.
Don't fret too much about New York itself, though. One thing Rob Astorino deserves credit for is running a race we all know he won't win. Cuomo's chances of holding onto his seat are as good as the GOP's chances of holding the house. The state legislature, in all honesty, will stay in Democratic hands. Because this is New York, and that's how the state rolls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)