Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Media only tells one side of "Plagiarism on the Campaign Trail"
Recently Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of plagiarism for an ad-lib speech in which he repeated the words of one of his close friends and colleagues. All the media outlets are picking it up and running with it, but did they do any legwork to see if perhaps Hillary is a hypocrite?
Clinton is also guilty of plagiarizing Rudy Giuliani when she said, “I’m tested. I’m ready. Let’s make it happen,” in El Paso and of plagiarizing Obama himself when she said, "We are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change and the process starts right here in Iowa.”
Now, instead of repeating Clinton's accusation, a good journalist would do a little bit of fact-checking and take Clinton to task on her own plagiarism.
Last night I began to gather a list of which publications just repeated what the Clinton Camp said and the ones that actually did homework and actually deserve the title of journalist (at least in the context of reporting this story), but there were far too many that fit into the first category and it grew tiresome.
One surprise is that Fox News was actually reporting both sides, which was refreshing... I guess it makes sense that they would report on something that can later be used as fodder for promoting McCain.
On another note, I'm currently talking with an LA Times writer who's column was one of the first to get me upset about this, so maybe I'll talk about that next, when I'm done corresponding with him.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
I want a return to honest politics
I recently read an article from The New Yorker titled Sparring Partners and the last paragraph struck a cord for me. It got me thinking about the public discourse offered to us by Presidential candidates.
Many consider Obama to be naive because he answered a question off-the-cuff instead of using pre-written rhetoric. I appreciate Obama's off-the-cuff remarks though. If he had done his homework and already had a stance on the question, it would have made him look all the more genuine.
I want a candidate that's not afraid to answer any question, say what's on his mind, and have no apologies later. I want a candidate who isn't afraid to walk into a room where the questions are spontaneous. I want a return to the days when, for better or worse, candidates were asked honest questions from normal citizens who hadn't been pre-selected by the candidates campaign committees.
I want a candidate that has done his homework and has a stance on ALL the important issues. Plans for his first few months in office? Aspirations are also important. What kind of goals does the candidate have besides their media-prescribed talking points?
Clinton is casting Obama's response about diplomacy with leaders of hostile countries as a rookie mistake, but I think it was a refreshing answer. But I want a candidate to take the next step and meet with diplomats. If a presidential candidate could secure peace, or even open a dialogue about peace, before he even walked into the Oval Office, he would most likely secure my vote.
[Obama] answered, “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance”—he paused—“involving civilians.” He paused again. “Let me scratch that,” he added. “There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”
Let me scratch that, indeed. The sentence you are reading has been tweaked a half-dozen times. But in an age of omnipresent microphones, instant transcripts, cell-phone videos, and merciless cable-TV hosts, politicians have no such luxury. When they open their mouths, the first draft is the final. Off the cuff is engraved in granite.
Many consider Obama to be naive because he answered a question off-the-cuff instead of using pre-written rhetoric. I appreciate Obama's off-the-cuff remarks though. If he had done his homework and already had a stance on the question, it would have made him look all the more genuine.
I want a candidate that's not afraid to answer any question, say what's on his mind, and have no apologies later. I want a candidate who isn't afraid to walk into a room where the questions are spontaneous. I want a return to the days when, for better or worse, candidates were asked honest questions from normal citizens who hadn't been pre-selected by the candidates campaign committees.
I want a candidate that has done his homework and has a stance on ALL the important issues. Plans for his first few months in office? Aspirations are also important. What kind of goals does the candidate have besides their media-prescribed talking points?
Clinton is casting Obama's response about diplomacy with leaders of hostile countries as a rookie mistake, but I think it was a refreshing answer. But I want a candidate to take the next step and meet with diplomats. If a presidential candidate could secure peace, or even open a dialogue about peace, before he even walked into the Oval Office, he would most likely secure my vote.
Friday, January 4, 2008
What the Dems can learn from Ron Paul
Everywhere are talking about and rallying behind Ron Paul. Do a search for "Ron Paul Democrat" on google and you'll come up with groups across the country called "Democrats for Ron Paul", news reports that Paul is a Dem in GOP clothing, and online news sources (often accussed of being left-leaning) shouting Paul from the rooftops.
With all of this grassroots support and a GOP donations record-breaking 4th quarter, why are the parties so afraid to embrace Paul and his ideas? If Obama, Hillary, or Edwards would sincerely grab ahold of some of Paul's ideas (not just empty rhetoric, but honest adoption of some of his ideas), then they would not only inherit Paul's supporters if/when he is forced to drop out, but they would also demonstrate that they're able to be flexible in their opinions and excercise the will of the people they hope to represent.
Here are the top 3 reasons I believe Ron Paul is so popular among both sides of the political spectrum:
1) Ron Paul says he'll pull troops out of Iraq immediately
Even Jon Edwards' nine month plan is not good enough. Americans ousted the GOP from Congress in favor of the Dems in 2004 because they wanted change in Iraq. The Dems still haven't made good on their promises from 2004, so why should we vote for any Dem candidate that doesn't promise to make it right as soon as they enter office?
2) Civil Rights
Americans want their civil liberties back. They don't want to be spyed on, they don't want to be watched, they don't want to be tasered, they don't want to be kidnapped, they don't want to be tortured and they don't want their government to do it to other country's citizens in the US's name.
3) His stance against corporate subsidies
Most Americans have figured out by now that there is a lot of politicking in DC that either directly or indirectly helps big corporations on the backs of the American People. Whether it be subsidized corn that's helping America get fatter, big pharmaceuticals that keep Americans from the medicine they need, sub-contracting to suspect private corporations like Blackwater, etc., etc., etc., the American people want fair, honest government that doesn't include making big corporations even bigger.
WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN DO TO BRING ABOUT THESE CHANGES
Even if you don't believe in all of Ron Paul's stances, you can still show support for his ideas by supporting him in the primaries. No matter your party affiliation, you can still go to the Republican primaries where you can cast a vote for Paul. He's a longshot for the White House, but if he garners enough support maybe some of the other candidates will start to realize why he's made it this far. You can also write about what you want and what you believe in. Finally, call the candidate's local or national offices and encourage them to pass the word on to the candidate that what they're proposing in the election promises isn't enough.
With all of this grassroots support and a GOP donations record-breaking 4th quarter, why are the parties so afraid to embrace Paul and his ideas? If Obama, Hillary, or Edwards would sincerely grab ahold of some of Paul's ideas (not just empty rhetoric, but honest adoption of some of his ideas), then they would not only inherit Paul's supporters if/when he is forced to drop out, but they would also demonstrate that they're able to be flexible in their opinions and excercise the will of the people they hope to represent.
Here are the top 3 reasons I believe Ron Paul is so popular among both sides of the political spectrum:
1) Ron Paul says he'll pull troops out of Iraq immediately
Even Jon Edwards' nine month plan is not good enough. Americans ousted the GOP from Congress in favor of the Dems in 2004 because they wanted change in Iraq. The Dems still haven't made good on their promises from 2004, so why should we vote for any Dem candidate that doesn't promise to make it right as soon as they enter office?
2) Civil Rights
Americans want their civil liberties back. They don't want to be spyed on, they don't want to be watched, they don't want to be tasered, they don't want to be kidnapped, they don't want to be tortured and they don't want their government to do it to other country's citizens in the US's name.
3) His stance against corporate subsidies
Most Americans have figured out by now that there is a lot of politicking in DC that either directly or indirectly helps big corporations on the backs of the American People. Whether it be subsidized corn that's helping America get fatter, big pharmaceuticals that keep Americans from the medicine they need, sub-contracting to suspect private corporations like Blackwater, etc., etc., etc., the American people want fair, honest government that doesn't include making big corporations even bigger.
WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN DO TO BRING ABOUT THESE CHANGES
Even if you don't believe in all of Ron Paul's stances, you can still show support for his ideas by supporting him in the primaries. No matter your party affiliation, you can still go to the Republican primaries where you can cast a vote for Paul. He's a longshot for the White House, but if he garners enough support maybe some of the other candidates will start to realize why he's made it this far. You can also write about what you want and what you believe in. Finally, call the candidate's local or national offices and encourage them to pass the word on to the candidate that what they're proposing in the election promises isn't enough.
Solar energy storage unit idea
Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving - Albert Einstein
The other day an idea popped into my head and I haven't been able to get it out since. I've been very interested in solar energy lately and how nobody has really found an efficient way to store the energy created by it. Then my mind wandered to the simple lessons of potential and kinetic energy that I learned in my college physics class.
My idea involves putting a pump at the bottom of large energy producing dams like Hoover. At night water is released to power the grid. During the daytime solar energy is used to power the grid and any energy not utilized by the grid is used to pump the water back to the top of the dam so that it is turned back into potential energy.
A variation of the idea involves having a field or plant of piston-like weights that are alternately raised by solar energy and then released to power turbines.
-----------UPDATE!-----------
There's actually a remote village on the Donoussa Island in the Aegean Sea, Greece, that is already utilizing solar energy to pump water to an upper reservoir during the day and then running the water through a turbine down to a lower reservoir at night in order to power the village.
You can see the abstract of a paper written about it here.
The other day an idea popped into my head and I haven't been able to get it out since. I've been very interested in solar energy lately and how nobody has really found an efficient way to store the energy created by it. Then my mind wandered to the simple lessons of potential and kinetic energy that I learned in my college physics class.
My idea involves putting a pump at the bottom of large energy producing dams like Hoover. At night water is released to power the grid. During the daytime solar energy is used to power the grid and any energy not utilized by the grid is used to pump the water back to the top of the dam so that it is turned back into potential energy.
A variation of the idea involves having a field or plant of piston-like weights that are alternately raised by solar energy and then released to power turbines.
-----------UPDATE!-----------
There's actually a remote village on the Donoussa Island in the Aegean Sea, Greece, that is already utilizing solar energy to pump water to an upper reservoir during the day and then running the water through a turbine down to a lower reservoir at night in order to power the village.
You can see the abstract of a paper written about it here.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
A solution to California's conflicts with the EPA
The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward. -- John Maynard Keynes
California is going about its Greenhouse Gas regulations conundrum all wrong. The Bush Administration and our special-interests controlled Congress will always fight tooth and nail to stop California from enacting harsher rules. So why do we fight for new rules when a few minor adjustments to the existing ones would suffice?
California can "quietly encourage" its citizens to work towards more eco-friendly vehicles by slowly raising the registration fees, excise taxes and gas taxes for gas-guzzling, CO2 producers. D.C. won't be able to argue against the fees because they already levied the same taxes on their citizens in 2004:
Extra revenue produced by those who are penalized could then be filtered back into clean energy research and implementation, Transportation Infrastructure maintenance and construction, etc.
California could start with newer vehicles, while grandfathering in older ones and then each year move the bar a little lower until all vehicles are assessed registration fees based on the amount of pollution they produce. The fees can be based on the standard EPA ratings of each vehicle. Then any vehicle that has been modified to lower its emissions or consumption, such as a converted bio-diesel, can go through an inspection process to lower its rating.
California is going about its Greenhouse Gas regulations conundrum all wrong. The Bush Administration and our special-interests controlled Congress will always fight tooth and nail to stop California from enacting harsher rules. So why do we fight for new rules when a few minor adjustments to the existing ones would suffice?
California can "quietly encourage" its citizens to work towards more eco-friendly vehicles by slowly raising the registration fees, excise taxes and gas taxes for gas-guzzling, CO2 producers. D.C. won't be able to argue against the fees because they already levied the same taxes on their citizens in 2004:
Washington Post, December 8, 2004 - The D.C. Council approved legislation yesterday that will require District owners of large, luxury sport-utility vehicles to pay a higher excise tax and registration fee next year, after concluding that the vehicles contribute to air pollution and street damage.
But under the new legislation, residents with clean-air hybrid cars will no longer have to pay an excise tax and will have their vehicle registration fees cut in half. Original Source
Extra revenue produced by those who are penalized could then be filtered back into clean energy research and implementation, Transportation Infrastructure maintenance and construction, etc.
California could start with newer vehicles, while grandfathering in older ones and then each year move the bar a little lower until all vehicles are assessed registration fees based on the amount of pollution they produce. The fees can be based on the standard EPA ratings of each vehicle. Then any vehicle that has been modified to lower its emissions or consumption, such as a converted bio-diesel, can go through an inspection process to lower its rating.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Mele Kalikimaka is Hawaii's way to say Merry Christmas to you
Turn on your speakers and press play:
"Mele Kalikimaka" by Bing Crosby
Mele Kalikimaka is the thing to say on a bright Hawian Christmas Day
That's the island greeting that we send to you from the land where palm trees sway
Here we know that Christmas will be green and bright
The sun to shine by day and all the stars at night
Mele Kalikimaka is Hawaii's way to say Merry Christmas to you
(The Andrew Sisters)
Mele Kalikimaka is the thing to say on a bright Hawian Christmas day
That's the island greeting that we send to you from the land where palm trees sway
Here we know that Christmas will be green and bright
The sun to shine by day and all the stars at night
Mele Kalikimaka is Hawaii's way to say Merry Christmas to you
(The Andrew Sister's and Bing Crosby)
Here we know that Christmas will be green and bright
The sun to shine by day and all the stars at night
Mele Kalikimaka is Hawaii's way to say Merry Christmas to you
Mele Kalikimaka is the thing to say on a bright Hawian Christmas Day
Thats the island greeting that we send to you from the land where palm trees sway
Here we know that Christmas will be green and bright
The sun to shine by day and all the stars at night
Mele Kalikimaka is Hawaii's way to say Merry christmas a
very merry christmas , a very, very, merry,merry Chistmas to youuuuuuuuuu
An open letter to Carolyn Washburn regarding Dennis Kucinich's exclusion from the Iowa Debate
The following is an e-mail I sent to Carolyn Washburn, regarding the exclusion of Dennis Kucinich from the Iowa Debates because his "office" is in his Iowa home. For more info, see: http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/were-only-surpr.html
To: Carolyn Washburn (cwashburn@dmreg.com)
Subject: Political Hackery (that's you!)
Aloha,
I am a 26-year-old working class American. I am by no means a pundit or political extremist or uber-liberal or whatever convenient label you want to throw out there. By excluding Dennis Kucinich in the Iowa Debate, you've stooped to the level of political hackery that is so common among people such as Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher, and Ann Coulter. What kind of excuse is "His home doesn't count for an office," is that? Beings that he actually LIVES in Iowa and he's a serious candidate, he has more of a right to be there than the rest of them. He's the only HONEST candidate. Obama and Hillary are talking heads supported by the media and have a proven track record of doing the same Goddamn thing that the rest of Washington is doing and it's what is screwing up this country, so why give them preferential treatment?
People like you are the reason that the American people are more and more disenfranchised with the political process. People like you are the reason that more and more our Government believes it's okay to abuse the ignorance of its people. Shame on you.
Sincerely,
Jay Chrisman
To: Carolyn Washburn (cwashburn@dmreg.com)
Subject: Political Hackery (that's you!)
Aloha,
I am a 26-year-old working class American. I am by no means a pundit or political extremist or uber-liberal or whatever convenient label you want to throw out there. By excluding Dennis Kucinich in the Iowa Debate, you've stooped to the level of political hackery that is so common among people such as Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher, and Ann Coulter. What kind of excuse is "His home doesn't count for an office," is that? Beings that he actually LIVES in Iowa and he's a serious candidate, he has more of a right to be there than the rest of them. He's the only HONEST candidate. Obama and Hillary are talking heads supported by the media and have a proven track record of doing the same Goddamn thing that the rest of Washington is doing and it's what is screwing up this country, so why give them preferential treatment?
People like you are the reason that the American people are more and more disenfranchised with the political process. People like you are the reason that more and more our Government believes it's okay to abuse the ignorance of its people. Shame on you.
Sincerely,
Jay Chrisman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)