sources

The New York times online http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/politics/28obama.html
The Daily Show

4th post

The President walks to the podium, hugging the children and posing for photos, and he gets ready to speak in defense of his education policy. All of the members of the press are ready to record another one of his eloquent speeches. But none of them could have been ready for this, the President, surrounded by children says, "Childrens do learn when standards are high..." What????? I really did not think it was possible for me to respect this president any less, but ladies and gentlemen it just happened. Childrens do learn.... to quote Jon Stewart, "oh does they???" It’s just too perfect that the President makes a grammar mistake defending his education policy, standing next to children, who all probably could have said that sentence correctly. It’s just pathetic.

3rd Post

Obama, he seems to many to be a symbol of hope for the future. His address at the Democratic convention made him something of a celebrity, his books have been huge sellers, and he gained the endorsement of Oprah, something no one thought possible. While giving a speech in New York, to one of the biggest crowds of this campaign season, Obama attempeted to seperate himself from his Democratic counter parts. He said, “There were folks on the stage [at the democratic debate] that said Social Security is just fine, we don’t have to do anything about it...There are those who will tell you that getting out of Iraq will be painless, we’ll do it in a snap, not acknowledging that there are no good options in Iraq. There are folks who will shift positions and policies on all kinds of things depending on which way the wind is blowing. That’s not the kind of politics that will deliver on the change we are looking for." I am not sure who I am supporting in the Presidential race, that is mostly because I will not be able to vote when it comes around but I think I do agree with Obama on this point. Politicians often times avoid the problems because they want votes. They promise tax cuts when in reality the only way to keep social security is a raise in taxes. They promise a swift withdrawl and speedy recovery from Iraq when in reality the current administration has screwed up this war so much that there are no swift or speedy ways out. Obama is not trying to gloss over the issues. He is confronting them and admiting that solving them will be dificult. Even if he is not the symbol of hope that everyone has been trying to make him out to be, at least he is honest.

2nd post

So the Jena six are on trial in Louisiana and we of course discussed it in our amazing AP Gov class. This led to the discussion of free speech. How far should free speech be allowed to go? Is burning a cross or hanging a noose simply an expression of free speech or is it something that should be banned. My thoughts are that it is impossible to put a blanket ban over something like hanging a noose from a tree because that would be infringing on peoples rights. I think it totally depends on the context. In the case of the Jena six the noose was meant to threaten the black students at the high school, in particular, the student who sat under the tree the previous day. A total ban on things such as nooses would lead, in my opinion, to more controversial issues such as banning the swastika or the confederate flag, as those are also symbols of horrible atrocities to certain groups of people. The Jena six is a case about racism, but it brings up many other important issues, especialy the issue of free speech, which is going to need to be addressed before an even worse case comes up.

sources

my sources for the quotes in the previous blog are:
The New York Times online
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Text.html

1st post 9/13

Tonight the President gave an address to the nation, about what other than, The Iraq War. The president's speech was filled with the same rhetoric that everyone has been hearing for years, "Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home", "A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East", "Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home." The familiar fear and hope cards were once again played to their fullest. Well I'm tired of this vicious circle strategy that so far has been employed in the war in Iraq, Iraq is dangerous, so we send in troops, there is some success, but not enough to take out troops because Iraq is still dangerous. The President doesn't know enough about the enemy he is fighting, he generalizes calling anyone he sees as a threat "extremists, terrorists, and Al Qaeda, well right there those are 3 distinct entities covering a wide group of people, "who specifically are we fighting?", "what does success in Iraq mean?", these are questions that the President seems unable to answer. Bush cites the Anbar Province as a sign of the troop surge's success, when really sheiks and local leaders decided they hated Al Qaeda more than they hate the U.S., that can hardly be credited to the additional troops. In his speech the president asks for more time, that by Christmas 5,700 troops may be able to come home and in March we will be given more status updates. But really this is more backwards logic, the troop levels can not be sustained at their current status, too many soldiers are on their 2nd and 3rd tours of duty, they need to go home. But to add insult to injury in the closing of his speech he speaks of one of the soldiers who died in Iraq saying, "They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun" only he is not included in that "us" he is simply watching from the stands, a faithful fan booing when things go bad and high-fiving his buddies when his team scores. However, the time for watching is over, the time for a new President who knows the enemy and has a plan of attack is now.