Okay, so November 4th is almost here. A part of me is so thankful because that means an end to all the phone calls and ads (especially the negative ones). However, there is still a part of me that absolutely fears that day and what it could mean for me, my family, my friends, my country, and our futures. Some polls have Obama with a 10-point lead and others say a dead-even tie. I guess there is no easy way to know until that fateful Tuesday when the polls start closing and ballots start being counted. For me the outcome is crucial, a change for the better or my sign that Canada is looking like my new home. While I have cast my vote early, my loyal readers (all one of you) may not have, and so I choose to try to sway you one last time before you head to the polls.
While truly in effect no President can “by himself” instill the changes/plans they preach about during their campaign, it is only Congress that can make the changes. The President does become the biggest and most powerful lobbyist in the United States. So now when you look at the plans, ideals, and pasts, who do you really think can enact change? When you look at past committees, college lives, community organizing, etc, who has the greater chance of truly bringing Congress together for bi-partisan decision making?
I could sit here and tout about who was at the top of their class and who was 3rd from the bottom, and talk about who voted with Bush’s ideals the most, but you already know all that. And if you don’t, then I feel really sorry for you to have to make an uninformed decision.
Before I end, I do want to talk about scandals… I will mention one that involves a Presidential Candidate, “The Keating Five”. No need to elaborate, as if you were over the age of 15 in the late 80’s/early 90’s you will remember it, and if not, go ask you parents. Next, a couple of scandals involving a Vice-Presidential Candidate, “Trooper Gate” and “The Natural Gas Pipeline”. Trooper Gate is over done, but I will explain the Natural Gas Pipeline. Here is what the AP uncovered:
• Instead of creating a process that would attract many potential builders, this VP Candidate slanted the terms away from an important group — the global energy giants that own the rights to the gas.
• Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders, this VP Candidate had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major candidate, including TransCanada.
• The leader of this VP Candidate’s pipeline team had been a partner at a lobbying firm where she worked on behalf of a TransCanada subsidiary. Also, that woman's former business partner at the lobbying firm was TransCanada's lead private lobbyist on the pipeline deal, interacting with legislators in the weeks before the vote to grant TransCanada the contract. Plus, a former TransCanada executive served as an outside consultant to this VP Candidate’s pipeline team.
• Under a different set of rules four years earlier, TransCanada had offered to build the pipeline without a state subsidy; under this VP Candidate, the company could receive a maximum $500 million.
• “this VP Candidate held firmly to her fundamental belief that Alaska could best serve Alaskans and the nation's interests by pursuing a competitive approach to building a natural gas pipeline," said this VP Candidate’s spokesman Taylor Griffin. "There was an open and transparent process that subjected the decision to extensive public scrutiny and due diligence."
Just have to mention here that these scandals are from the same ticket. And the other ticket… no scandals found. :)
Lastly, one candidate has often been compared to John F. Kennedy. And rightly so there are some striking similarities. He is also a first-term Senator, he is also running on the fundamentals of change during a time our Country needs it, he is young, and he has never served in the military. So in the words of that great leader, John F. Kennedy:
"The world is changing. The old ways will not do... It is time for a new generation of leadership."
Vote for Obama!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Very Important... Please read.
This was written by Eric Johnson, the son of a family a friend. It was published in the Grand Forks Herald on Friday, Sept. 19, 2008.
Avoid 'Tropic Thunder' a cruel comedy
The new movie “Tropic Thunder” is a sad reminder that among all disadvantaged groups in America, the developmentally disabled are unique in the particular brand of prejudice and ridicule they must endure. Even before its release, the comedy drew fire for its treatment of the mentally disabled. I rushed out to see it, as it piqued my interest on several levels. I’m an occasional stand-up comic, a full-time law professor teaching and writing about media law, and my brother is severely retarded.
Ben Stiller stars in the DreamWorks picture as a struggling actor, the high point of whose career is taking on the role of a man with mental retardation. Stiller’s portrayal of the mentally disabled man is an over-the-top caricature played up for laughs — which it got plenty of when I saw the film.
Meanwhile, co-star Robert Downey Jr.’s character makes copious use of the word “retard.” In a line apparently designed to take root as a popular catch-phrase and T-shirt slogan, Downey’s character warns Stiller’s, “Never go full retard.”
I hope most people will recognize the film for what it is: heartless and cruel. DreamWorks and the film’s actors have tried to take the moral high-ground by arguing that the film is an equal-opportunity offender. But that’s not true. For instance, while much of the film’s subject matter plays off of African-American stereotypes, it does so with the foil of a black character, played by Brandon T. Jackson, who points out the bigotry and provides a discourse about it. No such perspective is offered on behalf of the developmentally disabled, who are lampooned with impunity.
Furthermore, while a spectrum of racial and religious minorities fill the ranks of Hollywood shot-callers, the developmentally disabled do not. And, in frankness, they
never will. That’s the nature of this disability and its peculiar curse. So while racial barbs and religious slurs might, in the context of a big Hollywood collaboration, qualify as some form of collective self-mockery, there can be no such excuse when the developmentally disabled are made laughingstocks.
Downey, for his part, defended the film on the basis of the First Amendment. “You know, if I want to protest something because it offends me, that’s my right as an American,” he said at the movie’s premiere. “And it’s also any artist’s right to say and do whatever they want to do.” Co-star Jack Black offered a similar defense. “Obviously, that’s what America is all about,” he said. “If you’ve got something to say, you are free to say it.” We all cherish the First Amendment. Playing the free-speech card in this circumstance, however, is a dishonest way of trying to deflect criticism. The question is not constitutionality; it is civility. The taunts in the film are not illegal, nor should they be, but they are hateful and sickening. Ideals of artistic freedom cannot relieve even the best-paid bullies from moral responsibility for what they say and do. The fact is that even among the various species of hate speech, ridicule of those with retardation is unique in its brutishness. Unlike racial minorities, religious adherents or the physically disabled, those with developmental disabilities cannot well defend themselves with wit and well-crafted retorts. That’s why the arguments of Downey and Black — that everyone has the right to say whatever they want — are especially hollow.
Stiller, the film’s director, star, co-producer, and, along with a collaborator, author of the story and screenplay, took a different tack in dealing with the criticism. “I feel if people see the movie, I’m confident that they’ll get where we’re coming from in the film,” Stiller said. Having seen it myself, I think it’s fair to say that where Stiller comes from is a shallow reserve of material and talent upon which to draw. Stiller’s creation of a developmentally disabled character for “Tropic Thunder” was neither difficult nor clever. In fact, Stiller’s performance is indistinguishable from the antics of the lout we all remember from middle school who never missed an opportunity to point and laugh at the kids getting off the “short bus.”
Here’s hoping moviegoers will think twice before patronizing and praising such sad and dehumanizing fare.
Johnson is an assistant professor at the UND School of Law
Avoid 'Tropic Thunder' a cruel comedy
The new movie “Tropic Thunder” is a sad reminder that among all disadvantaged groups in America, the developmentally disabled are unique in the particular brand of prejudice and ridicule they must endure. Even before its release, the comedy drew fire for its treatment of the mentally disabled. I rushed out to see it, as it piqued my interest on several levels. I’m an occasional stand-up comic, a full-time law professor teaching and writing about media law, and my brother is severely retarded.
Ben Stiller stars in the DreamWorks picture as a struggling actor, the high point of whose career is taking on the role of a man with mental retardation. Stiller’s portrayal of the mentally disabled man is an over-the-top caricature played up for laughs — which it got plenty of when I saw the film.
Meanwhile, co-star Robert Downey Jr.’s character makes copious use of the word “retard.” In a line apparently designed to take root as a popular catch-phrase and T-shirt slogan, Downey’s character warns Stiller’s, “Never go full retard.”
I hope most people will recognize the film for what it is: heartless and cruel. DreamWorks and the film’s actors have tried to take the moral high-ground by arguing that the film is an equal-opportunity offender. But that’s not true. For instance, while much of the film’s subject matter plays off of African-American stereotypes, it does so with the foil of a black character, played by Brandon T. Jackson, who points out the bigotry and provides a discourse about it. No such perspective is offered on behalf of the developmentally disabled, who are lampooned with impunity.
Furthermore, while a spectrum of racial and religious minorities fill the ranks of Hollywood shot-callers, the developmentally disabled do not. And, in frankness, they
never will. That’s the nature of this disability and its peculiar curse. So while racial barbs and religious slurs might, in the context of a big Hollywood collaboration, qualify as some form of collective self-mockery, there can be no such excuse when the developmentally disabled are made laughingstocks.
Downey, for his part, defended the film on the basis of the First Amendment. “You know, if I want to protest something because it offends me, that’s my right as an American,” he said at the movie’s premiere. “And it’s also any artist’s right to say and do whatever they want to do.” Co-star Jack Black offered a similar defense. “Obviously, that’s what America is all about,” he said. “If you’ve got something to say, you are free to say it.” We all cherish the First Amendment. Playing the free-speech card in this circumstance, however, is a dishonest way of trying to deflect criticism. The question is not constitutionality; it is civility. The taunts in the film are not illegal, nor should they be, but they are hateful and sickening. Ideals of artistic freedom cannot relieve even the best-paid bullies from moral responsibility for what they say and do. The fact is that even among the various species of hate speech, ridicule of those with retardation is unique in its brutishness. Unlike racial minorities, religious adherents or the physically disabled, those with developmental disabilities cannot well defend themselves with wit and well-crafted retorts. That’s why the arguments of Downey and Black — that everyone has the right to say whatever they want — are especially hollow.
Stiller, the film’s director, star, co-producer, and, along with a collaborator, author of the story and screenplay, took a different tack in dealing with the criticism. “I feel if people see the movie, I’m confident that they’ll get where we’re coming from in the film,” Stiller said. Having seen it myself, I think it’s fair to say that where Stiller comes from is a shallow reserve of material and talent upon which to draw. Stiller’s creation of a developmentally disabled character for “Tropic Thunder” was neither difficult nor clever. In fact, Stiller’s performance is indistinguishable from the antics of the lout we all remember from middle school who never missed an opportunity to point and laugh at the kids getting off the “short bus.”
Here’s hoping moviegoers will think twice before patronizing and praising such sad and dehumanizing fare.
Johnson is an assistant professor at the UND School of Law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
