Birthers...Get over it!!

No American president's origins have ever been questioned like President Obama's. I have trouble understanding why some people are obsessed with the birthplace of the president who was democratically elected.

Even after two years in the White House, many Americans are still trying to prove that their President is somehow a faker who was not born in the U.S. and therefore should not hold the highest office in the country!

The latest voice of the so-called birthers, is Baltimore Orioles' player Luke Scott who told Yahoo Sports that President Obama "does not represent America, nor does he represent anything what our forefathers stood for."

He also said "he was not born here... That's my belief... The man has dodged everything. He dodges questions, he does not answer anything. And why is that? Because he's hiding something. You know what people who are deceivers or are not of honor and integrity- that's how they act."

I don't see why the bithers want President Obama to put everything on hold and answer the nonsense question, that official documents have already answered. There are so many important issues the president has to take care of and his birthplace does not have to be one of them.

The president does not and should not waste his time to satisfy the obsession of the birthers, just like he should ignore questions about his "secret faith," which no one has looked into better than Keith Olbermann in his special investigation.

Meet the New Boss(es)...

An article in today's Washington Post brings to mind an interesting topic that has come up in several discussions over the course of the Fall 2010 semester: Just what is this change we've been hearing so much about? What HAS changed?

As we've discussed, the 2010 elections reflected growing discontent with President Obama and the Democratic Party, as the American public continues to struggle with everything from high unemployment to mass property repossessions and outrageous gas prices.

Voters cited these economic issues, among others, as failures on the part of the Obama administration to deliver on his promise of "Change We Can Believe In."

In November 2008, the month that Senator Obama defeated John McCain in the national election by 192 electoral votes, the national unemployment rate stood at 6.9%, the highest rate of the decade, according to the United States Department of Labor.

The nation collectively booted the Republican party to the curb in this election and welcomed not only America's first African-American president, but a young, charismatic Senator who personified the idea of progression.

In November 2010, however, the national unemployment rate stood at 9.8%, having reached a high, during that span, of 10.1%.

Americans felt slighted. While some changes were made, including the much-criticized health care bill, the nation continued its downward spiral, with little "hope" left to cling to. Voters expressed their discontent by electing several fresh new faces from the GOP and the upstart Tea Party Movement.

But what "good" change can we expect from this latest about-face? More Americans are out of work, out of their homes, and seemingly out of hope. They're willing to embrace change, which would include a drastic reduction in the national debt which stands, as of the moment of this writing, at $13,857,074,872,764.

But their newest elected leaders? It would seem that once they reach positions of power, they're quite content carrying on "business as usual."

The article in today's Washington Post focuses on the participation of the incoming GOP freshmen in big-money fundraisers, in what is described as an effort to recover the accrued debt that is customary in a high-level political campaign.

Who are these contributors, you may ask? The same K Street lobbyists that were deemed despicable and unacceptable by these same first-time legislators as recently as one month ago.

With millions of dollars in debt needing to be re-cooped, and citizen-contributors hanging on to what little they have left, the only dollars left to be donated are the same that -- according to the GOP -- got the country in such big trouble in the first place.

Same as the old boss, indeed.

Sports is all Political

Over the last few months, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), has been looking around the world for countries that could host the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups.

Fox Sports even ran a convincing article on the USA 2022 bid, showing how hard it would be to vote against it.

George Mason University was one location looked at as a possible practice facility if the United States won the 2022 bid. The university's student media newspaper, Broadside, ran an article about it that can be seen here.

While England appeared to be a frontrunner, with the United States close behind for 2022, FIFA announced that Russia would host the 2018 Cup and Qatar would host the 2022 Cup:



While the announcement of Russia was a bit surprising, listen to the audience reaction and the reaction of the BBC commentator when Qatar was announced.

With the western world shunned by the committee, western countries have cried out that something is wrong with the governing body itself.

BBC Sport showed concern with the fact that England, Australia and the United States received a total of six votes between them in the first round even though they appeared to have the strongest bids. England was eliminated in the first round of 2018 bidding, Australia was eliminated in the first round of 2022 bidding, and the United States fell to Qatar in the final, fourth round of 2022 bidding.

England's 2018 bid chief executive has even called for the country to stop bidding until the process is reformed.

In a sporting event that brings the citizens of a country together and boosts nationality worldwide, the voting and bidding is taken as seriously as economic summits, like the one held in South Korea and executive elections.

Reform of the process might come, but it will definitely not come before Qatar, the smallest country to ever win a bid, works the bid in 2022.

Even Bill Clinton could not convince the voters. But he has some thoughts on why his country lost. Maybe Qatar really did give FIFA a way to say "here’s a good non-terrorist, non-bigoted way of embracing the modernization attempt of the Middle East," so he thinks.

But do we really have to go through the new TSA screening process in 2022 just to see a soccer game or two?

Healthy Food for Kids... Government Takeover

Ever since she was introduced to the nation Sarah Palin has been obsessed with attention that she sure gets. Whether through her fiery slogans, racist comments, or weird behaviors such us writing a cheat sheet on her palm and coining new words just like Shakespeare, the annoying Palin is not going away anytime soon!

One of the latest claims of the half-term governor, is another accusation to the socialist government of President Barack Obama but more specifically the anti obesity campaign that First Lady Michelle Obama has launched.

Palin said during an interview on the show Laura Ingraham that the government should stay "out of our backs" and should not dictate what we should feed our kids calling the "Let's Move" campaign a government "takeover."

I do not understand the self proclaimed grizzly mom's opposition, especially that she is only good at attacking and not giving concrete alternatives that can actually be applied. One more time, she does not even seem to know what she is talking about and it is scary that a lot of people still listen to her and admire her!

There is nothing wrong with encouraging parents and children, schools and food companies to feed healthy foods. This would only help their well being and nation as well.

A report published recently predicted that 50 percent of Americans will have diabetes by 2020 and will cost the U.S. health care system $3.35 trillion if the current trends are not changed.

Photo credit: White House

Forced to Adapt

In an interview with students participating in a distance learning class between the University of Denver and George Mason University, with the help of C-SPAN, Ken Auletta, author of “Googled: The End of the World As We Know It,” made a crucial statement.

“Many newspapers are being destroyed by the Internet,” he said. “Will that kind of journalism drown or will it figure out a way to ride the wave? Jury’s out.”

But print media is doing its best to keep up with technology, from a variety of places.

The Washington Post is perhaps one of the most respected news establishments to embrace the iPad culture. Here is a video of how they are working with it, featuring Ben Bradlee, Watergate scandal investigative reporter Bob Woodward and sportswriter Michael Wilbon:



Even the Sweedish media group Bonnier has launched News+ as a way to get readers included in a real-time news stream:



But news groups are not the only people making the most out of this technology wave as a way to reach new clientele. Popular Mechanics has recently released its own app as well. Here is a video of their Editor-In-Chief demonstrating his new iPad app:

Tea Party Influence in 2010 and beyond

In recent classes, we've been discussing the influence of the Tea Party in 2010.

Many pundits, as well as members our class were very curious to see how well the Tea Party would perform in the elections. The results? Mixed. Below are some of the losses of key races for the Tea Party:

Nevada: Sharon Angle lost to Harry Reid
Delaware: Christine O'Donnell lost to Chris Coons
Colorado: Ken Buck lost to Michael Bennet
Alaska: Joe Miller lost to Lisa Murkowski
West Virginia: John Raese lost to Joe Manchin

Despite these losses, the Tea Party did have some success on the election night. Below is a list:

Kentucky: Rand Paul defeats Jack Conway
Florida: Marco Rubio defeats Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meek
Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey defeats Joe Sestak

Despite these wins, you can argue that Kentucky, Florida, and Pennsylvania were winnable for Republicans anyways.

With all this in mind, let's look at how Sarah Palin's endorsements went. In 2010, she made 64 endorsements total, with the majority of those endorsements going to Tea Party candidates. Of her 64 endorsements, 20 candidates lost and 33 won. While her endorsement seemed to help Senate and Gubernatorial candidates, it was less effective on the Congressional level.

In the 32 endorsements that she made for the U.S. House of Representatives, 19 candidates lost, and 13 won. For a more in-dept analysis of Sarah Palin's contribution to 2010 politics, click here.

It remains to be seen what will happen with the Tea Party. Several Republican winners, including two in Virginia, have announced that they will not join the Tea Party caucus, even after winning with Tea Party support.

With a platform of less spending and less government, it will be interesting to see how the Tea Party can govern and work with a Democratic Executive Branch. Will we have two years of the parties working together, or two years of road blocks?

Also - what about the Tea Party influence in 2012? It is very obvious that Palin is still very popular among the more conservative wing of the GOP. With mixed results for the Tea Party in 2010, I'd say its hard to predict what will become of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin in 2012.

Shear speaks to the GMU Political Journalism class

The New York Times Caucus Blog columnist Michael Shear spoke on Nov. 18 to college students about his career, as well as his involvement with reporting on recent presidential elections.

Shear was one of the reporters who traveled with 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

One thing that surprised Shear while riding with McCain on the Straight Talk Express bus was that the candidate was very open and accessible to reporters.

Shear illustrated his point by saying that he has over 200 hours of audio interviews with the candidate, and that such access to a high-profile presidential nominee, as a reporter, was rare.

“You’ll [usually] see other candidates every few weeks,” Shear said.

Students were also very interested in speaking about McCain's 2008 running mate, Sarah Palin.

Shear was asked if he thought Palin’s new TLC reality show “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” was appropriate.

“I think the reality TV show thing [for Palin] fits perfectly in today’s political climate,” Shear said.

Some students expressed concern that Palin’s reality TV show could jeopardize her chances of running for president in the future.

Shear felt that Palin’s approach with her television show could be appealing to potential voters.

“We are past the notion of what is, and isn’t, presidential,” Shear said.

Shear likened Palin’s television show to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s movie career. He said that voters today are open to new ways of seeing potential candidates than they were in previous election cycles.

“We are in a culture where [reality TV shows] doesn’t bother [voters,]” Shear said.

Photo credit: The Huffington Post

Tension Rising After North Korea Attacks

As uncertainty and tension quickly rise in the wake of Tuesday's attack on South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island, U.S. warships have been sent to the region as a show of solidarity with the nation, as well as a strong force against North Korean armed forces and their leader Kim Jong-Il.

"It is a long-planned exercise," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"That said, it is meant to send a very strong signal of deterrence and also work with our very close allies in South Korea," Mullen said on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS."

North Korea has been viewed by U.S. officials as an area of concern for most of the past decade due to their public push to proliferate a nuclear weapons program, which drew much ire in 2007 after the communist nation tested several nuclear devices, including five short-range missiles which were launched by the North into the sea off its eastern coast, in violation of U.N. resolutions.

Those tests pushed South Korea to join the Proliferation Security Initiative, a global effort that aims to stop trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern.

Created by President George W. Bush in 2003, the Initiative includes more than 90 countries that agreed to interdict suspicious cargo ships.

The day after South Korea's decision to join, North Korea claimed that the South had nullified the agreement they had made in 1953 -- the armistice that ended the Korean War by barring either nation from imposing a naval blockade -- by joining the anti-proliferation effort.

The North also said it would not respect the legal status of five islands on the South's side of the line, which may have included Yeonpyeong.

Over the past 18 months, however, a push has been made by North Korean officials for more diplomacy with South Korea and the U.S.

Having been rebuffed in those efforts, Tuesday's attacks could be viewed as an effort by North Korea to show what consequences its southern counterparts -- and their allies -- could face if they are ignored much longer.

Ron Paul Debates TSA Screenings - CNN 11/19/10

The TSA and ridiculous security measures

CNN's John King moderated a panel with Representative Ron Paul of Texas and CNN contributor and former Bush Homeland Security Adviser Fran Towsend about the controversial security procedures of the Transportation Security Administration.

Paul's responses seem to be more in-sync with the sentiments of most Americans Whereas, Towsend responses were more measured. She said the government needs to do a better job of explaining why these procedures are necessary.

I agreed with most of Paul's points. So, the proceeding paragraphs will focus more on his remarks.

Congressman Paul has proposed, "The American Travelers Dignity Act," in response to the TSA's new invasive security procedures at our nation's airports.

Paul rightly asserts the government has no business trampling on the rights of its citizens in order to make them feel safe. King asks Congressmen Paul what if they take away these security measures and we have another terrorist attack?

Paul responded by saying that the airline would do a much better than the government at ensuring safety.

The problem is that even if airports opted-out of the TSA, these private companies would still be obligated to adhere to these same procedures.

So, the only option is to do away with these "cattle-prodding" procedures.

Paul passionately railed against the notion that once a person buys a ticket they are obligated to surrender their rights..

Paul said there is no such thing as perfect safety and that the government's main obligation is to protect our rights not to ensure our safety.

Paul believes that everyone in Congress and in the White House including cabinet members should be forced to undergo these security procedures. So, they can understand why the America people are so upset.

Paul, however, then goes and attacks our foreign policy and blames that for making more terrorists. Up until that point I agreed with everything he said. But, to blame the U.S for inciting terrorism simply isn't true.

Republican statwide elections and redistricting

An article written by ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-historic-win-state-legislatures-vote-2010-election/story?id=12049040&page=2 discusses how Republican victories in state elections will effect how districts are drawn.

The recent historic gains by Republicans in the House of Representatives overshadowed what the G.O.P did in state elections throughout the country.

• Republicans took control of at least 19 Democrat-controlled state legislatures
• Republicans gained a total of 650 seats in state legislatures

Why is this important one may ask?

Well, because 44 states will be up for redistricting which could effect the 2012
election. Usually, the majority party has significant input in how districts will be drawn.

This bodes well for the eventual Republican nominee because the G.O.P won key gubernatorial races in several battleground states

• Michigan
• Ohio
• Pennsylvania

This is key because recent presidential elections have come down to one state. In 2000, it was Florida and in 2004 it was Ohio.

This can be helpful but it doesn't mean it's a shoe-in for Republicans. A number of factors including the economy will determine who wins the White House.

If unemployment stays at 9.6 percent, then no matter who the Republican nominee is they will probably win. However, if the unemployment rate drops, then President Obama will win a second erm.