Taser This: F**K Standards

To me, the First Amendment is our most cherished constitutional right. The idea that we can question our leaders without fear of reprisal by the government is something I hold sacrosanct. Whenever someone tries to impinge this right, I will make my displeasure known.

That being said, this doesn't mean anybody can just spout what they want, and get away with it. Although the government has little right to limit speech (save for the old chestnut about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater), the same right isn't expressly extended to private entities. For example, Fox can force The Simpsons to pixelate nude rear-ends, and Comedy Central can tell Stone & Parker to not show the image of Muhammad. I don't believe they should enforce those limits, but I do not deny they have the ability to do so.

The issue is a little grayer, however, when it comes to political statements and news media. The issue becomes even grayer when the media outlet in question is a student newspaper on the campus of a public university. Where is the line drawn? Is anything out of bounds, or are there things for these papers that can result in negative consequences for the writer?

Thus we come to the controversy at Colorado State University. I'd summarize the editorial, except for the fact that it is almost exactly the same as this post's title, with "Bush" in the place of "Standards".

In my opinion, the editor should be fired. Not because of his political beliefs, or even because he used "Fuck" in the story. To fire him because of a political view in an editorial would be disastrous, a serious violation of the First Amendment. The use of "Fuck", although rather vulgar and contrary to usual journalistic standards, is defensible, if used in a clever or meaningful way. This is especially so in a campus newspaper, which is bound to be looser and more irreverent than the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.

He should lose his job because the statement wasn't exactly thought-provoking, humorous, or even all that bold. It was raw sensationalism for the sake of getting a rise out of people. Although there is a place for that kind of behavior, it isn't on the editorial pages.

One thing people seem to forget is that you have the right to free speech, but that also means people have the right to disagree with you. Your words have consequences, whether intentional or not. As this editor has the right to express his opinion, so do those who disagree with him. This is in clear force in this case, as the campus Republicans are pushing to bankrupt the paper until he is fired.*

So I ask on Mr. McSwane to do the right thing and resign. Not because I don't believe he has a right to say "Fuck Bush". His continued presence on the paper is harming its reputation, hurting its staff, and causing an uproar much greater than its true importance. If he won't live up to the consequences of his actions, the board in charge of the paper must act and remove him. Only by this action can the newspaper, and the students of Colorado State, move on.

*-The predictability and machine like actions of the Campus Republicans have their own disturbing elements, but I do not wish to get off on a tangent about the Republican party here.

The American Way: Ahmadinejad Speaks

I congratulate Columbia University for having the courage to let Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak. What better way for our country to show the strengths of our cherished ideals by allowing a leader of one of our least favored countries speak?

I am personally tired of our nations attitude towards both Iran and Cuba. While I don't think we should treat these nations as friends exactly, I do believe its time to accept that their governments aren't going anywhere, and that they deserve a more official role in our diplomatic efforts. Its time we bury the conflicts of the past, and look towards tomorrow.

Tasteful Advertising

This is a wonderful PSA from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. So tasteful that I might just take up smoking to spite the creators of it.

I mean it makes sense. 5.4 million people dieing because they chose to smoke cigarettes that they knew could kill them, versus thousands of people killed just because a few deranged madmen hated them.

Of course, it's a little out of date now. I took the liberty of updating it so it would be a more relevant American tragedy. Can't wait until Dec 7!

Blah Blah Blah: Bush speaks

Don't have much to say on Mr. Bush's speech tonight. Unless his speech includes "effective at noon tomorrow, I and Mr. Cheney shall resign our positions" or "I screwed up", I don't believe anything he has to say.

Naturally, the Dems will give him everything he wants (and possibly more) on any bill regarding the war. With an opposition party like them, who needs friends?

Ugh....

Barack Obama on the Daily Show

The first time Barack Obama was on The Daily Show, I remember him being much different from other politicians who had been on the show. He doesn't disappoint in his most recent visit. There are some excellent questions asked (such as why Hillary gets to count being First Lady as experience), and Mr. Obama has some great answers.

Be sure to check out the other video posted besides the interview. You have to laugh, otherwise you would cry.

Oops...

The post about my victory in Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword has been moved to Quo Vadimus, where it was supposed to be posted. If you care to read it, click here.

My 2008 Presidential Endorsement: Catch the Blue State Fever!

For the Democrats, I'm keeping this one fairly short, and without quite the vitriol present on the GOP side. For one, I'm saving myself for the big brawl tonight on MSNBC. For another, I actually can find some candidates to respect on the Democratic side. Barring the return of zombie Lincoln and the withdrawal of all Democratic candidates (save for Gravel), my 2008 general election endorsement will likely be a Dem.

In order from last to first.

#8: Mike Gravel
Sure, its fun when the crazies are let in the building. And his righteous indignation is a site to behold. However, crazy != good candidate, so I cannot give him too much support. Keep in mind, however, that I would still vote for him over every GOP candidate, save for possibly Ron Paul.

#6 (tie): Joe Biden and Chris Dodd
They seem like decent enough fellows, and have actually done pretty well in the debates. However, they aren't really that different than the front-runners, and don't have much of a shot. If I weren't such a political geek, I probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart. They'll be much better as leaders in Congress.

#5: Hillary Clinton
Yeah, she is the front-runner. And yeah, she'll probably end up with the nomination. However, although I have shed some of my ignorance from the 90s, I still have hard feelings towards the Clintons. Fair or not, she strikes me as incredibly cold and calculating, and willing to drop her convictions at any moment for the convenient position. Also, I can't support a candidate who voted for the Iraq War Resolution. A true leader would have stood up to Bush at that moment, and done their best to keep us out of this war, rather than roll over like a coward.

#4: Dennis Kucinich
Unlike half of the field, he voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He stands his ground, and certainly seems to have plenty of conviction and a sense of responsibility. Also, he has a hot (for a hippie) young wife. But he is the most liberal candidate in the field, and has no shot at winning the nomination. Maybe he would win if he was running for President of The Shire.

#3: John Edwards
Despite the $400 haircuts and giant houses, he does seem to care about eradicating poverty. Unfortunately, this isn't 1968, and he isn't Robert Kennedy. Of course, considering how 1968 ended for Mr. Kennedy, maybe Mr. Edwards would be glad about that. Like Clinton, Dodd, and Biden, he is disqualified because of a vote for the Iraq Resolution. At least he has shown some regret about the decision, unlike a certain front-runner from New York.

#2: Bill Richardson
An experienced diplomat, with a real moderate streak (yet good on several liberal issues), and a proven track record? How did he get in this horse-race? Although a little stiff in the debates, he clearly knows his stuff, and is an excellent candidate. He really should be a bigger contender, but the glare of the top three kind of keeps him in the shadows. If it were any other year, the endorsement would be his.

#1: Barack Obama
Sometimes the race for the Presidency is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Once in a while, however, a candidate comes along who may legitimately change the course of the country. Obama seems like he might be this candidate. He is unabashedly liberal, but in a way that will at least foster some respect and statesmanship on the other side of the aisle. His speeches seem to be from a different time, when eloquence and ideas mattered.

Obama represents optimism, a trait sorely lacking in most of the Democratic party. He represents fresh ideas, and a possible return of honor and respect to our government. Yes, he might be inexperienced, but that is why you bring in an experienced Secretary of State and Vice-President (preferably one who isn't a Sith lord, like our current Veep).

Hmm....Obama/Richardson '08. I think I like the sound of that.

In the end, the Democratic field is much easier to digest than the pills in the GOP race. Before the field started to appear, and the Republicans showed themselves for what they are, I was a strong supporter of ABH (anybody but Hillary) . However, with the turds on the right (or in the case of Romney, canine diarrhea), I might reluctantly support her candidacy if she were the nominee. Obama on the back side of the ticket would most certainly help.