Election Night Playlists

Blender magazine recently polled both John McCain and Barack Obama to see what their favorite songs of all time were. The results are VERY interesting and may say a lot about each candidate. Especially McCain's No. 3 favorite song.

Obama's Favorite Songs

10) "Yes We Can"-will.i.am

9) "City of Blinding Lights"-U2

8) "Think"-Aretha Franklin

7) "You'd be so Easy to Love"-Frank Sinatra

6) "Touch the Sky"-Kanye West

5) "Sinnerman"-Nina Simone

4) "Gimmie Shelter"-The Rolling Stones

3) "I'm on Fire"-Bruce Springsteen

2) "What's Going On"-Marvin Gaye

1) "Ready or Not"-The Fugees

McCain's Favorite Songs

10) "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes"-The Platters

9) "Sweet Caroline"-Neil Diamond

8) "I've Got You Under My Skin"-Frank Sinatra

7) "What A Wonderful World"-Louis Armstrong

6) "Good Vibrations"-The Beach Boys

5) "As Time Goes By"-Dooley Wilson

4) "If We Make It Through December"-Merle Haggard

3) "Take A Chance On Me"-Abba

2) "Blue Bayou"-Roy Orbison

1) "Dancing Queen"-Abba

http://www.blender.com/WhiteHouseDJBattleWatchandListen/articles/1/40610.aspx

Palin vs Journalism

Although she doesn't seem to demonstrate it, Gov. Sarah Palin actually has a Bachelor of Science degree in communication-journalism. According to the Associated Press:

Then she returned to Idaho (for college), for spring 1986, fall 1986 and spring 1987, when she graduated. Despite her journalism degree, she does not appear to have worked for the college newspaper or campus television station, school officials said. She worked briefly as a sportscaster for KTUU in Anchorage after she graduated college.

Since she didn’t ever write for a newspaper or report as a real journalist, Palin isn’t technically a member of the "gotcha" media. This being the case, it may be easier to understand some of her major gaffes regarding journalism on the election trail.

When asked by CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric which magazines she reads, Palin responded "most of them...any of them that have been in front of me." When asked which ones specifically, Palin responded "all of them."

Although one might chalk this as-vague-as-possible answer to Palin not wanting to reveal a biased world-view, Palin couldn’t even name an objective source of news such as the Associated Press, or balance two biased sources such as The Los Angeles Times and The New York Post. The most logical answer would be that she reads the major Alaskan newspapers, and she didn’t venture as far as to say that.

A much more scathing misunderstanding of journalism would have to be Palin's comments on the First Amendment. According to ABC News.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Somewhere between journalism class and swearing an oath to uphold the constitution, one would think that someone would have taken the time to explain to Sarah Palin the purpose of the First Amendment. The First Amendment was not established to protect politicians from the media; in fact, the exact opposite is true. The ability for the press to question the practices of politicians is a fundamental part of democracy and transparent government.

If Palin doesn't think that she should be criticized for running a negative campaign, shouldn’t she defend her campaign instead of attacking the free press that are questioning her? This is the playground equivalent of telling the teacher, "I called Billy ugly because you’re ugly."

This raises two very important questions in this election. Firstly, is someone that doesn’t understand the constitution more fit to defend it than, say, a constitutional lawyer? Secondly, what was Sarah Palin doing in college during her journalism classes?

The first tenant of journalism is that you have the right to be a journalist.

An unexpected response

As I checked the box marked Obama I had an unexpectantly emotional response. As an African-American, I never really thought the day would come when a black man had a legitimate chance at becoming president.


I also didn't think I would become emotional when the time came to actually cast my vote. I've known since day one that I would be voting for Obama, so I assumed I would just check a box and move on.


But when I was standing in the voting booth it suddenly hit me what a monumetous occasion this was.


I'm generally a cynical person, especially when ot comes to politics, but for one brief moment I was overcome with hope and faith for the future.

Early morning voting observations

So I woke up early because I was afraid of long lines at my local polling place.

It was raining of course, a bad sign for sure I thought.

The first real thing I noticed was the house right next to the polling place had 10 "Yes on Prop. 8" signs all over the front yard. Nice way to get your point across to people voting.

My original expectation of long lines didn't happen. There were exactly two people ahead of me and it took less than 5 minutes to reach the front. It probably took less time than that to vote!

Another observation, for being 8 a.m. the poll workers were very friendly and organized. I think there was more trouble and waiting for the 2004 Presidential election.

The myth of church and state

I was watching "Book TV" on C-SPAN and their speaker was this author named Stephen Mansfield who was giving a presentation on his newest book “Ten Tortured Words: How The Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion...and What’s Happened Since.”

The allegedly mangled 10 word phrase: “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Basically, this moron spent close to an hour bashing the separation of church and state as a misunderstanding and a bad law.

His main argument is that, while we have the freedom to choose our religion, religion in and of itself is a necessity of a moral and successful society. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers knew this and would never have supported a complete separation of church and state.

Mansfield basically says that "Separation of church and state," is a silly made up phrase that Thomas Jefferson mentioned in passing, and that it has no bearing on the actual Amendment which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

That's like saying "separate, but not equal," is a silly made up phrase mentioned in passing that has nothing to do with the Amendment which says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Does the Amendment specifically say that separate cannot be equal? No. So, according to Mansfield’s logic we should basically go tell Thurgood Marshall to shove it. Sorry Brown V. The Board of Education, but your court ruling isn’t specifically addressed in the Constitution—we’re bringing segregation back!

He went so far as to accuse the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union (ACLU), of suing the Boy Scouts of America as a means of making a profit. Not only that, but he says that it uses threats of lawsuits as a means of BLACKMAIL in order to basically spread the plague of secularism.

He claims that it was the intention of the Founding Fathers to protect religion, and that this petty and scrutinizing secularism is an abuse of the entire basis of the Constitution.

This guy is ridiculous, verging on hypocritical. He claims that by misinterpretation of the Constitution, these annoying activists have completely divorced the document from any significance it originally held.

But who is he to claim he knows, for sure, what the original intent of the Framers was? Was he there? No. And the malleability of the Constitution is probably the most significant feature of the incredible document.

I say, that by asserting that only one interpretation of the Constitution can be accepted, he is divorcing the document from any significance it originally held.

All in all, I don't see why this guy is complaining. America is basically a Judeo-Christian state anyway. I mean, look at our lawmakers’ justifications against gay marriage: “sanctity” this, “the Bible” that, “immoral, immoral, immoral.”

Mansfield should just go screw Ann Coulter and leave the preaching in the pulpit.

Hell has frozen over

As I type this blog entry I am watching a pig fly past my window. Why? Paris Hilton and I are actually in agreement... scary.

She released a statement today with the following:

"I must also say that I was shocked to see all of the attention devoted to the amount of time I would spend in jail for what I had done by the media, public and city officials. I would hope going forward that the public and the media will focus on more important things, like the men and women serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the world."

The amount of media attention she has gotten over the past 2 weeks is beyond stupid. Who cares about the problems with the missile defense system or the immigration bill? I even saw an AP story about fans upset about Paris' situation, only the writer didn't bother to check facts and interviewed someone from the Jimmy Kimmel show pretending to be upset.

Ouch.

So can we get back to real news... at least until she is released?

President's refusal to address gun control

On April 16, 32 innocent students lost their lives in a senseless tragedy. The mass murder at Virginia Tech is the largest in U.S. history. Right now, the entire country is in a state of shock, outrage and mourning.

America’s gun culture is under fire from foreign governments. The White House has taken the official position that the tragedy is too fresh in the minds of the public to allow for discussion of U.S. policies on gun control. Still, at a time where gun violence is responsible for such a horrendous massacre, it seems like the perfect time.

Back in 2001, after the attacks on Sept. 11, the White House spoke up immediately. They fought hard for increasing security measures and the public rallied around the flag—even when those measures came into conflict with constitutional freedoms.

Now, after the massacre at Virginia Tech, if the President was to speak up and advocate gun control laws, the country would follow suit. It doesn’t make sense that the White House would want to ignore issues of gun safety at this moment in time—unless you think of the financial and political motives.

Even if it’s in the interest of society as a whole, creating stricter gun laws is not in the financial interest of the Republican Party.

The National Rifle Association has donated millions of dollars in soft money to the Republican Party to date. And it seems like the good old boys are out to protect each other, even in the face of an atrocity like the killings at Virginia Tech.

The National Rifle Association has argued for years that it is our constitutional freedom to own and carry guns. Any step by the government to regulate the gun industry is always met with opposition by this group.

Yes, we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to own firearms. In no way should we be forced to give up that right. But in the face of the shootings at Virginia Tech, it is time for this country to stand up and admit that it has a gun problem.