Friday, December 2, 2011 at 5:07PM I took the site down while I was at graduate school at Northwestern University, but it will be coming back soon.
In the meantime enjoy this entertaining and informative video that I made with my fellow Medill alums Katie Banks and Ashley Cullins. It explains how a bill becomes a law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDuNyLvxIKE&feature=youtu.be
Friday, May 14, 2010 at 1:53PM 
It was just a few days ago that five kurdish youth were execuded in Iran on vague charges. The rushing into executions is seen as an intimidation act by the authorities to discourage opposition with the anniversary of the June presidential election being just around the corner. Furthermore, family members of these victims were also arrested in front of the Evin Prison when they demaned bodies of their lost ones.
However, Evin prison, also holds three Americans where were arrested last July on charges of crossing Iranian border without visas. Their mothers have been trying to visit them ever since. Surprisingly, they were granted visas to come to Iran a few days ago. It turns out that these hikers are actually anti-war activists. Scott Campbell tells us more about what they do in his "why you should care about the three Americans held in Iran". You can sign the petition for their release, here.
With the international community on one side and the internal awareness on the other, Iranian authorities have a harder time resorting to violent means in their power struggle. Today, Iranian and American Mothers are standing side by side for a common purpose, peace for all.
Saturday, May 8, 2010 at 6:56PM Monday, May 3, 2010 at 4:53PM 
This weekend I went on a little vacation to the beach -- Destin, FL to be exact -- and when I was not relaxing with friends or seeing the sites I talked about oil. In fact we all talked about oil. Coming into the weekend the weather was supposed be sunny through Sunday, but as I arrived on Friday in my rental car I was only greeted by a blanket of rain. On Saturday the beach welcomed me with a brown murky film in the water, and cautionary red flags on the beach that warned of the perils of swimming in the ocean, or flat out forbade the activity.
The rest of the weekend remained overcast and foggy, and I distinctly remember hearing a jet fly overhead, but due to the fog I could only make out its shadow as it flew by. The peculiarities with the weather caused many people to ask questions and wonder if all of this was a result of the oil spill, but no one had any answers. All we knew was that we needed to know more, and that we may need to prepare for a catastrophic environmental disaster.
The more you know about this disaster the less sense the entire situation makes, but the video below gives an explanation to the situation we face.
Essentially, BP was drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico in waters roughly 5,000 feet deep and on April 20th its offshore drilling platform caught fire for unknown reasons killing 11 BP employees. BP was unable to stop the fire and eventually the drilling platform sank into the Gulf of Mexico. When the platform sank it pulled the pipe that carried the oil from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico with it, and this caused the three breaks that have leaked over 3 million gallons of oil into the Gulf.
Initially, one could argue that accidents happen and that that is the price one must pay for nearly any activity. Accidents happen and we have to live with this fact, but bizarrely we cannot use this logic with this situation. If we are to assume that accidents happen then we must also anticipate that all parties are prepared to deal with this accident, and that obviously has not been the case in this disaster. The above video shows that BP has three possible solutions for solving this disaster, but that they are not sure if any of them will work. 5,000 feet is a depth that BP is not accustomed to drilling in, and therefore they are not sure if their equipment can sustain the pressures at that depth. However, they will try their best, but obviously their best is not good enough. Their best is not good enough because a company cannot advocate the safety of offshore drilling and then be unprepared to deal with an accident; especially when you consider the harm that an accident would cause. Being unprepared is not an accident -- it is incompetence.
It is incompetent and greedy to drill for oil at depths that would make it impossible to adequately deal with a leak, and no one should condone these actions. Ideally, BP should never have been given the approval to drill in this area, yet that is another issue for another day. However, we do need to consider that in February of 2009 BP said to the government that it could handle a leak of 6.8 million gallons a day, and that it is currently struggling to handle a leak 210,000 gallons a day. Firstly, BP grossly over estimated its readiness, and secondly the government and people in general need to understand the dangers of a 6.8 million gallons a day leak. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 only leaked 10.8 million gallons of oil and that was the greatest oil related environmental disaster of all time, yet now we find it appropriate to entertain the prospect of an offshore oil drill that could leak out 6.8 million gallons in one day. Under this scenario, a leak that lasted for a little over a day and a half would result in the greatest oil related environmental disaster in history, and I doubt that BP's ability to handle the issue would result in closing the leak in less than two days. Proceeding to drill offshore with this possible scenario does not make any sense and is only asking for another disaster, and people need to understand this before they consider offshore drilling.
As this issue in the Gulf of Mexico continues over the coming months people will become more and more inclined to allocate blame to numerous parties. Conservatives will find a way to say that Obama was unprepared for this disaster, and some people such as former FEMA head Michael Brown may even state that Obama and other liberals wanted this disaster because it will allow them to push for their environmental agenda. Liberals will blame Obama because roughly a month ago he advocated the use of offshore oil drilling as a part of the nation's comprehensive environmental agenda. Others will blame BP because this disaster is frankly their fault, and I find no fault in blaming BP. BP needs to pay for as much of the clean up as humanly possible, and I could care less about how this could harm BP. However, at a certain point we need to get past allocating blame, and instead we should decide what to do next. Now that the true costs of domestic offshore oil drilling should be evident to all we need to reassess how America should address its energy needs.
Last week the Obama administration approved the creation of Cape Wind the first offshore wind farm in America. Cape Wind will be located off the coast of Cape Cod, MA and will consist of 130 wind turbines. The turbines will be located between 4 - 11 miles off the cost and will generate 170 megawatts of electricity or roughly 75% of the energy needs for Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. This may be progress in the right direction, but this is America so people have to find something to complain about. The complaints range from the idea that the turbines will be too ugly or that they will interfere with Native American religious traditions, and these complaints may have merit when you ignore the alternatives, but now ignoring the dangers of an oil dependent energy infrastructure cannot be ignored. Wind energy may not be perfect and it will not solve all of our problems, but it must be considered a welcomed alternative to the prospect of the dangers of an oil leak.
We all need to know that BP will do its best to stop this leak because it is in their best interests to do so, but we all must not forget that their best is no longer good enough. Their best has resulted in 11 deaths and over 3 million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. As a society we need to understand that we should be able to find a better way to obtain energy. This is not an issue that involves good guys and bad guys, but instead one that has established standards. 11 deaths and over 3 million gallons in the Gulf of Mexico should be below all of our standards. Our standards should implore us to entertain other forms of energy, and while we debate our next move more oil will continue to flow into the Gulf of Mexico.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 1:47PM 
Michael Ware in Iraq
Despite the anger and outrage many Americans are feeling from a wide array of issues ranging from the absurd concerns about how universal health care will turn America into an authoritative communist Stalinist regime to the warranted disgust from the excesses and corruption of Wall Street, we all need to remember that we still have thousands of Americans and foreign soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who have to deal with unimaginable daily pressures. Considering the uncertainty many Americans have concerning the proper paths America should take to resolve these wars, we should at the very least aim to know and understand these pressures. This is where Michael Ware comes in.
Michael Ware is one of CNN's foreign correspondents and has been stationed in Iraq since 2003. He has been there so long that he has actually become a citizen. Michael Ware is currently on leave from CNN to write a book, but many speculate that he is also suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Michael Ware is not a soldier, but he is the closest civilian representative. He has been shot at, beaten, kidnapped and nearly executed, and many of these events he was able to film and at the very least write about. He has lived many events alongside American soldiers in Iraq, but his weapons have been either a pen and paper or camera instead of a gun. He provides a perspective that Americans need to see despite their reservations, and that is why the possibility that he is currently suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, carries such importance.
PTSD has often been viewed as a disease that stems from soldiers not being able to suffer the atrocities of war and be able to return to proper civilian life, but instead maybe it should be viewed as civilians not properly understanding what occurs during a war. If a civilian remains oblivious to the events that occur during a war because they are more concerned with domestic affairs, I find it only logical that a soldier would have a problem adapting to the 'real' world. If civilians knew more about war they may be more inclined to have fewer wars, and be more capable of addressing a returning soldiers needs. When a civilian whose face we recognize and who provides us with the insightful news suffers this problem it puts a whole new perspective on not just the shocking horrors of war, but also the overlooked horrors of civilian life that exist from willful ignorance.
Ware is a civilian that allegedly is dealing with one of the silent horrors of war. Not seeing his face on CNN telecasts should be a stark reminder to all Americans of the physical and mental toll war inflicts on soldiers and civilians alike.
To get a better idea of Michael Ware's life in Iraq read this great Men's Journal article.
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 1:06PM 
Here is the new video for M.I.A.'s latest single "Born Free" by director Romain Gavras. The video is probably NSFW unless you happen to work for some sort of revolutionary establishment, yet I would say the video is important enough to risk a lunch break viewing.
In nine minutes the video gives a graphic example of the lunacy and perils of military sponsored violence towards civilians in a society. You may not identify specifically with any of the people in the video, but you should be able to understand how violence similar to that in the video has been acted out on countless numbers of groups with equal force and reasoning. This video should make you think, and if it does not you need to think again.
M.I.A, Born Free from ROMAIN-GAVRAS on Vimeo.
Sunday, April 25, 2010 at 4:36PM 
Threatening statements about use of nuclear weapons against Iran from the White House on one side and menacing statements from Iranian Regime about its nuclear program on the other have further fueled the tensions between the two countries. The double-speak in Ahmadinejad's administration about the use of Nuclear Technology has raised concerns in the west. "Iran has fully mastered nuclear technology," said Ahmadinejad in a speech celebrating National Nuclear Day. Meanwhile, the Iranian people's awareness about the consequences of Ahmadinejad's rhetorics have increased. A three-day government sponsored symposium that was supposed to focus on what was called "the Nuclear Achievements of Ahmadinejad’s administration!" was held in Science and Technology University. Despite all the efforts of the Basij and pro-government forces as well as the money spent on this event and all the advertisements, due to the cold reception it received and the fact that the students refused to attend this symposium, it was cancelled on one day and was held with a handful of attendees on the other two days while the key note speakers also cancelled their talks!
On the other hand, United States recently announced that it reserved right to use nuclear force against countries like North Korea and Iran. This fitted best with the menacing image that the Iranian authorities love to depict of America to legitimize themselves and their policies in the eyes of their people. “We will not allow America to renew its hellish dominance over Iran by using such threats,” Said the supreme leader Khamenei in a gathering of Iranian nurses, the semi-official Fars News Agency reported. In the mean time, Iran guards tested their missiles in the region.
Iran was a close US ally before its 1979 Islamic revolution. After the revolution, great attempts were made to bring the two nations closer together; talks and tournaments were held where both countries participated. The above picture refers to a tournament held at the time of former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami who made great efforts in easing up the US-Iran relations. He was recently banned to leave the country to attend a nuclear disarmament conference being held in Japan.
The fight for morale between reformist movements and hardliners inside the country is a tough and sensitive one for both sides as Iranian authorities are in dire need of legitimizing themselves through US-Iran Tensions more than ever. The question is how can the United States and her policies play a part in this fight for morale.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 2:16PM 
Iceland died last week. Its last request was for its ashes to be spread across Europe
-- A little Eyjafjallajokull humor
Now that flights have resumed across Europe, and people have begun complaining about the amount of money they lost due to the disruptions caused by Eyjafjallajokull's volcanic eruption I find it only fitting to sit back and witness the awesome power that is mother nature. Yes this volcano caused seismic headaches for anyone who intended to travel to or within Europe for roughly a week, but that is it.
The airlines lost money and travellers lost money, but do people actually think someone was at fault for the flight cancellations? Are people going to sue Iceland for not controlling its volcano, or Great Britain for not controlling the wind in its air space? Most people I feel would prefer to lose money instead of flying into volcanic ash filled clouds that would destroy jet engines and inevitably result in a loss of lives. Patience inspired by the awe of volcanic power was all Europe could do.
Or Europe could do this.
Despite how much fun drinking in airports and hating Iceland can be I think a sweet, educational song might be a bit more in order.
Remember if Eyjafjallajokull is too much to handle imagine how debilitating and panic ensuing the eruption of its volcanic neighbor Katla would be. Katla is located only 12 miles away from Eyjafjallajokull and scientists believe they are connected by an underground network of magma channels. Therefore, there is an increased chance of Katla erupting after Eyjafjallajokull, yet the eruption of Katla would be roughly ten times as powerful. Katla would shoot higher and larger plumes of ash into the air that would dwarf these recent events, and by all accounts it is due an eruption. Katla traditionally has erupted around every 80 years with its last eruption being in 1918. Basically, for those people intent on recouping their monetary losses from over the past week they should consider buying stock in the European rail and bus industries.
Eyjafjallajokull will probably be remembered as a warm up for Katla, and if people become panicked from the warm up that does not bode well for the game. We all need to refrain from petulantly flying into a storm regardless of whether the disturbances are a natural occurrence or self-inflicted.
Maybe we should follow this guys advice by taking a nice, scenic drive in the country while probably listening to either Bjork or Sigur Ros
I like to think that he is driving away from the storm instead of into it, but who knows.
For more great pictures of Eyjafjallajokull vist The Big Picture
Monday, April 19, 2010 at 5:24AM 
Puma's Clever Little Bag will save 8,500 tons of paper and mean a 60% reduction in water and energy used during the production process
"Sustainability in business is no longer negotiable, it is absolutely necessary, and we companies are overdue in taking responsibility. Business is part of the environmental problem; and we need to do what we can to fix it - companies need to lead the way."
Puma's chief executive and chairman Jochen Zeitz
From 2011 Puma will start packaging their shoes in their "Clever Little Bag" with the aim of vastly reducing their carbon "pawprint". The shoes in the "Clever Little Bag" will be framed in one single piece of cardboard and wrapped in a reusable shoe bag. Customers can leave the cardboard frame at the store or take it home and recycle it. The bag can be reused or recycled, and is biodegradable.
By thinking beyond the box Puma has displayed the facility with which business can work to improve the environment. The "Clever Little Bag" will not result in any job losses, but in the long run will save Puma money. The first year of implementation will result in a slight financial loss, but the following years will be cost neutral and eventually Puma will save money due to the amount of money not being spent during production. The "Clever Little Bag" will save 8,500 tons of paper and mean a 60% reduction of water and energy used during the production process. Not only will Puma directly benefit the environment by reducing their carbon "pawprint", but they will indirectly benefit the environment by allowing their consumers to be more environmentally conscious. Consumers can now recycle the cardboard frame and reuse the bag instead of throwing away an entire shoe box. In the increasingly hectic and business focused world that engulfs most people and turns them into consumers, it is a welcomed change for a company to give its consumers the chance to make a minor change that can improve the environment -- that many people have grown more and more inclined to ignore.
"We don't want to become complete purists. We are not saying we have to be perfect, we know we are not in a perfect world, but [we] can improve some areas through things such as better technology."
Puma's chief executive and chairman Jochen Zeitz
For more info on Puma's "Clever Little Bag" visit the BBC or Puma
Below is a clever little video about Puma's "Clever Little Bag"
Friday, April 16, 2010 at 5:14PM Amongst all the chaos in the world it is always good to point out people or groups who are doing the right things, and the Isha Foundation is one of those groups.
The Isha Foundation organized 400,000 people to plant over two million trees on a mountain in India in just 25 days. Additionally, they also set a world record for planting over 800,000 trees seeds in just one day.
Many times the simplest acts can make the greatest difference, and it is great to see organizations that understand this.
Below is a video of the Isha Foundations founder Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev talking about their tree planting exploits, and for more information about Isha visit http://www.ishafoundation.org/
Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 6:02AM 
Last week Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell declared April to be Confederate History Month in the state of Virginia, and the controversy quickly ensued. Most of the angered Americans directed their frustrations at the fact that Gov. McDonnell failed to mention slavery as a part of the Confederacy, yet not at the fact that Virginia felt compelled to celebrate an institution that desired to destroy America. In no way am I trying to down play the significance of slavery in the shaping of America, but focusing on slavery instead of current acts that undermine the foundation of America at present would be a disservice to America as a whole. The Governor of Virginia last week declared that the citizens of Virginia celebrate a group that not only attempted to destroy America, but whose President Jefferson Davis was found guilty of treason. Should states be allowed to celebrate treasonous institutions?
I have lived the vast majority of my life in Georgia, so I fully understand the sensitivity of this issue. I understand the anger that the Confederacy invokes in African Americans, and I have also witnessed the pride with which Southerners revere the Confederacy. The former still carries the scars from slavery, and the latter celebrates the fact that their ancestors fought for what they believed. For the most part African Americans would prefer for White Americans to understand the pain that slavery has caused on our families, but realistically this request will constantly fall on deaf ears as long as so much pride is still attributed to the Confederacy. When these conflicts begin the emotions on both sides become heightened and the chance for progress disappears, and this situation is a prime example. America focuses on slavery instead of the Confederacy, and in response influential white Southerners like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barber defend the Confederate History Month proclamation by saying that the controversy surrounding slavery “doesn’t matter for diddly”. (Southern vernacular never ceases to amaze me, and now I have to decide whether I should add ‘diddly’ as a word in Microsoft Word.) However, despite ‘diddly’ hardly being a word, Gov. Barber does have a point. The controversy over slavery does not matter nearly as much as the controversy that should surround celebrating the Confederacy.
By exploring the writings of Jefferson Davis, the first and only President of the Confederacy, you see a consistent theme of white supremacy throughout. Davis regards slavery as a benevolent paternal system that spreads Christianity and benefits the economy by reducing the price of cotton, yet the most important aspect of his writings is that he states that the main benefit of slavery is to sustain the superiority, dignity, and equality of whites by reserving only menial positions for blacks. As an African American I would never want to live in a society that advocated or celebrated beliefs such as these, and I would hope that most Americans would share this opinion, yet sadly this is a question that needs to be asked. As a society does America want to favor one group of people over another based solely on race, and then reserve menial labor for all other races with the hope that their inexpensive backbreaking labor spurs the economy to increase the riches of the one favored race? If you ask most Americans this question I bet most would disagree with this opinion, yet many of those who disagree may still favor a Confederate History Month. This is where the inconsistencies arise, and this needs to be the focus of the controversy.
Focusing on slavery or calling someone a racist will not further the progress of America. Those who embrace the Confederacy and omit slavery will only see the anger of others as a misunderstanding that can be fixed by acknowledging slavery, and they will only view calls of racism as misguided anger. They will then be able to continue celebrating a rebellion that prioritized their race above all others and was very influential in creating the person they are today. We instead should address the tenets of the Confederacy, and discover if those who support the Confederacy also support these beliefs. If they agree with the beliefs of Jefferson Davis then it would be fair to call them a racist because they would have just admitted to being a racist, and that is obviously not something America can support. If those who support celebrating the Confederacy do not support the beliefs of Jefferson Davis then we would need to find out exactly what they do support about the Confederacy, and if they feel that it would be possible to celebrate the areas that they feel are worth celebrating without accidentally celebrating the unsavory racist practices of the rebellion. This forces people to address difficult questions, and requires them to be accountable for their actions. These are attributes that are seriously lacking from our society.
When we address issues such as slavery and the Confederacy we need to understand that the people who are racists will not be inclined to view themselves as racists. Being a racist is bad, and most people want to feel as if they are good, so they will form a logical reason for their negative acts. A white person may agree with the idea of favoring a white person over a black person because he was brought up with the idea that blacks are inferior to whites. To himself he is not a racist because he would be treating people properly. He would treat the better race better than the other race, and this would be logical because it would make sense to give the best to the best. A white person may favor his white friends over a person of another race because he is not comfortable around other races since he did not grow up with them. This logic makes sense to many people, but the foundation of this logic resides in the idea that white people should initially be suspicious of other races because they are either dangerous or inferior. If they viewed other races objectively and with curiosity then I doubt they would be as hesitant to engage with them. Therefore, to counter racism you need to objectively show holes in the logic and reasoning of others. Racists do not know that they are racists until you objectively show it to them. Focusing in the emotional aspects of an issue quickly destroy the objectivity of all arguments, and therefore diminish the chance of progress. The handling of Virginia’s Confederate History Month has only showed why America still has much room for improvement concerning the past, present, and future of race relations of this nation.
I will be continuing this discussion tonight on the blogtalk radio show Black America Rising tonight from 8:00 to 9:30PM. You can listen to the show by calling (347) 237-4331 or by visiting the website.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 2:53AM 
This week atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have called for the arrest of Pope Benedict XVI when he visits Britain between September 16 & 19, visiting London, Glasgow, and Coventry. They intend to have him arrested for “crimes against humanity” and will use the same precedent as when former Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet visited and was arrested upon entering Britain in 1998.
Pinochet was arrested for his “crimes against humanity” that occurred while he ruled Chile that consisted of at least 1,500 killings and 200,000 Chileans fleeing in exile. The British arrested Pinochet, who had previously had a great relationship with former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, on the principle of universal jurisdiction that proclaims that some crimes are so severe that every country has the right to arrest this criminal for the benefit of all nations regardless of whether the crimes have any relation to the arresting country. Dawkins and Hitchens argue that Pope Benedict XVI’s handling of child abuse cases where he consistently put the interest of the Catholic Church ahead of the interest of the victims should be regarded as equal to a dictator valuing the stability of his government and consolidation of power over the best interests of the people of his nation. Additionally, since the Vatican is not recognized as a state by the United Nations the Pope would not be entitled to the diplomatic immunity that a head of state would receive upon visiting Britain.
The significance of Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ claims does not reside in the sensational image of arresting a sitting Pope, but instead on the origins of the moral authority with which we formulate our laws. As a society we are at a cross roads between laws originating from an infallible source to then be applied to the masses, and laws arising from learning from the fallible nature of man. The former interpretation of laws will make people more inclined to believe in divine truths, increasingly severe punishments including death, and a very black and white perspective of life. The latter will result in truths deriving from actions and the knowledge that truths were meant to be broken, and this most likely would result in reasonable punishments, and an acknowledgement of the grey areas of life.
Laws that originate from the morality created by a religious organization, which is where many current laws have originated, proclaim an infallible nature, but as time has progressed humans have acknowledged the fallibility of the previously infallible. The arresting of the Pope would prove not only the fallibility of the infallible, but also the fallibility of the most powerful organized religion on earth. Frankly, if this is the direction humanity wants to proceed I have no problem with that, but I do not feel that atheists should take us there.
If atheists spark this process then history will inevitably repeat itself. People will decide to believe in no God instead of believing in a God, when the most sensible act would be admitting that we actually have no idea. The desire to apply infallibility to a belief would have been transferred from a belief in something to a belief in nothing, yet the whole reason for the controversy originates from an acknowledgement of the fallibility of our beliefs and religions, and a desire of our laws to correct these errors. The desires of Messrs. Dawkins and Hitchens should not be the main motivator for re-examining the actions, motivations, and moral authority of the Pope, but instead the desire should start from common actions such as the current scandal involving U.S. swimming.
Last week ABC reported that 36 U.S.A. Swimming, the official swimming organization representing the United States in the Olympics, coaches over the past decade had groped, molested and secretly videotaped teenage swimmers, and as a result all 36 were banned for life and many are currently serving jail terms. I think all would agree that U.S.A. Swimming is a much smaller organization than the Catholic Church, but it should be evident to all that U.S.A. Swimming has dealt with these crimes in a much more severe and effective manner. Despite being a much more stern disciplinarian, U.S.A. Swimming still admits that they need to improve, yet the Catholic Church has failed to act on numerous occasions.
The Catholic Church repeatedly transfers priests who have abused children to other parishes and ordered for them to repent, yet these tactics not only prove ineffective but also do not align with the standards that society has set for crimes of this magnitude. The reason that U.S.A. Swimming and the Catholic Church have administered drastically different punishments for similar crimes centers on the fact that the former acts based on the fallible nature of man, and the latter on the infallible nature of its beliefs. Moving a priest to another parish and sentencing him to repent may appear lenient and ineffective to many, but if your punishments come from an infallible source then the punishments must be adequate. The absurdity of the Catholic Church’s logic should be obvious to all, and the danger that this logic has wreaked on countless children throughout the world is evident for all to see.
The call to arrest the Pope should stem from an objective will to try those that appear to put the lives of others in danger, and not any ill will towards the belief of an organization. At present the most damning evidence against Pope Benedict XVI is that in 1985 when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and had been appointed the as the head of the Vatican office that shared responsibility for disciplining abusive priests he denied the request of the diocese of Oakland to remove Rev. Stephen Kiesle whom they had suspected of molesting children. The then Cardinal Ratzinger cited the “grave significance” of the arguments for removing Rev. Kiesle, but instead ordered that Rev. Kiesle receive “as much paternal care as possible”, a.k.a. adult supervision to hopefully stay out of trouble, and stated that it would be in “the good of the universal church” if this case was handled in this fashion.
These punishments are not acceptable in modern times, and obviously were not in the 80’s since the diocese of Oakland felt that Rev. Kiesle needed to be removed. One of the most startling revelations of this case is that Kiesle had been charged with child molestation in 1978 and had just finished his three years of probation upon entering the diocese in Oakland in 1981. A known pedophile was working in the Catholic Church and not only did Cardinal Ratzinger deny the request to remove him from the Catholic Church, but instead argued that it was in the best interest of the universal church for him to stay. This decision may have sustained the image of the infallible moral authority for the Catholic Church by allowing the crimes to go unnoticed, but now these errors in judgment can be seen by all and the morality of the Catholic Church does not appear to be on the same level as that of the rest of western civilization.
At present the Catholic Church seems to be working quickly to correct these errors and that is appropriate, but should the Pope, or the Infallible, be able to argue that his mistakes should be excused because they were based around a desire to sustain an image of infallibility? Basically, “The Church and I made mistakes because we were trying to be perfect, so stop harassing us so that we can continue with our perfection.” I think few people would accept this mea culpa, and frankly accepting the Pope’s apology, if one ever arrives, would be a regression in our understanding of the laws that govern us. The most just act would be to treat the Pope as if he was a regular person, since that is exactly what he is, and every person can be arrested.
Friday, April 9, 2010 at 11:45PM "I got a fudging junky for a wife"
-- Little Tony Montana
My sister showed me this video earlier today with the belief that this was an actual school play. Turns out this video was made by director Marc Klasfeld and all the children are professional actors. Despite the Scarface School Play not being as real as many thought it is still an entertaining video worth viewing multiple times.
To find out more about Marc Klasfeld and the Scarface School Play check out this interview and visit the website for his production company Rockhard Films.
Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 10:21AM 
Though almost a year has passed since the Iranian election in June of 2009, and the call to bring about change has not died. Protests in different cities other than Tehran were seen in the past weeks during the Iranian New Year holidays. Many arrested in protesting againt the regime's neglegence in preserving lake Urmia located in northwestern Iran. This is while Iranians outside of the country are also raising awareness. Below is a video referring to a few weeks ago that took place in Stockholm. "We Should Resist Until All The Issues And Problems Are Resolved" said Mir-hossein Mousavi, yesterday in a meeting with former members of the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution fraction (reformist) in the parliment. "The establishment is facing such problems that its reflection is not limited only to the street protests, the issues and problems are much deeper than that. One of these problems is that the ruling powers think by preventing the street demonstrations the problems of protestors are resolved."
The green movement's pace seems to be directed at long-term goals and more inclusive rather than radical change and for the reformists, concentrating on the people's forgotten rights in the Iranian constitution seems to be the most practical way. Ironically it is the people of the nation that are trying to force the regime to abide by the law and constitution.
Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 3:32AM
On September 9th, 2009 conservative activists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles released a videotape that appeared to show ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, employees advising both O’Keefe and Giles who were in disguise as a pimp and a prostitute respectively about how they could fund their illegal prostitution business. This new controversy surrounding ACORN’s apparent support for prostitution in addition to their role in registering large amounts of citizens from underprivileged backgrounds made ACORN one of the major issues on all conservative talk shows around the country. For many Democrats ACORN never became much of an issue, yet for Republicans it quickly became one of the major issues of 2009. Conservatives quickly merged this prostitution controversy with the fact that ACORN registers large amounts of low-income voters who primarily vote Democratic, and therefore concluded that ACORN should not be allowed to register Americans to vote since they cannot be trusted and by default favor Democratic candidates. In November of 2009 the Public Policy Polling organization found that 52% of Republicans believed that ACORN was part of a conspiracy that “stole” the election for Barack Obama, yet Barack Obama only hired an ACORN affiliate to aid in voter registration during the primary elections, but did not retain their services for the general presidential election. The fact that ACORN had no involvement in President Obama's victory over Senator John McCain made little to no difference to many voters. In December of 2009 ACORN lost its federal funding, and recently ACORN has filed for bankruptcy and disbanded. However, the most shocking aspect of this story was that ACORN’s supposed support of prostitution never existed, and was merely a fabrication of selective editing and dishonest journalism.
This week California’s Attorney General Jerry Brown released the unedited video footage of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles visiting the San Diego and Los Angeles ACORN offices, and this footage shows a completely different story. The footage has been released because the state of California had finished its investigation of ACORN concerning its alleged illegal practices and had found that ACORN had been practicing in accordance with the law. Basically, the state of California concluded that a 40 year-old organization founded to provide housing for low-income Americans and additionally for voter registration efforts for the same low-income Americans was destroyed because two selfish and irresponsible journalists manipulated video footage to tell the story they wanted to tell instead of what actually occurred. These two irresponsible journalists with the help of the irresponsible journalists at Fox News improved the lives of no one, and only widened the divisions in America’s cultural landscape. This is journalism and reporting that functions to the detriment of society and everyone needs the recognize this. If people do not set high standards and ask tough questions of the news we receive they we will only be fostering our ignorance, and the destruction of organizations that can benefit others.
In total contrast to the dishonesty of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, and the blind ignorance of Fox News, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC displayed a shining example of great journalism by providing an objective perspective to the ACORN controversy. Watch the video below.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
