US VISIT BOOSTS POPE BENEDICT XIV PUBLIC IMAGE

Published Apr. 21, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI began his first visit to the United States. The significance of the occasion also was apparent in the group assembled on the tarmac to greet the Holy Father — President George W. Bush himself. This is believed to be the first time an American president has greeted a visiting foreign dignitary directly upon arrival. The White House has pulled out all the stops for the pope’s visit — with a 12,000-person dinner and lawn birthday commemoration, among other things.

Most visiting foreign leaders are not accorded this sort of pomp. In fact, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s concurrent visit to the U.S. has barely been mentioned by either the White House or the media. The papal visit, on the other hand, dominated virtually all news sources during the entirety of his stay.

That widespread coverage has revealed a side of the pope that has heretofore been rarely seen. Benedict XVI became pontiff after the death of his predecessor John Paul.

Paul had a magnetic and extremely charismatic personality. He became famous for his widely televised and often fiery speeches. He was the man who stood up to the mafia in Sicily and railed against Cuba’s state-imposed atheism. His more than 1.1 million miles of travels took him to far reaches of the globe that previously had never been visited by any Pope. Paul also made an effort to reach out to other religions, by hosting the Dalai Lama, and visiting Jerusalem’s Western Wall and the Umayyad Mosque in Turkey. The much-beloved “JP Two” frequently ranked among the most admired figures of his era.

As with any such office, holders of the papacy are often compared to their predecessor. The current pope is not, by most accounts, nearly as effortlessly charming as Paul, nor does he command as much media adulation. He is considered a shy man who is extremely well-studied in Catholic doctrine. He certainly is a traditionalist in most respects. His knowledge of Catholic religious writings and philosophy is reputedly second to none. His academic and eloquent speeches sometimes inadvertently offend other groups — evidenced by Muslims taking offence at his quoting an anti-Muslim emperor from the Middle Ages. To many people, Benedict was an eminently qualified pope who, nevertheless, seemed a little cold and distant.

The U.S. visit partially was an effort to change that, and it seems to have succeeded.

The warm welcome the Holy Father received from the Washington elite was echoed by the tens of thousands of Catholic faithful who came to his mass at a baseball stadium. Leaders from more than a half-dozen different religions met with him in a dialogue aimed at bettering interfaith relations. He also was joyously received in New York, the only other city he visited. There, he became the first pope to visit an American synagogue. He led a large public mass in the Big Apple as well.

Conspicuously absent from his tour agenda was Boston, arguably the most Catholic city in America and also the center of the clergy sex-abuse scandal. Benedict still addressed the issue, however, and said he was “deeply ashamed” by the scandal, and privately met with several victims to apologize. This display of humility and understanding certainly meant a lot, and likely will go a long way to bolster his standing with the victims and the public in general.

In the fourth visit to the United Nations by a pope, Benedict delivered a well-received speech extolling multilateralism and warning against the dangers of consensus being “subordinated by the decisions of the few.” This easily can be interpreted as alluding to the Iraq War, of which he is a vocal critic on humanitarian grounds. In his meeting with Bush, the Holy Father also urged the use of diplomacy rather than war to solve international problems and crises.

Of course, no such visit usually is with universal acclaim. Many have charged that the unusually prominent ceremony surrounding the papal visit is an effort by Bush to court the sizable Catholic vote in favor of Republican candidates, particularly Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in this fall’s election. The timing of the visit was specifically chosen to not coincide with the elections, but the above charge is not entirely implausible.

Another prominent criticism has been Benedict’s choice to not privately meet with American Islamic leaders. Several Islamic leaders, while applauding and attending the joint meetings with leaders of all religions, consider the lack of even a short private meeting somewhat insensitive.

In the aftermath of the widely publicized conversion of an Egyptian Muslim to Catholicism during the Pope’s globally televised Easter mass, such a meeting might not have been a bad idea. Many people also have taken particular note Benedict visited a synagogue on his trip, but not worship places of any other faith — Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise.

Granted, the visit probably was not universally considered perfect or even ideal. But it was notable and significant for a number of reasons — one of which he became only the third pope to visit the U.S. Regardless of the official consequences, the visit was successful from a public relations standpoint. Catholics came out in droves to see and pray with their leader. And people of all faiths finally had a chance to see Benedict as the gentle, pious and scholarly orator he truly is.

Now that we have seen a lot more of the pope as he really is, maybe all those off-color comparisons with Emperor Palpatine finally will be laid to rest.

CONCEALED WEAPONS BILL RELIED ON UNSOUND REASONING

Published Apr. 8, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Oklahoma House Bill 2513, which would have allowed concealed weapons to be carried on state-funded college campuses, was killed recently by the state Senate Appropriations Committee. The co-chairmen of that committee — one of whom is a former police officer and a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association — thankfully saw the fallacy of the bill and tabled it.

The bill, proposed by Rep. James Murphey, R.-Guthrie, sought to give college students an opportunity for self-defense in the event of a shooter on campus. This is not a bad idea at all, particularly in the light of the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.

That idea, though hypothetically appealing, in actuality presents several problems in any potential real-life situation. Those problems are exacerbated by the ambiguities and holes in this particular bill.

The amount of work currently necessary to obtain such a concealed weapon license in Oklahoma is minimal at best. Applicants for these licenses go through eight hours of training, and the only actual shooting training involves a short-range paper target at a closed range. That’s it. The course only makes use of low-powered handguns, but nevertheless grants a license to conceal and carry any type of legal weapon — including high-powered hunting rifles and even civilian versions of military-type weapons. HB 2513 would allow any licensed 21-year-old to legally pack this kind of heat anywhere on a college campus. That is not a good idea; there are just too many associated risks.

Secondly, Murphey believes the students legally armed under his bill would be able to hinder an attacker. Such an attacker, who would be armed, is not likely to wave a white flag in the face of a brandished weapon. No, the only real way to stop or slow down an armed attacker is to shoot, and maim or kill. According to the bill’s author, students with firearms could, would and should do just this.

I cannot agree.

The psychological ramifications of intentionally causing a bullet to rip into a person’s body and severely injuring or even killing him or her are not to be taken lightly. Even highly trained professionals in the military and police forces often need to undergo months of intensive therapy to return to a normal mental state after taking another person’s life. These people very often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of their experience. A 20-year-old student, even with a concealed carry license, cannot be seriously expected do perform such an action. This is especially true when all the shooting required to get that license involves targeting a piece of paper. In fact, it is extremely doubtful that anyone who shot at a paper target in a shooting range for a few hours would have the mental fortitude to take steely aim at a heavily armed attacker and shoot, particularly in a situation as emotionally intense and terrifying as having a shooter loose in campus buildings.

Students cannot and should not be made into vigilantes and armed responders inside their own classrooms.

Proponents of the bill have argued that the thought of potentially facing armed students would deter a gunman from attacking that particular college campus. Well, this would imply that the gunman was thinking clearly. Anyone who loads a weapon with the intention of killing civilians and then follows through is not thinking clearly. Almost all the infamous school shooters of our time have had significant psychological problems.

They probably would not regard the possibility of armed resistance as much of a deterrent. The vast majority of school shooters end up turning the gun on themselves. Those that have left suicide notes or videos have revealed themselves to have had thoughts of suicide for quite some time, and dreamt of dying in a blaze of glorious gunfire. Thus, somewhat frighteningly, the idea of facing flashing gun barrels might even make a potential shooter more likely to go on a killing spree.

This bill was doomed to fail, in my opinion, from the very beginning. It had noble intentions in its quest to protect college students. The bill’s ideas, however, don’t make sense in the real world, and even seem influenced by television and Hollywood. Students rising up to overcome armed attackers can happen anywhere, but generally only does happen when there are a script and camera involved. Moreover, it places too much of the burden of protection on the students themselves — who probably would be scared out of their minds in the very situations that they are expected to perform in. Students should not have to pack guns and ammo alongside their books and pencils.

Allowing more guns on campus is not the way to fight against college shootings — especially not more guns in student hands.

PROTESTS REVEAL DISCONNECT BETWEEN TIBETAN PROTESTORS

Published Mar. 24, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Published Mar. 24, 2008 by uwire.com
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Mar. 30, 2008)

Published Mar. 25, 2008 by BYU NewsNet Online
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Mar. 30, 2008)

The Chinese government is currently moving truckloads of troop reinforcements into what it calls the Tibet Autonomous Region to combat widespread rioting against Beijing’s rule.

China’s claim to Tibet comes from Tibet being a part of several old Chinese kingdoms as a result of temporary defeats in border conflicts of previous centuries. Most recently, Tibet was invaded and forcibly made a part of modern China by Chairman Mao’s forces in 1951. Tibet’s most definitive claim as a sovereign nation stem from treaties signed with the British in the early 1900’s. It is accepted internationally that a treaty can only be signed between two sovereign nations or peoples.

The Chinese presence was never welcome, evidenced by the 1959 uprising against Chinese rule. That uprising was brutally quashed. The Dalai Lama, spiritual and political leader of Tibet, was forced to flee to India.

During China’s rule, the distinct Tibetan culture has been systematically suppressed. Monasteries, the nerve centers of Tibetan culture, have been destroyed. By law, Tibetan words on signs have to be smaller than the corresponding Chinese, and be located in less prominent positions. Tibetan is banned in schools, and anyone seeking state employment or university admission is required to speak Chinese.

China often points to improved transportation infrastructure as proof of its good works in Tibet. However, these have only resulted in a massive influx of Chinese from other areas. Most businesses and commerce are owned by Chinese, and Tibetans in general remain crushingly poor while much of China is increasingly prosperous.

The primary advocate of the Tibetan cause has been His Holiness The Dalai Lama. As befitting his office and personal beliefs, he has supported non-violent resistance as the means to alleviate Tibet’s sorrow. He has been compared to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi in shunning violence over his fifty-year struggle.

As revered as he is, his methods are not without detractors. These are mainly the younger generation, who never knew life before Chinese occupation. While careful to not insult His Holiness, many voice frustration at the lack of measurable progress of his methods. They support — and engage in — direct confrontation. They are the ones leading and spreading the current protests inside Tibet, which mark the 49th anniversary of the 1959 uprising.

In their actions and philosophy, the younger protesters are more akin to Stokely Carmichael than the MLK-esque Dalai Lama. Much as Dr. King sought peaceful and just coexistence of all Americans, His Holiness seeks an autonomous — not independent — Tibet coexisting with the rest of China. Many believe his long and largely fruitless struggle against the Chinese monolith has caused him to soften his stance and seek instead a more easily achievable goal. Regardless, Tibetans still living within its borders and many expatriates decry this abandonment of what they see as Tibet’s birthright as a nation. The more confrontational protest movement’s genesis can be traced to the Dalai Lama’s initial calls for coexistence.

As events have shown, his Holiness is not in control of the massive protests currently going on within Tibet. This is the first time that the acknowledged leader of the Tibetan rights movement has been powerless to stop or temper such protests. He has admitted so publicly, after the Chinese government accused him of fanning the flames of violence. It seems that the cause of Tibetan independence now has two distinct and somewhat disjointed groups trying to carry its banner.

While this may be uncharted territory for the Tibetans, this has occurred before in other movements — including the Civil Rights Movement in America, which compares rather well with the struggle occurring in the high Himalayas.

Both focus(ed) on bringing equal rights to a highly oppressed people. In each movement, there was initially one dominant philosophy. The peaceful resistance of Dr. King and that of the Dalai Lama share this common mantle. In the later stages of the Civil Rights movement, another philosophy — that of direct action — emerged, championed by figures such as Carmichael and Malcolm X. The same is occurring in Tibet right now.

It is still too early to see if the confrontational protests will work. They have, however, succeeded in refocusing global attention on one of the world’s great injustices. His Holiness’ methods, while never letting us forget about Tibet, never quite grabbed the world’s attention in the same way as the new protests. Without any authorization, aid or allies, the ragtag Tibetans have managed to greatly tie up Chinese resources. They have also handed China a major public-relations nightmare when it can ill afford it, with the Beijing Olympics starting in mere months.

Beijing has acted as expected, and is trying to completely stamp out any semblance of rebellion. It’s increasing its standing pressure on the Dalai Lama to abandon criticism of China, while simultaneously unleashing its military in Tibet.

One of the most crucial aspects of any movement or revolution is unity and communication among its perpetrators. This is absolutely necessary, at least in general terms. This unity and agreement between different figures and ideas was the main reason that the Civil Rights Movement was ultimately successful. All other successful such movements, like Poland’s Solidarity or the African National Congress in South Africa, had these above attributes. Every failed movement, like the 1857 Indian Sepoy Rebellion or the 1936 Arab Revolt, failed largely because unity and communication were lacking.

By choosing to confront the Chinese head-on without the Dalai Lama’s knowledge or direction, the Tibetan protesters tread dangerous ground. His Holiness’ dissociating himself from the violence, while understandable on religious grounds, further highlights this nascent disconnect. Neither he nor the protesters gain anything from this situation.

Instead, it seems China has another weapon to yield in its quest keep Tibet subjugated forever — newfound Tibetan disunity.

24-HOUR NEWSCAST LOSE SIGHT OF TRUE GOALS OF NEWS

Published Mar. 3, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Cable TV has not been universally beneficial for society. True, one can watch National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel and other eye-opening programs on cable. Keep in mind, though, that cable also has spawned “My Super Sweet Sixteen,” Lifetime and, of course, “Flavor of Love.” Somewhere between these two extremes of moderately enlightening and highly frightening lies the existence of cable news.

The three-faced juggernaut of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News has taken news from a 30 minute primetime affair to a non-stop, round-the-clock smorgasbord. While network news focuses on mostly local issues, cable news channels were meant to traverse the world in their presentation of topics. This idea of balanced news from all over the world all the time is great — in theory.

In practice, however, all 24-hour cable news outlets have defenestrated the idea of balance in their news coverage. Instead, just a few topics are focused on. Virtually all other topics only are mentioned in passing in the form of a picture or a small headline. The designated hot topic, in contrast, is dissected, analyzed, reassembled and re-examined over and over again.

Perhaps the best example of this is the phenomenon known as the U.S. primary season. If for some extreme reason you were not already aware, that’s right now. If the cable news channels’ coverage is any indication, there absolutely is nothing else newsworthy going on in the world at the moment.

As I’m writing this, CNN is on in the background — for research purposes. For the last 40 minutes, the three leading campaigns have been the exclusive focus. Every single campaign has a dedicated reporting team, and every minute detail is discussed and debated. The candidates themselves are nowhere to be seen, or heard. Instead, we are shown dark stages with manic, sign-waving mosh pits.

Meanwhile, new Israeli operations in Gaza that have killed more than 50 Palestinians in retaliation for rocket attacks are relegated only to a passing ticker at the bottom of the screen, along with coverage of the Russian presidential election. News of who might be the new leader of the largest country of the planet, and that of fresh violence in the world’s most volatile region are made to share space with the weekend weather forecast for Minneapolis and today’s NBA scores.

I wouldn’t feel nearly as disillusioned if the coverage of the campaigns focused on important things — like stances on immigration, social security reform or healthcare. Instead, I’m treated to an in-depth analysis of Sen. Barack Obama’s connection with controversial preacher Louis Farrakhan. There really is no connection. For those of you who care about this, unlike me, Obama is a member of church of a denomination whose national governing body sanctioned publication of a magazine that extolled Farrakhan’s good virtues — like organizing the Million Man March in 1995.

See what I mean about no connection?

This says to me two things. First, the church membership shows Obama is, in fact, not Muslim, as several imaginative (I’m trying not to use “lying”) right-leaning figures have insinuated. Second, it tells me that CNN and I have wildly differing definitions of “news.” Don’t think this is limited only to Wolf Blitzer and company. MSNBC and Fox News are just as bad. I just don’t tune to them as often because I don’t want my television programming to be connected with Microsoft (that’s the MS in MSNBC), and because I don’t want to listen to Bill O’Reilly twist the facts.

There certainly are times when cable news’ attention should be focused on one or a few things. The counting of votes from different primaries, attacks on or by our country, and natural disasters are examples of this. All the cable channels have continued to present informative, up to the minute coverage in situations like Super Tuesday, Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina. When most of the country and much of the world was looking to the Big Three cable news channels for updates, they all delivered.

Why can’t they focus on real news all the time? Don’t tell me there aren’t enough newsworthy things going on in the world. Even a cursory glance at the websites of the BBC, and even those of the U.S. cable news channels, shows how much is going on all over the world at any given time and how under-reported truly newsworthy things are. By not covering news from the other 190 countries of the world, and instead rehashing and reanalyzing old news and quasi-news, and these channels are contributing to the appalling global ignorance of most of America.

The promise, and dare I say, the original goal, of cable news at its inception decades ago was to present the news as it happened all over the world. That’s what should be happening. That can easily happen. The cable news channels can easily make themselves into what they should be. The manpower and the technology for the change are both there. Sadly, for those of us who want to know about more news more of the time, the cable news channels seem to be lacking in the most crucial requirement — the desire to change.

'RAMBO' UNLIKELY MEDIUM FOR PROTEST INFORMATION

Published Feb. 18, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

John James Rambo has gone down in American film and cultural lore as the quintessential no-holds-barred action hero. From the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Afghanistan, he was the idealized poster-man (no one can call him a mere poster-boy) of the American way, triumphing over communists of all ilks in years past. With the recent release of the fourth film of the series, simply titled “Rambo,” our hero has turned into a resistance fighter of sorts. More importantly, he has become something of a real-life hero for the present.

This most recent film finds Rambo, played by the seemingly immortal Sylvester Stallone, at a Thailand monastery. As the movie progresses, he journeys into war-torn Myanmar (formerly Burma) to aid Karen tribal resistance fighters. There are the requisite explosions, machine-gun fire and general mayhem. Instead of the Soviets or the Viet Cong receiving Rambo’s ire, this time, it’s the military of Myanmar.

That’s the same military that happens to control basically everything in Myanmar. They have done so for more than 40 years. In the process, Myanmar has become one of the most brutal authoritarian states in history. Anything remotely resembling is discord or democracy immediately squelched. Some of the more brutal examples include the 8888 Uprising in August of 1988 and the protests of a few months ago led by Buddhist monks.

News coverage of such demonstrations is sporadic and extremely limited, even by today’s sound-bite news standards. Part of the reason for this is the total lack of press freedom in Myanmar and extremely tight government controls on Internet and other media outlets. News of much of the brutality that regularly occurs in Myanmar simply does not spread outside its borders.

Many things, however, do make it inside its borders. These include contraband goods, weapons and even bootleg DVDs of “Rambo.” The anti-military junta message of the film has provoked the anger of the ruling authorities. Anyone caught watching or possessing the film can be punished by 20 lashes or 10 years in prison. In a country as oppressed as Myanmar, that threat falls on deaf ears, as many people continue to watch and distribute the film, according to the few journalists allowed to operate in the country.

After the brutal crackdown of all public forms of dissent, the simple act of watching a banned DVD can become an ideal way to defy a heavily-armed government. Banning the DVD in the first place shows the disconnectedness of the wildly unpopular junta that is stubbornly clinging to power solely by the power of bullets. Its idiosyncratic and oppressive policies have once again taken center stage.

While that alone will not do much when it comes to fighting a force such as the junta, it does raise the world’s consciousness of an old and forgotten corner of Southeast Asia. Stallone himself has become an advocate for the people of Myanmar through the filming and promotion of the film. Stallone, though almost ancient by Hollywood terms, still commands attention and wields significant fan clout.

Celebrity power has launched more than one successful protest movement. It also has served to educate adoring masses about the cause the celebrity du jour happens to be endorsing.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t favor mindless celebrity adulation. But as a means to raise consciousness, there are few better vehicles. This is evidenced by a marked increase in the coverage of Myanmar in the media.

At the moment, “Rambo” the film and Rambo the character seem to be the faces of the global Myanmar junta protest movement. While the merits of either in this role are open to debate, such figureheads are sorely needed. The true warrior and deserved face of the struggle for democracy and freedom in Myanmar, the eminent Aung San Suu Kyi, is under strict house arrest by the Myanmar military. Suu Kyi has not been seen in public for years. She is the rightful Prime Minister of Myanmar, according to the last elections held in 1990. However, the results of those elections were summarily invalidated by the military.

Sly Stallone is no Suu Kyi. Not even close. But he and his recent film are continuing the work to which she has dedicated her life. Though both Stallone and “Rambo” seem unlikely vehicles of protest, they seem to be working, at least for the time being. It remains to be seen whether the recent fervor with Myanmar will continue, and more importantly, will have visible results on the global stage. That is what the people of Myanmar, and, free people everywhere, must hope for.
The fall of the Berlin Wall often is connected with former President John F. Kennedy’s long ago uttering of “Ich bin ein Berliner.” The fall of the Myanmar junta, if it happens, may well one day be connected with Rambo’s bullet-ridden triumph over the Myanmar military.

YAHOO! TAKEOVER MAY NOT CURE MICROSOFT'S INTERNET WOES

Published Feb. 5, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Published Online by PBS' "Washington Week" News Program
Viewable Online Here

Computer giant Microsoft recently put forward an unsolicited bid to buy out Internet pioneer Yahoo!. Bill Gates & Co. is offering $44.6 billion.

Yes, you read that right. Billion.

If Yahoo!’s board of directors accepts the currently unwelcome bid, this will be the largest acquisition ever made by Microsoft, and likely the largest buyout ever in the high-tech sector.
The main reason the wizards of Windows are willing to shell out that kind of money is the sheer dominance of Google in the Internet search business and related areas.

In recent years, Google’s share of the market has grown steadily at the expense of its competitors.

The merger would bring together Yahoo’s still-large Internet foothold and Microsoft’s technical know-how, and seemingly limitless funds.

Microsoft’s huge offer highlights how much it wants — and needs — Yahoo! in its fold. It’s banking on the idea the merged juggernaut would make huge catch-up strides against Google, and eventually supplant it as the number one Internet search company.

It will not be that easy.

While Microsoft is almost a household name, it’s seen as something of a lumbering dinosaur in tech fields, rooted in the past. People are most familiar with its Windows operating systems and Office software suite. The original Windows 3.1 was revolutionary in its time. Subsequent releases, while still popular, have been criticized as not being substantial improvements over their predecessors. Adding to the problem has been the continued existence of random bugs and software problems with almost all new Windows products. True, Microsoft dutifully issues updates and patches, but the problems do their damage to the company’s damage nonetheless.
Microsoft’s own Internet search business, Live Search, formerly Windows Live Search and MSN Search, is in more dire straits. Most people don’t even know it exists, other than its default presence within the new Internet Explorer. And even that has not really resulted in exposure, given Internet Explorer’s own fading popularity in light of the more secure and user-friendly Firefox.

Yahoo! also has been recently seen in a similar light. It was one of the earlier search companies to offer other services such as e-mail. It has since branched out to include streaming and downloadable music, news, videos and more. However, it has been heavily criticized for its high volume of ads and the sometimes disjointed functionality of its services and offerings. It remains widely used, but does not enjoy the high traffic of years past. For an almost-exclusively Internet-based and search-heavy business like Yahoo!, this has resulted in painful shrinking of profits and a steady decline in stock prices. The company certainly is not down and out, but it is a far cry from the untroubled pre-Google days of the previous decade.

Speaking of Google, it currently is a $23 billion company, with a huge pool of resources at its own disposal. Its initial public offering, open sale of stocks, raised over $1.5 billion, a reflection of investor and public confidence in the company. It has conducted a series of successful acquisitions and grown steadily. From a business perspective, you can’t get much better than Google.

More importantly, Google completely dominates when it comes to the image game. This is arguably much more important than the business numbers for a company that depends on people for its revenue. When Google was first launched, it billed itself as the fresh, new alternative to established and ad-heavy search companies like Yahoo!, Compuserve and Netscape. People were immediately drawn to its clean, simple interface and highly accurate and fast search responses. This, combined with the natural support most any underdog enjoys, quickly resulted in Google cultivating a loyal fan base.

When Google began offering new services such as Gmail and the popular drafting program SketchUp, that fan base willingly adopted them. The elegant simplicity that propelled the original Google search to success is found in virtually every Google product and offering. Being the brainchild of two young computer scientists, Google always has been a company with a playful and open vibe. It’s known for being open to user suggestions, and frequently implementing them. It’s engineers are highly encouraged by company brass to pursue whatever project interests them, regardless of whether it’s on the company to-do list or not. Many Google offerings, such as the aforementioned Gmail, have resulted from these personal-pleasure projects.

The fresh, new, alternative mojo Google initially flaunted has continued and increased to this day, even though Google is now the top dog in most every field that it plays in.
This hard-earned mantle of support and popularity for Google is what Microsoft and Yahoo! must overcome. They have failed to do so separately and independently. They’re hoping to do it now do so collaboratively.

Blending two old (by Internet standards) companies with marked image problems and solidly rooted in a relatively old-school business culture to overcome a charismatic newcomer does not seem the best of ideas, however. A Microsoft-Yahoo! juggernaut may be billed as the Google giant-killer, but it must be remembered that Google itself easily and effectively killed those two Internet giants separately, and several more, in its brief time.

If Yahoo! accepts Microsoft’s dowry, both companies will benefit. But a merger of such magnitude definitely will not be without problems. Google certainly will not be standing idly by in the months to come. If the potential merger goes through, and then fails to uproot Google — which seems likely — both Yahoo! and Microsoft will be in very deep trouble.

LIMIT TO CHANGE IN POLITICAL POLITICS

Published Jan. 22, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

For the first time in quite a few election seasons, would-be presidential candidates from both parties are campaigning on a somewhat universal common platform.

This sort of agreement, though unusual, is good.

Also good is the fact that the key player of this platform is change.

Change is sorely needed in this country and its governmental policies on a number of levels. The potential of change also seen among the candidates themselves, as a woman and an African-American man are the front-runners of their party’s candidates and arguably are in the strongest position to make a bid for the White House.

That in itself is huge. And if one (or perhaps both) made it onto the Democratic ticket, and then won, the biggest change in American politics will have taken place.

Change is good, it keeps things fresh, so they say.

But in politics, particularly presidential politics, only so much can change.

As much as the candidates’ platforms may focus on it and as much as the candidates themselves embody change, not all aspects of this all-important quadrennial election are subject to any sort of transformation.

Not by a long shot.

Dirty politics will always remain a fixture of presidential races.

Take the recent debacle in Nevada regarding the Democratic Caucus. The caucus system requires its voters to meet or “caucus” at a particular time at a particular place in the area or “precinct” where they live. In Nevada, that particular time was during the midday lunch break.

Out of concern for the thousands of casino and hotel workers in Las Vegas who would not have sufficient time off from work to travel home, caucus, and travel back, the Nevada Democratic Party created several “at-large” precincts in casinos on the Strip.

The idea was that any worker with valid employment ID that worked within 2.5 miles of the at-large precinct location who was verifiably scheduled to work during the lunch hour would be able to caucus at these locations and make their voices heard. All relevant procedures and statues were followed in this process.

All was well until the Nevada State Education Association (the teachers’ union) filed a lawsuit on Jan. 11, to block the at-large precincts on the grounds that they violated election laws and would proportion support unfairly.

Suspiciously, this was only two days after the powerful 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union in Nevada endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. The well-organized and heavily Hispanic CWU gave Sen. Obama a huge boost in the Nevada electorate.

Even more suspicious were the somewhat concealed ties between NSEA’s leadership and Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was running slightly ahead of Sen. Obama in Nevada polls prior the CWU endorsement.

Of course, Sen. Clinton’s campaign denies any involvement, and this may be true on an official level. However, the peculiar coincidences of the timing of the NSEA’s challenge so soon after the CWU endorsement leads one to believe that a carefully orchestrated effort to disenfranchise a large group of people (who were likely to not vote Hillary) was under way by people certainly connected with the campaign in question.

On the elephant’s side of the pasture, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s faux pas in creating a virulently anti-Mitt Romney television spot and then deciding to not air it, except for a screening for the press corps, has been widely discussed and often ridiculed.

While it’s not exactly a dirty tactic, and is even admirable on some levels, it’s still a little puzzling.

Huckabee’s camp maintains that the ordained Southern Baptist Minister felt that attacking Romney in such a manner would have been wrong.

The withdrawal of the ad also had the, I believe, intended effect of highlighting Huckabee’s human decency, often a rare trait in presidential elections. It also made sure the he and his campaign stayed in the media spotlight for the few crucial days prior to the Iowa Caucus. He of course won Iowa, largely as a result of the Christian right, whose poster child in earlier weeks had been Romney. Thus, the fiasco with the withdrawn ad seems not entirely a candidate’s succumbing to his human sense of compassion, but more a calculated ploy to win over his main opponent’s chief supporters.

Neither of the two examples above deal with anything illegal. No one acted outside the bounds of the law, although many will argue that their actions were questionable at best.

What is certain is that these actions certainly do not convey or conform to the optimistic image of a new America, changed from the cruel years of the past into a new bastion of hope, freedom, and prosperity that is touted by virtually all the candidates at the moment.

No, these actions are decidedly reminiscent of the shady and cutthroat campaigning that have been a fixture in American politics for many decades now, and if these examples are any hint, will remain for many decades to come.

Some change may be forthcoming a year from now, when a new president is sworn in, and we may be closer to a more united, happier, changed America.

Just don’t expect to see much of that change in practice anywhere near the presidential election between now and November.

BUDGET CUTS HINDER OK PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Published Jan. 15, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Budget cuts. These are not anything new in Oklahoma, especially at Oklahoma City Public Schools. For more that two years we have heard about various arts programs being cut and funding being dropped. But what impact are these cuts having in the art classrooms?

A good place to look for the answer is Classen School of Advanced Studies. Classen, in addition to its renowned IB academic program, is the only school in the state to have the nationally-recognized Visual and Performing Arts (VPA) program. To gain admission into Classen through this program, students must audition in one of seven disciplines. Upon acceptance, VPA students begin a rigorous arts curriculum centered around their discipline or “major”. Unfortunately for Classen students, the budget cuts don’t just affect one area, but the entire program.

Usually, the district supplies each art teacher in the district with $500 each year to cover supplies. As art teacher Karyn Stafford puts it, “I teach about one hundred students every year. That comes out to $5 per student, which is nothing as far as art supplies are concerned. We usually have to rely on donations from individuals and from groups.”

Last year was even worse, as the district could not afford to give the teachers any money.

“You can see first-hand the effects of the budget cuts at art competitions,” Stafford says, “The private schools’ stuff is more, bigger, flashier. We would be a force to contend with if we had that kind of funding. That Classen holds its own at these competitions is testament to the enormous talent of the students.”

Classen’s instrumental music departments have also felt the impact of tightening belts. For example, the orchestra department does not receive nearly the funds necessary for regular maintenance and upkeep of its instruments. Classen is a public school and cannot charge its students anything, therefore fundraising is the only option.

Jordan Morris, a past member of Classen’s Jazz Band, talks about another problem. “Most of the instruments we use are owned by the district, and not by Classen. We borrow them from different schools that aren’t using them at the time. Now that there’s no money to replace or repair worn-out instruments, the other schools want their instruments back. We’ve already lost some instruments.”

This is a shame as Morris considers the Classen jazz band a great opportunity to play with gifted musicians and the aspiring talents of his generation.

The problems aren’t just limited to music. Facilities badly in need of repair are not being worked on for lack of money. “We don’t have money for newer costumes, we have to share our practice space with other groups, and our studio has zero heating,” said Lauren Bond, senior dance major.

Faced with obstacles such as these, one would expect the Classen arts departments to wither. The fact that Classen arts students continue their excellence is testament to not only the enormous talent praised by teachers as being “beyond compare and full of character,” but also to the teachers.

Students receive basic skills from the teachers, but the rest is left for them to master. Yet, without proper funding students at Classen and across the state are forced to make due with what they are given.