Chill Out

My column on global warming in this past Tuesday's Diamondback uses several threads I've discussed on this blog in the past (the lack of scientific literacy surrounding the subject, pitfalls of alarmism). I expanded on those ideas to also address the fallacies of specific alternative energy proposals.

Sample grab:

...before wholeheartedly embracing ethanol as the fuel of the future, we should consider whether large-scale production of ethanol is feasible or if it even reduces net greenhouse gas emissions. (A recent, much discussed article in Science suggests it would not.) We have already seen how the ethanol-driven demand for corn has created an across-the-board rise in food and fertilizer prices, an unintended but serious economic consequence.

Columnist Ali Adler ("Path to Our Future," Feb. 12) advocates solar and wind power, but she fails to consider neither measure feasibly matches our country's energy needs. We should resist the urge to throw millions of dollars in government subsidies to ideas that won't work. (Personally, I think nuclear power is the way to go, but I will save that argument for another time.)

When it comes to tackling global warming, we should not, like the people of Emerald City, be blinded by "green" glasses. Some ideas are good, but most are over-reactionary or counter-productive, often both. Restraint may be our best option.

Click here to read the entire column. Then be sure to check out a rebuttal by a Ms. Rachel Bergstein, who says that "the current climate crisis is...a question of justice and equity" which "necessitates immediate action".

Stay in Iraq

In today's Diamondback, I take on the former VP of the College Democrats in a debate over whether the the war in Iraq is still worth fighting.

I say, yes we should stay! Sample grab below:

A premature U.S. departure from Iraq risks the possibility of a failed state developing in the Middle East. It would be a dire threat to regional stability and a major security risk for the U.S. and its allies. Recall, for example, that when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War, the ensuing vacuum was filled by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

...Although our endeavor is expensive and requires the sacrifice of a great many courageous Americans (and Iraqis), the potential for a modernized, democratic, pro-Western Muslim state in the Middle East means that this is a necessary fight.

Click here to read the entire column.

I'm no apologist for how the Bush administration's initial approach in Iraq. You may recall that back in August 2005 I said we needed to "change the course" and "put more of our guys on the ground". In December 2006, I said that "significantly more troops should be sent to Iraq temporarily to help with security". Now, with "the surge" underway, I am cautiously optimistic and want to see it produce a successful result for the long term.

Also check out what my opponent in today's print edition had to say. Honestly, I thought his column was pretty weak. The Iraq war is a complex and divisive issue, and there are several compelling arguments as to why we should withdraw. Mr. Hiller offers none of these in his column, instead spouting some hokey pablum about the influence of "corporations".

Even though I believe we should stay in Iraq, I respect those who argue against the war on legitimate grounds, including the following:
a) the cost in human lives
b) we don't know when it will end
c) the strain it has put on the Army might make us less flexible to respond to a future threat
d) the money spent on the war could instead go to domestic programs or the war in Afghanistan.

These points are highly effective arguments against continuation of the war, and on which I think there should be vigorous debate.

Obama in College Park

Barack Obama held a rally at the University of Maryland today. In my four years at College Park, I can't think of any event that was as hyped as this. You really had to see it with your own eyes to believe it: a line that stretched a mile long on a bitterly cold, windy Monday morning, full of people--students willing to miss class, older people dodging work and fighting traffic--excited to see a politician. There have never been lines like this for any speaker, concert, or basketball game in my time on campus.

The Comcast Center was packed with at least 15,000 people by my estimate. Obama was greeted with something just short of messianic fervor. Although I am not easily impressed, as he entered the building, I was definitely moved.



It's too bad, then, that I was let down by what followed. Although he is a very gifted speaker, he gave a standard stump speech that mostly seemed to just spit out bullet points as if lifted from a pamphlet. It didn't show off Obama's best asset: his ability to relate to ordinary people. Several friends of mine, Obama sympathizers or supporters, agreed.

By comparison, when I saw Mike Huckabee on campus Saturday, he was charming and engaged the audience very well. I know Obama could have better tailored his speech for the largely college-age crowd. Then again, he doesn't have to try too hard since he has MD (plus DC and VA) locked up for tomorrow's primaries.



Regardless, it didn't matter. The adoring crowd still roared its approval for everything he said. As I exited the building afterward, I heard a girl on her cellphone say that she had cried during Obama's speech because she was so moved. I don't get why, but wow...

I'm still of the opinion that Barack Obama would be a very good president and I want him to do well. But, like I said in my most recent Diamondback column, I don't know if his charisma, intelligence, and values are enough to convince me to vote him. When it comes to major issues, like the war on Iraq, I disagree with Obama. I am very tempted to vote for John McCain.

Currently my status is firmly undecided, and I hope I can take my time over the summer to make a choice.

All photos and video by Jay Nargundkar.

The Boomerang Kids

My column in Monday's Diamondback deals with "boomerang kids", college graduates who go back to "Living with the 'rents". Here's the intro:

You might assume that an adult still living with his or her parents is a loser. The stereotype of a basement-dwelling comic book nerd or George from “Seinfeld” is not one most people aspire to be.

Yet many college students are doing exactly what you think they would dread after graduation: moving back in with their families. Monster, the job search company, reports in a 2007 survey that 48% of prospective graduates plan on becoming “boomerang kids”, i.e. returning home. Although many expect to just make a quick pit stop, Monster finds that “42 percent of 2006 graduates say they are still living with their parents”.

There are several good reasons to move back home. Foremost among those is that it allows recent graduates to save money. But in talking to friends and classmates who will enter the workforce soon, I have found that hardly anyone is returning out of necessity. So if affordability is not the issue, what is?

Click to read the rest of "Living with the 'rents".

Generation Zzz?

My column in today's Diamondback is a response to Naomi Wolf's Sunday Washington Post column "Hey, Young Americans, Here's a Text for You", in which she bemoans young people's lack of involvement in the "democratic process".

I take exception with her attempt to paint all "young people" with the same stroke, while also explaining what is causing some people to tune out. At the same time, I agree with her that Americans need to have a greater awareness of and appreciation for the values and principles our country stands for.

Sample grabs:

One popular explanation for our generation's disinclination toward politics is the supremacy of pop culture today. Another is that there is a lack of focus on government in schools. The first point is rubbish. Even in the time of Grover Cleveland, people paid more attention to the latest hit march from John Philip Sousa. The point about education does have some merit, and I wish there was more of a focus on democracy, the Constitution and American history during the K-12 years. Yet I severely doubt that your average schoolboy in the 1800s knew his Preamble from his 11th Amendment, and he didn't even have Wikipedia to look it up.

...

What has gone relatively unnoticed, and quite disturbingly so, is a loss of confidence in the good that the United States represents. This is especially true among people our age, for whom patriotism is a lost cause. Never mind the unique freedoms that we as Americans enjoy or the richness of our diverse multi-cultural society, college students are more likely to cynically (and often ill-informedly) bemoan globalization and U.S. military power. I'm all for criticizing your own country to make it better, but I wonder if the cynics realize they have it better here than they would anywhere else in the world. The principles our country is based on are worth being informed about and worth defending.

Read my entire column here: Generation Zzz?

The Minority Rule

Indian-American Bobby Jindal's victory last week in the Louisiana gubernatorial election prompted me to examine what I call "the minority rule" in my Monday Diamondback column. People like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Condoleezza Rice are proof that minorities have successfully infiltrated that last frontier--the apex of political leadership in this country.

Yet what they and Jindal have in common is what connects them with most politicians in high positions: their affiliation with a Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Simply put, being a woman or black or brown no longer makes you unelectable--as long as you still have the right religion. This, obviously, has some problematic repercussions:

"I definitely don't have any problem with religious people in politics, but I am concerned that religious people of non-Judeo-Christian faiths as well as atheist or agnostic people can be marginalized from the political process. I think the American public is definitely capable of judging a candidate on his or her merits and would not attach much importance to a candidate's religious affiliation. But because religion is talked about so much in the political arena, and because almost all politicians are Christians or Jews, I worry that others who would be great public servants are discouraged from running for office and thus never try."

Click here to read my new column. Also check out this interesting article from the Post about the generational divide between Indian-Americans' attitudes toward Jindal. The older generation (people my parents' age and up) are ecstatic at Jindal's win and proud to have an Indian-American in such a high position. They know how difficult it was for Indians when they first came to the U.S., and had a very different experience than people of my generation. The latter are much more likely to take Jindal's political considerations into account (and not vote for him just because he is Indian). They also are unhappy that Jindal distanced himself from his ethnicity during his run.

* * *

On an entirely separate note, take a look at my previous Diamondback column, in which I tried to explain what "love of the game" really is to a sports fan. It's everything and anything from the rollercoaster ride of following a team through its trials and tribulations with a community of like-minded believers, to the pride you feel when you see a player you saw as a rookie gradually grow into a living legend. And yes, allowing our moods to be affected by the performance of a group of highly-paid strangers is admittedly irrational, but that doesn't mean it's not worth the time and emotion. Read "Fan Feelings".

The Real World

My column in today's Diamondback shines the spotlight on my tentative first steps toward graduating and entering the real world. It's not a smooth transition for unsuspecting students like myself, who quickly find that employers aren't just waiting to hand out fat paychecks to us so that we can plan our next exotic vacation.

An excerpt from "The Real World":

If you happen to be a pre-med student, you just might be lucky enough to stay in school until you are 35. If you are choosing to go to graduate school, you must be commended because, without people like you, there would be no one to sit in Starbucks with a laptop to use the free Wi-Fi all day.

But for the rest of you soon-to-be alumni, expect to find a vastly different world out there...

In theory, the hardest part should be whether to spend your first paycheck on Redskins season tickets or a new 60-inch plasma HDTV to watch the Redskins at home. I've found, however, that getting a job isn't as easy as switching to GEICO. It takes way more than just one quick 15-minute phone call, and contrary to popular belief, it will do absolutely nothing to help you save 15 percent on auto insurance.

Employers, with an irrational need to find "qualified" and "competent" workers, require interrogations of prospective candidates. Apparently it's not enough that I've never taken steroids, financed illicit dog fights or attempted to enrich uranium for purposes of terrorism...

Click here to read the entire column.

F--- the FCC!

Below is a version of an essay I wrote for today's Diamondback (link) decrying FCC censorship of "indecency" as arbitrary, harmful to creative content, and a substitute for poor parenting.



Since the infamous 2004 Super Bowl halftime show revealed to America that Janet Jackson did, in fact, have a nipple on her right breast, the government has become increasingly strict about cracking down on broadcast “indecency”. By raising fines for infractions to obscene amounts, the government is bullying content providers into submission. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission continues to expand its regulatory reach.

Unfortunately, the FCC uses a completely arbitrary determination of what constitutes indecency. They also employ overly-punitive measures which stifle creative content. Most troubling of all, this brand of regulation is yet another substitute for uninvolved parenting.

There are many examples of the FCC’s vagueness over what exactly constitutes indecency. When Bono used the F-word as an adverb at the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, the commission ruled he was not being indecent because he was not referring to sexual or excretory functions. The FCC changed their minds a year later, deciding that the F-word is totally off limits.

The status of other words or content is notoriously nebulous. It is generally accepted that using the S-word is acceptable (as famously demonstrated in the South Park episode “It Hits the Fan”), but in early 2006 the FCC declared that the same word with the prefix “bull” was “grossly offensive”. Oh, and you can’t say “dickhead”.

You might reasonably point out that our culture has already become so coarse, so it’s good that we take a stand. One problem with that is that the FCC enforces unwritten indecency rules. That’s right, TV networks don’t know what infractions they are supposed to avoid; it’s up to the FCC to decide. The FCC claims that they don’t publish specific rules because that would constitute censorship; rather, they only react when someone complains.

Of course, with extremist organizations like the innocuously named American Family Association around, someone always complains. (The AFA, by the way, sought to boycott the animated movie Shark Tale because it supposedly promoted gay values.) For some reason these busybodies actually get taken seriously as representative of the general public. Family Guy’s Peter said it best in the Emmy-nominated episode “PTV”, explaining that to the FCC, “one complaint equals one billion people.”

Thus, we have situations like the one last year where ABC affiliates refused to air the movie Saving Private Ryan for fear of drawing complaints. Complaints can be very expensive. Under current FCC rules, CBS affiliates would have been fined a whopping $32,500,000 for a single racy scene in an episode of Without a Trace last year. That’s more money than it costs to produce all episodes of the series for an entire season. Given that kind of climate, it’s no wonder Fox Entertainment head Peter Liguori recently described the “chilling effect” the FCC’s recent rulings have had on creative freedom.

I’m not going to deny that there are some clear-cut instances of content that is inappropriate for airing over network TV. But the FCC doesn’t just police the obvious violations and leave the rest to the good judgment of viewers. In fact, in a report issued Tuesday, the FCC announced efforts to broaden its regulatory scope and even start patrolling the cable channels that viewers intentionally pay to bring into their homes.

The sad fact is that all this is being done in the name of protecting children. Of course, the easiest way to protect children is for parents to do their job. If parents monitored their kids’ TV habits and/or used the V-chip, we wouldn’t have this problem of government intervention. Seriously, if they start messing with Eric Cartman and Tony Soprano, I’ll get really pissed.

Couch Potato Humanitarian

From my D'back column today:

Most college students, myself included, often think that we as individuals can't do much when it comes to tackling a big problem such as world poverty. It's the kind of issue where creating Facebook groups, wearing colored wristbands, attending rallies on McKeldin Mall and yes, writing in The Diamondback don't have much of a real-world impact.

Time and money are generally what it takes to make a difference, and college students are short on both. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't have to worry about paying for tuition, housing and drinks at Cornerstone. And students don't have much time to think about changing the world in between classes, internships, homework, parties, the gym and so forth.

That's why it was with great interest that I read New York Times writer Nick Kristof's recent column, "You, Too, Can Be a Banker to the Poor." He wrote about a website called Kiva (www.kiva.org), which allows anyone to make direct loans through PayPal to specific entrepreneurs in Third World countries.

...

My first loan went to an Azerbaijani man named Ilham Abdulov, who owns a small butcher shop in a bazaar in the city of Agsu. He's a young, portly, jovial-looking guy who has run his shop for four years. Ilham needs money to buy more animals so that he can expand his business. He has agreed to pay me and the other lenders (several from across the U.S., but also one from Spain and another from Japan) back in 12 to 16 months.

...

If a lack of time and money aren't an excuse, then what are you waiting for?

Click to read the entire column.

Support "Sweatshops"

For my column in the Diamondback this Wednesday, I was going to tackle the issue of the third-world factory labor, something I touched on last year on the blog. Unfortunately for me though, another staff columnist drew the assignment and his column will run in tomorrow's newspaper, so I'm out of luck. I've reproduced my version below.

* * *

Last week the Diamondback reported a campus group’s effort to ban sweatshop labor used for school apparel and other gear. Never mind that no Terp merchandise has specifically been traced to factories with abusive labor conditions. It’s time to set the record straight. If you really care about helping third-world workers, you should be pro-sweatshops.

That’s not just me being irreverent. Jeffrey Sachs, the influential economist, says “My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops, but that there are too few.” He means that international trade makes everyone better off over the long-run. Developing countries get to use their comparative advantage of cheaper labor to gain access to factories, jobs, and skills they could not otherwise get. Meanwhile developed countries get to specialize in other areas and receive lower prices at home.

You might expect liberals to have bleeding hearts over the plight of third-world workers, and conservatives to coldly favor Big Business. But this is not your typical liberal-conservative issue. Sachs is a liberal anti-poverty crusader who works with the U.N. and teams up with rock star Bono on Africa aid.

In fact, my first introduction to this subject came from reading a 2001 column by Paul Krugman, the well-known economist and dependable lefty. He wrote: “Third-world countries aren't poor because their export workers earn low wages; it's the other way around. Because the countries are poor, even what look to us like bad jobs at bad wages are almost always much better than the alternatives.”

Those alternatives that he speaks of are lower-wage jobs such as subsistence farming, menial labor, and prostitution. In 1997, UNICEF discovered that 5,000 to 7,000 Nepalese children turned to prostitution after the U.S. banned carpet exports from that country in the name of labor standards. Worse yet was the infamous Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1995, which UNICEF, Oxfam, and others have said led to tens of thousands homeless and forced into jobs like “stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution.” Yes, that’s a worse outcome.

Keep in mind next time you hear someone lay into Wal-Mart or Nike for paying $1.50 an hour, in most cases, that worker is glad for it. Not to mention it's probably a buck more than they'd be getting working a local job. NY Times columnist John Tierney wrote last year that third world factory jobs “may sound like hell to American college students” but that they “provide enough to lift a worker above the poverty level, and often far above it.”

Tierney cited a recent study of 10 Asian and Latin American countries, which had many insightful revelations. In Honduras, for example, the average apparel worker makes $13 a day, while nearly half the country’s population makes less than $2 a day.

Obviously I am not in favor of labor conditions that are actually abusive. There are several all-too-true examples of factories where workers are subjected to threats and beatings, prevented from going to the bathroom, required to be on birth control, etc. Those are abhorrent practices and we should wholeheartedly oppose them. However, those instances are in the minority.

Third world workers take factory jobs because it is their first step toward integrating into the modern industrialized world. They get away from their rural villages and into the cities. They support their families and provided a better upbringing and education for their children. Later on their children can take advantage of the more advanced jobs that have come to the country after the success of the initial low-level factory work.

If you really are serious about wanting to help third-world countries, think twice before you protest third-world factory labor. You could be doing more harm than good.

Holy Wars

Among my friends and others, I have a reputation for sometimes having controversial or irreverent views. (Go figure, South Park is one of my favorite TV shows.) It seems to me that most of the time when people get offended, it's by something petty or trivial. I always want to tell them to stop and ask themselves "Are my beliefs or opinions really that fragile that I can't be presented with signs of other people's beliefs or opinions?"

It was in that mindset I wrote my recent column "Holy Wars" for today's Diamondback about how to strike a balance between secularism and religion in the United States. Given that I chided secular people for their hostility toward religious people, and the latter for constantly trying to push their beliefs on others, it was predictable that I drew fire from both sides. But I also found a lot of people who agreed with me, which was heartening in that it proves the polarized wings are not the majority.

Sample grab:

Despite caricature-worthy cases like the Westboro evangelists, crazy demagogues constitute a distinct minority of the population. The vast majority of religious Americans are good, decent, ordinary people. They should not be patronized, insulted or generalized as stupid folk from the South or Midwest.

Less hostility toward religion would go a long way toward defusing cultural tension. There is no need to continually deride obvious inconsistencies, outmoded thinking and immoral actions committed in centuries-old religious tradition. Regardless of the downside of rigid and literal interpretation, it should be obvious that the moral and humanitarian side of religion is a positive.

...I have several reminders for people of faith as well...one person's particular beliefs are not the only ones in existence. No one maintains a monopoly on what everyone should think. Respect the beliefs of people who belong to another religion, no religion or some religion.

I conclude by acknowledging that many aspects of America's values have been strongly influenced by religion but that the U.S. must remain a fundamentally secular nation. Click here to read the whole article.

Theory: Eat Fetuses, Gain Superpowers

It's been a while since I've mentioned anything from my bi-weekly column in the Diamondback, the University of Maryland's independent student newspaper. Topics I've written about recently include money management for students and cultural cliques overdone. In my column today, I adapted a recent blog post to discuss the presence of science in pop culture. Sample grab:

...we have segments of the population dismissing evolution because they've never seen a monkey turn into a person, or because they think a "theory," to quote Isaac Asimov, "is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." (Recall the evangelist from Borat who insisted "I is what I is!") Pro-evolution people, meanwhile, make their job more difficult when they disrespect their opponents' religious convictions. For some reason, telling people that they are idiots with vivid imaginations isn't the most persuasive argument.

We have people who think that unless we all switch to hybrid cars ASAP, an ice age will wipe out coastal cities (and benefit the Republican Party, of course). We also have people who think that climate change can't be real because one guy wearing a lab coat out in Fargo, N.D., disagrees. (Hey, he sure looks like a scientist.) Thus, they say, there must be no consensus on global warming.

We have opposition to stem cell research based on "pro-life" beliefs, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of surplus blastocysts are routinely discarded by fertility clinics instead of having even a fraction of those used to try and save lives. We also have people who would mislead you into believing that the only thing standing between a disease-free world is big, bad President Bush. (I particularly enjoyed the South Park episode which showed the late paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve gaining superpowers from eating dead fetuses.)

Click here to read the whole article.

Not Business as Usual

(Click to enlarge.)

Bummed out by layoffs, corporate scandals, and outsourcing? Chin up, there's good news too. Readers of this blog will recognize a combination of ideas from a couple of previous posts last month in my newest Diamondback column, "Finish Your Homework". Here I acknowledge the threat of international competition in the "flat world" but point out why the U.S. needn't be too worried. Space restrictions required my magnum opus to be trimmed a bit, but I think it still gets the point across. An excerpt:

...several factors stand in the way of either China or India knocking the U.S. off its preeminent perch. Let us not forget the world’s most important and admired businesses today — companies such as Apple, Starbucks, Google, eBay and Goldman Sachs, to name a few — are distinctly American. I would tell my fellow Robert H. Smith School students it is probably unnecessary to bone up on Mandarin (though it couldn’t hurt) and we should not worry about spending our careers chasing after jobs in New Delhi or Shanghai. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: There are a lot of people on other continents out-hustling us Americans. While for now they might only represent a minority of their populations, more of them are springing up daily to take advantage of increased opportunities.

Click here to read the rest.

Permanent Records

My column in today's Diamondback focuses on the downside of the permanent digital archive that is the Internet. Through blogs, AIM profiles, and sites like Facebook, not to mention the ubiquitous Google search, you can basically unearth a college student's entire life. Employers and law enforcement are already relying on such techniques, and there could be trouble for us if the person on the other end doesn't like what they're seeing.

From "Permanent Records":

Some time in or around the year 2030, I am sure I will be awakened one morning by the ringing of the hologram phone. The president — whether it will be Jenna Bush or Chelsea Clinton, I don’t know — will say to me: “Jay, I have bad news. You can’t be Fed Chairman/Secretary of War/Supreme Overlord after all. The opposition party’s got some dirt on you, and you’ll never make it through the confirmation hearing.”

As I sit there, dealing with my crushing rejection, I’d wonder what did me in. Was it the away message back in 2014 that said: “Skipping work today. At the baseball game”? Did my uncle violate U.N. sanctions by selling pop tarts to the Libyans — and then brag about it on his MySpace? Or did Sen. Chuck Norris threaten a filibuster over my membership in a Facebook group that claimed he is Jack Bauer’s girlie little sister?

Click here to read the column.

Middle of the Road

My column in today's Diamondback is a quixotic quest to end partisanship and an appeal to increase political literacy. I also reveal why I don't like to be described as a moderate. From "In the Middle":

My conservative friends consider me a liberal. My liberal friends call me a conservative. I think I like it that way. Am I a “moderate”? I suppose so, but I’m not sure I like that term. It implies one can’t have strong opinions or one must take practical stands instead of principled stands. Obviously, that shouldn’t be the case. People should be free to take firm stances on issues important to them. I just ask that you consider the legitimate arguments the opposite side makes. On every contentious issue, practice arguing from both sides so you can get an understanding of where the other guy is coming from.

Click here to read the rest.

Muhammad Cartoon Craziness

It hasn't been the greatest couple of weeks for blogging. School and work have made deep cuts into my free time, and the leading stories in the news of late haven't struck me as all that fascinating.

I refrained from commenting on Dick Cheney's hunting accident, because after all, what more was it than a tragic incident for the attorney shot and ripe picking for the late night comics? After I found out that the Veep wasn't drunk or otherwise negligent when he filled Harry Whittington with buck shot, I lost interest.

Then there's the current flap over the UAE port deal, which looks to me to be a cheap excuse for the Democrats to try and run to the right of President Bush on a security issue. Everything I've read about the deal indicates that the Dubai company has a great track record and that their taking over six American ports will not jeopardize our security.

The other big story to dominate the news this month, of course, is the storm over the Muhammad cartoons. I finally tackled the controversy in a column for today's Diamondback, though by now I hope this will serve as a retrospective and we can finally stop reading about burned down embassies.

Regular blogging to commence next week, or that's my intention at least. In the mean time, check out the following links that helped shape my views with regard to the cartoon controversy.

Recommended reading:

• Overview of the controversy on Wikipedia
• "Drafting Hitler"[$] by David Brooks (Feb 9, 2006)
• "Editorial: Cartoon Wars" by The Economist (Feb 9, 2006)
• "Why I Published Those Cartoons" by Flemming Rose (Feb 19, 2006)

Of Democrats and Detergent

Yesterday's Tom Toles cartoon reminded me of a guest column I'd written for the Diamondback back in August 2005, in which I said that the Democratic Party must do more than "just say no".



Speaking of the Diamondback, my second column as a staff op-ed writer ran yesterday. My editor had asked me to take a break from politics and national issues to focus on something more pertinent to campus life. I obliged, with this light-hearted piece on laundry.

Based on the mixed reactions it received, I'm inclined to agree with those who told me to "stick to politics!"

The Speech Bush Should Give

My first column as an op-ed writer for the University of Maryland's Diamondback runs today, addressing tomorrow's State of the Union.

On Tuesday President Bush will, for the sixth time, deliver the State of the Union address. News reports state he is still working on his big speech. Luckily for him, I’ve taken the liberty of preparing the remarks he should deliver tomorrow night:

Good evening and thank you all for being here. Originally, I planned to come out and talk about the “war on terror” in a superficial manner, sprinkled with a liberal dose of tough rhetoric. Then, to further pander to the FOX News crowd, I was going to talk about tax cuts. Luckily for the rest of you, my good friend Jay intervened. He suggested that what the majority of American people are looking for is for me to be open and straightforward with them. Tonight, I promise I will not “spin,” I will not smirk and I will not mispronounce the n-word. “Newkillyear” … “nyookiller” … well, nevermind.

[Click to read the rest of "The Real State of the Union"]

In accordance with the Diamondback's rules on professionalism, I ask that family members and non-UM friends post any comments on this blog page rather than on the school paper's site.

Additionally, some of you may notice a similarity between Friday's Thomas Friedman column and my own. Rest assured, I am not the next Jayson Blair (who, incidentally, was a Maryland alum and former Diamondback editor). The Diamondback's publication schedule is such that I initially submitted my column last Monday, a full week ago, and four days before I saw Friedman's piece. Great minds think alike?

Writing for a student newspaper is different from blogging; anyone have ideas?