My good friend Allen Gannett is a big supporter of Obama, and even the High School Coordinator for NJ Students for Barack Obama. If you'd like to volunteer or receive information, it would be really great if you could fill this out. The amount of time you put in is purely up to you, personally I've done a few meetings and some canvassing and handing out information. It doesn't take much to contribute and you'd be helping him out greatly.

Here is an interesting article I found about the 2004 election. It's written by my favorite (former) political activist author, Hunter S. Thompson. It's long and out-dated, but if you enjoy his writings or want a brief introduction, I would recommend this.

For those who could not access the article in my previous post:

Blocking Care for Women

By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and CECILE RICHARDS

Published: September 18, 2008

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women’s rights and women’s health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.

Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD’s and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?

The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?

The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic senator from New York. Cecile Richards is the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/opinion/19clinton.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A very interesting article co-written by Senator Hillary Clinton about women's rights. This article is insanely interesting to me because of HL, who understands my interest in the protection of women's rights/abortion and how frequently he has assured me that under McCain/Palin Roe vs. Wade would not be overturned. However, this article provides a different threat that is already trying to take effect and the conditions would only worsen under a conservative country.

Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?


This is a law which allows discrimination against things we find "morally wrong". I feel that it is WILDLY inappropriate for the government to put the enforcement of a law in people who may have the opposite set of morals from me. I do not think any medical professional should be able to deny me birth control, the morning after pill, an abortion, ANYTHING because of their own personal morals. I don't care if they don't want to, it is their job. They should not have the right to deny me of my own rights. This law lacks consitency and courtesy to those who do believe in birth control and don't push their religious beliefs on others.

As the economy continues to crash and stocks plummet, I become more and more assured that John McCain does not identify with the average American. How any average American could claim our economy is strong is beyond me. Our system is flawed, and our dollar is sinking deeper than the Titanic day by day. McCain believes what will change this? Continuing to fight an expensive war "on terror"? Throwing out aid to Georgia? What about our own country? What about countries like Darfur, even? The Republican Party continually appears to be disillusioned with their own power. Do we want to allow Georgia into the NATO, just so we can defend it? What is the motive behind that? Do we want another Cold War? The Republican Party seems to chase after their own goals and ambitions, ignoring the American people that they are trampling. Our system is severely in danger.

Sure, Barack Obama may be from the "cosmopolitan" city of Chicago, and he may be a Harvard Law graduate. Nonetheless, he is someone who rose from poverty to achieve his dreams. He worked in non-profits and spent time working with the lower class of Americans. Maybe he isn't a war hero from Arizona, maybe his parents have never owned territory in Alaska, but that does not mean he does not know the struggle and plight of our everyday citizens. Sarah Palin can criticize a community organizer all she wants because anyone knows that those community organizers are the ones helping to clean up the streets in impoverished areas, help get disadvanted kids into after school programs, and generally provide guidance to those who have never had any.

McCain can claim that he wants to take down an "old boys" network with Palin, but they would simply be destroying their own party. It's something they would never do. Their trickle down economic theory has failed, and it is far from being saved with more of the same. Barack Obama promotes a change that American citizens can believe in. The threat of another four years of a failing economy, a lackluster war on terror, and increasing poverty across the nation is enough to make anyone realize that the change promoted by Presidential candidates must be real. Therefore, it is my opinion that Barack Obama will be able to complete this change and transform America back to the great world power it once was.

Governor Palin's emails hacked. This was totally Obama and his Muslim terrorism! I bet he and Michelle are doing their terrorist fist pump right now! (Actually, that just sounded wildly inappropriate)

Here is an interesting article about "white privilege" and some of the various opinions of Republicans to Democrats. I don't think all of it is specifically about white privilege since this is more of a political rant, but I just wanted to point out a lot of the points made here that would be said about Senator Obama or even have been said. Not to say that nothing has been said about McCain/Palin, but think about the reactions that each action would have solicited.

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend five different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school, requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to safeguard American institutions.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives close to Russia--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because suddenly your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.

White privilege is being able to give a 36 minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and then Harvard Business school, and yet, still be seen as just an average guy (George W. Bush) while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then to Harvard Law, makes you "uppity," and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.) and that's OK, and you're cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly twenty years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."

White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you ever sold drugs.

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you "dangerously naive and immature."

White privilege is being able to say that you hate "gooks" and "will always hate them," and yet, you aren't a racist because, ya know, you were a POW so you're entitled to your hatred, while being black and insisting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because a lot of white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Here is an interesting article I found. It speaks for itself. Stop being so serious everyone!

An interesting video I found online, complete with cheesy dramatic music and a chain letter ending. Nonetheless, I find the facts it presents incredibly interesting. Not to say that the Obama team has not made any low blows and misleading ads, but I feel that some don't realize the extent to which the McCain team as done so as well.

An interesting article I found on CNN, written by Darrel M. West. I find myself, as well as others, guilty of the things he explains here, even on a minor level. It's very interesting to read.

Negative attacks are as American as apple pie. Since the early days of the republic, candidates attacked with a vigor that contemporary strategists would admire.

In the 1800 presidential election, for example, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams criticized one another with a stunning ferocity on everything from foreign and domestic policy to private character and personal behavior.

Later campaigns weren't much better. Critics of Andrew Jackson in 1836 accused him of murdering Indians. In 1884, Grover Cleveland was ridiculed for fathering an illegitimate child. William Jennings Bryan was characterized as a dangerous radical in 1896 who would ruin the economy.

Despite these historical precedents, the 2008 campaign has reached all-time lows in the use of misleading and inaccurate political appeals. Even Karl Rove, the architect of negative ads in previous campaigns, has complained about the tenor of this year's campaign.

John McCain broadcast an ad taking Barack Obama's words out of context and suggesting Democrats were trying to compare GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin to a pig. The McCain campaign ran another spot erroneously claiming Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners.

Don't Miss

• Rove: McCain went "too far" in ads
• Candidates of "change" stick to politics as usual
• In Depth: Commentaries

Democrats have not been above reproach either. After McCain secured the GOP nomination this spring, outside groups falsely claimed the Republican supported a 1,000-year war in Iraq and therefore was not worthy of the presidency.

These misleading appeals suggest voters must remain vigilant about candidate, party, and group claims. Generally, the most misleading commercials have come from independent groups uncoordinated with the candidates.

These organizations feel free to run emotional and inaccurate content designed to play on voter's fears and anxieties. Some of the worst ads in recent memory, such as the Willie Horton ad in 1988, have been broadcast by these kinds of groups.

In past years, the only upside of attack ads was that they generally contained more issue content than other types of ads. Since reporters police campaign appeals, the ads generally stick to the issues and rely on factually-accurate information. Ad sponsors and candidates realize they will be held accountable for unfair ad content.

However, commercials run this year represent a break with this general pattern. Attack ads broadcast in recent months have twisted the truth, lied about personal background, taken statements out of context, and clearly sought to manipulate voter sentiments.

Most worrisome from a factual standpoint is McCain's claim that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. Although Obama has pledged to increase income taxes on those earning more than $250,000, he has been careful not to make proposals that would raise taxes on the middle class for fear of being labeled a tax-and-spend liberal.

McCain's tax claims have been condemned by leading editorial boards and surely will attract considerable attention in upcoming debates.

With all the factual inaccuracies that have taken place, voters need to protect themselves from efforts at political manipulation. Non-partisan Web sites such as www.factcheck.org represent one source of unbiased information. They analyze ads and compile factual information in support of or in opposition to ad claims.

Other trustworthy fact-checkers include ad watches and reality checks run by leading news organizations. These features dissect candidate claims in regard to accuracy, strategy, and impact.

But the best thing for voters to do is to watch the candidate debates and judge for themselves. Study the statements and the factual bases of policy claims. Pay attention to how the candidates speak and what they say. Find out what non-partisan groups think and see what they have to say regarding the major issues.

By the time the campaign is over, the presidential candidates are expected to have spent 55 percent of their overall budget on ads. Strategists put together spots very carefully and pre-test major messages on small groups of voters.

Most of this money will be devoted to television spots. But increasingly amounts are being targeted on radio, direct mail, and Internet appeals.

In the end, voters are going to have to decipher competing charges and counter-charges amid considerable noise from all sides. The 2008 election is unusual in having so many big issues on the agenda: the economy, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, health care, taxes, immigration, education and climate change.

It is an election that truly matters because of the stark differences between the parties and the closeness of the campaign. Voters need to pay serious attention to the facts in order to make a wise choice.

source

This weekend, Obama cancelled his scheduled appearance on Saturday Night Live due to the unfortunate circumstances of Hurricane Ike. Prior to this, the Republicans made an effort to scale down the partying in their convention out of respect for another hurricane.

Do you think it's appropriate to continue going on TV/etc. in the event of a hurricane? Do you think Obama should have kept to his scheduled appearance? Do you think it was fair for the Republicans to scale back events?

Here is an article meant to educate women about the policies of Sarah Palin. While I understand that Sarah Palin will not have much of a say as VP, it concerns me that the level of attention and compassion she receives from women is so supportive, when Palin's policies strip women of all their rights. After this election, who is to stop her from running for President. Will the American public still be apathetic towards their own rights and issues? What impact will Palin have on McCain, in his choices for supreme court justice? Overall, I think the acclaim Palin recieves is not totally undeserved, but frequently unwarrented.

Here is a very interesting article about voters in Michigan. Their homes are being foreclosed on, and therefore, they are being deemed as ineligible to vote.

I'm not sure if I agree with the consistent blame of the Republicans that the article suggests, but I think it's appalling that any individual would even try to take away the right to vote. Currently, I'm trying to set up voter registration at my school, and I never considered myself lucky that I've been supported and that other clubs are trying to do the same. Now, however, I look at it in a whole new light.

1. lol at Howard Liu and I being the only people who update often. So far.

2. Interesting opinions from around the globe about who they would like to see as President.

"Given how negative America's international image is at present, it is quite striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the Bush administration's relations with the world."

An incredibly well written article by Gloria Steinem about Sarah Palin.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

Another interesting article I have found this this one about illegal immigration. I gladly open up any possible debate about how illegal aliens should be approached (especially with children involved).

Before I post the following video, I'll make a quick disclaimer as to what it is. It's a simple video with a few women centered around Washington, D.C. speaking their minds about Sarah Palin. It is not (before Howard comments to tell me this) completely fact based but it's not designed to be. It's just women talking and trying to counteract the buzz that Palin has caused amongst vendetta-ed Hillary Clinton supporters and the ideology that because Palin is a woman, she attracts women voters.


Also, here is an interesting video from (the trendiest love of my life) Anderson Cooper at CNN. It's quite interesting to hear not only the analysis of what these rumors can cause, but also how easy things are to lie about and to believe. To me, this is what gives Republicans a bad taste of the Democratic party. After all, the Democrats do have a reputation for being a younger, more internet inclined generation. That being said, I think this blog does need to be renamed Lizards of Satan.

Former New York mayor Ed Koch (an avid campaigner and supporter of President Bush) announced who is he will be supporting for in this election. It is no surprise that Mr. Koch chose Barack Obama as his candidate for president, considering the past 8 years. Mr. Koch may not be as prestigious as some of the names behind John McCain, however, he is still a great man.

As a child, I found myself completely fascinated with a certain Barbie doll. She wasn't blonde and buxom like the others, instead, she had short brown hair and the most beautiful pink suit I could imagine. As you can probably guess, the Barbie was a model of Jacqueline Onassis Kennedy, one of the most fashionable and influential First Ladies.

It's strange today how much influence Mrs. Kennedy has had on the world of First Lady fashion, and even possible first lady fashion.

Senator Hillary Clinton evolved the polished look of the fun and fresh skirt suit into a pantsuit (She even quipped, "The sisterhood of the travelling pantsuit!" while sporting an interesting orange one) while VP nominee Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama often go for the traditionally skirts.

However, I think the most interesting article that mentions a possible First Lady is this article from Vanity Fair, detailling the cost of Cindy McCain's convention outfits. Followed by this article, detailling what $300,o00 could buy the average American. Not to critique Mrs. McCain (because who does not love the occasional lavish or luxe item) but the cost is quite hillarious in terms of what other important women that surround her wear.

Today's front page on CNN paints an interesting picture of possible Vice President Sarah Palin. The one thing that really interested me about this article is that Palin claims that she will not force her religious beliefs on anyone. I can appreciate that greatly, and I hope, should she be put in office, she urges McCain to do the same. As someone who ardently supports the woman's right to choose and the ability for women of all ages to have easy access to birth control and the morning after pill (also known as Plan B), I hope that Ms. Palin does not enforce the same policies she enforces on her children to the American public. Also, as a fellow student (and unfortunate member of the other Poli Sci period) Howard Liu said, it is highly unlikely for the decision of Roe versus Wade to be overturned. Still, as a supporter of adequate sex education and women's rights, it's something I feel that I must concern myself with.

I also have a random side tangent from a post I didn't make that I might as well post now, since there is very little media in this post.

Do I think it's fair that the public continues to scrutinize Sarah Palin? Yes, it would happen to anyone in her shoes and for something who doesn't give interviews but openly critiques others, it's bound to happen. Do I think she's being excessively scrutinized for being a woman? Not at all, look at some of the comments made towards Obama, and even on occasion, McCain. Do I think Sarah Palin needs to stop crying about being a woman and how every question towards her is "sexist"? Yes. I don't doubt Sarah Palin's abilities because she is a woman, I doubt her abilities because in my opinion, she is hardly experienced (at the most, she is on the same level as Obama).

In Friday's issue of the New York Times, there was an interesting article (pointed out to my AP US Gov. class by Mr. Chesler) which featured graphs of how many times each Presidential party mentioned certain words. It was interesting to see the amount of times the Obama camp said "change" or the McCain team mention "God". However, I found this article to relevant to these videos, which express each convention in just under two minutes.

Democratic:


Republican:


They aren't very accurate, but you can laugh and appreciate them.

Also, if you're interested in the original New York times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/04/us/politics/20080905_WORDS_GRAPHIC.html?scp=1&sq=the%20words%20they%20used&st=cse

Being the day after Palin's speech, I heard many comments today about her beliefs, background, and abilities. To me, her speech was far too harsh and far too cynical for me to even grow a mild like of her. I do understand that this was an acceptance of nomination speech (and therefore not geared towards Democrats, but to her own party), but I still feel that Palin really messed this speech up. Sure, the Republican Party can praise it all they want, why wouldn't they want to bash Obama (considering every speech I heard last night was a repeat of the prior one)? However, one must ask, who is Sarah Palin? She's a nobody from Alaska whose nomination came out of thin air, according to people from both parties. I don't think it was her place to critique Obama on such a classless level when in reality, Sarah Palin is one of the least qualified, most unknown people to ever have a place on a Presidential ballot. Maybe I'm just upset because all I heard were negative, whining comments and I'm used to listening to Obama speak not just positively of McCain/Palin, but of the hope and faith he has in the future.

This video is probably one of the most exhilarating things to come out of the coverage from this election, even though most Republicans will discount it as the liberal media, or worse, the mainstream media. However, the Daily Show targets younger viewers, including many who will most likely be voting for the first time this November, and even though it is mainly liberal already, there's a little hope that this reached an undecided voter. Even if it didn't, it's already causing controversy. CNN first showed the video this afternoon, and already top analysts were commenting on it. I think it just proves the point that the Republican Party has been especially two-faced in this election, and while all politics are corrupt, it does make it harder for them to validate their arguments against the Democrats.

I haven't followed the Daily Show since Indecision 2004, however, I certainly hope they do something similar for this election.

Also: The New York Times features an interesting article on Mr. Stewart. I thoroughly enjoyed it considering it's this program that made me even begin to take an interest in government (as seen in my touching fourth grade essay/picture book, "Who Do I Want to Vote For?")
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/television/17kaku.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&em&oref=slogin

Today, I was directed to this interesting article from a newspaper located in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox

It presents an interesting look into how conservative beliefs can be formed, however, I still find that it is slightly narrow minded. Even though the researchers claim, "The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study 'does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false'," it seems to me as if the researchers were looking for a way to define a thought process they could not relate with on their own.

This is a test post.