Latino Voters in the 2008 Presidential Election

Aimee Sobhani, Politics

Without a doubt, Latino voters will be deciding the 2008 Presidential election so the fact that The Economist reports that they are shying away from John McCain can only mean good things for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Historically, the Democratic Party has done well with minorities so it may not seem like a big deal that Obama has the support of the Latinos. Thanks to their strong Catholic roots, Latinos tend to be more conservative on social issues, meaning that they may be apprehensive to vote for liberal Democrats like Obama. However, Latinos do not approve of the conservative position on immigration, which is perhaps the most important issue to them. Thus, neither party really has the right to believe that they have Latino voters "in the bag."

However, Democrats definitely have a chance of winning a large majority of the Latino vote. Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, ex-Presidential candidate, and prominent Hispanic politician, endorsed Obama once his try for the nomination ended. Obviously, Latinos aren't going to automatically vote for Obama because Richardson wants them too, but his endorsement definitely doesn't hurt. Richardson's support is particularly important in this race, especially given the racial animosity between blacks and Hispanics.

Hispanics have the potential to be politically potent. They make up a majority of voters in many voting districts in the Southwest. Though many may not be registered to vote, multiple radio campaigns are encouraging Hispanics to get involved in the political process. With the last couple of elections being very close, a small number of voters will decide this year's election, and those voters could very well be Hispanic.

Sinophobia, Anyone?

Soo-Ryum Yang
Politics

The upcoming Olympics in Beijing and its unending controversy have finally unfurled what was slowly developing within global consciousness: sinophobia. This mostly rational and sometimes irrational fear of China has surpassed Anti-Americanism abroad, which has been increasingly popular in Europe and the Middle East. As Anti-Americanism is more about Bush, Anti-Chinese sentiment is also more about human rights abuses- it is about their successes and failures as an emerging global superpower.

These are some potential factors associated with the rise in sinophobia:
(1) China's steady economic growth during this global recession could trigger a noxious combination of suspicion and envy.
(2) The increasingly powerful Chinese military should worry both neo-cons and hippies alike.
(3) Unlike the Bush Administration, the Chinese government at least believes in global warming, but does not want to do anything about it. Their rationale: the West dumped all the soot in the sky during the industrialization; it is only fair for China to do the same.
(4) Irrefutable evidence that China is directly related with the violence in Darfur.
(5) Hillary, Dalai Lama and Hollywood. They really don't like China, and they are sure powerful.
(6) American and European parents think when something is made in China, it has been dipped in lead, mercury and dark matter.
(6) The C-word. Yes, they are communists even though China is brooding with child laborers, wealthy socialites, poor migrants, liberal bloggers, conservative government, American tourists, etc. One thing for sure: If Mao were alive, he would not be pleased to see his country run by CEO's and capitalistic savagery.

Yes, I will join the unanimous chorus of commentators around the world and declare that China will be the next hegemonic superpower. However, if the world starts hating China now, what will happen when it actually becomes the sole, dominant global authority? I guess we will just have to wait 20 more years for that answer.

Thank You ICC: Charges Against Sudan's President Expected In the Future

Aimee Sobhani
Politics

After 5 years and 300,000 deaths, the Economist reports that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will bring present evidence against Sudan's president, Omar Al-Bashir. This move could result in Al-Bashir's indictment for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. This move shows exactly why the ICC is an important, necessary international body.

I've written in favor of the ICC before, and I strongly believe that the U.S. should take steps to join the Court. A belief that is central to liberal political theory is that one way that "world peace" may be achieved is through involvement in international organizations. This concept is very simple: international organizations force states to work together, thus lessening the likelihood of war.

Currently, the United States is not part of the ICC. Clinton was apprehensive about joining the organization because he thought it might undermine the Constitution, and Bush totally opposes American participation in the Court. This fear partially stems from the fact that if an American commits a heinous crime, he or she might be subject to the ICC's jurisdiction instead of the jurisdiction of the American court. However, this fear is unfounded, mainly due to the fact that it is unlikely that someone raised with American values would commit a crime so severe that he or she would end up in front of the ICC. In addition, the ICC only has jurisdiction over an American criminal if it deems that proceedings in an American court were lacking in some way--also unlikely given the sophistication of the American judicial system.

If America chooses to join the ICC, the organization could be strengthened significantly. Though the U.S. is losing popularity because of some its policy decisions, there is no doubt that the U.S. is still one of the most powerful nations in the world. If we join the ICC, we will be able to influence the Court's decisions and the rules that govern it. There doesn't seem to be anything negative about that.

Never fear, though. Barack Obama is a supporter of the ICC and internationalism in general so it is possible that the United States will be involved in the ICC in the near future.

I Wish I Were Karl Rove...Then I Could Ignore Subpoenas, Too

Aimee Sobhani
Politics

Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee today, but he and his lawyer believe that Rove has the power to ignore the Committee's request for him to testify. Rove's lawyer claims that Rove is protected by "executive privilege," meaning that Rove can ignore the subpoena and avoid questions dealing with him and his cronies dismissing U.S. attorneys who they saw as threats to Rove's well-oiled political machine.

Rove is not the first member of the Bush administration to claim that he is protected from answering to Congress or the courts. Bush himself has used the excuse multiple times to avoid answering awkward questions and to protect his faithful followers from answering them, too.

Executive privilege is to the executive branch what "pleading the fifth" is to private citizens. They are both meant to protect individuals from giving up self-incriminating information. While this power is a Constitutional right for individuals, the Constitution doesn't exactly give the same power to a public entity such as the government. Citizens have a right to know what elected officials are saying behind closed doors; we have the right to know if something suspicious is going on, right?

Citing executive privilege usually means that an executive has something to hide. Nixon claimed the privilege during the Watergate scandal, and Clinton too used the power as a way to bypass answering questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Given the secrecy and lying done by the present administration, it's not surprising that it too hides itself under the curtain of executive privilege.

I'm sure executive privilege has its place in the American government, but it seems kind of unnecessary in Rove's case. It is undeniable that he is responsible for several rather illegal actions, and he needs to be punished.

Is "Intelligent Design" Scientific?

Eric Strong
Science & Religion

One of the hottest debates in American society today is about whether creationism should be considered scientific. Many conservatives advocate “teaching the controversy”; in other words, they wish to allow “intelligent design” (or any of creationism’s often deceptive aliases) to be taught in science classes, alongside with natural selection and evolution. Are the grievances of creationists real, or is there some fundamental reason why creationism cannot be accurately presented to schoolchildren in their science classes?

A primary test of whether or not a theory can be considered scientific is called “Popperian Falsification”. Basically, this concept means that there must be at least some conceivable experiment that could be performed in order to prove that a certain theory is false. For example, in the case of evolution, it is famously stated that if a “rabbit was found in the Cambrian” (rabbits could not be found in the Cambrian according to evolutionary theory, since they evolved much later) then evolution could not possibly be true. In fact, any fossil found which could not fit in the nested hierarchy (the evolutionary “tree of life”) would potentially invalidate evolution.

It is easy to see why Popperian Falsification is necessary in science, because otherwise theories such as “the universe was created yesterday, and everyone simply had their memories implanted by a deceptive, omnipotent being” or “invisible gremlins live in cars and cause them to wreck” would be considered scientific, since there is no potential way to falsify those theories. Surely these theories aren’t true, or even investigable by science, simply because no one can think of an experiment that would prove them false.

Likewise, there is no possible experiment that could falsify creationism. Assuming that the designer is omnipotent, it could have created life in whichever way it wished. There is no logical conclusion that is entailed simply from the proposition “there is a creator”; there is no reason for life to turn out the way it did, since there is no limit to the kind of life that a creator could have created. Hence, any possible form of life that will ever be found could all have been potentially created by a designer, which means that there is no possible experiment that could be done to falsify creationism. Creationism thus fails the test of Popperian Falsification and cannot be considered scientific.

This does not mean, of course, that intelligent people cannot believe in creationism. Certainly, everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, whether they wish to believe the Earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese. The problem is that conservatives often want to claim that creationism is scientific and therefore has a place in the science classroom. However, since creationism fails one of the primary criteria for science, Popperian Falsification, there might be a place for creationism in history class as something that a large number people once believed, but there is no place for it in the science classroom.

For further reference:

Introduction to the Philosophy of Science by Robert Klee

Mugabe: Still In Business (Unfortunately)

Aimee Sobhani
Politics

Few Americans know the true extent of problems in Africa: after all, the media's attention is so focused on the war in Iraq, the impending 2008 Presidential election, and various celebrity scandals that there's little time to cover problem-ridden Africa. Sure, every so often we might hear about Darfur, but there are also many other issues plaguing the African continent. Low life expectancies, famine, disease, poverty, war--these issues all stem from the rampant colonial expansion that occurred until the middle of the twentieth century, but it can be argued that these problems specifically arose from the rise of corrupt, incompetent African leaders that came into power after the expulsion of colonial rule.

One such leader is Robert Mugabe, the current President of Zimbabwe. The term "president" is not the best descriptor for the leader--a more accurate term is dictator. Mugabe has been President since 1980, mainly due to the fact that he has "won" corrupt elections by unbelievable margins (The BBC reports that in the recent June election, Mugabe won by 85%). Mugabe's cronies engage in all sorts of illegal activities in order to secure Mugabe's place in the government. Mugabe's opponents are harassed and intimidated, and voters not casting a ballot for Mugabe can expect to be intimidated as well. In addition, many voters choose not to participate in the elections due to the fact that it is common knowledge that the elections are meaningless.

Why is Mugabe such a threat? Let's just say he doesn't have the best track record. He and his party, ZANU-PF, have ruined the lives of large numbers of Zimbabwe's people through their revolting policies. For example, in 2005, Mugabe's followers destroyed homes in Zimbabwean suburbs because ZANU-PF's opposition party was gaining support in these areas. As a result, many Zimbabweans fled to other countries (especially South Africa), where they are at risk of becoming targets of xenophobic violence.

A decrease in the general well-being of Zimbabweans has accompanied Mugabe's rule. Zimbabwe has the lowest life expectancy in the world; most people only live until their mid-30's. In addition, inflation is rampant; a recent article revealed that inflation in Zimbabwe has reached 1 million percent and could continue rising. Additionally, as in most African countries, AIDS is a huge concern.

So how is the world responding to Mugabe's inability to ensure the health and happiness of his people? Well, it's not. The UN has stated that it believes Zimbabwe's latest elections were unfair, but merely pointing out the obvious is not going to solve any problems. The African Union (AU) has failed to take any decisive action against Mugabe and like the UN, merely voices its concerns about Mugabe's actions. Words, though they may be powerful in some cases, cannot remove Robert Mugabe from office, and they certainly cannot solve the problems faced by Zimbabwe.

Theory of perceptual relativity

Soo-Ryum Yang
Science

I hope everyone had a wonderful 4th of July. Nashville fireworks are OK; the Macy's one in New York is just little better. However, the Nashville Symphony's fireworks-synchronized performance was surprisingly impressive.

Now, back to the topic of this post. My good friend, couple of weeks ago, sent me a link to a very interesting non-fiction article from the New Yorker. The article essentially tried to explain how the classical feedforward pathway of perception misrepresents a more complicated mechanism that relies heavily on feedback and intra-brain processing.

Take for example, the visual system, the most complex sensory system and also, my research specialty. The traditional model of the visual pathway explains how electrical signals travel from the ganglion nerves in the retina to the optic nerves (the highways of neural signals) to the thalamus (a central relay station) to the primary visual cortex (processing area for basic visual features such as orientation and spatial frequency) to the extrastriate cortex (processing area for more complicated visual features such as color, motion, etc). Although this feedforward model suggests a one-way signal direction, it is now known that about 80% of the circuitry between the primary and extrastriate cortex is composed of feedback connections. In other words, when we see, we always (and only) perceive an illusion of a physical reality that has been modified and constructed by the brain. Thus, two different versions of reality arise.

(1) physical reality: the absolute, pure representation of an actual reality; independent of relative perception. (i.e. the green paper emits a certain, absolute unit of wavelength)
(2) perceptual reality: the illusion of a physical reality due to perception; may differ from person A to person B. (i.e. it cannot be ruled out that the brain of person A and the brain of person B will "see" two different colors when viewing the same green paper because brain A is intrinsically different from brain B)

So, is it truly possible to experience or witness physical reality? If physical reality cannot be experienced or "perceived", how do we prove that it exists? How do we define absolutes if the realities of those "absolutes" differ from person to person due to brain differences?

This post-modern theory of perceptual relativity suggests that optical illusion is not only confined to those fun, interesting visual tricks. Rather, optical illusion and illusion of all sensation form the fundamental basis of our perception, and thus our own relative realities.

Is the Bible truly unique?

Eric Strong
Religion

Let’s imagine for a moment that every Bible, every catechism and creed, every Christian writing altogether disappears from the face of the Earth. In fact, let’s pretend that Christianity itself is removed from the world forever. Convince yourself of this scenario by whatever means necessary; perhaps an evil dictator decides to eradicate Christianity, or the rapture occurs, or any number of possible, albeit unlikely, scenarios.

How would the Christian God communicate his “truth” to mankind when all records of this truth are gone?

Now, certainly, you can argue that the scenario described above will never happen: Christianity will never be eradicated from the face of the Earth. And you’re probably right. Successful religions, by definition, have always had means of ensuring that they never completely die out. But it’s strange that God would allow even the possibility of something as important as his only book describing the true way to “salvation” to be lost forever.

In fact, why would God write down what he wanted to tell humanity in a book, anyway? Why use a form of communication that is so widespread, so easily copied? And why use the same kind of communication that most other “gods” have done throughout history? Couldn’t the One True God think of a more special way to communicate Absolute Truth? Perhaps a story told by the stars, or truly “written on our hearts”, as Jeremiah would say? Why place so much significance on the Bible when there are so many more meaningful ways to communicate truth?

Just some thoughts to think about, as you reflect on your views about the inerrancy of the Bible.

Further references:

The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Early Christian Writings

Wall-E, our new favourite liberal

Soo-Ryum Yang
Politics

For those who have not seen the latest Pixar movie, Wall-E, the film is a must-see. It is an ingenious, heart-warming story but also one that has a very serious message about our wasteful consumer habits.

The year is 2700 something, and Earth has turned into a wasteland due to some future Wal-mart-esque company that has taken over the world (it even runs the government... hmm, that's not hard to see) by promoting excessive consumerism and negligence for the environment. The situation has gotten so bad that Earth has become inhabitable, and the humans return to a nomadic life by living in a big Earth-simulating space ship.

Predictably, the tone of the movie is very dismal. The backdrop of Earth as lifeless, deserted toxic field, though animated, seems so real and so possible. Even for a G-rated movie, the message of conservation and environmental protection is undiluted and very much in your face. However, the message does not come across as confrotational, but more of as a motherly warning about the possiblity of a greenless Earth. Sure it stings, but the funny parts make up for it. Trust me.

On a sidenote, the movie pays tribute to many cultural icons, such as Apple (Wall-E watches a movie from an iPod) and 2001 Space Odyssey (Hal reincarnates into an evil, autopilot robot). It also pokes fun at Bush's "stay the course" stratgey as a similarly delusional president from the movie echoes the same words to claim that Earth is beyond repair and that the only way to surivive is to live in outer space.

In retrospect, the movie is so far the greenest film of the year. It will hopefully influence younger kids as they start to think about the need to protect the environment. For the adults, especially the more conservative audience, it will let them know that a movie can be funny, liberal and educational- all at the same time. In the end, the movie is more than a hybrid of Steve Jobs' elegance and Al Gore's inconvenient truth (pun definitely intended); it is a forceful tale that preaches to the next generation, that hugging trees is not only a cool thing, but the right thing to do.

Did Obama Betray Us?

Soo-Ryum Yang
Politics

"All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments – a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal"

Barack Obama 6/30/2008

Nearly a year after MoveOn.org's infamous "General Betray Us" flop, Obama has decisively spoken against the group's controversial attack on the military leadership in Iraq. But, don't expect his comments to spark "Obama Betrayed Us" ads in NYT. He is still the Left's only hope.

It is obvious that the group's ad was cruelly mischaracterized. However, it was very hard not to mischaracterize the ad's claim. It was more like giving the Right carte blanche rather than providing ourselves the platform to discuss important issues. Essentially, it had a good idea but very very bad wording.

Sure, by equating MoveOn.org's tactics with those of the Bush gang, Obama might lose some support of those anti-war activists from Vermont and Berkeley, but this stratgey might work in the end, especially if he wants to win Virginia and Ohio.

Despite his post-partisan rhetoric, his voting record puts him in the far left corner- where the majority of Americans would feel uncomfortable. By denouncing extremist politics, he will only appear not only more centrist, but more likable, and thus be more electable.

MoveOn.org can now do what it's best at. Just move on.