White House Gate-Crashers

Last Tuesday President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama hosted their first state dinner, which honored Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife, Gursharan Kaur. The event was filled with pomp and pageantry as Washington's elite meshed with Hollywood's elite. Invited guests included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, as well as Steven Spielberg, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, M. Night Shyamalan and Alfre Woodard. But it was reality television hopeful Michaele Salahi and her husband Tareq who caused the biggest stir at the event – because they weren't supposed to be there.

While some say the matter is unimportant fluff because at no time was anyone in danger, others see this is a serious breach of security as Tareq and Michaele Salahi not only crashed a White House event, they rubbed elbows with everyone from celebrities to the President himself.

Jeff, Shaun, Austin, and Gabriel lend their opinions to this topic today. After reading their thoughts, have your say by leaving a comment.

White House Gate-Crashers: Jeff Weiss

The world is buzzing with the news that a couple who aspire to be reality TV stars crashed President Obama's first state dinner last Tuesday. Just how did Michaele Salahi, who is in the process of trying out for the NBC/Universal-owned Bravo cable series The Real Housewives of DC, and her husband Tareq get into the state dinner? The official story is that Secret Service agents did not follow proper protocol at a security checkpoint, thus admitting the Salahis into the state dinner where they were photographed with Vice President Joe Biden, Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and even President Barack Obama.

Clearly, Tareq and Michaele Salahi did not pose any threat to President Obama or anyone at the state dinner – however, the fact that not only did they gain entry into the White House, but were granted admission to a function that was attended by the highest ranking officials in our nation – is beyond frightening. The Secret Service issued a statement saying the agency is "deeply concerned and embarrassed by the circumstances" and that "the preliminary findings of our internal investigation have determined established protocols were not followed at an initial checkpoint, verifying that two individuals were on the guest list." I cannot believe that in a society where I have to verify my identity three separate and individual ways before I can gain access to my online banking statement, the Secret Service let two people into a White House state dinner without checking first to see if they were invited. While the Salahis did pass though other security checkpoints including metal detectors, the fact remains that if a harmless couple can get in, so can someone who's intent is far more dangerous than publicity and a possible stint on a reality show.

I can only hope that after a full investigation the person or persons responsible for allowing the Salahis into the White House face disciplinary action, and before anyone else gets any ideas, I hope Mr. and Mrs. Salahi face charges for trespassing on federal property. However, I believe the most appropriate punishment for them would be for them not to invited to appear on The Real Housewives of DC or any other television program - although I am unfortunately quite sure we haven't seen the last of Mr. and Mrs. Salahi.

Email Jeff

White House Gate-Crashers: Shaun Hautly

It's not really a big deal. The biggest problem that came from the dinner being crashed by reality TV hopefuls, is that we're all talking about it and giving them the publicity that they want. There were other Hollywood celebrities and TV personalities there, what's two more at the table? If they weren't pleasant, I'm sure Obama can use his veto power to clear the table. I'd be okay if Hulk Hogan's daughter or Bret Michaels crashed the party. What's two other E-listers?
If this happened in a foreign country to our President, it'd be a totally different story. Say two Indian television stars crashed a dinner hosted for the Obamas. What would we do? Nothing. It wouldn't be that big of a deal. It's probably already even happened. The most that Americans would do is say that Obama was out of line for shaking their hands. These colors don't shake hands....

Meanwhile, I say we all stop worry about these little things. If we didn't make such a big deal out of every small piece of news to come out of DC, then these people wouldn't have made such an effort to crash it and get in the news. I know, once again, I'm only adding to the buzz by blogging about these people, but until we stop reporting every little thing, and criticizing every move, we're going to keep driving a wedge through our country and letting media paranoia shut us down.

Email Shaun

White House Gate-Crashers: Austin Lee

I remember my Grandmother reading Alice in Wonderland to me as a child.  In the story there is a character called "The Queen of Hearts."  The Queen of Hearts was not properly named, because at the slightest offense she would decree, "Off with their head!"  Not really a heart warming character in literature.  One of the more interesting things that The Queen of Hearts implemented was a new type of justice where the sentence was carried out before the verdict was determined.

Last week Tareq and Michaele Salahi crashed the first state dinner of the Obama presidency.  Immediately the news media began to behave much like The Queen of Hearts in my childhood book.  On every channel there were pundits screaming for their heads on a platter as soon as possible.  This happened on every channel, I looked.  It seems like no one wants to get down to the bottom of it: Sentence before verdict.

So they crashed a party, big deal.  As far as I know its not a crime to crash a party.  Judging from the picture of Joe Biden, he didn't mind Mrs. Salahi being at the party.  The problem for me isn't that they crashed the party, its why they crashed the party.  Our country has become so enamored with stardom and fame that a state dinner at the White House has become just another way to get your 15 minutes of fame.  Whether they are punished or not is not as important to me as whether or not we can find out how to regain the prestige of the Office of the President of the United States of America.

Email Austin

White House Gate-Crashers: Gabriel Mata

I personally do not believe that the recent party crashing incident is something to make a fuss about. Embarrassing? Of course, but that’s about it as far as I‘m concerned. The reason I am not up in arms about this happening is because I am an avid supporter of common sense and according to that ideology these people were obviously harmless. I strongly believe that whoever perpetrates the next attack on the United States will look and act nothing like Tareq and Michaele Salahi.

The event does however reveal the hypocrisy of the new progressive movement in a way I believe not many will catch on to. If we are to live in a world where racial profiling is useless and we are to be just as suspicious of granny as we are of Mohammed Ahkmed, then this party crashing incident is downright scary. My point is that to anyone who believes racial profiling is wrong this recent stir can not be viewed as anything but a dangerous breach of national security. As I have already stated I don’t think the incident is much more than an embarrassing mistake but that is entirely based off of my ‘assumption’ that the enemy does not and will not look like polo playing party crashers.

Assuming racial profiling is wrong however, should lead to an entirely different perspective. And I expect people with this perspective to react similar to the way I would react if a turban and burka clad couple waltzed into the party. Let me tell you If that happened I’d probably start believing in the 2012 theories, our goose would be cooked. Luckily, I don’t believe for a second that that couple would get in as easily and there is no doubt in my mind last Tuesday proved this. For if the secret service truly operated on the idea of equal opportunity terrorism, the Salahi’s would never have made it into the event. Instead they looked at the couple and made a decision. An embarrassing but nevertheless harmless decision.

Email Gabriel

White House Gate-Crashers: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.

Week in Review - Sunday

Patrick and Nikki are back for part two of their week in review. Today, Patrick shares his opinions on President Obama's falling approval rating, and Nikki vents about the new cancer screening guidelines.

After you read Patrick and Nikki's entries, make sure to tell us what you think by leaving a comment.

Week in Review - Sunday: Patrick Dresslar

Obama's Falling Approval Rating

I'm not surprised President Obama's approval rating has dipped below 50%.  When you combine a historic campaign rooted in bringing radical change with an American public that has never exactly displayed a great deal of patience with Washington, you are creating approval rating poison.  Obama promised a fundamental and momentous departure from his predecessor, and as far as tangible results there have been few.  We all know how naive and impatient the electorate is, and they haven't seen any of this change so of course his ratings will plummet. 

Although I hesitantly pulled the lever for Obama last November, I was always skeptical of a candidate that promised (and promise he did so many times) revolutionary change in a center-right country who's political pendulum is characterized by gradual, soft movements, not radical or violent swings from right to left or vice versa.  He looked like a naive politician who did not understand how Washington works, so I am not surprised he has had this much difficulty in his first year.  Additionally, although I praise Obama for his political eloquence and his good-natured demeanor, his policies are divisive.  In his pursuit of change, he has outlined his agenda for our country, and it is so polarizingly different from President Bush, people are going to have knee-jerk reactions, particularly the moderates and swing voters that put Obama into office.  They don't like out-of-control spending in a time of mind-boggling deficits and debt, so these factors result in his dropping poll numbers. 

Finally, people are still out of work.  We have not recovered from this crippling recession, and so in times of despair the people look towards Washington for blame.  And unfortunately and unfairly for Obama, he inherited a deteriorating economy which has not dramatically improved as fast as so many wide-eyed and green voters unfairly expected.  If President Obama can pass significant health care reform and can outline our plan in Afghanistan to the American people with candor and eloquence, I believe he can recover some of the ratings ground he has lost.  It is still very early in his term, so there is plenty of time to improve.

Email Patrick

Week in Review - Sunday; Nikki Lorenzini

Cancer Confusion

When I heard about the new cancer screening guidelines, it actually scared the crap out of me. For me, the month of November was a month of doctors appointments, and I can't imagine getting some of this stuff only checked only every other year. I honestly believe that some things really need to be checked every year. I am starting to believe that the insurance companies are starting to get even greedier and only pay out as minimal as possible. But, that is a whole other story.

But seriously, why would anyone want to put their health in their own hands like this? I personally never have faced any type of cancer, but I appreciate the fact of knowing that I am checked to see if I have anything. Plus, I read that women who are more sexually active need to have a pap test every year due to a higher chance of STDs. Why would women want to take those chances health wise ?

I also think that it is ironic that they only did this for women for things that they need to have examined every year, but what about men? Why did they only do this study for the women to see if they need all their examinations? Why would it be okay for women to give up some health issues when it is okay for the men to get all their parts checked every year? I think these new recommendations are just ridiculous and do not hold the patients' best intentions in mind and the insurance companies really need to be challenged.

Email Nikki

Week in Review - Sunday: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what Patrick and Nikki thought about these topics, have your say by leaving a comment.

Week in Review

Our contributors weighed in on several topics this past week, and today weekend contributors Patrick and Nikki add their two cents. Patrick shares his views on health care reform while Nikki tells us about her Black Friday adventures. Join in on the conversation by leaving a comment.

Week in Review: Patrick Dresslar

Health Care Reform

While it is encouraging to see the Senate Democrats get the votes to defeat any potential Republican filibuster on bringing the health care debate to the floor, I am not so convinced that the Dems will get the 60 to prevent a filibuster on that actual bill.  They are going to have to offer many concessions, and the far-left wing of the party, headed by Nancy Pelosi, seem stubborn on many issues (e.g., federal dollars for abortions).  While I am for health care reform, with the ultimate goal being an American form of universal health care, I am not confident that the far-left and far-right wings of the two major parties are going to come to a consensus to properly serve the American people by signing a health care reform bill into law this year. 

I do not have the exact numbers, but I believe that the majority of Americans want some form of reform and fast for a broken system.  There is a mandate for reform, but with divisive issues such as the infamous public option or federally funded abortions I cannot see the Democrats getting the necessary 60 to force some bill to President Obama's desk.  I pray that something gets passed, but in the polarized Washington we have, Democrats are going to have to concede some ground to accomplish their end goals.  Getting something done is more important than getting it all done in one fell swoop.  As the months unfold, I'll hope for the best while I prepare for the worst.

Email Patrick

Week in Review: Nikki Lorenzini

Black Friday: To Shop or Not to Shop

I would like one fact to be known about me: I hate shopping. Yes, I am a female and I hate shopping. Shock, I am breaking a stereotype and I am darn proud of it. Even despite my hate for shopping, I still go out on Black Friday. No, I am not crazy or brave enough to wake up at midnight and go to the mall, or sleep in line at some store. I wait till about seven, then I head into Center City Philadelphia and do some window shopping and discover the city. I take advantage of my day off and try to do different things on that day.

This Black Friday I went into town with my mother. We went to the Wanamaker Building, which is now home to Macy’s, watched a light show that they put on, went to a Christmas Carol display they have, and I watched my mom shop - and I bought a jacket. We ended up going to a free concert at Live at World Café featuring a really great English band called One Eskimo. I met them along with a crazy couple while I was standing in line. They were trying to hook me up with their son while my mom was finishing her lunch. I’d rather be doing that type of stuff than going shopping. I meet more entertaining people that way.

Will the recession hurt my holiday shopping? Nah. I am a huge fan of gift cards. Yes, I take the easy way out and buy gift cards for about half the people in my life. The tricky part is buying gift cards to places that won’t go out of business shortly after the holidays. Then again, those bank gift cards are a great idea. To make my least favorite thing in the world more bearable so I won’t have to go out, I’ll take people out. Me and my grandmother have a tradition: Every year I’ll buy her tickets to a holiday musical at a local theater the Saturday before Christmas. For only $60, we get to hang out for a night, and it's her Christmas gift! So, recession - take that! You don’t scare me and my Christmas shopping!

Email Nikki

Week in Review: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.

Black Friday - To Shop or Not to Shop

Black Friday is widely publicized as the busiest shopping day of the year, although the actual busiest day for retailers is the Saturday before Christmas. Still, Black Friday sales are a tradition, as shoppers get up at the crack of dawn (or even as early as midnight in some cases) to get the first pick of sale items. This year, economists say retailers are struggling to find the right balance of inventories and discounts while cautious consumers are hesitating about how much and when to buy.

Art, Shaun, and Austin share their feelings about Black Friday, along with Jeff - who was actually awake and at his local mall at midnight today!

Did you do any shopping today, or do you plan to do so? Tell us about it in our comments section.

Black Friday - To Shop or Not to Shop: Jeff Weiss

I've always wondered why people get up in the middle of the night in order to arrive at stores before dawn on Black Friday. Sales are nice, but I've never found any item worth literally losing sleep over. I never thought I'd be anywhere near a store before the crack of dawn on any given Black Friday.

Until this year.

A few stores in my local mall opened at midnight today, and I was there. There was a line to get in, but it wasn't unbearably long. However, when the doors opened at midnight the line of people quickly went from passive to frenzied as everyone rushed in to find their treasures. A few people were disappointed to discover only a few stores were open, but by 2am more stores opened - and more customers poured into the mall. At 3am one of the department stores opened, and along with that came more people. When Sears opened at 4am, there was a line of over one hundred people waiting to get into the store. At 5am, all of the other stores in the mall opened, and by then I had seen (and bought) enough.

Here are a few photos I took while at the mall.

Email Jeff

Black Friday - To Shop or Not to Shop: David Loftus

Every year the evening news features the same sight: crazed shoppers, flushed with the adrenaline of anticipation or the thrill of success, crowded near the locked doors of a mega-store in the wee hours or streaming through the long lines at the checkout stands, hooting and crowing. Who are these maniacal creatures, my wife and I wonder; what planet are they from? It was only a year ago, Nov. 28, 2008, that 34-year-old Wal-Mart employee Jdimytal Damour was trampled to death, and four other shoppers injured, by such a stampeding mob on Long Island.

We won’t be going out to shop on Black Friday, unless it’s to get an emergency supply of butter or coffee -- just like every other year for the past decade or more. As an officially Jewish household, Christmas has no significance to us. (She’s the converted Jew, I’m the unreconstructed non-believer; since I attend services irregularly and have learned many of the Hebrew prayers, I refer to myself as a “non-practicing atheist.”) Though I come from a huge family and my wife from a smaller one, the next generation on both sides is tiny: one nephew, grown, on hers and one niece in the fifth grade on mine. We might buy each other a couple nice things in December (or maybe not), and something for my niece and mother, who live 286 miles away, but those are more easily ordered online and mailed directly rather than requiring a foray into the retail jungle.

Living as we do, childless in a 667-square-foot urban apartment, we don’t particularly want any more things. For every item we acquire, we have to get rid of one or two others; better not to get anything more in the first place. Our families know we don’t need or expect anything from them, and the best gift is a meal out or a small travel adventure.

As for the Mongol hordes, every indication is that numbers will be down, but not for everybody. Discount giants such as Costco and Wal-Mart have fared well through the recession and will probably do well this week, too. Americans are shopping (a little) smarter, and that’s a good thing, I suppose. (Although my local coffee shop is already piping in Christmas music, dammit. The first place to stick to cool jazz or light classical -- or NO MUSIC AT ALL; just imagine that! -- gets all my business for the next month. . . .)

Black Friday - To Shop or Not to Shop: Shaun Hautly

Am I going out on Black Friday?! You betcha! While I'm not a compulsive shopper, I do enjoy people, and Black Friday has no shortage of those! It's incredible to see the emotions and stresses that people apply to themselves on this day. It's also exciting to set aside some money for impulse buys of those deals that are just too good to pass up! I'm a "Mac Guy," and bought my first mac on Black Friday for next to nothing. Who knew that was going to be such a great day? I did.

Black Friday is not a day of shopping, it's a day of buying. Most people out there have their credit cards on quick draw. This year will be no different. There may not be as many people, but they've all got that fire in their bellies, and they itchin' to swipe away this recession. I know it's hard for retailers to plan their inventories around an unsure blitz in the recession, but I sleep soundly knowing those shelves will have plenty of goodies for America's top consumers.

A lot of people get stressed out by the crowds, lines, and craziness that can occur during peak holiday shopping times, but if you can go out expecting such results, you can have a good time. I advise everyone who has some free time to go shopping on Black Friday, especially if you haven't before. It's fun to be out with everyone else, waiting in lines together, and potentially saving a lot of money. Try it, then email me and tell me you had a bad time. I dare you.

Email Shaun

Black Friday - To Shop or Not to Shop: Austin Lee

Growing up we had a rule about shopping:  "Buy nothing...(big pause)...unless it's on sale!"  I have lived by this creed for my entire life.  Black Friday for my family was like the greatest invention since sliced bread.  We spent many an hour in ________ (insert Department Store or Big Box retailer here) on Black Friday.  The sales were unbelievable: 50%, 60%, and sometimes even 70% off the retail price of the same shirt some moron bought on Wednesday at full price.  In fact, such was my father's penchant for sales that for Christmas 2002 he bought me a Chia Pet.

Since I didn't ask for a Chia Pet, I can only imagine that my Dad decided to change the rule to, "Buy something...(big pause)...because it's on sale."  I think I remember him telling me that it was 90% off when he saw it at the drug store.  For those of you that might not remember, a Chia Pet is a flower pot shaped like an animal or person's head.  You soak the provided seeds in water spread them on the outside of the shaped pot and fill it with water.  After a few days the seeds sprout and your Chia Pet has green sprouts for fur or hair.  If you have never had one, you aren't missing anything.

In the Lee family, we still love to find a good deal.  The recession has, however, changed the way we shop.  To be accurate, the recession didn't cause this change, the retailers themselves caused this change.  Over the last several months retailers have slashed prices so frequently that it has become hard to find something to buy that isn't on sale.  Whether its Black Friday or just a random Tuesday afternoon in August, everything seems to be on sale and deeply discounted all the time.  There is no longer a need Black Friday to find a good deal, we just wait a couple weeks and another sale comes right along.

For me, Black Friday just doesn't hold the same promise of a great deal that it once did.

Email Austin

Black Friday - To Shop or Not to Shop: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.

Happy Thanksgiving

Today, Nikki shares with us a special memory.

Thanksgiving is a time where family and friends get together to gorge out on food. Usually in my house, its just me and my immediate family getting together. But, one of my favorite Thanksgiving memories happened about four years ago. Earlier that year I had started going to a church in my neighborhood and I got really plugged into their young adults group. Every other Friday, they had a girls bible study. I became friends with all of them, and I was happy because I finally found some decent friends. So, at the beginning of the month, I got a crazy idea: have a potluck dinner at my house and invite all the girls. All 20-plus girls fit into my parents 4 bedroom, 2 story, middle class suburban home which has never seated (or was built to seat) 20 people in one room at once to eat a meal together.

I bought the turkey, all 25 pounds of it. Mind you, this was the first turkey I was making on my own, and during my then 23 years on the earth, never once watched my dad prepare the turkey. And, being cheap, I bought a cheap pan. Needless to say, there was turkey grease in my oven and I was out more money to buy another pan. I was cursing the dollar store pan, especially when I was strolling into the supermarket fighting with the lines. Then my friends started coming. And coming with all with their food. I don’t think I've ever seen that many pies in my life. The kitchen was getting over run with food, and it was starting to spill over into our dining room, which was already jam packed. The table that we had in our kitchen disappeared into the dinning room in between our dining room table with 3 folding tables being circled by a hodgepodge of chairs which even included heavy metal patio chairs. The food was great, and the turkey turned out well, despite me being overthrown of carving duty (being Italian and talking with both my mouth AND my hands- with a hug knife- not a good combo).

The best was when we were all able to sit around and actually tell each other what we were thankful for that year. It was more that just the food (which is a GREAT bonus), but it was more to see all of the good that was happening in our lives - to actually think of what we are thankful for. And at the end of the night, all 25 pounds of turkey were devoured, we had minimum left overs, I had plenty of help cleaning up, and I had proof that more than 20 girls can get together for a night and get along. I had a few get-togethers at my house since then. I've had barbeques, Christmas parties, and random get-togethers, but something about shoving all those people in one room makes people still talk. Even this weekend, my friends and I were talking about it when we got together and drug in furniture from my backyard. I know for some people this will be the norm today, and if that is the case, that is absolutely wonderful- and I mean that. There is something about surrounding yourself with people that you care about and being thankful for what you have. So no matter how many people you are meeting with, and even if you are sitting in lawn furniture in your dining room, try and make a memory of it. It’ll be worth it when you are still talking about it in years to come.

Email Nikki

Cancer Confusion

Last week the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-appointed panel of independent experts, advised against annual mammograms for women under 50 and also said women can even skip a year between examinations. Additionally, on Friday the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released new guidelines saying women don't need their first cervical cancer screening (Pap test) until they reach the age of 21. They went on to say women don't need follow-up examinations as often as previously recommended.

The new recommendations are controversial, as many women say early screening saved their lives – and they might not be alive today if they had followed the new guidelines. Art, Shaun, Scott and Sasha share their views on this topic – and you may find some of their opinions just as controversial as the subject itself. Don't forget to weigh in on the topic yourself by leaving a comment.

Cancer Confusion: David Loftus

First off, let’s remember and accept that some percentage of lives is always going to be at risk. No amount of screening and preventive practices is going to stop all incidence of unforeseen and unfortunately mortal cancers.

I don’t know the science or the statistics. But my common sense tells me that while, yes, earlier and more frequent tests probably saved lives in the past, the new guidelines are probably adequate for the population in general, and will certainly save the health system some money. Also, if people are not required or at least advised to get tested sooner and more often in their lives, many of them will not do it; in fact, I’m sure a significant number didn’t start as soon and go as often as they were supposed to in the past, nor will they under the new guidelines, and that’s their risk of potential loss.

At the same time, I doubt any doctor’s going to try to prevent women from getting themselves tested more often, or earlier. A few undoubtedly will, and I say more power to them. That’s what this is all about, from the patient’s perspective: taking more responsibility for being informed and choosing how to care for oneself. Don’t tell me the folks who are complaining about these newer, looser guidelines are saying we should have MORE government regulation and health care expense?

Cancer Confusion: Shaun Hautly

Upon reading that less frequent exams are recommended. I raised an eyebrow. There are two schools of thought here and I find myself in both. The first is the "Better Safe that Sorry," and the other is "I can handle that." While medical evidence and studies may now point to one, it should be noted that these are scientific studies. Scientific studies report trends. Just because "most people's early scans are negative," doesn't mean that people should stop getting them. This is where Safe vs Sorry kicks in.
Now, if this study changes health care plans to exclude these extra visits, we're going to have some problems. As it stands now, I think many women would opt to have the "unnecessary" exams, so long as it doesn't cost too much. If the plans begin to exclude it and women are forced to pay out of pocket to make sure they don't have cancer, they should be compensated if it's found. Heavily. Call it an "I told you so fee."

With the subject of national health-care on the tips of everyone's tongues, it seems like an appropriate time to settle this issue. Until there is evidence that frequent exams is detrimental, these tests and procedures should be covered by the provider. Besides a few extra exams is WAY cheaper than treating late-stage cancer. So why don't we all take the routine tests, put our minds at ease, and have a barbecue. 

Email Shaun

Cancer Confusion: Scott Hinkley

I like to think of myself as only a 'light' conspiracy theorist, but bear with me as I put on my tinfoil hat. I think that the action being taken to reduce the overall number of annual mammogram and Pap is the byproduct of back-room dealings with insurance companies. This seems like an extremely cost-saving piece of advice for the health care industry. In one fell swoop, the American medical community has granted insurance companies a pass when it comes to covering these tests. The implications are huge. This isn't a change in policy for a minority-subset of those with health-insurance, "all women" is a large constituency.

I have tried to find reasonable advice regarding why these tests are no longer being considered necessary, and all I could find what a lot of double-talk about how just because we have been testing doesn't mean we have been saving lives, and that overall it would reduce the rate of subsequent "unnecessary" testing. I can't imagine anyone in this country who is willing to consider their personal health to be a slave to the statistics. I feel that until we know an awful lot more about cancers, deciding that we are overly caution about testing half of our population for one of it's biggest health-threats seems like we are jumping to conclusions. I don't mind paying a tax on my health care to provide others with coverage (my interpretation of the current approach), but sacrificing preventive care because you aren't sure if it is preventive enough seems like too much forest and not enough trees.

Email Scott

Cancer Confusion: Sasha Smith

Cancer is something that I take very seriously. My biological father died of cancer and several women in my family have breast cancer. I must say that I was emotionally upset that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist released these new guidelines saying that women don't need to get cervical cancer screenings and breast cancer screenings on a regular basis. Is this really responsible? Americans already are under treated and being diagnosed at late rates. Is it really responsible for medical professionals to be telling this information to irresponsible people as it is. Now, I don't want to call all Americans irresponsible but there are so many things against us right now including the cost of medical treatment.

Our healthcare system is not in a place where we can tell the country that women no longer need to get yearly screenings. We still have 1 in 4 young women in college are still getting cervical cancer. We are now having a serge of HPV (cancer causing Sexually Transmitted Infection.) Have we forgotten there is no cure for cancer? If men could get cervical cancer and breast cancer (at the same rate as women get it,) would we be telling them to not get screenings that could save their lives? I just find it appalling that they are talking about mammograms and pap smears not being effective on the morning shows this week. I find it even more appalling that people say something is not working but then do not offer up any solution.  This is a very confusing message. I urge all women to continue to see their doctors on a yearly basis. 

For those of you that know me, I'm a conspiracy theorist and I wonder how the timing of this announcement. I mean really can we call this a coincidence. I guess the next thing that will be announced is that insurance companies won't cover yearly exams and will be giving consumers an extra charge if they want to try to save their lives a year earlier. 

Email Sasha

Cancer Confusion: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.

A Busy Day at AMERICAN CURRENTS

There is a lot going on here at AMERICAN CURRENTS today. First, we'd like to welcome Austin Lee as the newest member of our panel of contributors. Austin joins us from Atlanta, and enjoys weighing in on various issues. We're sure you'll find his opinions interesting.

Today also brings the first in a series of articles on Faith in America. David Loftus tells us about the controversy over atheists in Oregon. And, Sasha Smith shares with us her observations of Sunday's American Music Awards, including the controversial S&M themed performance by American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert.

Obama's Falling Approval Rating

For the first time since his inauguration, President Obama's approval rating has dipped below 50% according to the latest Gallup poll out last week, which placed his rating at 49%. While his approval rating was at 54% just two weeks ago, the down-trend has been continuing since last summer. Hard economic times, rising unemployment, and the debate over health care reform have all added to dissatisfaction for the president's performance.

Art and Scott weigh in on this topic, joined by new contributor Austin Lee. After reading their opinions, tell us what you think by leaving a comment.

Obama's Falling Approval Rating: David Loftus

To be perfectly honest, I haven’t paid much attention to Obama since I voted for him joyfully a year ago. I suppose I could offer the excuses that I know most of the coverage given to him in the media is diversionary fluff, and that the anti-Obama rhetoric that periodically manages to slip into my eyes and ears is so outrageously stupid and wrong that it’s better for my mental health to avoid it as much as possible.

It’s always been astounding to me how quickly and easily opinion poll numbers have slid up and down with regard to past presidents. My own experience has been that my general judgment of a candidate is almost always borne out by his performance in office, and that my feelings about him never change that much. So I don’t know what is going on in the heads of Americans whose opinions on such huge and complex matters as foreign policy, health reform, and the president’s performance seem to change as fast as their favorite flavor, iPod tune, or movie.

I’ve been irritated that the Obama administration hasn’t been as quick to get our military service people out of Iraq (AND Afghanistan, though he didn’t promise that), or as swift to shut down Guantanamo, or as certain about discontinuing certain noxious Bush administration policies, or as skilled at selling health care reform and the public option, as he had promised or seemed capable of being prior to his election. But I don’t mind much. I’m still glad he’s there, and I’m hoping for a few great things of him with time. I just wish other citizens would give him a chance to give it his best shot. I might have despised Dubya Bush, but I never wished for him to fail, let alone be killed. The free-flowing hatred in this country is a sobering and depressing sight.

Obama's Falling Approval Rating: Scott Hinkley

I can't say my opinion of Obama has fallen any since his election. My renewed hope in the rational thinking of regular Americans has not fared so well. I think that much of Obama's drop in popular support can be attributed to his campaign's commitment to American hopes and dreams. Where I feel Obama's team underestimated the American people is in failing to realize that we live in a nation of fantasies, and that our hopes and dreams are likely to be the least realistic of our opinions. Now that we still have the same problems we had, all be it with a much more intelligent and respectful global representative at the helm, Americans' unwillingness to accept the inherent contradictions in our hopes and dreams has become the largest obstacle preventing the fulfillment of any of them.

I don't think there is any way that Obama could have avoided any of these current pitfalls, as I think he needed to tap into voters' idealistic hopes in order to lift his supporters from their racist and xenephobic M.O.s long enough to follow their better judgement. I am a firm supporter of Obama's subsequent approach, which seems to be one of resolve and patience. I hope that we can show the same strength-in-character.

Email Scott

Obama's Falling Approval Rating: Austin Lee

I was asked to help a neighbor redo his bathroom the summer before I turned 16.  I asked him if he had done a lot of these and he said, "Well, this is the first one."  So, we learned together.  We both made plenty of mistakes that week, but each time he made a mistake, he would admit it and move on.  When I made a mistake, he would take them blame onto himself and say, "Well, I probably should have explained that a little better."  It really made me comfortable being led by someone like that.

President Barack Obama, similarly, has never led anything before.  (Well, he was a community organizer.)  And he has made several blunders this year, including: giving DVD's that wouldn't work to the British Prime Minister, assuring us that the stimulus package would reign in rising unemployment, making apologies for the United States, ignoring his campaign promise against lobbyists in the White House, and bowing to the Emperor of Japan.

In each of these cases he has refused to take the responsibility.  In sharp contrast to my neighbor, Mr. Obama, seemingly, blames the first person in eye-sight.  And, if alone, goes back to the old faithful: "It's George Bush's fault."  In my opinion Mr. Obama's presidency has been an abject failure.  He has failed to show that he is capable of being a leader that makes people want to follow him.  And until such time, his approval ratings will continue to reflect this lack of leadership.

Email Austin

Obama's Falling Approval Rating: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.

Faith in America: Atheism in Oregon by David Loftus

This is the first in a series of articles about faith in America.

Last week, an organization that calls itself the United Coalition of Reason placed ads on subway trains in New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston; on billboards in Chicago, Newark, San Diego, and three Ohio cities; and aboard buses here in Portland, Oregon.

The sign shows a blue sky with white wisps of clouds and the message “Are you good without God? Millions are.” In the corner it lists a URL for more information.

I was struck by the local response to the brief story about this ad. It went online at The Oregonian's web site just before noon Wednesday, Nov. 18. In less than 48 hours, there were more than 200 comments in response to the story and a graphic of the ad. The total has now topped 300. Before it goes offline in another week or so, you can read the thread here.

As will become obvious if you visit the thread, after the first day I contributed some comments of my own. Several things surprised me about the contributions, however. Although there was some outrage, and a few snarky insults from both sides, many more of the remarks expressed puzzlement and genuine confusion on the part of religious people. The secular humanist front was well represented, in number and quality. And the discussion didn’t deteriorate into a flamefest between a couple of repetitive and abusive die-hards. By my count, more than 110 different people commented, most of them only once or twice; less than a dozen posted five or more times.

In the Spotlight: Sasha on the American Music Awards

The American Music Awards were on Sunday night and we are still talking about it. Awards shows in American culture are an icon. Countries all around the world try to emulate American awards shows yearly. We do it the best or at least I should say we did it the best....

The AMA's were a large disappointment for me. As a fashionista, the start of the show was an indicator of how the rest of the show was going to be. The red carpet had more "worst dressed" than "best dressed." With the fall runway shows recently coming to an end you would have thought that some celebs were paying a little bit of attention on what was in and out (with my Heidi Klum, Project Runway voice.) When I have to name Selma Gomez (pictured) as best dressed at a major award show it's pretty sad especially when most people my age probably have no idea who the 18 year-old Disney star is it's an interesting night on the red carpet.

Many of you were just as disappointed with the presentation and performances of the awards as I was. Who was the host? I mean I did see Ryan Seacrest at the end of night promoting his next event (Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin Eve) but we needed someone to keep the night flowing and communicating with the live audience and TV audience. Having the presenters just come out to present a mere three nominee's without a transition was awful. Half the time the presenters didn't even know what they were saying and were being cut off by the intro of the nominee reel.

Heath Care Reform

The Senate voted Saturday night to advance with a floor debate on the health care reform bill. By winning the vote (60-39), Democrats prevented a GOP filibuster against the start of the debate. Every Democrat senator (along with two independents) voted to support bringing the measure to floor. All Republicans (except for one who did not vote) opposed it. The floor debate will begin after the Thanksgiving holiday.

Today, members of our panel weigh in on health care reform. Read what Jeff Weiss, Scott Hinkley, and Sasha Smith have to say on the subject, then have your say by leaving a comment.

Heath Care Reform: Jeff Weiss

People are passionate about health care reform, regardless of which side of the debate they favor. Never in my lifetime have I seen such a strong division across our country. And yet, it all seems very simple to me. People need health coverage. It is a basic need. We are the richest country in the world, yet we would purposely and without regret deny coverage for people who cannot afford to purchase insurance. Some say that it will cost too much. When I hear that excuse, I have to remind myself that the “war on terror” has cost us over $900,000,000,000 since 2001. Still, the debate rages on. Democrats and Republicans are split along party lines. Conservative and liberal television commentators stir the pot with their take on the subject. But at the end of the day, only the facts remain. Here are few things to think about:

TRUE:
* People who cannot afford insurance would be able to purchase it at a fair price.
* Insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
* Health insurers will no longer be able to cap coverage.
* For the first ten years, it will cost about $100 billion a year.
* People who chose not to purchase insurance will be penalized.

NOT TRUE:
* Illegal immigrants will receive free health care.
* Medicare will stop covering chemotherapy.
* Bureaucrats will decide who will receive health coverage.
* The government will pick your health coverage for you.
* The government will determine wages of health care professionals.

If you are happy with your health care coverage and feel no need to change it, think for a moment about your neighbor, who may not have coverage. Right now, 47 million Americans do not have health insurance. Most people get their health insurance from their employers, and we are currently at at a 26 year high in unemployment. We live in a country that seems to think it's fine to get into debt for a war, but not to give health insurance to our fellow citizens.

Health care reform isn't just needed, it should be demanded.

Email Jeff

Heath Care Reform: Scott Hinkley

I work as an independent contractor, and while I am now a working union member, I have spent almost all of my time up until this point outside the union umbrella, which means I provide my own insurance. I am fortunate to have a relatively clean bill of health, so my premiums have stayed low, but so has my coverage. While I will now ultimately see the cost of my union plan increase, since it will be considered a "Cadillac" plan, i still think it will be cheaper for me in the long run if people have health insurance, mostly so we can help people rediscover health.

The single biggest reason I want something that approaches universal coverage is that putting people in charge of their own health hasn't worked very well, and leaving it up to corporations has produced the most obese and over-medicated society to date. I am not a fix-it-with-government guy, but they are the closest thing we have to neutrality, even if they aren't exactly non-profit, and either way, they are the only organization with the authority over everyone. I want people to be more healthy because currently looking at American body-types makes me barf in my mouth and feel sad at the same time. I am ashamed that corporate greed has encouraged so much indulgence mixed with self-loathing. If you made money off of selling products that helped get us into this mess (I'm looking at you too Starbucks), you should feel fortunate that average Americans are willing to share the burden rather than asking you to pay it back proportionately.

I know government and business are perpetually intertwined, and that many things will come from the health care bill will go against my better judgment, but how can we talk of universal coverage until we support choices we wouldn't make ourselves? Ideological xenophobia is also BORING.

Email Scott

Heath Care Reform: Sasha Smith

In the city of Atlanta, we have seen first hand the issues that come into play because of the lack of health care reform. One of the few trauma one hospitals in the state was on the verge of being shut down last year because of financial strain. I think the average common folk might not be aware of how this is all tied in but I'm going to put it in lay man's terms.

Basically, there are over 40 million people in this country that do not have health insurance. How do they get medical attention you ask? The majority of these folks go to the public hospital's emergency rooms to be treated for health issues that should be seen by a non emergency medical provider. They don't have health insurance so they can not been seen by a private medical provider. In the end, citizens are paying extra tax dollars to try to save public hospitals all over the country because they are being used inappropriately. 

We haven't even considered the folks that are not being treated correctly or consistently because they can't afford it. It's leading people to steal, lie, and take extreme measures to get health care. The lack of universal health care effects us in more ways than one. In the end, there is nothing to lose in my opinion to try to reform health care. Our country is already generations in debt without health care reform. The war alone has us in a generations of debt why not let the generations of Americans have health care while their in debt. As a Canadian I would love to move to a system similar to my birth country or to Italy but there are too many people making money off the privatization of our health care system. My partner and I always discuss the fact that this country was built on greed and criminals. That philosophy is very much still alive whether you want to admit it or not. It's just sad that the 1% of the wealthiest Americans that are highly benefiting from this legislation will continue to benefit regardless of the basic economic rights of other fellow Americans. Health care for all is not a major point of consideration for who are against it.  We should want health care for all simply as a human right for all but I guess that philosophy doesn't work when you built your country by killing Native Americans and using Blacks as slaves to build your dream. How could you expect an understanding for economic or human rights.

Email Sasha

Heath Care Reform: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.

Week in Review 2

It's Sunday, so that means Patrick and Nikki are ready for part two of their week in review. Yesterday Patrick gave us his thoughts on the September 11th suspects being tried in New York while Nikki told us how she's surviving in the recession.

Today, Patrick weighs in on Newsweek's cover photo of Sarah Palin and Nikki tells us what she really thinks about overexposed celebrities.

After you read Patrick and Nikki's entries, make sure to tell us what you think by leaving a comment.

Week in Review 2: Patrick Dresslar

Sarah Palin vs. Newsweek

There she is again.  Let's be real here, it's not like Palin is clad in a bikini or some other revealing clothing.  She is in a jogging outfit.  Since when are the clothes you wear to go jogging misconstrued as sexual?  She is wearing a jacket (nothing revealing or sexual about that) and shorts.  Most of the focus here has been on these alleged "short shorts."  They look pretty standard to me.  And it's not like this was photo-shopped in some sadistic way, it is an actual photo that Sarah Palin took and was comfortable enough with it for it to be used on a magazine.  Granted Newsweek is using it way out of context, but to deem it inappropriate and sexist is a serious stretch in my eyes.  It casts Sarah Palin in the light she has created for herself.  She wants to be this "everyday, hockey mom, Joe six-pack" woman, and this picture falls right in that category.  In the picture, she is both this average soccer mom who raises her kids and keeps in shape, and also a hard-working mother with many out-of-home responsibilties and power (notice the TWO Blackberries).  A 21st century woman.  If anything, this is a perfect photo for her to further publicize the image she wants to get across.

So essentially, while the photo is a peculiar one for a news magazine to use for its cover, it is my belief that we are focusing on it way too much and Palin is using it to divert attention from the actual article's content.  Sarah Palin is a serious problem for the GOP.  Sure, she has a large following among women, but according to a recent Washington Post national poll, 60 percent of the country thinks she is completely unqualified to be president.  And many other polls have been conducted recently and reflect the same numbers.  With that said, are these numbers going to change before 2012 with Palin NOT HOLDING ANY POLITICAL OFFICE?  Of course not.  It is obvious to me that she is simply a power-driven, overly ambitious person driven to become president.  Well, if you want that you might want to remain in politics.  I have no idea why she would betray the Alaskan people and quit on them.  Oh wait I do.  To be more involved in national politics with her eye on the presidency.  Well Ms. Palin, you are doing it all the wrong way, and sooner or later the Republican Party is going to have to get a hold of you and your following, because you spell trouble for any chance of the GOP winning back the White House in 2012.

Email Patrick

Week in Review 2: Nikko Lorenzini

Celebrities We're Tired of Hearing About

I am just loving how the media is feeding into these people’s egos. I wonder what they would be like if they were not in the public eye. Seriously, up until a week ago, I had absolutely no clue who Levi Johnston was. And I only found out when I was at the gym and forced to watch Entertainment Tonight on mute...I need to start bringing a book! I actually forgot that "Octomom" had a real name. And I just realized that no one has talked about Michael Jackson in the past week. He was big news for a month after he died, but now he’s forgot with the million other celebrities that died in the same time span and were remembered momentarily, until the media moved on to the next mediocre “celebrity.”

When ever I hear of Octomom or John and Kate, I wonder why people care so much. I’m at the point that I turn off the television or change the radio station when they are on. I ignore articles about them on MSN when I click on the homepage. I don’t even read tabloid magazines. I am starting to enjoy being blissfully unaware of these so called celebrities. It makes me wonder what it takes for people to actually become celebrities. Sure, Sarah Palin is probably the only one that is actually close to being a true celebrity, which makes me remember Geraldine Ferraro. Remember her? She was actually the FIRST female to run for vice presidenct. Was Ferraro this interesting back in the 80’s after she lost?

I think I will boycot any type of entertainment news. It gives me a headache just even wondering what these people are famous for, if anything. Now, I could become a celebrity by getting pregnant with a gross number of kids or having a sex tape - and in the process compromising my morals and stooping to that level to get a TV show, book deal, and end up on Larry King. But is it really worth compromising my morals just so I can get my fifteen minutes of fame and in the process torture people with it?

Nah. I’ll stick with being mediocre for now.

Email Nikki

Week in Review 2: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what our weekend contributors thought about some of the topics of the past week, have your say by leaving a comment.

Week in Review

This past week, our contributors weighed in on topics that ranged from overexposed celebrities to the end of the world. Today, weekend contributors Patrick Dresslar and Nikki Lorenzini add their thoughts to some of the topics from last week. After reading their opinions, be sure to join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Week in Review: Patrick Dresslar

Terror Trials In New York City

Eight years later and we are finally going to have a trial to put away the fiends that perpetrated the worst attack on American soil in our history.  While I can't wait to read the newspapers the day Khalid Shaik Mohammed is either sentenced to death or put in solitary confinement for perpetuity, I don't agree that the trial should be held in New York. 

We all want to give this loser his martyrdom (although something tells me something else lies in his wait), I believe any trial should be one of state, and should he should be tried in a martial court.  Mohammed and his cohorts are enemy combatants, enemies of the state.  He and Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1998 with Osama bin Laden's fatwa, and any attack thereafter can be defined as an act of war against the US.  As such, this is a state and military matter, and should therefore be tried in the proper venue.  Furthermore, a civilian court trial for a foreign enemy combatant?  Come on.  Civilian cases disallow certain classified evidence that could be needed for conviction. 

Additionally, although Americans like myself want to see this guy dead (or imprisoned, whichever you prefer), the faster and with the least publicity we get this thing done, the better.  As others have mentioned, we don't need this guy using his time on the stand as his bully pulpit to any potential extremists.  Don't give him any kind of platform for his diabolical rants.  He has admitted to the crimes, and needs to be dealt with quickly.

Finally, I live in the financial district here in New York, and the attention and security detail are gonna make my life a living hell.  Just figured I'd throw that in there!

Email Patrick

Week in Review: Nikki Lorenzini

Surviving the Recession

During this recession, I know I lucked out. Thankfully, I was one of the few people who did not have to run and hide from the fear of unemployment. My job is extremely secure, and I can rest my head every night knowing that I have a job to go to the next morning. However, I still live at home. And I want to move out on my own. And I still have debt. And if you want to know one thing about me: I’m cheap.

I am one of those people who will go to Wal-mart with a stack of coupons. I will shop at Big Lots. Heck, to save a measly extra dollar or two, I’ll shop on Barnes and Noble website AND use my membership card, plus coupons when available. I will go to a particular movie theater Mondays through Thursdays because they have $5 movies then (and yes, they are current movies). I have my entertainment book which helped me save at least $300 this year alone on things that I was planning on doing anyway. I have my WaWa credit card which gives me money back (in WaWa gift cards), which I later use for gas (and if you live in an area without a WaWa, my apologizes on missing out). I make every point to figure out to save money when I do not have to pay full price. And when I do, tears are shed.

I am also one of those people who believes in getting creative when it actually comes to making money. Seriously, how many of these books do I really need? Am I going to re-read them? And all the shoes I have? I only have one pair of feet. Two summers ago, we had a block sale (get enough people, and it’s worth doing advertising in a local newspaper) and raked in almost $200 if memory serves me correctly. I can knit and sew. I'm trying to knit up enough hats and scarves to make it worth setting up a booth somewhere. I also have a friend who asks me to hem her pants- and she’s repaying me with lunch, but then again I love to eat- and she’s having me make her a scarf for some money. So make your talents work for you. It might not be much now, but if your low on cash, its always better than nothing.

Email Nikki

Week in Review: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what our weekend contributors thought about some of the topics of the past week, have your say by leaving a comment.

Sarah Palin vs. Newsweek

Sarah Palin is making headlines again, this time for a photo of her on the cover of Newsweek magazine wearing short running shorts. The photo of Palin was originally published in the August 2009 issue of Runners World magazine. Palin fired back with a message on her Facebook page:

"The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness - a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention - even if out of context."

Today Jeff, David and Shaun debate if Newsweek took the low road in using that image, or if too much attention is being paid to a magazine cover. After reading their thoughts, have your say by leaving a comment.

Sarah Palin vs. Newsweek: Jeff Weiss

I'm surprised Newsweek magazine chose to put a “pin-up” photo of Sarah Palin on it's cover. The headline screams “How do you solve a problem like Sarah? She's bad for the GOP – and for everybody else, too.” Clearly with a headline like that, readers will know the article isn't favorable. By using an image of Palin that was intended for a fitness magazine, Newsweek took what could have been a hard hitting essay on a political figure and turned it into a battle of the sexes.

Would Newsweek have put a photo of male politician clad in running shorts on it's cover? Probably not. I don't think we'll ever see a shirtless Barack Obama on the cover of Time magazine, or Tim Pawlenty clad in swim trunks on the cover of US News and World Report. However, if anyone had photos of Nancy Pelosi wearing a bikini, it would probably be the on the cover of all three news magazines. In a matter of weeks we'll be entering the second decade of the new millennium. Last year a woman came this-close to being the Democratic candidate for President of the United States and is now the Secretary of State. Another woman was the GOP candidate's choice for his running mate. And now a major news magazine – which has an almost limitless amount of images at it's disposal – picks a photo of Sarah Palin in short running shorts that was taken for fitness magazine to put on it's cover.

I've said before that I'm tired of hearing about Sarah Palin and that's because I feel after she left her job as governor of Alaska she stopped making “real” news. If she runs for president that will again put her in the spotlight as a news maker. And when and if that happens, she should make headlines for where she stands on issues that matter to our country – not for having great legs.

Email Jeff

Sarah Palin vs. Newsweek: David Loftus

I have not seen the photo, and I will not take the trouble to seek it out, since I have less than zero interest in Sarah Palin or her fortunes except as a comic sideshow, but this is an easy call.

Yes, Newsweek probably took the low road with the photo -- but Palin hasn’t done anything to deserve better. Yes, too much attention is being paid to a magazine cover, but Palin probably doesn’t really mind -- despite her pretended dudgeon -- because it’s more attention for her and will sell more books. As a former journalism major, she should understand how news magazines operate; and as a publicity-hungry, manufactured celeb, she too “will do anything to draw attention.” Her apparent umbrage is simply playing to her constituency and its love-hate relationship with the press: they’ll devour anything that strokes their prejudices while automatically deprecating “the media” as a whole.

Part of the tension here comes from Palin’s desire to have it both ways: she wants to amplify her “girl/mom next door” appeal and to be taken seriously as a potential world leader. One can’t really blame her for this, because it’s worked for others: people voted for Dubya because he seemed like a dude you could go out and have a beer with -- they said so -- and even Reagan played this game to some extent. What’s astonishing about the election of Barack Obama is that not only was he manifestly not a white guy, but he didn’t bother to hide his intellect the way even Clinton sometimes did to work his Bubba schtick.

It would be nice, for the nation and the world, if more voters realized the qualities you’re drawn to in a friend and neighbor are not necessarily the qualities you should vote for in a leader. Most Americans might not have liked George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, or Dwight Eisenhower in person, but these men were either qualified for the job or grew into it, in a way that George W. Bush never was and did (and, I would argue, Reagan failed to as well), and Sarah Palin is probably unlikely to.

Sarah Palin vs. Newsweek: Shaun Hautly

Wow. When I read about this I started googling for the cover, expecting to find some racy sex scandal picture that would make me close my laptop if my girlfriend walked by. Instead I found a woman in shorts and a jacket. Shorts that you'd wear to run in. Unless people expect her to run in Basketball shorts or pants, these seem pretty standard. This brings me to realize two things about the whole ordeal: 1) The Media is more bored than I thought, and 2) Come to think of it, I like Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin has made the cover of Newsweek before. It was a nice close up of her face. I did a google search for "Newsweek Covers" and found that only one had a full body. It was two men in suits back to back. All the other covers only showed someone from the shoulders up, sometimes the waist. It seems like a low, cheap move to use something like this for the old "any publicity is good publicity" scheme. This is not journalism. This is tabloidism. I wish the whole thing would have been ignored so Newsweek wouldn't see the boost in traffic they no doubt have revived. I know that writing about it now certainly doesn't help.

However, as I keep reading more and more about how much Sarah Palin is a nuisance, I continue to gain a lot of respect for her. She got yanked from her quiet corner of the country into the bright lights of media scouring and smearing. She stayed strong and proud. She angered a passionate half-country of Obama supporters just by rivaling the diversity she'd bring to the White House. She is a good looking woman in great shape. Any other woman in her shoes would not hesitate to wear shorts in an article about running. Her daughter screwed up her election by becoming pregnant, she handled it well as a candidate and a mother. Her world was turned upside down and she was asked to do it by the party she served and believed in. The fact that she's still in this country, sharing opinions and concerns is amazing. If this was a company instead of a country, anyone else would have quit a long time ago. I voted for Obama. I didn't think she was right to run the country, but not because she was poison. Credit given where credit is due.

Email Shaun

Sarah Palin vs. Newsweek: Have Your Say

Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.

2012, The End of the World

Over the weekend, the science-fiction film 2012 raked in $225 million worldwide at the box office. The premise of the movie is that the world will cease to exist in 2012. Now, this isn't just the imagination of Hollywood screenwriters at work – there are people who believe that the world will actually end of December 21, 2012. The theory stems from the Mayan calender which abruptly ends on, you guessed it, December 12, 2012. Additionally, astronomers say the sun will be aligned with the center of the galaxy for the first time in about 26,000 years on the same day. NASA is also predicting an unusually high rate of sun spots in 2012. Scientists say that we have nothing to worry about, but thousands of people across the United States, Canada, and Europe are joining survival groups... just in case.

Today, members of our panel share their views on the reality of the world coming to an eventual end, if they think it will happen in their lifetime, and the attention paid to the Mayan calendar theory. After reading the views of David, Jamie, and Sasha, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

2012, The End of the World: David Loftus

The world (as we know it) will not end in 2012. It won’t end in my lifetime or during the lives of anyone alive or born today. But it will end, and fairly soon, as measured by a slightly larger frame of reference -- say, the life of a tree.

Let’s dispose of the Mayan calendar schuck. Anyone who knows anything about Mayan culture and religion has been happy to tell the media that according to the Mayans, December 2012 is not a deadline for the end of the world but the turning point of a cycle of life. I am certain that nobody who worked on the film 2012 believes the world will end any time soon; they simply found a hook for yet another thrilling disaster movie in a long line, from When Worlds Collide to Millennium and The Day After Tomorrow.

What’s more interesting -- indeed, troubling -- is the readiness of so many Americans and “less civilized” people around the world to accord the slightest doubt or credence to the notion of “the end of the world” by some fateful or extraterrestrial design, whether aliens or The Rapture. If I may speculate, it probably comes from our sneaking suspicion of our own mortality and the simultaneous need to deny it. The world will indeed end for each of us when we die, and nobody wants that. The knowledge makes us feel that we don’t control our lives, and any time we don’t feel in control, many of us automatically want to shift the blame elsewhere.

Now, much of the time, we actually do have more control over the situation than we believe -- at the very least, over our responses to it -- but we choose to pretend otherwise in order to dodge the responsibility. In the case of death, it really is out of our hands. That knowledge is terrifying, so many of us find comfort in thinking it’s really out of our hands by telling ourselves that on the day we die, the world will end for everyone and not just for us.

But I did say the world as humans know it will end soon, didn’t I? I’d guess it will happen within the next 150 years. It will spark from either of the two historic sources of tension: scarcity of resources or an overabundance of waste (or a combination of both). On the one hand, diminishing amounts of sufficient energy, clean air and water, or food will heighten local violence and the frequency of wars; on the other, increasing amounts of plastic, PCBs, heavy metals, and nuclear waste in the environment will drive up disease and cancer rates (not just for us but for the domestic and wild animals that support the human diet).

It won’t be a bang, perhaps, but a series of small bangs all across the planet, accompanied by billions of whimpers.

2012, The End of the World: Jamie Metrick

Ah, yet another end of the world panic. Historically, they are almost as old as human civilization itself. About every culture has apocalypse mythology, especially our Judeo-Christian one. Ever heard of a little Christian sect called the Seventh Day Adventists? Throughout their church's history they have sworn the Rapture was nigh about six or seven times -- all wrong of course. The Medieval Vatican would also pull this stunt; predicting the End Times on specific date getting people scared for their eternal souls. And then on Judgement Day, nothing. But oh, how good is God for He has decided to grant us a reprieve! Until next time...

There is a lot of power to be had getting people that scared over the ultimate scary event. For modern people that fear used less for control and more for getting people to shill out cold hard cash. The ad team behind 2012 knew it and thanks to a good viral marketing campaign, they cleaned up big time. So will canned food and bottled water manufacturers. So will people selling 'survival kits' on Ebay. So will the pseudo-scientists who write books on 2012 and give lectures. And hopefully so will the real practicing Mayans who get good tourist revenue. Hey, anyone remember way back nine years ago to a little thing called Y2K? People thought that was the end of civilization. I wonder if those people who spent thousands of dollars on nuclear fallout shelters, have found a good use for them (pool house, rec room?). And then of course there is that multi-million dollar line of Rapture books and movies, The Left Behind series. Damn, those Evangelicals sure know how to market. The end of world, it seems, is quite a cash cow.

No, the world will not end in December 2012. I say this without any hesitation and total conviction. And if I'm wrong it's not like anyone will be around to say I told you so. But there are less grandiose things to worry about. To paraphrase Joyce Carol Oates' wonderful short story, "Apocalypse: A Diptych," the world comes to an end everyday in a thousand little ways we don't even notice.

Email Jamie