The beauty of satire

The unique patriot Jon Swift provides a wonderful insight into the fight over minimum wage. Here is an excerpt:

Because American workers get paid so much, many businesses are outsourcing labor or moving overseas. If we want to compete, we are going to have to lower the minimum wage below the levels in countries such as China and India, whose economies are booming. In parts of China, for example, the minimum wage is about 20 cents an hour. In some states in India, the minimum wage is about 10 cents an hour. If we want to stop hemorrhaging jobs to these countries, we are going to have to undercut those rates.

Lowering the minimum wage would also solve our immigration problem. The minimum wage in Mexico is about 50 pesos a day, or $4.53. In an 8-hour workday, that's about 57 cents an hour, a little more than one-tenth of the U.S. minimum wage. If we just set the minimum wage below 50 cents an hour, how many Mexican immigrants do you think will risk their lives sneaking over the border for that? By significantly lowering the minimum wage below Mexico's, we could end the immigration problem very quickly.

Some Republican Senators have an even better idea: Abolish the Federal minimum wage altogether. They sponsored a bill that would let states set their own minimum wages below the already inflated Federal minimum wage. This measure would have given states the ability to compete to see who could pay workers less, helping small businesses and attracting new businesses. Some of the poorer states in the South, for example, could set their minimum wages at zero, which would allow family farmers to pay their workers by giving them room and board or scrip instead of cash. They could import workers from places like Africa, where just earning a little food and a roof over their heads would represent a significant improvement in their living standards. The South would finally rise again with this kind of economic stimulus.

Unfortunately, this measure didn't pass, but 28 Republican Senators voted for it, including potential Presidential candidates John McCain, Sam Brownback and Chuck Hagel, both of the Senators from Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina, and the bill's sponsor Wayne Allard. These Senators know that if we are going to compete with Third World economies we need to start paying Third World wages.

Blogging Jesus Camp

My wife and I watched the docu-drama Jesus Camp this morning. The beginning of the movie made her so uncomfortable that she repeatedly needed to leave the room. Here are a few random musings about the film. It is
certainly worth watching. If you plan to watch it, you may not want to read this.

1. The absence of theology:

There is no deeply religious or philosophical discussion about the Bible or about religion. Instead, there are a series of authoritative claims that people, especially kids accept without discussion. For example, consider one of Ted “I have lust in my heart and needed to resign from ministries Haggard’s comments: “We don’t need to have a general assembly about it. It is in the Bible.” This overlooks competing interpretations of the Bible, how to decide which competing verses are more important, how to discuss different translations of the Bible (in the Greek texts, the Mary is not a virgin but a young woman), and how to decide which rules to follow and which rules to overlook (there are over 600 rules in the OT—some people would gladly adopt the rule that prohibits two men form laying with one another like a man and woman, but would gladly overlook the ban of shellfish, wearing clothes that contain multiple types of fabrics, and the rules that state we should take slaves from neighboring countries and not from our own people.) Further, why should we decontextualize the rules? The rules on shellfish develop out of concern for proper dietary preparations during the time of the Old Testament. We do not have those problems today. We are not about to impose slavery. Well, hopefully we are not.

Side Note: There is a funny scene in the movie when Haggard discusses homosexuality, which was filmed before he resigned. It appears as if he is repenting on camera.

2. Literalism, in the Bible and in Life.

Everything is literal- Not only Biblical interpretation; there is no distinction between literalism in any aspect of life and there is no distinction between fiction and reality. They cannot admit that Harry Potter is fiction. The camp leader states: “Warlocks are the enemy of God. If Harry Party had been in the Old Testament, he would have been put to death…. This is a generation devoted to purity.” Another will not discuss ghost stories because they do not honor God.

It seems everything that is non-Christian is a threat to Christianity. The consequence of this would be the death of the imagination, the prevention of political consensus, and possibly, the prevention of a political consciousness. Though I doubt that the leaders of this movement would care any of these if they developed against literalism. Will the strict adherence to this literalism lead to a rejection of the basic tenets of the Evangelical lifestyle like it did in the Puritan community, or, will Evangelicals reconcile spirituality and materialism in a way that the Puritans could not.

3. Agency and Invention:

There is a lack of agency throughout the culture, which seems to contradict the entire notion of being “born again.”

When discussing how he writes a sermon, one of the children stated, “I don’t write. God writes for me.”

Another minister told the crowd of children that “Levi would be a God seeker from an early age” and God wrote the book of his life. These metaphors deny agency, which denies the theological concept of being “Born-Again.” Oh wait, see number one

The rejection of anything else in culture, such as Harry Potter, Brittney Spears, etc., allows the kids to develop ideas and arguments only from Christianity. Yet, without the theology, a larger discussion of faith and religion, and a misreading of the Bible to favor social issues (such as abortion—there is no ban on abortion in the Bible), these children are indoctrinated to have only religious and authoritative premises to work with when engaging others in the public sphere. There would be no common values between the religious and the non-religious or even between some religious sects and other religious sects.

4. The political and the religious

There seems to be a difference between the two in many ways, especially with balancing competing beliefs in society. Yet, the subjects of the movie fail to differentiate between the two and reject communities other than the Evangelical Christian community. One little girl rejects the community because only God will “judge her.” Another Ted Haggard stated that if the Evangelicals vote, they determine elections. There is little need for political consensus.

Global Warming: While I can understand the rejection of some topics such as the absence of school prayer or including evolution but not creationism, but global warming? In one scene a mother home-schools her child and refutes global warming (because the average temperature of the Earth increased less than 1 degree in the past century). There seems to be less concern over stewardship of the land because there will be an imminent return. This plays into the hands of others on the right.

During the camp, they received a visit from “President Bush” in the form of a cardboard cutout. One leader mentioned he surrounded himself with spiritual people. They kids reaffirm their beliefs about religion and G.W. Bush as they recite, “One Nation Under God.” Yet, religious conservatives do not seem to be willing to hold the President accountable for civilian deaths in the war, torture, and for not enacting the social policies the base desires.

America is a Christian Nation: there is a reliance on a literal interpretation of the Bible except for this. There is no mention of this in the Bible and the historical interpretation does not warrant this; how can people reach this conclusion? The best example seems to be the treaty of Tripoli enacted by the Adams administration and the Congress of the time.

Pledging allegiance to a Christian American and the Bible seems dangerous.

5. Odd Practices:

Blessing the absurd: Before camp started, the leaders blessed the pews,
the computers, the electricity, and the Power Point because the devil
wanted to interfere.

Speaking in tongues and the constant crying: This is just too much, especially for the way in which the pathos supercedes the logos. There is no need to discussion.

Libel Laws, Blogs, and Texas

Viki Truitt, a state representative from Texas, pre-filled a bill to limit defamatory comments on the internet, epecially, it seems, blogs. According the the Dallas Fort Worth Star Telegram, the language of the bill "specified that the author of defamatory statements expressed on the Internet would be subject to the same libel limitations as the author of any other statement 'in any other written or graphic form.'" The intent would bring some "civility" to the blog world, or, at least to diminished comments that some object to because they insult individuals and provide little social worth.

The problem, if this bill or any one like it passed, would be the "chilling effect" of speech and would provide one set of standards for traditional, and reserved media outlets such as the Mass Media, and another set of standards for the bloggers. It seems that it would be easier to control the elite and harder to control the people.

Texas is not the only state considering a bill. Tennessee and considered and withdrew support for a bill.

Under current US Defamation Law, it is very hard to prove and very hard to convict. First, Slander applies to spoken discourse ad libel applies to print doscourse. There are two types of libel- liberl per se (the statement and libel per quod (based on circumstances). The first covers statements about criminality, whether or not the person has a contageous disease, attack of a reputation, and attack on sexual immorality. The second type is based on circumstance. If you asserted a person was perfectly healthy and the person received money for health insurance this could be libel per quod. I do not know how satire or irony affects both.

The current Supreme Court test seems to protect freedom of speech over protecting the individual who is criticized by the remarks to ensure a chilling effect does not occur. Private persons receive more protection than public persons. The defenses against a libel complaint are (1) truth (2) comments dows not harm an already tarnished reputation (3) it is a privileged communication and (4) the comment needs to be made with actual malice. The fourth is the hardest to prove.

This may be something worth watching.

A few songs that take me back to my recent float trip down the Amazon

Does anyone know...

when Harrogate will be returning from his backpacking adventures through Southeast Asia. I can hardly wait until he's finally able to plug into the web and post to our blog again.

Why doesn't the war on terror exist?

In the recent L.A. Times editorial, "Is Hollywood too timid for the war on terror?" Andrew Klaven chastises Hollywood for not examining the War on Terror. “Because the war on terror is the history of our time,” Klaven writes, “The outcome of our battle against the demographic, political and military upsurge of a hateful theology and its oppressive political vision will determine the fate of freedom in this century.” Yet, even though he labels this war as “our” history and, in doing so, deflects away from the partisan interests that developed this war since the 2002 mid-terms, Klaven believes it is Hollywood’s fault. Television attempts to tackle the War, but movies do not because movie makers want us to beleive that if we ignore it, it will go away. The movie industry is the perfect fit to tell the ultimate good versus evil tale so why doesn't it?

That kind of rousing story seems tailor-made for films. So why aren't they telling it? It's not just about left and right, blue and red; it really isn't. You don't have to like President Bush or support our efforts in Iraq to understand the threat of conspirators plotting to kill your children in the name of jihad.

In all fairness, moviemakers have a legitimately baffling problem with the nature of the war itself. In order to honestly dramatize the simple truth about this existential struggle, you have to depict right-minded Americans — some of whom may be white and male and Christian — hunting down and killing dark-skinned villains of a false and wicked creed. That's what's happening, on a good day anyway, so that's what you'd have to show.

Moviemakers are reluctant to do that because, even though it's the truth, on screen it might appear bigoted and jingoistic. You can call that political correctness or multiculturalism gone mad — and sure, there's a lot of that going around. But despite what you might have heard, there are sensible, patriotic people in the movie business too. And even they, I suspect, falter before the prospect of presenting such a scenario.

We cherish the religious tolerance of our society, after all. Plus, we're less than a lifetime away from Jim Crow and, decent people that we are, we're rightly humbled by the moral failures of our past. We've become uncomfortable to the point of paralysis when reality draws the limits of tolerance and survival demands pride in our traditions and ferocity in their defense. We can show homegrown terrorists in, say, "Déjà Vu" or real-life ones, as in "United 93," but we can't bring ourselves to fictionalize the larger idea: Islamo-fascism is an evil and American liberty a good

I think that the writer wants Hollywood to revert back to the WWII era, where the government and the movie industry produced propaganda to unite the American public. Further, he asserts that its Hoolywood’s desire for political correctness that diminishes this objective. However, I have a better idea: let’s have a non-partisan attempt to define the War on Terror.

In the recent SOTU Address, President Bush finally discussed the differences between Sunni and Shia, though it seems from the address both groups are our enemies and our allies. Politicians have not been able to fully define this war without being partisan. Yet, the writer asks Hollywood to engage the complexities of the War on Terror in a two-hour film without discussing American involvement or American-morality.

This article pushes the burden of proof from our political leaders and citizens to the movie industry. While it may not be bad to develop such movies and these movies may help the general public, this article covers uneasy ground into the area of propaganda and asks little of the elected officials and the citizens of this country to engage in an active debate over the topics. Instead, and much worse, it asks the general public to be apssive consumers and ot be patriotic while supporting these movies. Further, it asks nothing of our politicians.

Emboldening the Enemy

After watching some of the Sunday talkshows, I have decided that all actions, and even no actions, embolden the enemy. This leaves us in an absolutely delicate situation where we can and must do everything, but also, do nothing.

On the McLaughlin Group, Tony "I think those who object should be silent regardless of whether or not it is their job to discuss issues, especially in Congress" Blankley of Genghis Kahn's The Washington Times stated that the Resolutions drafted in opposiiton to President Bush's "Surge" or "Plus-Up," or "Super-Power Up," or "Wonder-Twins' Powers Activate," or "Fill in your own title here..." emboldened the enemey.

Over at ABC News, Senator Joseph "I Just plagarized once and it was my aide's fault" Biden stated that a "Failed Policy" Emboldens the enemy.

Confused? Well don't be since it might embolden the enemy.

In 2004, President Bush delcared we can embolden the enemy by sending mixed messages. During the 2004, 2005, and 2006 elections, we learned that criticism of the war emboldens the enemy. In 2007, former cult, er... I mean former Aggie leader Robert Gates declared that the Senate resolutions (against the surge) emboldens the enemy. When the Aggies beat the Longhorns the day after Thanksgiving, the Aggies not only emboldened the enemy, but emboldened the Longhorns to sue for copyright infringement and maybe even to beat the Aggies in '07. Liberals embolden the enemy for, well, just being liberal. Conservatives in the US never embolden the enemy though the number of terrorist attacks world-wide increased after 2001 when they have been in power. Our freedom elboldens the enemy since they hate us for it. Moonlite waterfalls (the title of an email I just received) emboldens the enemy. If we keep emboldening the enemy like this, I think we are all one step away from "aiding and abetting" the enemy.

If everything emboldens the enemy, I think it would be important to learn who exactly this enemy is. If not, why bother having an enemy in the first place? As a solution, I propose that we must all examine our conscience (under the covers, with the lights out, and with a friend, so no one can see us and we do not run the risk of emboldening anyone or anything) and ask the following questions:

Who is this enemy? What do they like or not like? What will or will not embolden them?
Does the presence of tanks and military personal in their home country or region enbolden the enemy?
Do "Happy Meals" embolden the enemy? If they do, one pressing issue in the 2008 elctions would be to call for a name change to turn them into a "Less-Happy Meal" or maybe even a "Somber-Meal," "Non-Freedom Rations," the "Gothic Meal" or the "Macabre Meal." I can see how this would be a wise business venture and save the Country. Further, we would no longer embolden the enemy!!!

Other suggestions to avoid emboldening the enemy?

Dewey, or Dewey not?

Last week Solon posted on death threats over pizza. I responded to his post with a comment about a sign in front of a liquor store that reads "American-owned." Solon and I noted how both these instances attempt to exclude Americans who embody some kind of otherness. We also acknowledge how uncomfortable it can be when such attempts to marginalize and exlude groups are cloaked in a language of patriotism.

I've been reading some John Dewey today, and I think he aptly addresses the issue of American otherness:

No matter how loudly any one proclaims his Americanism, if he assumes that any one racial strain, and one component culture, no matter how settled it was in our territory, or how effective it has proved in its own land, is to furnish a pattern to which all other strains and cultures are to conform, he is a traitor to an American nationalism. Our unity cannot be a homogenous thing...; it must be a unity created by drawing out and composing into a harmonious whole the best, the most characteristic which each contributing race and people has to offer. ("The Principle of Nationality" 288-89)

Guaranteed to break the ice at parties

Here is a fun party game: Try to discern what these symbols mean in this cartoon from Captain's Quarters.

Call the Attorney...

Wait... on second thought you may not want to call this attorney, the top attorney in the United States. Yester, while testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales declared that not every citizen or individual in the United States possess the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. Instead, he assured us, that Congress cannot take the right away. Oddly, is Congress cannot take something away, there must be something to take away (a simple correlation of ideas).

Here is the Constitutional Right in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”


Here is the transcript:

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

Torture is okay...

if it occurred before December 30th, 2005. From CNN:

Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, a legal adviser to the Office of Military Commissions, told reporters that the manual provides for a "clear prohibition of evidence obtained by torture" if it was obtained after December 30, 2005.

But if it was obtained before that time, and if the judge determines that it is reliable, it may be admitted, he said.

Why bother with a cut-off date?

The UNI Ranking

I know, I know: I am way beyond my time.

Paul Lukas, at ESPN, developed the "UNI Ranking," which gauges a city's performance in the crucial category of athletics aesthetics with the uniform numerical index, a.k.a., the UNI.

For an explanation:

Here's how it works: First, only cities with at least three major-level sports teams are eligible for a UNI ranking (college and minor league teams don't count -- because there are too many of them and because their uniforms tend to change too frequently anyway). Unfortunately, this means two-team cities such as San Diego, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Buffalo and Nashville didn't make the cut (and are therefore implicitly uninhabitable). But ineligibility can have its advantages: Because Cincinnati has only two teams, for example, it was spared the albatross of having its ranking pulled down by the Bengals.

Assigning teams to specific cities involved a few judgment calls. Should the A's, Raiders, Warriors and Sharks count as San Francisco teams? (Yes.) Should the Nets, Devils and Islanders be filed under New York? (No.) Should the Patriots be assigned to Boston? (Duh.) That sort of thing. After lots of careful consideration, Uni Watch ended up with 20 U.S. cities plus Toronto meeting the three-team standard.

A rigorous, highly scientific set of standards then was employed to rate the uniforms of each team in the 21 cities. The ratings, on a scale of one to five stars, roughly translate to the following expressions of civic pride (or angst, as the case might be):

Five Stars = "Man, is this a great city or what? Why didn't we move here sooner?"
Four Stars = "Hey, maybe that broker's fee wasn't so outrageous after all."
Three Stars= "I really like it here. But you know, I like lots of places."
Two Stars = "I pay property tax, school tax and garbage tax just so I can look at this?"
One Star = "Call the movers -- we're leaving tomorrow."

After adding up a city's ratings and dividing by the number of teams, Uni Watch ended up with the city's average score. Because a uniform can be enhanced or diminished by its surrounding context, especially on TV, a stadium/arena bonus (for particularly attractive settings) or penalty (for domes or artificial turf) of as much as one point was applied to certain cities. The average score, plus this bonus or penalty, yields the city's final UNI, destined to become the key yardstick of urban stature.

The winners (rating in parentheses):
(1) Boston (5.25- Everyone looks good at Fenway; bonus point awarded)
(2) Chicago (4.8)
(3) San Francisco (4.33)
(4) (tie) Los Angeles (4.0)
(4) (tie) Pittsburg (4.0)

Rounding out the top-ten:
(6) New York (though, the Islanders fell off the radar) (3.83)
(7) (tie) St. Louis (3.67)
(7) (tie) Cleveland (3.67)
(10) (tie) Philly (3.5)
(10) (tie) Houston (3.5)

I think that the writer should have created a top-ten list for the unlivable places.

Next time I'm on campus, I'm traveling to the library like this.

In Honor of MLK Jr...

Here is an excerpt from Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail." I prefer this to "I Have a Dream."

This is a great passage to use in class to discuss the style of the argument reinforces the argument. In the second paragraph, King combines anaphora (repetition at the beginning of a clause) with copia (excessive use of clauses) to argue that civil disobedience is the necessary course of action and the timing of the boycotts and protests is correct, especially for the demonstrations in Birmingham, which occurred over the Easter holday-- a time when, traditionally, shopping was very important to the local economy.

Here is the passage:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Further attacks on a free society...

According to CNN:

Charles "Cully" Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said in a radio interview last week that companies might want to consider taking their business to firms that do not represent suspected terrorists.

Stimson's remarks were viewed by legal experts and advocacy groups as an attempt to intimidate law firms that provide legal help to all people, even unpopular defendants.Sonnett said in a statement that Stimson had made a "blatant attempt to intimidate lawyers and their firms who are rendering important public service in upholding the rule of law and our democratic ideals."

Stimson on Thursday told Federal News Radio, a local commercial station that covers the government, that he found it "shocking" that lawyers at many of the nation's top law firms represent detainees.

Stimson listed the names of more than a dozen major firms he suggested should be boycotted.

"And I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms," Stimson said.

Who needs to live by the ideas in the Constitution.

Death Threats over PIzza

From CNN: A pizza joint in Dallas received death threats and hate mail since it catered to its office, I mean, allowed customers to pay in pesos. One email stated, "This is the United States of America and not the United States of Mexico." According to the business, 60% of its customers are hispanic. So far pesos payment accounts for 10% of the sales.

This seems to be very peculiar, especially because of the location. When I lived in New York, no one cared whether or not customers paid for their goods in American or Canadian currency. Most of the sales clerks knew the currency exchange rate, customers would pay, and then receive any change in U.S. currency.

In Texas, the story is quite different. While some of the outcry is over "illegal immigration" this does not make sense. Either the business is doing an excellent job of attractive new customers on a consistent basis or the business caters to illegals that have an unlimited supply of pesos. Both of these seem unlikely. I do not want to speculate, though I fear I know, what this really suggests.

Criticism of this business plan seems as ridiculous as towns that make either English or Spanish the official language of a given subdivision.

In both issues, it seems to make an "other" out of a group. Worse, one strategy in the immigration debate is to characterize any non-white as non-American. You can only be "American" if speak English and look "American."

Maybe, if more laws like this pass, we should make a requirement that Americans should speak and write correctly. Isn't that the next logical step?

New Artist of the Week

Maybe the first of multiple installments. It depends on the availability of artists,

Here is a link to the song "Heartbeats" by Jose Gonzalez. He is a bluesy-indie/folk singer/ songwriter. "Heartbeats" reached #9 on the UK charts.

On the downside, the video in question is a commercial for SONY Televisions. This is not a plug for that, but it certainly is for his work, especially his album "Veneer".

Another first...

In light of the debacle about which Solon reports in "Playoff? What do you mean playoff?" (The Rhetorical Situation, 08 January 2007), I will be the first major media figure to declare that a playoff is needed for college football.

Playoff? What do you mean playoff?

As the BCS Title Debacle reaches an ending and the score now 41 - 14 in the fourth, who will be the first to declare that a playoff is needed for college football?

And how do you convince the presidents of the major Universities that college football needs a playoff?

And how do presidents of major universities declare to the nation that academics for division schools, especially for football players, are not important?

How do you ask universities to schedule one less game (with the loss of guaranteed profits), for a chance at another game?

Just some basic questions, that's all.

Political Communication through Music

This semester I will be instructing a Political Communicaiton class. While trying to find new ways to reach my students, I decided to spend a week discussing music as a form of political communication. The songs must address political issues, with political being thought of as control and use of the basic resources and interests of a community or the arrangement of relationships between individuals in a community.

I have been putting together a list. Here are some example listed by artist, song, and theme. I am sure that there are multiple songs tha I am missing, especially when it comes to Rap (this is one genre of music I know little about).

(1) What am I missing? (Especially in regards to minority voices such through women artists and in rap)

(2) Why is there a dearth of political music in the 1990s? (There may be a few answers to this quesiton such as an "era of Good Feeling" after the end of the Cold War, an economic boom, the rise of Clear Channel and the centralization of playlists, the lack of social unrest to protest, and the rise of individual angst and the commodification of that angst.)

Here a brief list (there are many songs i am missing):

1960s
Barry McGuire “Eve of Destruction,” (imminent apocalypse, 1965)
Bob Dylan, “Blowing in the Wind,” (civil rights, anti-war; 1962)
Bob Dylan, “"The Times They Are a-Changin’” (Social Protest; 1963)
Creedence Clearwater Rivival “Fortunate Son,” (Those that did not fight, 1969)
Merle Haggard, "Oakie from Miskogee," (Anti-Protestors; 1960s)

1970s
Marvin Gaye, “What’s Going On,” (Vietnam; 1972)
John Lennon, “Imagine,” (anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-religion, anti-corporation, 1971)
John Lennon, “Give Peace A Chance,” (1972)

1980s
Bruce Springsteen, “Born in the U.S.A,” (Soldiers Retuning from War, 1984)
Nina- “99 Red Balloons” (Nuclear Proliferation, 1984)
R.E.M. “Orange Crush” (Vietnam)
U2, “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” (The Troubles in Northern Ireland, 1983)
Fugazi, “Suggestion” (Objectification of Women” 1989)
Public Enemy, “Fight the Power,” (1989)

1990s
Arrested Development, “Tennessee,” (lynching; 1992)
Guns N’ Roses, “Civil War; (a tribute to anti-war songs; 1992)
The Cranberries, “Zombie,” (The Toubles, Easter Rising; 1994)
Rage Against the Machine (multiple songs though there may be something rotten in Denmark about this band)

2000s
Alan Jackson, “Where were you,” (September 11th; 2002)
Toby Keith, “Country of the Red, White, Blue, Blue” (September 11th; 2002)
Dixie Chicks, “Travelin Soldier,” (Anti-War; 2002)
Dixie Chicks, “Not Ready to Make Nice,” (Anti-Bush Remarks,, 2006)
Bruce Springsteen, “Into the Fire” (September 11th; 2002)
Green Day, “American Idiot,” (Ridicules American under GWB; 2004)