How Free is Your Speech?

The New York Times reports that editor-in-chief of the Colorado State campus newspaper is being asked to resign for referring to President Bush with a certain four-letter word. The editor wrote this opinion article in support of the young man that was tasered at the University of Florida. The main concern in this case is what constitutes vulgarity, and what is free.

So, you need to ask yourself; is vulgarity protected under freedom of speech and press? In this case the editor will probably be fired because there is a policy that campus publication can not use vulgarity in their opinion columns. But how do you define vulgarity, and is this really that bad? You may argue that a college campus should be mature enough to handle this kind of language. This may be true, but children would probably have access to this paper also. Even so, you could argue that this isn't anything worse than what these kids could see in movie or on television. Obvious, this is a very complex subject, and certain one that I am not equipped to answer. However, I see this as a potential rallying point of a new generation. It will, no doubt, take more than one four-letter word in a college newspaper to bring about social change, but everything has to start somewhere, right?

More Trouble in the GOP

ABCnews.com reports that several Christian-conservative leaders met over the weekend in Salt Lake City to discuss the upcoming presidential race. Apparently these leaders are extremely nervous because Giuliani may win the Republican nomination for President. The main concern with Giuliani is his apparent pro-abortion stances. During the course of the weekend, it was decided that if Giuliani is nominated for President, the Christian-right would back a third party candidate.

This decision could have many implications. First of all, it could ruin the primary for Guiliani. The Christian-right has played a major role in GOP politics since the Reagan administration. If the Christian-right backs a different candidate, it could sway many voters against Guiliani. Also, if Guiliani does win the nomination, and the Christian-right puts its support behind a third-party candidate, it could spell disaster for the GOP. It is starting to look as if the cards are stacked against the GOP in the 2008 Presidential race.

Cocktail Party!

The AP recently reported that the state of Tennessee decided that the classic "three drug cocktail" used for lethal injection actually caused unnecessary pain to the person being executed. So far, this is the third such ruling, and all three rulings have come from entirely different regions in America. The basic idea is that if the inmate is not given enough anesthesia (one of the three drugs in the cocktail) they will fell pain caused by the other two drugs (one to paralyze the muscles and one to stop the heart).

Some critics do not feel that this ruling will not change the death penalty; only delay current death sentences. However, this ruling could lead to many states conducting their own investigations in the area of lethal injections. Since lethal injection is the most common form of execution, a change in the system could put a huge damper on death-row. This might be an indirect route, but it could lead to reform in the legal system that many death sentence opponents have been looking for.

GOP in Trouble

A recent report from CNN states that the GOP's bid to take back the Senate could be over before it even begins. Next year there will be 34 seats being contested, and 22 of these seats are currently held by a Republican. Also, four Republicans are considered to be in "difficult" races next year, and three other Republican Senators will be retiring.

Obviously, the future of the GOP in Congress does not look to great, and it appears as if the backlash of the 2006 mid-term elections could be long-felt. There was talk after the 2004 election that the Democratic Party was in major decline, but the Democrats were bailed-out of trouble in 2006 when the American people showed their distaste for the Republicans (not necessarily their liking of the Democrats). It appears, however, that the Republicans never fully rebounded like many predicted they would, and the very thin margin the Dems hold in the Senate could become a substantial majority after the next election.

Clearing A Name

A recent report from ajc.com reports that Idaho Senator Larry Craig is currently trying to clear his name by attempting to reverse the his guilty plea in a Minnesota court. Senator Craig is adamant that his plea will be reserved, but the police remain skeptical. Craig maintains that he only entered a guilty plea because he was in a "state of fear" that resulted from his anxiety he felt because he was worried the story would become public. It was the Senator's understanding that if he entered into a plea bargain the case would remain private. This, however, was obviously false. It is also important to note that Craig has said he will resign on Sept. 30 which leaves a very small window of opportunity for the court to hear the case.

Since Craig has already said he is going to resign, it begs the question of which name people are trying to clear: Larry Craig or the GOP? Many experts have said that this incident could be a repeat of the scandals that helped Democrats gain a Congressional majority in the 2006 mid-term elections. If this is true, it may be extremely important for the Republican Party to have Craig cleared. Obviously, this scandal happened early enough that it will have little effect on the 2008 election, but the GOP may be learning from past mistakes by trying to stop snowball before it truly starts rolling downhill.

He Said, He Said

A few days ago North Korea publicly said that America had taken North Korea off of its international terrorism list. Yay! Obviously those American swine have come to their senses and can now see that Kim Jong-Il is actually a pretty cool guy. Not exactly. Shortly after a North Korean official said that they were off the list, it was reported by Reuters that North Korea was, in fact, still on America's terrorist list. It would appear, however, that the latest shennanegans from North Korea could put them higher on America's "S" list.

I can't even begin to understand why a North Korean official would say this when it wasn't true. Did they honestly think the White House wouldn't find out? Or maybe they thought they could break the story during the lunch hour, and no one would ever know. This whole ordeal actually reminds me grade school social interaction. Maybe North Korea will apologize by sending America a note a recess....

Uh.......One Year....Yeah, That Sounds Good.

According to a Sept. 5th article in The New York Times, an independent commission has said that a realistic timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq would be roughly 12 to 18 months. This article comes just one day after another Times article reported President Bush saying a troop reduction was possible. This news might seem reassuring to those who oppose the war in Iraq, but it also gives the American people the image that US armed forces are making substantial progress in Iraq. I'm not trying to be overly cynical, but we need to remember that another independent commission said the same exact thing back in February.

With all the talk lately concerning Bush's "legacy in history," it's a little hard to take reports like this too seriously. We've been hearing reports concerning a timetable withdrawal from Iraq for over a year now, and so far none of the estimates seem to be correct. It's also probably no coincidence that these reports are coming out just weeks before the big Patreaus report is due. Personally, I won't be taking these reports seriously until I can decide that it isn't all conjecture and hearsay. It's one thing to say you can do something, but it's another to actually back up those claims. Lately it seems that our government hasn't been doing a great job of following up on its preliminary "estimates."