The merger of the campuses of Augusta State University and Georgia Health Sciences University has been in process for some time. A major part of that process was, of course, naming the new university. Names had been thrown around, but ultimately there were three choices for the Board of Regents to choose from: Georgia Arts and Sciences University, Georgia Regents University, and University of Augusta.
Popular opinion in the city of Augusta quickly coalesced around University of Augusta. After all, it would have reflected a tradition of the name of the city staying in the title (with Augusta College and Augusta State coming before it) and it would have made perfect sense from a marketing standpoint. While Augusta has The Masters and James Brown as claims to fame, it wouldn't hurt that the new university still keep the name of the city.
Of course, this meant that the Board of Regents chose the least liked name: Georgia Regents University. As soon as it was announced yesterday (Aug. 7) the uproar was swift and virtually unanimous. For proof of the amount of citizens upset over the decision, just look at the comments against it on The Augusta Chronicle's story, as well as the hastily formed facebook group "Everyone Against Georgia Regents University Sound Off", which has over 2,300 likes after only a day of operation.
Suffice to say this isn't over, as there's already talk of protests against the name, as well as Regent University in Virginia not being happy about the name either. Expect to see more here, but right now most citizens of Augusta want something more than sharing an acronym with a Russian intelligence agency or the villain from an animated film.
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson (one of my favorites) makes an astute observation that this year's election campaign may depend as much on overseas events as on domestic concerns about the economy:
It may not be the economy, stupid.
Then again, James Carville’s famous maxim about the 1992 presidential campaign might well be valid in 2012. But it’s quite possible that on Election Day, voters’ most urgent concerns — economic or not — will be driven by overseas events that neither President Obama nor his Republican opponent can predict or control.
Robinson notes Afghanistan, Korea, Syria, Iran, and events in Europe as potential pitfalls for both the President and Governor Romney. While overseas events have had major impact on presidential campaigns (1940, 1948, 1968, 1980, and 2004 come to mind with varying degrees of impact), 2012 presents so many different international issues that trying to predict the election right now is a fool's errand.
Sunday will see the first round of voting in the 2012 French Presidential Election. The key candidates are Nicholas Sarkozy, the incumbent president of France; Francois Holland, the Socialist Party candidate and seen by many as the favorite; Marine Le Pen, the far-Right candidate who's made noise much as her father, Jean Le Pen, used to for their National Front Party; and Jean-Luc Melenchon, candidate of the Left Front, a coalition of lefitsts.
The economy is the big issue in France, and it may be one of the factors that costs Sarkozy his job the same way it has cost incumbent governments their positions in the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain. The Washington Post has a fascinating piece about why the election should matter to Americans here. Suffice to say, with French discontent with the current structure of the European Union at an all time high, and the fragile coalition struggling to deal with the myriad of economic crises facing the world, this election may have effects on our own, and certainly on the future of the relationship between France, Europe, and the rest of the world.
Do the French know that? Or are they seeking an escape from a Europe that has somewhat passed them by:
But few things have been said about the gravity of the French economic crisis: the deficits in France’s public accounts and balance of payments; its drop in competitiveness; its decline in international commerce; its apathetic growth.
Discontent with the Establishment and the elite is high in France right now, due to the economic crisis and the malaise French mainstream politics have become to millions of French citizens.
The two-part structure of France’s presidential race means that many voters may be using the first round to afford themselves a protest vote. Even so, analysts say, the number who appear willing to do so by voting for the political fringe signals an alarming degree of disaffection, even anger, among the French at a critical time when they must decide which direction to take in addressing the grinding euro crisis and their nation’s economic malaise.
I'm almost surprised we haven't seen some sort of third party rise up in the United States. Putting aside talk of a centrist candidate drafted via the internet, nothing else has come up--yet. But in France, due to their unique electoral system, the system will hear the complaints of millions who want more out of their candidates.
Despite being named Stanley Cup MVP, Thomas refused to join his team in D.C. when Obama honored the Bruins, citing political issues. In a statement posted on Facebook,
Thomas said he believes the federal government "has grown out of control" but also wrote that he blames both political parties.
Before the playoffs began, Thomas abruptly ended a media session when a question was asked about the skipping out on Obama.
Capitals fans didn't let him off the hook that easily. In honor of Thomas' White House snub, several Caps bloggers coordinated a fan effort to revisit the story and taunt him with pictures of Obama's face and posters depicting the president (some which were gigantic).
This is the first time I've seen a political form of taunt from sports fans. I know certain hooligan and ultra groups in Europe and South America have either extreme left-wing or right-wing ideologies, but I've never seen American fans overtly using politics to taunt a player or team. Is this a symptom of the polarization of today's politics? Or is it just a clever prank?
"One local Afghan newspaper was left puzzling as to the purpose of these attacks, which, like those in Baghdad, likely have not hope of tactical success. The article speculates that the Taliban are trying to keep the US boots on the ground, just as President Hamid Karzai is, so as to extract strategic rent from the ongoing Western presence in Afghanistan. That is, some allege that the attacks in Kabul were motivated by a desire to draw the US into a longer-term occupation, so that the Taliban can be assured of having someone to fight. (Seems unlikely to me, but interesting that it appeared in the Afghan press. And, I don’t think it would work. Most Americans, even Republicans, want out, and I think most US troops will be out by 2014…)"
Taliban attacks on Afghan and Coalition forces are becoming increasingly more brazen. This past weekend the group launched a series of coordinated attacks in Kabul. The attacks caused minimal damage and were quickly repelled, but worries remain. The purpose of the attacks may have been more about winning the media war than winning the war on the ground. Kabul, the capital, was once thought to be the only "safe" place in Afghanistan. So safe in fact, that US and NATO forces handed over security to Afghanistan in 2008. But not anymore. Using tactics that are reminiscent of 1968 Tet Offensive, the Taliban are starting to attack places once thought to be untouchable. The more brazen the attack, the more headlines it gets back in the U.S., and the more likely we are to sue for peace. It's a strategy that worked for the Viet Cong and it may very well work again.
The first polls portraying a head to head matchup between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are out. They vary, as is expected, with the CNN poll giving the incumbent president a good, but not insurmountable, lead, while the Gallup poll gives Mitt Romney a slight lead that's within the margin of error.
The most important news, however, is that President Obama is the first incumbent to trail in the poll at this point in the election since 1976. However, some pundits have pointed out that, for example, Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan at this point in 1980 (in fact he led until a week before the election) and George H.W. Bush led Bill Clinton at this point in 1992. And even looking at 1976, Gerald Ford almost pulled off a stunning comeback against then-challenger Jimmy Carter.
Of course, national opinion polls have to be considered in context of the Electoral College. President Obama's actually doing better there, leading in most key battleground states at this point. With the disparate polling results, it's begged the question on The Atlantic.com of whether President Obama will become the first incumbent president re-elected without winning a majority of the popular vote. One could easily see the scenario of President Obama winning a tough re-election fight, the Democrats taking back the House (or at least cutting into the GOP margin) and the Democrats losing the Senate. Essentially, neither party would have much of a mandate.
“Although I like Kanye,” Obama continues, with an easy smile. “He’s a Chicago guy. Smart. He’s very talented.” He is displaying his larger awareness of the question, looking relaxed, cerebral but friendly, alive to the moment, waiting for me to get to the heart of the matter.
“Even though you called him a jackass?,” I ask.
“He is a jackass,” Obama says, in his likable and perfectly balanced modern-professorial voice. “But he’s talented.” The president gives a wink, poses for a few more pictures, and then glides away to meet with the rich Manhattan lawyers in the other room, leaving behind a verdict that he intended to be funny, and also entirely deliberate: even before an audience of one, the leader of the free world is still not letting Kanye West off the hook.
Honduras according to the Council on Foreign Relations:
The primary force behind the high homicide rates [in central America] is increasing transnational criminal activity, fueled by the region’s strategic location between the major drug producers in Latin America and the illicit drug markets in the United States. Moreover, Central American governments either lack the capability or the will to confront the many security and governance challenges posed by drug trafficking organizations.
Who seriously thinks that the drug war is working?
Today Rick Santorum suspended his campaign. It was a wise move on his part, considering that the GOP establishment is clearly behind Mitt Romney, he's lost the last few states decisively, and most importantly, his daughter is still recovering after being in the hospital for a chromosomal disorder.
So it's Romney vs. Obama. And yes, I'm aware Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul haven't officially ended their campaigns, but they were also-rans weeks ago. The race this year has a 2004 in reverse vibe, featuring a major party endorsing a candidate they aren't totally in love with (John Kerry in 2004, Romney in 2012) over a candidate who captured their ideological heart (Howard Dean in 2004, Rick Santorum in 2012).
The 2004 is also very similar in this sense: both campaigns feature an incumbent president reviled by the opposition party, seeming to stand for everything they fight against. Both Presidents Bush and Obama polarized the nation. Was it their fault? Depends on who you ask. But right now, President Obama will have the fight of his political night this fall. Everyone says that Obama's going to win, but if they believe that then they've ignored the instability of American politics since 1992. Barack Obama won the closest thing to a mandate in 2008, but due to the economy, battles over the stimulus, and the health care debate, it quickly washed away under the Tea Party tide. Right now the president is throwing red meat to his base with the "Buffett Rule" on taxes for the rich, but sometimes I wonder if that will be enough. Against Mitt Romney, who has had issues connecting with independent voters, it may be.
Question is, will Tea Party members be as engaged to fight for Mitt Romney as they were for the Congress in 2010? And what about the Democratic base? It all remains to be seen how it will go.
Disturbing new video from the Rick Santorum campaign. Once again Republicans have decided to double-down on fear. Republicans are trying to scare voters to the voting booth with lies and deceit. While President Obama talks about progress and recovery; the Republican candidates conger up images of the apocalypse. You'll even notice around the 0:39 mark that there is a quick juxtaposition of President Obama with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that surely wasn't an accident. Watching this video, you would of thought it was still late 2008, when the economy was hemorrhaging 500,000 jobs a month. This is far disconnected from the reality that we have experienced 24 consecutive months of job growth for a grand total of 3.7 million jobs. No mention of the fact that President Obama saved the Detroit Auto Industry from the brink of oblivion. No mention of the fact that President Obama has lowered taxes even more than Ronald Reagan ever did. Instead we get the same old lies and fear that we've heard about the President for the past four years. It smacks of desperation. The closer we get to November, the less I become concerned about Barack Obama's reelection. Santorum's campaign is finally running out of steam and this is one last desperate hail mary before the clock runs out.
Unless you've been hiding under a rock or just don't give a damn, you've heard about the murder of Trayvon Martin. Let us briefly pause and consider the facts, one more time:
Mr. Martin happened to be walking through a gated community when George Zimmerman, member of a local Neighborhood Watch Association (although recently it has been discovered isn't an official Neighborhood Watch group) spotted the young African American male walking. Mr. Zimmerman then placed a call to the 911 dispatcher, fearing the worst after seeing this person in his neighborhood.
Despite being told by the dispatcher to not follow the young man, Mr. Zimmerman proceeded to do so. The rest, sadly, has become history. When the histories of the "post-racial" era are written decades from now, they'll have to include this incident.
It has become a symbol of a sickness that has gripped America since the first slaves were brought to the shores of Virginia in 1619. But this sickness, the scourge of racism, discrimination, intolerance, and stereotyping has taken many forms in the last 400 years. Today it is particularly insidious because it exists alongside America electing a man of African descent to the presidency.
As an example, take the police investigation. The investigation has not been the local police department's finest hour. Were they just lazy? Incompetent? Or is this also an example of racism, in this case not really caring that the suspect killed was black? I don't know, although I must be honest my guts says more laziness and incompetence more than anything else. Which, in itself, is troublesome.
At that time, in November of 2008, I was filled with optimism about the future of race relations in America. Let me be clear: race relations now are better than they've probably ever been in American history. But they're not good enough. Not by a long shot. It may not be that Mr. Zimmerman is a racist (although the tapes indicate he used a racial slur when describing Mr. Martin) but it doesn't matter. At its basest, most visceral level, this incident, like so many others, proves that the life of a young black man in America---hell, any black man or woman in America---just doesn't seem to have the value it deserves.
I'm tired of that being the norm. And I hope you are too.
An aide to Huntsman confirmed the news to The Huffington Post and said the former governor of Utah would endorse Mitt Romney on Monday. The aide added that Huntsman "didn't want to stand in the way of the candidate most prepared to beat Obama and turn around the economy."
Huntsman will deliver a speech on his decision on Monday at 11 a.m. ET in Myrtle Beach, S.C., according to the aide. Romney will not stand alongside the Utah Republican as he delivers his remarks.
It's a bit tragic for both myself and Nick. Although we're both on the left spectrum of American politics, we both thought Jon Huntsman as a really good potential president. Perhaps Huntsman/Rubio 2016? For that matter, if Romney wins the presidency, I could see Huntsman on the short list for Secretary of State.
Some thoughts about it from The Atlantic's James Fallows here.
I hesitate to put words in the mouths of dead historical figures. How can we know what someone would say about the world if they were alive today? I can't do this with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I just can't do it, because we have no idea what he'd believe in if he'd lived through 1968 until the present day. Perhaps he takes a turn away from protesting, becoming mentally and physically exhausted with the fight for justice. Maybe he becomes more conservative, as other civil rights leaders did in the 1970s and 1980s. Or, maybe he keeps fighting the good fight. I'd like to think the last of the three, but sadly we'll never know.
However, if MLK were transported directly from that balcony in Memphis on April 4, 1968, to a CNN studio in Atlanta on January 15, 2012, I'm much more confident I know what he'd say. After taking the time to catch up on decades of history, he'd be happy with the progress we've made as a nation. But he'd also be disappointed. Certainly, he'd be saddened by the people who've lost everything due to the Great Recession, shocked by the ugly aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and angered by the War in Iraq. Again, this is based on what he was fighting against when his life was ended in 1968.
To be honest, he would be quite stunned to see that he has his own statue on the National Mall. He'd probably be angry about it, because he'd realize one very important fact: that most Americans simply forgot about what he was fighting for. No way anyone who spoke against not just American involvement in Vietnam, but the very military-industrial complex supporting the war effort, would get a statue. No way anyone who was fighting against that war partly because it hurt the War on Poverty at home would get a statue. Yet he did. Because the unsavory, complex stances he took in the late 1960s are mostly forgotten about. As is the fact that he was quite unpopular before he was killed.
I've grown tired of stating, year after on year on MLK's birthday, what he stood for. I hope more and more Americans learn what he was fighting for before he died, because so much of it--an end to hawkish militarism, a serious attempt to fight poverty, and a desire to see Americans truly unite beyond skin color and class--is still important to us today.
But this is true of many American heroes. Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is greeted by far too many with a "Yeah, but it didn't free any actual slaves." Never mind that it was the beginning of a change in public opinion on what the Civil War had always been about. Forget the fact that it started a debate over the role of Black Americans in American society. And forget about Lincoln's own changing stance on the rights of recently freed African Americans after the war.
So it is with King. We are only supposed to see him in the vein of his "I Have a Dream" speech. But he was so much more than that. Please don't forget that.
Well, this isn't much of a surprise: strategists indicate that the GOP is hurting itself with anti-immigrant rhetoric in the run up to the 2012 general election campaign.
But immigrant-rights groups and some political watchers say the damage may be irreversible. They argue that the GOP has severely hampered itself as it looks to woo the critical Latino voting bloc that could decide who wins key states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida next fall.
Such a political mistake has been in the making for the last six years, since the battle over comprehensive immigration reform heated up in the last years of the George W. Bush administration. Then, in a Georgia Southern publication, I wrote that the GOP was making a serious mistake if it didn't listen to John McCain and President Bush on immigration reform. Scaring off millions of voters in order to placate an aging political base is not a good idea. Yet, since the start of the Obama administration, despite his own struggles with the Latino voting bloc, friction has grown between Republicans and Latinos.
Despite the growth in deportations under President Obama, many Latinos still support the president and the Democratic Party, which cannot be good news for the GOP in 2012:
The survey also showed that the gap between Latinos identifying as Democrats and those identifying as Republicans has widened over the last few years. In 2008, 65% of Latino registered voters surveyed by Pew identified themselves as Democrats while 26% identified as Republicans. Now, the Democratic share has risen to 67% while the GOP share has dropped to 20% — a finding that could be explained by increased registration among foreign-born Latinos, who lean more strongly to Democrats than do the native-born.
If voter enthusiasm among Democrats is anywhere near what it was in 2008, President Obama may yet win re-election. Right now, there's not much passion about Mitt Romney among conservative voters, more of a shrug of the shoulders that he is naturally the nominee this year. But with Romney referring to the DREAM Act, which once had widespread bi-partisan support, as a "handout", GOP strategists realize counting on a larger swath of the Latino vote this time around will be difficult.
The Republican Party can't continue like this. It may yet be in the best interests of their party, and of the nation, if they are routed at the polls this November. Otherwise it'll take a while longer before they come up with candidates who support sensible programs for the 21st century.
Yesterday's New York Times column by Charles Blow really summed up, in one place, the toxic bile a few of the Republican candidates for president have spewed out while running for their party's nomination.
To make a long, 150 year story short: Black people are lazy. Don't invest in the remains of the American welfare state because, if you do, you're helping minorities. And only minorities, because obviously white Americans do not benefit from food stamps and other benefits.
Stuff like this shouldn't surprise me anymore. But it still hurts. Not just because of the racist tenor of it. More than that it hurts me as an American citizen. We need, we must DEMAND that we have two serious, focused political parties that intend to govern for all the people.
Instead elements of the GOP find it sufficient to play the same tired, poisonous game they've been playing since 1968: a variation on the Southern Strategy, designed to speak to lower (and let's be honest here, middle and upper middle income) white voters who loathe elements of the social safety net because of fears it benefits "other" people. The most insidious element of this newest incarnation is two fold: it's the latest in a series comments that come during a period in history in which the President of the United States happens to be Black ("food stamp president" anyone?), and it comes during a period in which so many Americans require economic assistance.
Being poor in America has always been tough, because for much of modern American history, if one is poor it is seen by large elements of the conservative political establishment as being your own fault, and something that the government should do nothing or very little to alleviate. Also, being poor has become conflated with being Black. This has especially been the case since the 1960s, when the Great Society came under increasing attack for only benefiting rioting African Americans in decaying urban centers.
As I noted before, we need more than this from our leaders. When you see statements like
“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
Or
"I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,"
From Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, respectively, you realize the depths of ignorance elements of the GOP have sunk to.
Of course it will be interesting to see how Mitt Romney tackles this once he wins the nomination. He has yet to engage in such rhetoric, fortunately, and I hope that continues.
One last point: the stupidity of this reflects the fact that, despite African Americans holding a wide range of socially conservative viewpoints according to polling, they still vote heavily Democratic. Today, obviously, having President Obama in the White House, along with the frostiness between Black voters and the George W. Bush administrations, has solidified the alliance between the Democrats and Black voters. Conservatives seem to ignore what statements about self-reliance, that stretch back to Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington and can still be heard from Bill Cosby, really mean. Black Americans don't want handouts. But they also understand American history, much more than many in the GOP. Government help is sometimes a necessary need in modern society. If the Republicans ever want to make serious inroads to the Black vote, they must realize it can be done. As long as they leave this crap in the past.
Any shock here? Due to budget cuts and strategic necessity, the US Military is changing its strategic goals (from the New York Times):
In an unusual appearance at the Pentagon briefing room on Thursday, Mr. Obama outlined a new national defense strategy driven by three realities: the winding down of a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fiscal crisis demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in Pentagon budget cuts and a rising threat from China and Iran.
With the 2012 presidential campaign in full swing, this story may not get the attention it deserves. But it's important that the United States is focusing more on the Asia-Pacific. With North Korea being as unpredictable as ever, the rise of China, and a host of other national security issues, Asia has to become the focal point for American foreign and military policy.
Such a shift was already predicted by none other than this administration's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Now we're seeing it in full swing.
Of course, this meant that the Board of Regents chose the least liked name: Georgia Regents University. As soon as it was announced yesterday (Aug. 7) the uproar was swift and virtually unanimous. For proof of the amount of citizens upset over the decision, just look at the comments against it on The Augusta Chronicle's story, as well as the hastily formed facebook group "Everyone Against Georgia Regents University Sound Off", which has over 2,300 likes after only a day of operation. 
