Decaf Democracy

Om Nom Nom

noreply@blogger.com (christie) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:32:00 +0000

Obama's exclusive Youtube interview (around 30-minute mark):

I got caught up watching this entire video. And I applaud President Obama for being "hip" enough to do something like this - it's a great way to engage the younger generation into political discussion. And I strongly recommend this video to others.

One of his answers, however, irked me. The question asked why it is cheaper to buy Fruit Loops than fruit. The president talked about the importance of the First Lady's initiative to fight obesity in America, how Wal-Mart is now selling fruits and vegetables, and how such action will make fruits and vegetables more accessible to America.

But that's a disappointingly vague and speaking-points driven answer from the President of the United States on one of the most troubling social issues of our times. The First Lady's initiative is wonderful, but isn't enough. What America needs is something closer to what Mark Bittman suggests:

End government subsidies to processed food. We grow more corn for livestock and cars than for humans, and it’s subsidized by more than $3 billion annually; most of it is processed beyond recognition. The story is similar for other crops, including soy: 98 percent of soybean meal becomes livestock feed, while most soybean oil is used in processed foods. Meanwhile, the marketers of the junk food made from these crops receive tax write-offs for the costs of promoting their wares. Total agricultural subsidies in 2009 were around $16 billion, which would pay for a great many of the ideas that follow.

As long as processed foods remain cheaper to put on the shelves than fruit and vegetables, it will NOT fix America's dependency on processed foods. The First Lady is using her position and influence to impact change. It's time for the President and Congress to follow her lead.

If you want to complain about this...

noreply@blogger.com (christie) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:39:00 +0000

... then just go ahead and legalize gay marriage. Then this won't even be an issue.

President Obama on Thursday ordered his health secretary to issue new rules aimed at granting hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners, and making it easier for gays and lesbians to make medical decisions on behalf of their partners...

“Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindness and caring of a loved one at their sides,” Mr. Obama said in the memorandum, adding that the rules could also help widows and widowers who rely on friends and members of religious orders who care for each other. But he say gays and lesbians are “uniquely affected” because they are often barred from visiting partners with whom they have spent decades.

Several states have tried to put an end to discrimination against same-sex couples, and Mr. Obama said he intended to build on those efforts. He said the new rules will make clear that designated visitors should enjoy visiting privileges that are no more restrictive than those enjoyed by immediate family members.

But as awesome (not to mention LATE) as this is, it is nowhere near the equity that gay couples deserve. If one chooses to commit to spend his or her life with a gay partner, that partner should be allowed to act as next-of-kin in medical cases. Just as a husband is typically given the right to make medical decisions on behalf of his wife if she is unable to, the same trust and power should be granted to gay couples.

Say what you will...

noreply@blogger.com (christie) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:02:00 +0000

About over-taxation, welfare, Pell Grants...

Health care is a freakin' fundamental right. And for a country with as many health care resources as the United States to not grant its people that fundamental right is has been a crime against humanity.

But it's not enough to stop here. It will be an uphill battle to defend this monumental act, not to mention some of the brave legislators who more or less gave up their chances of re-election by voting for the bill. The bill still would leave MILLIONS uninsured. Congress finally did something right, and now it's time to make sure they never forget why this decision - despite the political costs - was worthwhile.

It's a step. Albeit one hell of a big step. And I think Ted Kennedy would be proud. And I guess today I, too, am proud to be an American.

Premature ejactulation.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:27:00 +0000

Today's NYT: "Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize"

When news hit the wire, I scrambled to check other sources to make sure this wasn't satire.

Speaking as an impassioned supporter who went out of state to canvass for his presidential campaign, I congratulate him for the award. It's the nicest thing I can say about the rather bizarre move.

Frankly, the decision does a disservice for everyone. These awards are supposed to have tangible merit. You should not be able to win the Nobel by virtue of spreading hope to the masses, which is pretty damn close to the rationale they've provided. Awarding it to Obama less than a year into his term glorifies his very few accomplishments, diminishes the Nobel's prestige, and invites ridicule to both the Committee and the award recipient.

As Sky News put it: "It's the prize for not being George W. Bush." Embarrassing how low we've sunk.

Paul Krugman,

noreply@blogger.com (christie) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:11:00 +0000

Will you marry me?

So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.

Even better than his last column. I would promise that this would be my last PK-love-post, but I don't think I could keep such a promise.

A battle from a past decade...

noreply@blogger.com (christie) — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:56:00 +0000

Click on title for NYTimes article.

And the reason why I find Paul Krugman so much more attractive than he probably is (superficially speaking, of course):

What’s still missing, however, is a sense of passion and outrage — passion for the goal of ensuring that every American gets the health care he or she needs, outrage at the lies and fear-mongering that are being used to block that goal.

U.S. Journalists Pardoned

noreply@blogger.com (christie) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:49:00 +0000

Read an article in the NYTimes today about the role that former presidents can play in foreign policy. It highlighted Carter's visit to North Korea during Clinton's presidency, which resulted in an agreement/accord that lasted until 2003 or so.

It's a relief to see these women freed after their experiences in North Korea. But it's a greater relief to see diplomacy handled so gracefully and humanitarian rights emphasized. That's the special power of former presidents, I think. The ability to represent a country's goodwill, with all the prestige and respect, without the imposing presence or calculated strategy.

Potential overreaction.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:21:00 +0000

6-1? Fuck that noise.

Pitchforks to the left, torches to the right.

Let's go.

Epic fail: Law & order edition.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:06:00 +0000

So I'm glancing through the front page of the Washington Post today, when I come across this article: "U.S. Seeks to Drop Case Against Former Sen. Stevens."

April Fools!

...oh, wait. They're serious. Damn.

So as it turns out, the bumbling nitwits that was our former Justice Department completely mishandled the Stevens case. In fact, it was so bad that the judge presiding over the case stated that "he had 'no confidence in the government's ability' to give the former senator a fair trial after they acknowledged failing to give defense lawyers information that would have helped their case."

It was Holder who ultimately made the call to have the charges dropped, stating that he "concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial," and that "it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial."

Now, I'm all for holding people accountable, but everyone deserves a fair trial. The Justice Department knows they fucked up. Because of it, Stevens gets to walk.

On the other hand, he's out of office now. I can live with that.

APUSH, revisited.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:41:00 +0000

Good morning, folks. Today's short response will be based on the following quote from today's New York Daily News:

"I don't think any president has come into office with this many problems on his plate." - NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg

1. What problems is Mayor Bloomberg referring to in this quote?

2. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Cite historical examples as evidence. For full credit, include more than one adminstration to support your case.

Hot off the press.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:47:00 +0000

Really, guys? Are we really doing this?

*sigh*

Alright. Here are the first poll results for the 2012 presidential race:

Obama 55%, Palin 35%. This margin is nearly identical to Obama's approval of 55% and disapproval of 37%. Palin's own personal favorables and unfavorables stand at 39%-50%. [Source: Public Policy Polling (D)]

And, while we're at it, I suppose I could also throw in The Field's poll earlier this month on the 2010 CA governor's race. At least this is somewhat timely:

More than half of GOP voters are undecided among the field of former eBay executive Meg Whitman, former congressman Tom Campbell and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner . . . if [Feinstein runs], she would easily win her party's nomination, the survey shows. But if Feinstein stays out of the June 2010 primary, Democratic voters are closely split between Attorney General Jerry Brown and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom not far behind.

There. Now, I don't want to hear anything about the 2012 race -- at least, not until Obama finishes his first hundred days, m'kay?

"It's not a fucking game."

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:46:00 +0000

By the time you read this, media outlets and bloggers alike will be abuzz about the end of Jim Cramer's career in the hands of The Daily Show.

For an idea of what went on last night: "Look, nobody's asking for them to be a regulatory agency. But can't -- whose side are they on?" Stewart asked Cramer at one point. "It feels like they have to reconcile: Is their audience the Wall Street traders... These guys at these companies were on a Sherman's March through their companies financed by our 401Ks... And they burned the fucking house down with our money and walked away rich as hell and you guys knew that that was going on."

If you haven't seen it yet, go watch the unedited interview right now on Hulu or TDS's website. Better yet, watch the segments that led up to this TDS v. CNBC feud, then watch the interview as the finale. Go ahead -- I'll wait.

Done? Now, to be fair to Cramer, he handled the interview a touch better than Tucker Carlson (of Crossfire fame) did. It's also unfair of Stewart to skewer Cramer for the failings of financial journalism as a whole, let alone the collapse of the markets -- that's something we all played a part in, although some certainly had a larger role than most.

But that's where the line ends, and I certainly withhold any sympathy for the man. I don't see this as career-ending, but should he be out of the job in the future, he already has plenty of cash to fall back on. His laymen audience, however, will have to deal with the consequences of his antics.

He deserves no remorse, and should you disagree and feel that he spoke sincerely about reform during the interview, here's a clip that will serve as the final nail in his coffin:

"Disingenuous at best and criminal at worst," indeed. Good riddance.

Why We Write

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:32:00 +0000

When you first walk into the Free Speech Movement Cafe at Berkeley, you're greeted by a series of large posters dedicated to Mario Savio and the student protests of sixties. At the bottom of one of the posters is a quote from Diogenes that Savio took to heart.

It reads: "The most beautiful thing in the world is the freedom of speech."

The right to speak your mind, openly and freely, is one that we've learned to take for granted. While it is true that freedom is paramount, I'm inclined to believe that those who organized the sit-in at Sproul didn't intend to raise a generation that would add noise to the signal.

Rather, they saw the value in the free flow of information and opinions, and sought to protect the very idea at stake. It's the same rationale I use for my writing, and it's something I always try to be mindful of: Through dialogue and civil discourse comes wisdom and knowledge.

In effect, I write because it's one of the few ways I can gain clarity and make sense of this twisted world we live in. By doing so here rather than elsewhere, it allows me to avoid the echo chamber of my mind and engage in discussions that serve to better educate and inform.

My involvement here in Decaf is a happy accident -- one that I no longer recall. I'm the only person here that doesn't hail from the same school, after all. I've probably spoken with two of the writers, and have only met one in real life.

Regardless, I still value the people that have provided their input over the years. I feel that this has grown to be a forum of mutual respect, a place where someone can express themselves and receive thoughtful feedback.

As George has stated, there aren't enough places out there that entertain honest debate. Insofar as this has been and continues to be one, I will continue to be active in writing, and fully support the notion of deliberate opposition for the sake of refining our viewpoints.

Let me be clear: We merely stand on the shoulders of giants. In the debate of noise versus signal, I'm still not sure where our efforts lie.

If nothing else, though, I think this could be an interesting exercise. I can only hope that others stand to gain from it.

Edit: While we're discussing where to go from here, how about expanding coverage outside our borders? I personally found the recent Canadian parliamentary dispute very interesting, and one could dedicate an entire blog on the growing power of drug cartels in Mexican border towns.

Raison d'être

noreply@blogger.com (George) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:01:00 +0000

Pundit and Author Jonathan Krohn defines conservatism.

I think we started blogging around his age. I've been thinking lately, and I've been wondering why I write what I write here. More often than not, it's to rage against something in our government that I am convinced I can do better. That we can do better. (This is of course, barring the times when I can't help but throw out my healthy serving of snark out at the resident hookers of the world.)

Honestly, I've never really believed, truly believed that what I write here is meant to change or influence others' opinions. But, I think that when I first started writing and reading, our opinions influenced one another, and if nothing else, I think that's terribly important. I think we should do that more. It is not a measure of brilliance to listen solely to Krugman rage against the machine, but I think that a series of conflicting, refining, consolidating viewpoints is what makes us better and unique. I think that next time we decide to write about something seriously, we should try to conflict. Opposing viewpoints. There's not enough places where you can find two honest people debating their best points against one another. Are you guys interested in the idea?

Out of Curiosity: why do you guys write?

No particular reason.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:02:00 +0000

DecafDemocracy.com

Enjoy.

First hundred hours.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:15:00 +0000

Sounds like Obama's plans for Guantanamo Bay go beyond the 120 day suspension.

White House Counsel Greg Craig went to Capitol Hill today to brief members of Congress about the three executive orders President Obama will sign tomorrow.

According to a former Hill aide, the orders will:

∙ close the detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay within a year and establish a process by which the U.S. government figures out what to do with the remaining detainees;
∙ establish new rules on interrogation methods moving forward;
∙ establish new guidelines for the treatment of detainees moving forward.

Taking a page out of Pelosi's 2006 playbook, it sounds like the new administration will hit the ground running. While he certainly won't be able to achieve as much as the 110th Congress did in the same time frame, his efforts so far have impressed both supporters and detractors.

However, to step back for a moment: President Obama is drawing praise not for doing anything politically risky or innovative. What he is drawing praise for is his decision to do what is right.

That's a depressing thought -- to think that we, as a nation, are so far gone that living up to our moral, ethical, and humanistic standards is now worthy of high praise.

We've got a long way to go. Let's hope that today is the first of many steps in the right direction.

(Oh, and Chief Justice Roberts? Sorry, but the only person that gets to end sentences with the word "faithfully" is Steve Perry.)

PowerPlay Presidency

noreply@blogger.com (christie) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:32:00 +0000

Yes, I'm addicted to hockey.

And yes, the San jose Sharks are the best team currently in the NHL.

But this isn't about hockey, though it really should be. This isn't about sports. This is about momentum.

I really like the way this presidency is going. Not just because of who's now sitting at the White House Oval Office. Or how the economy does in the near future.

Obama ordered a halt to all proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, making good on his campaign promises against torture. He also froze the wages of senior WH officials, showing a real commitment to get to the bottom of the economic crisis. He's got a top-notch team, and guess what? He's neither too arrogant nor too dumb to NOT listen and critically evaluate everything that these people have to say.

In that ridiculous Gergen book Eyewitness to Power, he makes a big deal about the first 100 days. As much as I can't stand the book as a love-song to Richard Nixon, it makes really great points about the Big-Mo. Obama's got the first real chance the Dems have had in a VERY, VERY long time to make change. Yeah, yeah, it's only been 8 (very very long, seemingly endless) years since Clinton, but Clinton didn't have a supportive, soundly Democratic Congress during all 8 years of his presidency. Clinton, as smooth and suave as he was/is, didn't have Obama's ROCKSTAR status. I really wouldn't be surprised if, in a few years, the "Chuck Norris" jokes give way to "Barack Obama" jokes.

Barack Obama is so bad-ass, he go turn the U.S. back on the right track.

And that's what last-minute OT Power Plays are for. It's about damn time, America.

Cliff notes: Remaking America.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 05:55:00 +0000

"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more."

All the best, President Obama.

Dear Santa

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:41:00 +0000

I'll be the first to admit: I haven't been the best of boys this year. I've done some knuckleheaded things, some things I'm not particularly proud of. I've hurt others, broken bonds, and squandered opportunities.

There's much I could wish for, but I don't ask much for myself. I can't; I don't deserve to do so.

But throughout my life, I've always hoped and fought for a better world. The past year, however, has put that dream just a bit further out of reach. Foreclosures are up, global currencies are down, financial markets are in freefall, and many have watched their life savings vanish.

I'm hurting. My friends are hurting. We're all hurting.

In these difficult times, it's easy to lose sight of what's important in life. And so it seems that you've been listening to my pleas, by providing three silver linings in an otherwise bleak year.

When I woke up today, I came across a New York Times article on the Minnesota Senate race. They reported that the Supreme Court ruled against Coleman's ballot challenges, all but assuring that Al Franken will be certified as the victor of the race.

A comedian in the Senate? Well, that's preposterous! And indeed, some may view this as a perversion of government, but considering the scandals surrounding the incumbent, I'm inclined to believe this is a step in the right direction.

Besides, it'll give me a hearty laugh, and really: he's good enough, he's smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like him.

The Times report reminded me of another recent AP story. Just a few days ago, the effort to repeal Proposition 8 was given an immense boost when CA Attorney General Jerry Brown reversed his position, stating that "based on [his] duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, [he] concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

This is spectacular news for a movement that I deeply care about — perhaps to a fault, considering I have no personal stake in the matter. I've gone to LGBT community meetings, demonstrated, and reached out to the most unlikely of people.

At a time when I was reluctant to wear my heart on my sleeve, it taught me to embrace love once again.

Of course, no political retrospective of the year would be complete without its defining moment: Barack Obama's unlikely journey to the presidency.

Unlike some of my peers, I bought into the hype. I absolutely did, and I have no shame in admitting that. I knew his positions like the back of my hand, and I was well aware of his accomplishments — but really, I was just ready to believe again.

He ran a campaign of hope when the world was going to hell in a handbasket. He was a relative unknown against heavyweights. He literally started off with nothing, fighting for every dollar and volunteer he could get. And he won.

Yes, there's more to life than politics. But damn it, the government makes the world go 'round, and it's really heartening to see the good guys win for once. As difficult as things have become, these events have taught me what it is to laugh, to love, and to hope.

My life isn't perfect — far from it. But, you know, the world isn't going to end. I'm going to be okay. We're all going to be okay. And that's what matters.

I'll keep hope alive, and will try again next year — as I'm sure you will, as well. Until then, I want to thank you for giving me not what I deserved, but what I needed.

Thank you for being there. Merry Christmas.

With hope,
Jason

If there is a God...

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:00 +0000

...He would let Al Franken win by single digits.

Cliff notes: Marriage equality.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:35:00 +0000

Your Honor.

Defense of Marriage Act.
Loving v. Virginia.
Brown v. Board.
Lawrence v. Texas.
Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The plaintiff rests.

Somewhat reassuring

noreply@blogger.com (christie) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:33:00 +0000

If Ted Stevens had somehow won his re-election bid... I wouldn't be sure if Alaska should even be considered part of the United States.

From DKos

noreply@blogger.com (christie) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:41:00 +0000

Mad as hell (about the economy).

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:15:00 +0000

This is a call to arms for the college crowd. It's high time we set aside our political differences for a minute and take a long, hard look at the crisis in front of us.

Yesterday, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley resigned their titles as investment banks, marking "the end of an era on Wall Street." Under the new "bank holding" classification, they can now borrow money from the Fed's discount window. This is a last-ditch effort to keep the institutions solvent and avoid the fates of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

Their actions are just the latest in a series of events that make up the economic crisis we're in today. By some accounts, we were five hundred trades away from "armageddon." Congressional leaders were informed over the weekend that "we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally.”

Outside of Wall Street, "tent cities" are now springing up in the outskirts of cities with the highest repossession rates. Unemployment is at a five-year high of 6.1%. Easy access to credit distracted the masses from noticing that "wage and salary increases that have occurred since 2000 have not been sufficient to even maintain the level of income that most families enjoyed at the beginning of this decade."

It's no wonder that a new poll from American Research Group shows that exactly zero percent believe that the national economy is getting better.

So what's the solution? Well, if you are to believe Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson -- a Goldman Sachs alum, no less -- then we should have American taxpayers hand over $700 billion to keep these banks afloat, while refusing oversight and defying regulations on executive compensation.

I don't think so. Folks, I've got to be honest with you. I'm not completely sure how we got here, or what we should do now. I don't know a whole lot about the current situation; few do. At a time when the government is asleep at the switch, executives are pointing fingers, and the rest of us are left in the dark, it's safe to say that anyone telling you who is at fault is merely trying to deflect the blame.

Frankly, finding out who to blame is not what's important at the moment.

A scapegoat is not what we need. What we need is a solution that both safeguards the national economy while being fair to the American people. If we're going to pay for this mess, then it's within our right to make sure that our money is used properly.

This is where you come in. You see, as college students, we're inclined to defer the responsibility of holding our government accountable to our elders. They're the taxpayers, after all. None of this affects us right now, so why should we care?

This line of thought is misguided. The $700 billion requested will not come out of thin air, and the current taxpayers will not be wholly responsible for this. A significant portion of this check will become our responsibility, and we must do everything in our power to protect our interests.

And yet, some of you may wish to plead ignorance. To quote Howard Beale: "It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.'"

Well, I'm not going to leave you alone. I want you to get mad!

Outside of the partisan bickering, both Obama and McCain agree that this bailout bill is fundamentally flawed. In fact, virtually everyone -- from Krugman to Kristol -- has gone on the record as being against this bill. It's now up to our elected officials to do the job that they were elected to do.

So, what can we do to ensure that?

Spread the word.
Tell your friends to stand up for themselves.
Call or write your local congressman.
Call or write the Obama and McCain campaigns.
Express your outrage.
Tell them how you feel about being shafted by Wall Street.
Tell them we must ensure that our tax dollars are being used properly.
Tell them that oversight is non-negotiable.

I've had enough of being a passive observer as our government and economy crumbles. This is no time for partisanship. It's time for us to come together and save what's left of the country we will soon inherit.

I don't know about you, but I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.

So...now what?

noreply@blogger.com (aaron "dirty" teagle) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:00:00 +0000

It's 9/11 again. The History Channel shows its documentaries, movies like Flight 93 have been playing all week, and nobody seems to notice. Seven years have elapsed since the event that drastically changed our outlook (at least for a little while) as a nation and I'm pretty sure that most people didn't give the date a second thought. Nowhere on my campus of Sonoma State University was a single mention of the towers, the lives lost, or the ill advised wars that sprang from the tragedy. It was business as usual, except on television. And maybe I wanted to watch something other than 9/11 documentaries, like Hitler documentaries or programs about various narcotics on my favorite network. Is that a selfish request on this day when American complacency was shaken to its core?

I don't know. Maybe it is, but the focus this 9/11 is one of the continuing legacy of the attacks, which I for one only see in airports and cable news. In suburban California, life continues much as it did before 9/11. If we were changed by that day, we didn't change much, or for very long.

I can remember where I was when I found out about the attacks, my grandparent's house, being woken up by my mom to watch CNN. I talked to some of my friends about it, and many were skeptical that a. we were attacked and b. that terrorists would be involved. Of course, as a 13 year old at the time, I didn't spend all that much time thinking about the consequences of the event. It happened, and that was that. Sure it was terrible, but there was nothing I could do.

But now I have thought about it. In all honesty, I don't know that it has affected me in a significant manner other than the wars this country is involved in. That may sound callous, but personally I feel that a war where the youth of America is fighting and dying merits more concern than a singular incident, tragic as it was. Its like looking at World War II and only mentioning Pearl Harbor.

Seven years have passed. Is that enough time to get over a massive wound in the American psyche? More importantly, should we be over it? When mentioned, we all have opinions and feelings, even some convictions as to 9/11; but the day itself seems interchangeable with the tenth or the twelfth. The anniversary is almost over, and no one noticed. Except, of course, our lovely candidates. It is, after all, an election year. Neither is dumb enough to fail to appear in New York today, although perhaps I hoped someone would forget (he is old enough to be forgetful). Even CNN noticed that the memory of 9/11 is fading in the mind of the average American, and whether we've chosen to forget or repressed the thought in order to resume our lives, it doesn't in fact matter. What matters is that we take an interest in the affairs of our government, vote, engage in public service, and generally function as informed citizens. If remembering 9/11 helps you do that, so be it. But me, I'd rather think of this day as my grandparent's anniversary and my buddy Brandt's birthday. Is that a repression of memories of that morning? I don't know. Make your own conclusions, observe the day or don't, but remember for whatever reasons you choose that 9/11 was a day that changed America. In 2001.
Sure there are implications of the day on foreign policy, executive power and a myriad of other sectors of our nation that persist into today, but it is an event that occurred in the past that we cannot change. Focus on the effects, where we can make a difference.

So...now what?
Now we sit, lounging on the cusp of change. No matter who's elected, things will change. Things always do. What change comes depends on you. After seven years, most people would say they have adjusted to a post 9/11 world. It's not a novel situation anymore. The War on Terror has taken on normalcy. And in all of the thoughts I've had on the state of things, that disturbs me more than almost anything else in the world.
Thus passes another September Eleventh.

-Teags