For Better or for Worse

The new health care program being proposed by President Barack Obama’s administration poses a wide variety of questions. We wondered how it would affect our generation, mainly the upcoming college graduates who will be entering the work force. The affects are uncertain, the risk may be high, but who is going to take care of the citizens that can’t afford health care right out of college. Like everything, there are many views and opinions in the media; we strive to offer the voice of a college student. There are those who are for the health care reform and those who think the right to health care isn’t for everyone. Is the government turning more socialist under the leadership of President Obama, or could it be that the American slogan of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” will finally become more of a true statement than ever before.

Under President Obama’s new health care plan, he favors students that are covered by their parent’s health insurance, allowing them to retain that health coverage until they turn 26, instead of the current policy that ends coverage of students after they graduate. Myself being covered by my parent’s health insurance, this would be an un-believable stress reliever, college graduates have enough on their plate with having to find a job, a place to live and to start paying back their student loans after 6 months. The last thing someone under that amount of pressure should have to worry about is what would happen if they got sick and couldn’t get the proper care they needed.

The plan to prevent health insurance companies from denying single person coverage because of a pre-existing condition would also help not only recently graduated students but also everyone who has medical problems that need medical attention. In one case, Rachel Peck, a 20-year-old junior at the University of Maryland, who introduced President Obama at the as he spoke to the college, has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and was able to receive the treatments she needed because she was covered by her parents health insurance. Under the current health care plan, Rachel would have been dropped from her parents and or college health insurance, preventing her from continuing her treatments if it was needed. Obama’s health reform would have given Rachel the best chance at getting the treatment she needed beyond her college career. She would have the option of staying under her parent’s health insurance until she turns 26, which would give her the proper care she needed while she searched for a job to pay off her college expense. She would even have the option of picking health coverage that would not turn her down because she has cancer and it wouldn’t cost too much. The health of our future should not have a price tag on it. With the current health care situation, Rachel will have a hard time getting health insurance apart from her school and parents because of this “pre-existing condition.”

Speaking at the University of Maryland, Obama went on to say, “Just like the change that began in our campaign, it starts with people, especially young people, who are determined to take this nation’s destiny into their own hands.”

:President Obama greeting students of MU. Baltimore Sun.

Change, it’s not always for the best. The evolution of a society as a whole takes years. The Obama administration is looking to instill a new health care plan and they want this change to happen overnight. There can be no guarantee that the majority will even accept this change. The government has very unique ways of concealing truths from the general public. We are here to expose some of those truths and figure out what exactly is going on with the current health care scare.

First of all, the Obama plan states that the insurance companies may not raise the price of coverage for a customer. Because the prices cannot go up, customers will be paying less, and so insurance companies will be making less of a profit. This could cause some of the companies to go under entirely, due to lack of funds.

The numbers have been run. It was said by Democrats that the health care reform would cost $848 billion over 10 years. If only one percent of the spending came from the first four years that counts 2010-2013. If you begin the spending in year 2014, the cost has already rocketed to $1.8 trillion. The years 2014-2023 would add up to $2.5 trillion. Additionally, President Obama would be forcing the voluntarily uninsured to purchase health insurance. These mandated costs would be counted as a tax and with these numbers added to the ones I previously mentioned, the total cost rounds off at $6.25 trillion. Diving even more deeply into the cost of this insurance which is supposedly better than what we have now; this policy would mandate that states cover a higher percentage of Medicaid costs, leading to an increase in taxes. Crunching these numbers, this doesn’t seem like a good idea at all.

An insurance company also may not drop a customer completely when they need that coverage the most. This prevents customers from being stranded in debt, and without an insurance provider. This forces the companies to keep a customer even though they might have chronic health problems. Having to pay for these ongoing health issues could also cause these companies to lose money, and go under fast.

Under the proposed plan, there will be a new insurance marketplace created. This will allow people to shop around for the best insurance prices, and allow them to shop for the cheapest plan that will meet their specific needs. For existing businesses, however, this means that there will be competition, and that each company is going to have to fight for their customers. Every company is going to have to create prices that can compete with their fellow insurance companies, or else they will lose their business.

There is no evidence that saving money for the average American is the main concern of the Obama administration, so honestly, there has got to be something underneath this health care reform that is being hidden from the public.

Capitalism is going underground and socialism is rising to the occasion. President Obama wants to now control our health care, and have it be a legal requirement for everyone. Putting aside the effects of current health care plans and ignoring what that means for business and the downward spiraling economy, how is this really going to help. Former president Bill Clinton and Sen. John Breaux proposed this idea last February. Hillary Clinton also attempted to pass a health care bill back in 1994. President Barack Obama’s plan is to destroy the American health care system to turn America into “a full-blown Euro-socialist state” David Limbaugh said in an article on townhall.com

However, information is being brought to the surface and it is clear that there is no rational explanation for Obama-care other than his need to expand government control over every aspect of American lives. The only goal that is apparent is that it would offset the deficit, and only temporarily. It was noted that there is no intention of immediately cutting out private insurances however; they would be subject to Federal regulation.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele had some very serious points in an interview at the National Press Club last Monday. “This is an unprecedented government intrusion into the private sector”, “It is more debt that our children will have to pay because this reckless administration has an un-restrain able urge to splurge.” His points were that the government is encroaching too close on individual freedoms and responsibilities. They control almost everything; there is little that the people can do for themselves anymore. And his second point laid heavily on the concept that this health care will be cheap and required by everyone. Well, Mr. President, the money has to come from somewhere and being in a recession right now, where is this money going to come from; a loan that will need to be paid back eventually and by our children. Following generations will pay for health care that’s established now; it’s like how the younger generations are dealing with global warming even though we never contributed to the problem. Is it fair to burden the generations to come with a debt they may never see benefits from?

The socialism outlook for this public option plan is hard to decipher. The government has done so well to hide any true intentions for this plan but as Phil Kerpen says in an article on HumanEvents.com, “the ‘public plan option,’ may also fail as its intended purpose is more widely understood.” The payment for this bill is a single-payer system and it’s been proven that Americans don’t generally like a single-payer system because it’s characterized by socialism.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t disagree that something needs to be done to help get our economy back on the fast track. But starting with a government health care system may not be the right thing to do. This is the beginning of an end. Socialism may not be a bad idea, in some other countries it seems to work for them. But when our freedoms are taken away, even as simple as the choice to be insured or not, people will start to act out. Our founding fathers are turning in their graves right now at just the proposal of this socialist reform.

Whether you are a college student getting ready to graduate and beginning to worry about the reality of providing your own health insurance or a republican fearing a socialist take-over and letting money out weigh the health of our nation. There can be no doubt in your mind that something must be done do insure the health of every single living American. The fact that some citizens are worried about the amount of money that might be added to the national debt due to the reform is completely understandable. But the fact that most republicans are willing to spend more of the national budget on things like war, weapons and lobbying for big insurance and drug companies, and not even thinking twice before shutting out the idea to spend some tax money to make sure every American does not go without health insurance is appalling. Health reform can happen and needs to happen if we want to have a nation that lives up to what it has always promised.

Group Project- Amelia Gutierrez, Emelie Erlandson, Gregory Stout

For Better of For Worse
By Amelia Gutierrez, Emilie Erlandson, Gregory Stout



The new health care program being proposed by Obama's administration poses many questions. We wondered how it would affect the current generation, what would happen to the existing private health care systems, and what does this exactly mean for the basis of our society; socialism? Like everything, there are two sides to every story. There are always those who are all for it, then again, there are also those who greatly despise it. We debated long over the pros and the cons and came to an agreement that it will never be seen one sided. Let's see what the good things that can come are.

Under Obama's new health care plan, he favors students that are covered by their parent's health insurance allowing them to retain that health insurance until they turn 26, instead of the current policy that ends coverage of students after they graduate. Myself being covered by my parent's health insurance, this would be an un-believable stress relieve, college graduates have enough on their plate with having to find a job and start paying back their student loans after 6 months. The last thing someone under that amount of pressure should have to worry about is what would happen if they got sick and couldn't get the proper care they needed.

The plan to prevent health insurance companies from denying a person coverage because of a pre-existing condition would also help not only recently graduated students but everyone who has medical problems that need medical attention. In one case, Rachel Peck, a 20-year-old junior at the University of Maryland, who has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and is receiving continuing treatments that will have to continue after she graduates. Obama's health reform would give Rachel the best chance at getting the treatment she needs so she may live her life to the fullest. She would have the option of staying under her parent's health plan, which would give her the proper care she needed while she searched for a job to pay off her college expense. She would even have the option of picking a health plan that would not turn her down because she has cancer and it would cost too much. The health of our future should not have a price tag on it. With the current health care situation, Rachel will have a hard time getting health insurance apart from her school and parents because of this pre-existing condition.

Speaking at the University of Maryland, Obama is quoted in the Baltimore Sun, with saying, "Just like the change that began in our campaign, it starts with people, especially young people, who are determined to take this nation's destiny into their own hands."

But like we've established, there is always two sides to a story.

Change, it's not always for the best. The evolution of a society as a whole takes years. The Obama administration is looking to instill a new health care plan and they want this change to happen overnight. There can be no guarantee that this change will even be accepted by the majority. The government has very unique ways of concealing truths from the general public. We are here to expose some of those truths and figure out what exactly is going on with the current health care scare.

It is obvious that everyone has their own personal opinions about healthcare; the whole debate has now been beaten to death. So, on a fresher note, in an ever-changing healthcare environment, what is going to happen to the already existing private health care systems?

First of all, the Obama plan states that the insurance companies may not raise the price of coverage for a customer. Because the prices cannot go up, customers will be paying less, and so insurance companies will be making less of a profit. This could cause some of the companies to go under entirely, due to lack of funds. As a customer's health bills go higher, and the prices for insurance stay the same, a deficit is sure to ensue.

The numbers have been ran. It was said by Democrats that the health care reform would cost $848 billion over 10 years. If only one percent of the spending came from the first four years that counts 2010-13. If you begin the spending in 2014, the cost has already rocketed to $1.8 trillion. 2014-23 would add up to $2.5 trillion. Additionally, Obama would be forcing the voluntarily uninsured to purchase health insurance. These mandated costs would be counted as a tax and with these numbers added to the ones I previously mentioned, the total cost rounds off at $6.25 trillion. Diving even more deeply into the cost of this insurance which is supposedly better than what we have now; this policy would mandate that states cover a higher percentage of Medicaid costs, leading to an increase in taxes. Crunching these numbers, this doesn't seem like a good idea at all. Tell me how this is going to save Americans money.

An insurance company also may not drop a customer completely when they need that coverage the most. This prevents customers from being stranded in debt, and without an insurance provider. This forces the companies to keep a customer even though they might have chronic health problems. Having to pay for these ongoing health issues could also cause these companies to lose money, and go under fast.

Under the Obama plan, there will be a new insurance marketplace created. This will allow people to shop around for the best insurance prices, and allow them to shop for the cheapest plan that will meet their specific needs. For existing businesses, however, this means that there will be competition, and that each company is going to have to fight for their customers. Every company is going to have to create prices that can compete with their fellow insurance companies, or else they will lose their business.

There is no evidence here that saving the money for the average Americans is the main concern of the Obama administration so honestly, there has got to be an something underneath this health care reform that is being hidden from our eyes. There has to be something more.

Capitalism is going underground and socialism is rising to the occasion. President Obama wants to now control our health care, and have it be a legal requirement for everyone. Putting aside the effects of current health care plans and ignoring what that means for business and the downward spiraling economy, how is this really going to help? Former president Bill Clinton and Sen. John Breaux proposed this idea last February. Hillary Clinton also attempted to pass a health care bill back in 1994. President Barack Obama's plan is to destroy the American health care system to turn America into "a full-blown Eurosocialist state" David Limbaugh said in an article on townhall.com

However, information is being brought to the surface and it is clear that there is no rational explanation for Obamacare other than his need to expand government control over every aspect of American lives. The only goal that is apparent is that it would offset the deficit, and only temporarily. It was noted that there is no intention of immediately cutting out private insurances however, they would be subject to Federal regulation. Seriously, tell me that this is socialism.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele had some very serious points in an interview at the National Press Club last Monday. "This is an unprecedented government intrusion into the private sector.", ".It is more debt that our children will have to pay because this reckless administration has an unrestrainable urge to splurge." His points were that the government is encroaching too close on individual freedoms and responsibilities. They control almost everything, there is little that the people can do for themselves anymore. And his second point laid heavily on the concept that this health care will be cheap and required by everyone. Well, Mr. President, the money has to come from somewhere and being in a recession right now, where is this money going to come from; a loan that will need to be paid back eventually and by our children. Following generations will pay for health care that's established now; it's like how the younger generations are dealing with global warming even though we never contributed to the problem. Is it fair to burden the generations to come with a debt they may never see benefits from.



The socialism outlook for this public option plan is hard to decipher. The government has done so well to hide any true intentions for this plan but as Phil Kerpen says in an article on HumanEvents.com, "the 'public plan option,' may also fail as its intended purpose is more widely understood." The payment for this bill is a single-payer system and it's been proven that Americans don't generally like a single-payer system because it's characterized by socialism.



Don't get me wrong I don't disagree that something needs to be done to help get our economy back on the fast track. But starting with a government health care system, may not be the right thing to do. This is the beginning of an end. Socialism may not be a bad idea, in some other countries it seems to work for them. But when our freedoms are taken away, even as simple as the choice to be insured or not, people will start to act out. Our founding fathers are turning in their graves right now at just the proposal of this socialist reform.


But that's the great thing about public change, you are always able to make up your own decisions about whether the change is good or bad. We just wanted to give you some insight to aid in your feelings of this particular subject; a fresh look at something deeper than the things that have already been addressed to some exhausting extent.

Check out these links!! :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUoUE7HQ4K0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/15/college-student-challenge_n_260426.html

this is all way cool everybody!

I haven't read the editorials all the way through yet -- and we're waiting for the final group to post still (you're late)... but what I'm seeing so far is creative, intelligent and compelling. I'm very psyched and hope you all are as well!! Really looking forward to reading these in detail and hearing everyone's comments on Monday. BE READY TO DISCUSS AND CRITIQUE with the evaluation sheet :) Enjoy the fruits of your labor this weekend :) mcv

Neo-McCarthyism

By Tara Escudero, Andre le Crout, Jenny Albert, and Eric Fahy

Public figures with large audiences are calling President Barack Obama a Socialist.



The modern McCarthyist movement occuring in the U.S. consists of people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity pointing the finger and doing the McCarthy (try to imagine a dance that points out people who are Socialists) on the White House lawn.

But why now?

Presidents have had Socialist characteristics in their policies for years. The Federal Government has been evolving into this turkey with a large amount of power that at some point will gobble up our freedoms.

Yes, that is an extremely pessimistic point of view to have, but look at the story of the Constitution. First there was the Articles of Confederation, which called for a weak central government. That was removed in favor of the Constitution we know today, which installed a stronger central government. Having a strong central government is a characteristic of a Socialist state.

This bloating of government control has been going on during most of the 20th century. Why no one addresses this when discussing the Obama administration is a blatant sign of a conflict of interest.

In the 1950’s senator Joe McCarthy started a witch hunt. McCarthy blacklisted people he considered Communist or subversives that were in the public spotlight. This began to work its way down into everyday people’s lives as fear trickled down and normal people started to point the finger at each other. People who were speculated to be Communist lost their jobs because of speculation.

The media had a big hand in spreading this fear that ruined people’s lives and made McCarthy famous. The media spread propaganda that inspired fear among Americans and wanted them to rat out people who might not even be Communist.

Staples in conservative culture such as Glenn Beck are now pointing their finger and denouncing president Obama as being a Socialist and promoting an agenda of a group who has come out and said that Obama is not a Socialist.


Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been called the greatest president of the 20th century. He took us out of the depression, took America into World War II… he did a lot in his 12 years in office.

If you cannot recollect from high school, FDR sat (well, wheeled around) in the White House for three terms and was elected to four. And when you think Socialist and FDR what is the first thing that pops into your head?

Social Security.

Today, Social Security is this huge foreboding equivalent of your kitchen sink.
Except money is flowing instead of water (which you never see again, besides in that big number called the national debt), and the pipe keeps getting wider and wider.

Every payday the government takes our hard earned money and gives it to people collecting Social Security. With the life expectancy even higher now than it was when the Social Security Act was passed, the younger generation has to be worried about whether or not there will be any left for us.

When Social Security first started out there was a lot of criticism as to whether it was even necessary. According to The Crisis in Social Security by Carolyn Weaver,Social Security expert, 95% of senior citizens were supporting themselves. An increasing number of these seniors had private pension plans or annuities.

Roosevelt embraced a German idea for a Socialist insurance plan that gave rights to heirs if they died, and it was also proposed that if people had insurance plans that were better than the social security they could opt out. These were all shot down and it became that everyone had to have it starting January 1, 1937.

More recently, Republican presidents that have promoted conservative agendas during their campaigns have been enacting Socialist economic policies while in office.

Ronald Reagan’s tax credits redistributed wealth to families and to the poor, a staunchly Socialist idea. Reagan is looked up to by a lot of conservatives as another great president and act like these socialist policies never existed and are practically ignored by the media.

George W. Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt and was criticized as spending like a socialist. Bush was bashed in the media for being slow, a poor public speaker, and a liar, but I have never heard anyone call him a socialist until the federal bailout of late 2008.

Presently the big controversy is over the new health care bill that Obama advocated, and how that is Socialist. The main point of those advocating this position that that is held up to the most criticism is that offering a public health care option is introducing a government run insurance company that is cheap and will run the others out of business so that there is no competition left.

Rick Scott, head of the advocacy group Conservatives for Patients' Rights, aired an ad in June of 2009, saying exactly what I had mentioned above on Fox News. These people are not actually thinking about what this is going to accomplish and how it is nowhere near as Socialist as past policies. And here is why:

A.The public option will not force other insurance agencies out of business; it will force them to make their prices more reasonable and their policies better. B.Introducing another company into a system is not Socialist. The government is banking on competition to create ‘A’ because they are trusting in our FREE MARKET ECONOMY, which is a Capitalist idea.
C.The public option is not a mandatory health care plan to the entire population like Social Security is. It is not even as Socialist as Social Security was, and FDR is considered by many people as one of the greatest presidents America has had…

I am just waiting for this all to make sense.

President Barack Obama’s stimulus and bailout packages poured about $1 trillion into the mortgage, banking, and auto industries. This bailout money included $30 billion to insurance giant AIG, $200 billion to mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $15 billion to small businesses, and $22 billion to automakers Chrysler and General Motors. This last bit for the automakers even required the firing of the former General Motors CEO, Rick Wagoner.

The interference with the economy by the Obama administration has socialist implications. Regardless of what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity say, it is not actually socialism. In Socialism, the businesses would actually be owned and run by the government, not just be in debt to the government. The closest that the Obama administration has come to actual Socialism was in the firing of Rick Wagoner, as it was a direct decision that the government made for a business.

Socialism or not, it was nothing new. Let us flash back to the reign of George Bush and Dick Cheney and take a look at how much they interfered with our economy. In March of 2008, the Federal Reserve loaned $29 billion to The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. to prevent a sudden collapse of the global investment bank, securities trading, and brokerage firm. The firm was then purchased by J.P. Morgan for next to nothing. In October of 2008, $700 billion was committed to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Like (but before) President Obama, the Bush administration also gave billions of dollars to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and American automakers. In September of 2008, Bush bailout money included $150 billion to AIG and $25 billion to “The Big Three” automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Also in September of 2008, the Bush administration gave $200 billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In a near-true showing of socialism, the Bush administration put the two companies under “temporary conservatorship” to be supervised by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

With all of that economic interference by the Bush administration, a question needs to be raised as to where people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity were when Bush was president, and why none of them voiced accusations then.





A question can also be raised as to why Republican Sarah Palin was never blacklisted. The former vice presidential candidate used to be governor of Alaska, where there is no income or sales tax. The state government instead imposes levies on the oil companies that lease the fields, which then pays for all government activities. The levies also allow the state to give out yearly checks of over $3200 to every citizen of the state. As she said to Philip Gourevitch of The New Yorker, “We’re set up, unlike other states in the union; where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Well that sounds pleasantly Socialist to me. Might I add that Palin is actually responsible for a $2000 increase in that check while she was governor. It used to be just $1200.

It may not matter that the extremists in the media waited until now to hypocritically allocate blame. A recent study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, published Sept. 13, 2009, shows that the majority of the Americans do not trust the media. The study shows that the public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades, as only 29% of Americans think that the press gets the facts straight, while 63% believe that news stories are often inaccurate. These are figures that are heavily daunting and should be a serious wake-up call for the press.

The percentage of people who believe that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations is at an all-time low (20%). This implies that the majority of Americans believe that there is more than just news behind the news. In fact, 60% say that news organizations are politically biased, compared to just 26% who believe that news organizations are careful to avoid bias. According to another Pew Research study from Oct. 29, 2009, it can be seen that FOX News, the home of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, is viewed as the most ideological news network. Nearly half of Americans (47%) see FOX as being mostly conservative, where the perceived ideological orientations of other news networks in the media, such as ABC or CBS, are more mixed. Statistics also show that more people said the other networks are more liberal than conservative, but in all cases, close to as many said that they have no bias.

People do not believe the things that our contemporary McCarthy’s are telling them. However, statistics show that the public’s support of President Obama’s economic policies is slipping. According to a Pew Research study from Oct. 8, 2009, the percentage of Americans who approved of his economic policies in June was 55%, compared to 39% who disapproved. In October, those numbers each evened out at 44%. In regards to socialism and government interference with the economy, it was found that 54% of Americans considered stricter regulation of financial companies to be a good idea in October, a number that dropped from 60% in April, while the percentage of Americans who saw regulation as a bad idea increased over that time from 31% to 38%.

It is possible that the slipping support is a result of the public not seeing immediate improvement in a shambling economy. Another theory to entertain involves recognition of the fact that FOX News draws more than two times as many viewers as any other news network at all times of the day and week. This large viewership, with Glenn Beck’s show being the second-highest rated news program on television behind The O’Reilly Factor, allows for some serious McCarthyan brainwashing.

Van Jones resigned from his position as environmental advisor on September 5, 2009 following an onslaught of mudslinging perpetuated by FOX News. At the helm of the blacklisting committee was Glenn Beck, host of the self-titled news show on Fox.). So far, Jones is the first to lose their job due to Glenn Beck’s mudslinging tactics.

Beck targeted Jones for his radical left wing past, which included an affiliation with Marxist-based organization called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). According to Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post, “Jones ... left radical politics and made the decision to work within the system, rather than try to overthrow it. For Beck, however, Jones' past statements were evidence that Obama is secretly marshaling a cadre of lieutenants pushing an agenda that is "radical, revolutionary and in some cases Marxist.”” Van Jones’ ties with Communist organizations had no bearing on the job he was doing as environmental adviser, or “czar,” until they led to his forced resignation on September 5, 2010.

In persecuting Jones, Beck was looking out for the good of the American people. Think about it: Jones was not subject to the thorough background checks that higher-ranking members of office were. Beck took it upon himself to delve into Jones’ past solely for the purpose of blacklisting him. Then, not only would the American people be safe from Communist tyranny, but Beck’s ratings would soar. However, Jones did not see it this way at all, as he is quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me ... They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

In Robert Justin Goldstein’s “Prelude to McCarthyism: The Making of a Blacklist,” the McCarthy era was marked by “deliberate attempts to ignite a domestic Red Scare by a powerful coalition of American conservatives ... significant elements in the business community, the Catholic Church, and, especially, and increasingly politically desperate Republican Party.”

A person could be blacklisted if they had ties with any organization at all deemed by the Attorney General as “totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive, or as having adopted a policy advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government in the United States by unconstitutional means.” But here’s the thing. When conservatives misrepresent all liberals as being Communists, it becomes evident that there is one choice to make: be a Republican or be un-American.

Democrats and Republicans each firmly believe themselves to be upholding the constitution. But the sentiments of the Republican side continue to be skewed. Allow me to explain. Since “communism vs. republicanism,” was a popular slogan of the McCarthy era, anything that wasn’t republican was automatically implicated as communist. Sound familiar? It is. When President's Temporary Commission on Employee Loyalty (TCEL) made a list of guidelines for blacklisting that determined who got hired and who got fired. People would be fired or refused employment if given “reasonable grounds” for being “disloyal.” Goldstein continues, “the TCEL never defined the key terms “disloyal” or “reasonable grounds.”” This intentional negligence functions specifically to allow continued persecution of liberals whenever conservatives see fit. And they do it all the time. Like when Rush Limbaugh directly compared Obama to Hitler, saying that the health care bill is “exactly like” Nazi Germany. Or like when Sean Hannity called Obama’s campaign, “Socialism You Can Believe In.” Clearly these men have a vendetta.

But it is not just the men. Sarah Palin is the one who coined the term “death panels” in reference to the end-of-life provisions that were in an earlier draft of the health care bill. See, before Obama gave his speech on health care on September 9, 2009, right wing conservatives made sure that his would be a grueling struggle. Their representation of the health care plan was riddled from the start with demagogic terminology, the sole intent of which was to dissuade public support. Catch-phrases like “pro-abortion,” “pro-euthanasia,” and “death panels,” functioned to scare the uninformed into opposition.

So Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and a small group of senators made a choice. They dropped it. “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly,” Grassley said . This was on August 13. And yet we are still hearing conservatives spouting endlessly about how liberals are out to socialize, communize, and murder Americans


John Rother, executive vice president of the American Association of Retired People (AARP) was quoted as saying, “I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected ... it’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president” in Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes’ article in the NY Times published on August 13, 2009. Right wing media representations of liberals are a re-invocation of McCarthyism. Blacklisting, demagoguery, and the choice between being a conservative or being a criminal.

The past century has seen several attempts for large-scale health care reform, as well as other monumental interventions of government, like bailouts and Social Security.

The current administration is coming closest to making progressive history with health care legislation. Radical changes in the past have had everything to do with the collective consciousness at the time. But the media is more different and perhaps powerful than it ever has been.

A vote happens on the Senate floor and seconds later, news organizations are racing to have the results on their webpage first, complete with opinions already formulated. The story matures; some points are emphasized more than others. Certain voices are praised or ridiculed. One conclusive phrase such as “death panels” can have lasting repercussions on the progress of legislation.

The current state of H.R. 3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act is fragile. Earlier this month it narrowly passed through the House of Representatives by five votes. The Senate finally made some progress on voting just this past Thursday; this recent vote determining that public funding would support preventative care and regular testing for women such as mammograms. Preventative care also includes abortions recommended by doctors to be publicly funded. How the abortion issue is handled will make or break the passing of the bill as a whole.

The progress of the bill is currently dependent upon Democratic unity, since each decision needs 60 votes to pass.

Partisan lines are so clearly defined and exaggerated in the media through repetition. Democrats are liberal progressives that love government spending; Republicans are conservatives in love with Capitalism. Time and time again, conclusions are made about legislative decisions: that it was partisan. This repetition leads to the practice of partisan politics to such an extreme that it hinders progress. Because of this, bipartisan negotiation is often seen as a novelty. Conservatives will filibuster this, liberals will not support that.

The news cycle is turning to a point where emotional motivation is replacing intellectual. The speed of the cycle as mentioned before is combined with an effort to gain reader’s attention. What makes the same story more interesting in a different newspaper? The opinion that comes along with it.

Without the Democratic majority agreeing among themselves, the health care bill will die in the Senate. The stark divide between political parties is fueled by the media when opinion is placed before fact. Any news organization analyzing a hearing of legislation makes a conclusion and the conclusion is always accepted to a certain extent and spread.

The public mindset is becoming more streamlined, with people going to blogs rather than initial and empirical reports. When media sources interchange the terms liberal with -isms other than Capitalism, they only help to impeding process. People within and outside of the government want a conclusion that fits them, and as fast as possible. Lack of compromise.

The next hurdle in will be the inclusion in the bill of language mirroring the Stupak amendment. Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, introduced an amendment that would limit public funding for abortion. This includes publicly funding abortions only in the situations of incest, rape, and if there is a threat to the life of the mother. The difficulty with passing this amendment is overcoming the stigma that Democratic majority equals pro-choice.

Since the House passed the health care bill as a whole on Nov. 7, there has been an immediate move to come to a compromise on abortion within the Senate. Ironically, abortion may be the most bipartisan topic that the Senate will tackle with this legislation. Ben Nelson, a Democratic senator from Nebraska, is supporting similar language in the bill, and says he will filibuster a bill that does not include it. A filibuster will only be necessary if Democrats cannot unify, seeing as Republican support for limiting abortion rights is expected.

One can only hope the process of repairing our health care system is not delayed much longer, as it is a system in dire need of repair. Peoples’ trust in media sources and the current administration is indeed dwindling. Maybe enough so that individual conclusions will begin to be made, and compromises will be made possible. Then again, television ratings for the most popular shows are not known to suddenly plummet. As with policy, public responsibility for their knowledge is a slow and arduous process.

Is the "Wal-Market" Eroding Our Values?

By Carly Salzberg Kevin Kloss and Brendan Warren

"Mixed Feelings” may be the quintessential expression to describe the United States largest retailer, Wal-Mart. Economist's marvel at the corporation’s rags to riches success knowing full well the collateral damage it collected in the process. Everyday shoppers secretly drool over the stores unbeatable low prices while simultaneously feeling enraged by their monopoly over other Americans businesses.


In the American free market economy the reality is that Wal-Mart trumps all corporations in the commerce rat race we call capitalism. Wal-Mart’s cut throat marketing schemes reflect the practices of capitalism at its finest, revealing the paradoxical values upon which the American culture has been traditionally embedded. The question of whether or not Wal-Mart is good for America is no longer the question. The question should be, is this new form of capitalism eroding American values?

According to Fortune Global 500’s 2009 ranking of the World’s largest corporations, Wal-Mart sits strongly in 2nd place beneath its superior competitor, Exxon Mobil with a total of 405, 607 billion dollars in yearly sales.

The success of this retail giant can be contextualized perfectly by an economic concept first coined by Economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.” This term refers to a company’s ability to revolutionize the system of capitalism through radical innovation, destroying older systems of commerce and implementing new ones, which then dominate an industry. For example, the Polaroid Corporation revolutionized the photography industry with the innovation of instant cameras just as the Xerox Corporation cornered the copying industry via the first photocopier.

Wal-Mart’s “creative destruction” instincts rest in their efficient utilization of a low price model, the global economy and logistical telecommunication systems, which gave them the power to reverse the traditional marketing system from “push” to “pull” production. Before the rein of Wal-Mart, retailers worked within the “push” marketing system whereby manufacturers promote their product to the retailers, deciding what they’re going to produce and then bargaining with the retailers to buy the product and sell it for them.

In the early 1990’s Wal-Mart reversed this feudal relationship. The new “pull” system involved the retailer telling the manufacturer what is being produced and when to produce it based on what is actually being sold. By utilizing technology to calculate commerce logistically, Wal-Mart was able to efficiently and accurately track consumer demand. Now manufacturers sit naked as Wal-Mart’s swift retailers dictate a precise estimate of what they need produced, under what price, when and where. This system not only changed the face of capitalism, it granted Wal-Mart the power to determine the fate of a company.

Rubbermaid is an example of an American company in Wooster, Ohio manipulated by Wal-Mart’s “pull” system. When the price of resin, a raw material essential to the manufacturing of rubber, increased substantially Rubbermaid urged their number one retailer, Wal-Mart to increase the price of their products, an offer that clashed with their low price standard. Incidentally “Wal-Mart promptly dropped a number of Rubbermaid products and replaced them with goods molded by such competitors as Sterilite.”These days Rubbermaid has become a company struggling to stay afloat after Wal-Mart pulled their items from the shelves in 1995 devastating the future of the company and the workers in the years to come. According to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) documentary Is Wal-Mart Good For America? Rubbermaid’s earnings immediately dropped 30 percent and they were forced to sell to the Atlanta based company Newell. In 2003, the factory in Wooster was closed and 850 factory jobs were lost.



This is just one of the horror stories that vindicate Wal-Mart as an unpatriotic corporation that destroys American life, all the while neglecting the apparent irony behind the situation. This corporation’s success is rooted in the very nature of capitalism. Older companies are replaced by newer ones whose innovative marketing strategies corner the industry. If anything Wal-Mart is a glorified example of the American Dream.

Still, even these initial aggressive technological innovations could not fully satisfy the consumer demand for “always low prices.” Wal-Mart Entrepreneurs needed an easier gateway to increase their profits, and that gateway happened to be overseas in countries like China, where “sweat shops” continue grow like weeds. In fact most American consumerism relies heavily upon outsourcing goods and resources from Asian countries whose labor laws are incredibly loose and whose workforce are underpaid.

The exploitative relationship which advocates that cheap help equals cheap goods is diffidently not a marketing theory implemented by Wal-Mart Entrepreneurs, yet their participation negatively reflects the values of the American egocentric economy. As of November 2009 Vanity Fair and 60 Minutes conducted a poll by Americans regarding what they think Best Symbolizes America Today considering the recent economic crisis. The poll concluded that 48 percent of men and women agreed that Wal-Mart best symbolized America.

Truly nothing represents the American culture more accurately than the yellow smiley face, not even the eagle – probably because the patriotic bird gets mistaken for the retailer, American eagle outfitters. Nevertheless the message now reads: United we stand, divided we make other countries fall.

While outsourcing sufficiently lowers inflation in America, it is fueled by millions of disadvantaged workers in foreign countries. Recent reports conducted by the China Labor Watch (CLW) as of December 1, 2009 indicate that factory conditions “remain devastatingly brutal, characterized by long hours, unsafe workplaces and restricted freedom of association, and are in blatant violation of Chinese and international labor laws.”

Anti-Wal-Mart campaigns such as http://wakeupwalmart.com/ and http://walmartwatch.com/ outline corporation’s failure to balance power with moral responsibility. But what should we really blame, the chicken or the egg, maybe neither.

Technically Wal-Mart is not breaking any moral injustices. The capitalist infrastructure permitted this behavior for decades. General motors, the soul of the early 18th century corporate America found its booming success through its exploitation of American Workers. This is the corporate hegemony professed by the late economic philosopher, Karl Marx.

Today sister corporations mimic Wal-Mart's not so secretive strategies for economic success. Similar to Wal-Mart, Target supports China’s shady trade tactics by importing and stocking their stores with most of their country made products. In other words Wal-Mart is no longer the sole contributor of these vile working conditions.

These corporate leaders harness the vulnerability of the working class, whose minimal skills dictate their low economic value. This is the brute nature of capitalism; this is also the cut throat game which Wal-Mart mastered. Every American that walks through these corporations sliding glass doors supports the company’s dark capital motives.



Anti-Wal-Mart campaigns deliver reasonable vindications but imply inconceivable resolutions. Wal-Mart is not going anywhere, anytime soon. America’s capital economy mirrors a culture that it purports to satisfy. More than ever people are active consumers, so much so that their lives are largely dictated by material possession. Wal-Mart’s slogan “Save more, live better” perfectly captures this ideology. Every day, mesmerizing advertisements encourage Americans to spend, spend, spend and then spend some more.

According to the documentary The Story of Stuff created by the Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption, American’s are targeted by 3,000 advertisements per day. Convenience, low prices and good quality echo the hallmark mantras of American life which Wal-Mart merely supplies. Is the corporation wrong, or have more Americans perpetually taken the bait and fell into the trap of consumerism by buying more than we need?

Take the holiday season. A little over fifty years ago the cultural phenomenon, “Black Friday” did not exist. People spent their holiday weekend socializing with family and friends in a relevant spiritual or thankful celebration for the people and simple wholesome pleasures that enriched their lives. They did not camp outside malls, shops and superstores pining after the latest IPod touch that went on sale by nearly 30 percent its original cost. Unfortunately consumerism has surpassed the questionable phase of habitual shopping rituals to an eerie state of celebrated traditions. Last year, Jdimytai Damour, a Wal-Mart worker from Long Island, New York was trampled to death by a large crowd of eager shoppers on Black Friday. "They were like a stampede," said Nassau Det. Lieutenant Michael Fleming. "Hundreds of people walked past him, over him or around him." At best this “Wal-Market” economy offers a cheap and accessible material world under one superstore. At worst it turns people into cold minded swept zombies.

Professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University commented on the consumption of America, from his book, The Population Bomb. Enrlich discovered that Americans account for about five percent of the world’s population and use 24 percent of the World’s resources. This statistic alone establishes that American culture is very driven by consumerism.

Americans cultivate fetishes with their consumer identity, but in doing so they pay little attention to their value as workers. The real tragedy exists when American consumers get exactly what they want, with each purchase increasing the number of workers who posses such little economic value.

It all comes down to the consumer. Corporations like Wal-Mart may be the immaculate beasts many of us supported, but capitalism is not a fixed and stable system. It is shaped by a multiplicity of variables, and the consumer culture is at the center of this existence. We may be strongly influenced by the culture which surrounds us, but it does not dictate our lives. Each individual is endowed with a certain amount of agency to live a life that shadows their own values.

This can be as simple as the consumers conscious decision to pay attention to the amount of goods they are consuming, who produces those goods and under what conditions they are being produced. If corporations such as Wal-Mart support the exploitation of overseas workers, then aggravated individuals should put their values into action. They can begin by deciding to either shop elsewhere or limit their spending.

Additional aims may be to seek out corporations which better reflect a person’s political or moral values. http://www.etsy.com/ is an example of an American online retail exchange that buys and sells handmade items which cover a wide range of product art, photography, clothing, jewelry, edibles, bath & beauty products, and toys. Etsy supports a friendly trade environment whereby all members who join are subjected to strict policies and terms of use, http://www.etsy.com/dosdonts.php which enforce members to treat each other with kindness and respect in all areas of the business. In addition this venue does not support the exploitation of workers, especially in regards to child labor.

For those that continue to feel trapped in the brutal world of consumption the answer is simple. Save. More saving leads to more investment, promoting both economic growth and, yes a better standard of living.

Do Ask, Do Tell

By: Kyle Schoff, Joe Eckstrom, Erin Walsh

In 1993 former president Bill Clinton announced a new policy that has allowed homosexuals to serve in the military, just as long as they pretend to be straight. This new policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” was meant to be a sign of tolerance and to end “witch hunts.” But since its instatement there have been discharges in the thousands for homosexuals who were found out.

In 1981 the Department of Defense issued a new regulation in order to stave off court challenges against the military’s discharge of a homosexual. It stated that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service” and that it was grounds for banning and expulsion from the armed forces. That same statement was also in the 1992 Government Accountability Office’s report on the DOD’s policy on homosexuality.

Throughout the 80s and 90s there was much congressional debate regarding the ban and whether or not it should be lifted. It wasn’t until 1993 that Clinton was able to achieve the compromise that is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Rather than lifting the ban completely, as was Clinton’s initial campaign promise, he was able to appease both sides.

The new policy still states that homosexuality and homosexual acts are grounds for discharge. The loophole is that you can enter the military as a homosexual because asking for a person’s sexual orientation is no longer a part of the screening process. But if you are proven to be homosexual or to have committed a homosexual act you will be indicted and discharged from the military.

Like Clinton, President Barack Obama has promised (in a speech given at the Human Rights Campaign dinner) to end DADT and to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. However, he has given no specific timeline for when he will make good on his promise.

Such an issue may bring about controversy, considering there were reasons for DATD’s instatement. For one, it offered a form of protection for homosexuals. As long as they obeyed the law, they would not be hazed for their sexual orientation by other military personnel.



However, regardless of this protection, homosexuals still rightfully felt discriminated against.

“There are all kinds of people - the very young and the very old, the sick or disabled, violent criminals or, in combat roles, women - whom we regard as unfit to be soldiers,” James Bowman of The Weekly Standard said. “The fact that open homosexuals are also excluded cannot by itself be considered an injustice.”

True, homosexuals in the military are not the only ones being discriminated against, but still, the problems each type of person faces are hardly comparable. Is it really fair to lump them all together?

"The military exists to kill and destroy. It is not fair. It is not unbiased. It is prejudicial," Thompson said. "I am not saying that ‘tradition’ is a good reason why things should remain the way they are. But, at the same time, it is a reason. Americans, for some reason, resist change."

Americans and their beliefs do change, however. An ABC/Washington Post poll performed in 1993 showed that 44 percent of Americans thought homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in the military. The poll was performed again in 2001, resulting in 62 percent in favor, and again in 2009 with 75 percent.

Clearly the times are changing, and despite being instated with arguably good intentions, DADT has become outdated and ineffective. The American Medical Association (AMA) claims that the policy can actually cause issues with patient care.

“The policy threatens the physician-patient relationship and compromises the medical care of gay patients in the military,” say AMA delegates.

As it stands, the military reserves the right to inspect military personnel medical records, in order to check for combat readiness. If patients reveal their sexual orientation to their doctors, the chance to be honorably discharged would always be present.



Paul A. Wertsch, a family physician and delegate for the Wisconsin Medical Society, says that the military and their physicians are being put in a very undesirable position by this law.

“If you can’t trust your doctor to tell the truth, you’re not going to tell the truth,” said Dr. Wertsch. “If a doctor feels that by writing down the truth, he can get you in trouble, that’s a bad situation.”

Dr. Wertsch, whose son is gay, firmly believes that DADT is “hurting people, making doctors lie, having patients not get proper care and hurting the military.”

DADT does not just hinder physical health, but causes emotional problems as well.

Darren Manzella, former combat medic and liaison officer, was honorably discharged from the United States military in June 2008. For nearly two years prior to that, he had been openly gay.



“After returning from my first deployment in Iraq, after seeing death and violence, losing friends and comrades, it really made me look over my life,” Manzella said. “I looked at some issues I had always had trouble with. I had debated, ‘Am I gay?’”

While struggling with these issues, Manzella began a relationship with another man and soon after began receiving anonymous phone calls and emails while in between tours. The messages were all threatening, saying things like “you are stupid” and “the Army is going to kick you out.”

“I didn’t know if the military police would be coming through the door to take me away because someone had reported me,” Manzella said. “This was some of the paranoia I was living with every day.”

Manzella sought out help from his supervisor, who in turn reported him for breaking the law under DADT. A follow up investigation produced no proof of open homosexuality on Manzella’s part, but word of his orientation quickly spread.

“Ironically it pulled the unit together. A lot of them started to invite me out,” Manzella said. “My co-worker was getting married; she told me that my boyfriend and I were invited to the wedding. It made me feel like I was more a part of the family.”

During his second tour in Iraq, in 2006, Manzella’s unit knew that he was gay. He could have pictures of his boyfriend out and talk openly on the phone without worry of someone overhearing. His openness relieved a lot of the pressure he was feeling.

And then seemingly out of the blue, in 2008, he received discharge papers, which read “homosexual conduct admission.” For two years, working alongside his understanding and accepting unit, Manzella had no problems being open. But despite his acceptance, the military has no choice but to uphold the law.

“The Army enforces the homosexual conduct policy because it is the law,” said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver. “The policy is not a military policy. If the law were to potentially change, the Army would change to enforce whatever the law may be.”

The U.S. military’s current plan for the next four fiscal years is to expand the number of their ground troops by 48,000. Since DADT was instated in 1994, more than 13,000 military personnel have been discharged due to their sexual orientation. Approximately 800 of these servicemen and women held statuses deemed “mission critical,” having positions such as linguists, pilots, or combat engineers.



The Government Accountability Office estimated the cost of replacing military personnel discharged for their sexual orientation to be roughly $190.5 million from 1994 to 2004, or about $20,000 per service member.

This total, however, was later found to have left out a number of factors, including the original cost to train those who were discharged, many of whom served for multiple years. After such numbers were factored in, the cost nearly doubled, reaching $363.8 million.

As if these factors were not enough, perhaps the most outrageous statistic is the military acceptance of DADT. As of December 2006, Zogby International poll found that 73 percent of service members in the U.S. military said that they were comfortable working with gay and lesbian personnel. 10 percent said they would not re-enlist or extend their service to the military if homosexuals were allowed to openly serve, and 14 percent said they would only consider these options.

A loss of 10 percent military personnel would be the equivalent to 228,600 troops, more than the number of those serving in the Marine Corps. However, the acceptance of homosexuals in the military, by both service members and the American people, is just too overwhelming to simply ignore.

Society is ever changing. There may have been a time when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was an acceptable law; but as we begin to see new errors in our old ways it is time to consider a new policy.

Cultural Review

Emelie Erlandson

Cultural Review

11-14-09



Moonwalking across our hearts, Michael Jackson has always been in the lime light, though not always positively. It seems that Jackson was always in the news for some reason or another. Since his death, there seems to be a dramatic switch in attitude towards the king of pop.

His album sales in the U.S. hit 2.3 million during the next three weeks after his death. There is also a new T.V. series about the Jackson family being made. This shows the desire of the American public to hear and learn more about the Jackson family. Finally, there is the new This is It concert movie that is currently in theatres. I saw this with my boyfriend and his aunt. When we went, the theatre was about half full. The movie basically gives a “behind the scenes” look at what the new Jackson tour would have consisted of. The video goes through each song, and what special effects were going to take place. We are also introduced to the backup dancers that would be accompanying Jackson on the stage, and the process that they went through to learn how to become an “extension of Michael.” What I liked about this movie, was the fact that it gave its audience a look at how different people and elements come together to make a show. There are even parts in concert where we see Michael correcting the musicians, and where we see him “feeling the song,” so that he can come up with his own correography for it. The movie was one hour and 51 minutes, and in this time, there was not a moment when I thought to myself “is this almost done?”.

This was after the movie had been in the movie theatre for about a week. My boyfriend has never been a Michael Jackson fan. He says that he “never really hated him, but I just never got interested in his music.” The reaction from his aunt was similar, who said that she didn’t “hate him or love him.” The three of us decided that was Michael Jackson still alive, we would probably not take the time to go see the movie. His death created a new interest in us to find out about the “man behind the glove.”

Last Saturday, I stood at the Tinsteletown movie theatre in Erie. I asked ten people why they had gone to see the movie. Two people said that LOVED Michael Jackson, and that they genuinely wanted to see the video. The husband of one of those two people said that their wife made them go because they love this idol. The remaining seven all said that they had fairly neutral feelings about Michael Jackson. They said that it just looked like an interesting movie, and that they wanted to see what he had been planning to do. When I asked them if they thought that they would go see This Is It if Jackson was still alive, they said probably not. One man said that “drama creates excitement, and most people probably saw it because there was the drama of his death surrounding it. This statement summed up all of my findings in, what I felt, was a brilliant way.

Daisy

Greg Stout

Review

Alternative rock band Brand New, has failed to disappoint once again with the release of their fourth full-length album “Daisy”. Through out the history of the band, beginning in 2001, Brand New have always been able to dodge the pressure of the music industry by not sticking to one style of sound of music and being on their own in the alternative-rock world.

Their punk rock style that first caught my attention in 2001 with the release of “Your Favorite Weapon” seems to never be completely lost no matter how far they progress with their music. Growing up at the same time Brand New is also growing as a band amazes me in the fact that they are the only band that I still listen to as much as I listened to them in high school. As my taste in music shifts in the years past and coming, Brand New seems to always keep up with the changing taste.

Daisy is by far their most experimental and gut wrenching album. The band have always been very heavy in their vocals, with straight to the point lines that kick you right in the chest. With lines like “Have another drink and drive yourself home…and you can think of me when you forget your seatbelt and again when your head goes through the windshield.” taken from the song Seventy Times 7 from “Your Favorite Weapon”. That style still shows up in their newest album in the song At the Bottom with the line “And there’s a lake and at the bottom you’ll find all our friend, they don’t swim ‘cause they’re all dead.”

Their new album explores a side that was briefly visited in “The Devil and God are Raging Inside Me” letting the emotion shine through the instrumentals. Relaxing on the cut to the point lyrics, and amping up the rawness and explosiveness of their distorted guitars and hard-hitting drums. Putting their fans to test on the ability to see the reasoning behind the shift. Starting the CD off with a soft piano and a woman’s beautiful voice singing some lullaby, and then jumping right into the CD as Jesse Lacey’s ear shattering style of screaming interrupts the softness of the woman’s voice. This gives the listener a sense that they are in for a ride with this album. Through out the entire album the contrast between relaxed and out of control music is brought right up front and presented to the listener.

As my taste in music changes, Brand New seems to find a way to still be considered as my favorite band. They operate separately from the common music scene and break away from classic genres of music and create their own sound.

Humbug

The lad’s from Sheffield, England have once again surpassed the musical expectations of the decade. The Arctic Monkey’s new album “Humbug” resonates in the listeners headphones with haunting backup vocals, heavy bass lines, echoing fuzz guitar riffs, all complimented by Alex Turner’s clever lyrics swung in his heavy northern accent. Although this masterpiece will surely make its mark on musical history, it seems that American’s will be distracted by pop culture once again.
No one could have foreseen this experimental sound when listening to their first album which sold the most debuts in England’s history. Topping even the Beatles debut album, The Arctic Monkey’s quickly rose to fame after “Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not” struck the indie music scene with remarkable force in 2006. Although the records impact was beatle-isque in Europe, Americans seemed to be more interested in Kanye West at the time. Unfortunately, it seems that this could also be the fate of “Humbug” in America.
The album opens with the band in full force followed by a gripping guitar riff. The track “My Propeller” emerges from the shadows as Turner sings “My propeller won’t spin and I can’t get it started on my own, when are you arriving?” The opening of the record sets a dark mood that the band intends to maintain throughout. For the first time the band begins to experiment with the use of an organ creating a sensation of being at a haunted carnival. Trapped on a carousel that won’t stop spinning, you must follow along with the band until the record closes and the ride comes to an end. This new sound seems to coincide with the collaboration of the Monkey’s and front man Josh Homme of Queens of the Stone Age. Homme brought the band out the California Desert to record Humbug giving the album a mysterious sound unlike any other album they have recorded. When drummer Matt Helders was asked if the environment affected their new songs he stated “I think how they sounded had a lot to do with where we were”.
The album has been described by the Culture Show as “Bigger, Bolder, and way more confident than anything they’ve done before”. Turner points out that recently when he picks up the guitar he cannot help but gravitate towards Jimmy Hendrix. This new influence can easily be spotted in the heavy guitar solo in the track two on the Album “Crying Lightening”. The solo pours down with a heavy force that has been unheard on any previous record. The distorted riff sounds as if it is echoing down a long corridor. Alex Turner’s vocal and lyrical genius follows as he sings “your past times consisted of the strange, twisted and deranged, and I love that little game you have called crying lightening, and how you like to aggravate the ice-cream man on rainy afternoons”. Tuner’s lyrics have been described as the most poetic of the decade and this album is a perfect example.
Humbug slows down on the highly acclaimed track “Corner Stone” as Alex Turner gives the audience a more personal song. The song starts with Turner wandering from pub to pub looking for his lover. Alex sings “I thought I saw you in the rusty hook, huddled up in a wicker chair, I wondered over for a closer look and kissed whoever was sitting there” until he finally asks the girl if he could “call her your name”. His genius prevails as the song continues and he finds himself at the Corner Stone pub with his lover’s sister. Turner’s wit comes through as he sings “She was close, well you couldn’t get much closer, she said I’m really not suppose to but yes, you can call me anything you want”.
Unfortunately, this beautiful song has been overlooked by the American public. The American music charts are dominated by the same hip-hop artists each week while the Arctic Monkey’s genius continues to dazzle British listeners. Could this be the indication that the “Brit Invasion” truly ended in the sixties? Or could it be that the American music scene has been out of touch for too long?
Upon Humbug’s release it reached number 1 on British charts immediately. The poetic lyrics and charging guitar riffs clearly impacted the British music scene. Each Arctic Monkey’s album has reached number one on European charts but remains unseen in America. It seems that the Atlantic is turning out to be more of a musical barrier than it previously was. Even if most American’s cannot appreciate this single for what it’s worth, the album continues on to a perfect close.
The final tracks of the Humbug bring back the energy captured in the first half of the album with Dance Little Liar, Pretty Visitors, and Jewelers Hand. “Dance Little Liar is my favorite new song to perform” stated Alex Turner when speaking with Rolling Stone magazine. The song starts calm as Turner recites poetic verse over a creeping guitar line. Then the band explodes into a breakdown of snarling guitar matched by Matt Helders unique tom work. The song leads right into the opening organ of Pretty Visitors. The listener is brought right back into the haunted carnival illusion until the album the last chord fades away in the song Jewelers Hand. Turner’s lyrics actual capture this illusion that the album created in the first line of the last song as he sings “Fiendish wonder in the carnivals wake”. The reader is brought into an eerie world filled with mazes of mirrors, a house of cards, bubble blowers in the snow, and Turners most interesting line “watching his exit is like falling off the ferry in the night”. This darker sound that the Arctic Monkeys have captured on Humbug is unlike any other their previous albums. It seems that following the immense success of their first two albums it was time for them to start to experiment. Many bands’ these days continue to write pop songs that are radio friendly.
The Arctic Monkeys have proven with this album that they are continuing to grow musically, and lyrically. If you have never heard a full length Arctic Monkeys album I recommend starting with the legendary debut album and working your way to Humbug. The musical journey is truly stunning. Hopefully the American public will recognize their genius amidst the mind numbing current chart toppers.

A Say Anything Moment

Eric Fahy
11/16/09

A Say Anything Moment

I have ruined so many say anything moments by quoting Say Anything that it is causing serious problems in my love life. But it is so worth it.

If you have not heard of the band Say Anything, do not let the 1989 movie of the same title with John Cusack influence your preconceptions of the band. If you do, let it only be in the genius of the writing. Say Anything is one of the smartest bands out there.

Say Anything’s first two albums, “In Defense of the Genre” and “…Is a Real Boy” were full of catchy punk/acoustic tunes with grungy and smart social commentary that borders on embarrassing. The song “Admit it!” from "...Is a Real Boy," that points the finger at the people they think are ruining America. Their third album takes all these aspects and creates another great album.

Nov. 3, 2009, Say Anything’s self titled third album hit stores and iTunes. The night before the release, they appeared on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon to perform the song “Hate Everyone,” from their new album. The performance started with Jimmy Fallon showing of the cover from the album. The cover is a chubby pre-teen boy in a mock super hero outfit. Complete with tights, tightey whiteys, mask, cape, and an emblem with “SA” on it for Say Anything.

Being as ironic as possible the band wore matching black slacks and white, short sleeve button up shirts. They performed the song, “Hate Everyone,” which lead singer Max Bemis singles himself out with anger and satirical lyrics which makes the mock-conformity of their outfits hilarious. The song is a conglomerate of punk percussion, an almost honky tonk style sound, and ironic synthesizers accompanied Bemis’ immediately recognizable, nasal, over enunciated, vocals.

The highlight of all of Say Anything’s music is the lyrics. After recounting some of his life through clever analogies and self loathing lyrics, Bemis lists the people and things he hates at the bridge of the song, “(I hate) actors who seem genuine /(I hate) my ex-girlfriend though she’s feminine/(I hate) The singer with the denim skin!/ I hate everyone/ (I hate) That hospital in Texas/ (I hate) the rapper in the Lexus/ (I hate) the pills I ate for breakfast!” No one is safe from Bemis’ socially prodding lyrics, especially himself.

Songs on the album like “Hate Everyone,” that has an angry punk feel are contrasted by the song “Crush’d.” The song has a very pop, top 40 feel with synthesizers and a slow, R and B style drum beat complete with rhythmic clapping. At an acoustic show Bemis said that on the album the song sounds like it was mixed by the famous pop producer Timbaland.

“Crush’d” is a love song where he tells how “Sherri” changed his life. Bemis sings, “I thought I’d end up beside a princess bride and love was indivisible.” This flows with the idea that he is maturing with his ideas of love and we can hear him grow through the rest of the song.

He keeps up with his smart, socially relevant lyrics, “You’re no witch/ you’re no wench/ you’re like Bjork with better fashion sense.” This is obviously a play on singer Bjork when she appeared at an awards ceremony wearing a dress that looked more like a Halloween costume than a dress. These little references to contemporary culture are evidence to their relevance.

Say Anything is definitely not trying to conform to one specific genre on this album. The song “Less Cute,” starts out like a big band song that has horns, a catchy, fast paced drum beat, and a powerful bass line that helps to carry the song through to the end. As the song transitions from verse to chorus the horns cut out and we get a more rock sounding style. Once the song goes back into the verse we again get the ironic big band sound, which is extremely catchy.

Again, there is no lack of witty lyrics from front man Bemis here. The song is written from the point of view of a woman who is wants one guy but has to settle for someone else. One of the smarter lines in the song is, “And my love was like a food stamp, handing it out.” This line is very clever and speaks to a issue that is very relevant to the young at heart. It also infers that something happened that made her desperate, maybe an argument with the guy the writer really likes.

The Social jab to the societal jugular in “Less Cute,” comes in the chorus of the song. “He’s like a less cute version of you, but he’ll have to do/ He’s like a Wal-Mart version of you, but you’ll have to do.” She is settling for a sub-par version of the man she wants, and she conveys this by calling him a Wal-Mart, or generic, version of the man she wants. She is obviously characterizing the man as sub-par and unsatisfying compared to what she really wants. This is another great analogy to pick at the scabs forming on American Culture.

The album culminates in the final song on the track “Ahhh… Men,” which is a showcase for Bemis to flex his poetic muscles. The first two minutes and ten seconds of the song is Bemis and a guitar playing a simple two chord progression that really let’s your attention focus on his words. The lyrics are so intricate and deep that it requires a couple listens while staring at the lyrics to even attempt sift through the beautiful analogies and culture bashing that Bemis commits in this epic finally.

Bemis takes a lot of jabs at religion in the appropriately titled “Ahhh… Men.” His angry vocals coupled with amazing lyrics generate a large distaste for religion. “And I know the concept’s muddy and trite/ That all that is large and all that is slight/ Is flowing in the stream of holy floodlights./ At writing holy books, Lord knows we bite/ But if this is your will and my testament,/ I will bow to no belief that they bent./ Still I’m just a sperm begat from your love,/ Basking in the bread, the blood of your dove.” I’m sorry for making you read all that, but I feel that this is such a testament to Bemis’ ability to write deep and absolutely amazing lyrics that I feel that I would have cheated you if I did share this with you.

Bemis is a genius, and there is so much to this album that an English professor could poor over these lyrics and write paper upon paper on the sheer brilliance of the symbolism and commentary present here. This paired with the catchy tunes that are from different musical genre’s spread the appeal of this album to cover even more than just the faithful fans looking for another good punk album.