policy with pop

9/11 Conspiracy & YouTube Videos

As you know, I love learning new and different views (that’s why I’m always asking for your opinion). Well, a few days ago, I found myself in a discussion that I’ve never really had or considered: A conspiracy theory about who was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks…

Even though I’ve known that some people believe that the United States government, not Al-Qaeda, is the real culprit behind the World Trade Center buildings’ collapse, I had never really looked into the possibility. Plus, it was never really covered seriously or in depth by the traditional news media.

My friends, who are highly-educated, decided to show me circumstantial evidence (via YouTube of course) that seemed to support the claim. We watched a video of BBC News reporting that authorities informed it that Building 7 collapsed. Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, did in fact fall on 9/11, but 20 minutes after the BBC made its announcement. In fact, Building 7 is visibly standing when the anchor reports the news. Here’s the video:

It does seem suspicious. Conspiracy theorists are convinced that this reporting accident proves that the government planned to take down the World Trade Center buildings and simply got the timing of disseminating the information wrong.

The official government reason that Building 7 collapse is:

Fire.

Conspiracy theorists are calling the government explanation out. Citing engineers, physicists and other experts, they say that fire cannot melt steel. Furthermore, if you search YouTube, numerous videos question the manner in which Building 7 (as well as the Twin Towers) fell. They say it collapsed or imploded like a planned, controlled demolition with explosives. Here’s another video:

Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of all of it. But, I can say I am more open to learning more.

So you tell me: Can we trust the government? And if the government is capable of this, what does it mean for the American people? And why hasn't the conspiracy theory been covered seriously by the traditional news media in America? Is it all just “crazy talk” promulgated by the internet?

Wedding Gift = Political Donations

Ellen DeGeneres is known for doing this:

Dancing! She sure likes to dance a lot on her talk show. But, Ellen has also gained national attention for recently marrying her partner, actress Portia de Rossi of Alley McBeal and Arrested Development fame.

So we’ve already had a passionate debate on the practice of gay marriage on PolicyWithPop.com. And you’re more than welcomed to continue it.

But the question that arises now is: What is an appropriate wedding gift for a gay marriage? Obviously, it depends on the couple and your relationship with them. But one interesting present that many in the gay community are asking for is a political donation.

As we know, California is considering a proposition that bans same-sex marriages since the state Supreme Court allowed for gay marriage a few months ago. Both sides of the proposition are heavily raising money for their campaigns. Thus, many gay couples are asking their guests to contribute money to their wedding registry on the Equality California Web.

For gay couples that have lived together and had committed relationships for years, new toasters, blenders and dishes would be a waste. Saving their right to marry is much more important and meaningful.

During the first fundraising reporting quarter, gay couples and friends have donated approximately $500,000 to Equality for All, an umbrella group which includes Equality California, That total pales in comparison ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage-California, which had raised S2.3 million in its first quarter.

However much the gay grassroots fundraising campaign raises and regardless of where you stand on the same-sex marriage debate, you have to admit that political donations as a wedding gift is certainly unique, creative and purposeful.

Would you ever forgo asking traditional wedding gifts to ask your friends and family contribute to a cause you strongly believe in? And if so, what cause?

Jack & Bobby Go To School

As many are entering or returning to school, here is the best speech I have ever seen on TV about college and life, courtesy of Jack and Bobby:

Are there any fictional speeches that have moved you?

Michael Phelps: New Breakfast of Champions GRRR-EIGHT!?!

Continuing our Olympic coverage:

Michael Phelps… What can I say? If you don’t know who he is, something's wrong. Very wrong. Alright, for the one person who doesn’t know, Michael recently won an unprecedented 8 gold medals at the Beijing Olympics.

Now he’s temporarily replacing Tony the Tiger. That’s right Michael Phelps has signed an endorsement deal with the Kellogg Company to be on the cover of Frosted Flakes and Corn Flakes. What!?! I thought the breakfast of champions was Wheaties… Well, that’s going to piss off some people.

Actually, it has. Nutritionists are criticizing Michael for promoting the kid-marketed Frosted Flakes, which has three times the amount of sugar that Wheaties has and a third-less fiber.  They worry that children will heed his picture, eat the cereal and become unhealthy and obese.

For his part, Michael reportedly eats 12,000 calories a day and burns it off swimming in the pool, so he probably doesn’t think about the health effects it has on us ordinary people.

But is Michael Phelps morally responsible for making sure his cereal endorsement is healthy, especially since it’s targeted towards kids?

Assuming that Michael actually eats and enjoys Frosted Flakes, is it better that he endorses it rather than promoting a healthier cereal that he rarely eats or even likes?

Coming of Age: China's women gymnastics

In a showdown in the final round of the women’s team gymnastics competition at 2008 Olympics:

But throughout the competition eyebrows were raised at how young the Chinese gymnasts looked. The Chinese squad looked a little too young… young enough to be ineligible. Compared to the American team, the Chinese were on average 3.5 inches shorter and 30 pounds lighter.

In order to compete at these Olympics in gymnastics, each athlete must be 16. This age restriction is meant to protect kids and their bodies from the enormous stress of elite competition. The age restriction is also found in other sports, such as figure skating.

Opponents of age restrictions in sports argue that it may prevent the best athlete from competing and thus put the results in doubt. Plus, they say age restrictions may not deter athletes and sports federations from pushing younger athletes to the max.

Are age restrictions in sports like gymnastics appropriate? Or should they be eliminated?

To satisfy the current age rules, the Chinese government supplied its athlete’s passports as evidence of eligibility before the Games. International Gymnastics Federation officials have accepted these passports as valid and accurate.

Skeptics doubt the accuracy of these passports as they believe the Chinese government has doctored its athletes’ date of births as it has in the past (double bronze medalist at the Sydney Games, Yang Yun admitted that she was really 14, not 16 as listed, at the time) . They also cite online Chinese documents and newspapers which give a different age (14) and date of birth for two of China’s team.

Still the Chinese government and athletes still assert that all members of the current gold-winning squad are 16 or older.

Has the issue about age and eligibility been raised because Team USA earned the silver medal instead of gold? Or is this age-ineligibility issue a valid concern?

Do the Chinese athletes look younger than they are because they are Asian? Or do you think they are underage? And if in fact Chinese women’s gymnastics team members are underage, what would the appropriate recourse be?

UPDATE: The International Olympic Committee has ordered a probe on Chinese double gold medalist He Kexin after new evidence arose. He won team gold and a gold in asymmetric bars.

Spain Eyes Olympic Offense

The Olympics: the global venue that allows athletes to show the world their abilities. Sometimes they shine and inspire the world. (I'm talking about you, Michael Phelps.) Sometimes they give heartbreaking performances. (No need to name names, US women's gymnastics.) But sometimes, Olympic athletes gain international attention for their antics outside of competition. Case and point: Spain's basketball team.

Spain's Olympic basketball team riled the world by taking this picture before coming to Beijing:

As you can see, the players used their index fingers to stretch their eyes to make Asian "slant eyes." They are getting heat for the picture as critics are calling their pose offensive, disrespectful, divisive and racist.

How did Team Spain respond? It criticized the media for blowing this picture out of proportion and defended the picture pose. The team said it was just following the instructions of their sponsor Seur, a Spanish courier company, for an ad. They thought that the pose would honor China, the host of these Olympics Games.

When taking the pose, player Jose Calderson thought the picture "was going to be something nice, something with no problem." He went on to call the picture "an affectionate gesture" on his blog. Head coach Aito Garcia Reneses compared it to taking a picture on you on tips of your toes to honor tall opponents. He didn't consider that nor the "slant eyes" pose offensive.

Another player, Pau Gasol, admitted he was uncomfortable with the picture but not because he thought there were racial undertones but because he thought slanting his eyes was "clownish." Although he went on to apologize to anyone offended, saying that was not the intent.

Do you think the "slant eyes" are offensive and an unworthy pose for Olympic athletes to make? Or do you think the PC police and the media are creating unnecessary drama?

What do you think of Spain's response to this controversy? How would you handle? And what, if any, repercussions should Spain's basketball team face?

Obama, McCain, Paris! Oh My!

Republican presidential nominee John McCain recently released an interesting ad, entitled “Celeb” attacking Democratic counterpart Barack Obama’s fame as well as his economic and energy policy.

In the ad, McCain’s narrator compares Obama to tabloid favorites, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. On the policy end, the ad tries to frame Obama as a President that would increase taxes and America’s dependence on foreign oil, which the Obama campaign disputes.

The ad has sparked a lot of controversy. Some have said the McCain ad is politics at its lowest and worst. Are Paris and Britney really that bad!?!

There have also been charges that the ad is racist, similar to a 2006 Republican National Committee ad against another black Democratic candidate, Harold Ford Jr. In that ad, it suggests Ford had sexual relations with a white female Playboy Bunny, which critics say plays into pre-existing prejudices about black men and white women. Watch the old ad here for a reminder:

Because the McCain ad features Obama (a black man - if you didn’t know already) with Paris and Britney (white women who have overly sexualized media personas), some say the Republicans are once again using racial undertones in their attack on Obama. Obama, himself, has called the ad “cynical” but not racist. But nonetheless, McCain and his camp have responded by accusing that the Obama campaign is playing the “race card.”

In terms of effectiveness, an Obama advisor did acknowledge that Obama’s recent dip in the polls was probably attributed to the “Celeb” ad.

So what do you think of the McCain “Celeb” ad? Low? Racist? Politically shrewd?

But as the ad continues to get airplay and the debate heats up, Paris has decided to add some levity to the mix. Paris, whose parents donated money to the McCain campaign, responded with her own political ad. Here:

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

What are your thoughts on the Paris Hilton response ad? And who has the better energy plan: Obama, McCain or Hilton?

The Shorts Suit: A Project Runway Hit?

One of the readers at PolicyWithPop.com (Emily) asked me to write something up about Project Runway. I love that show and the suggestion. So, here it goes.

In the current 5th season of Project Runway, one designer caught my eye. Unfortunately, it was not what he was making for the competition. What caught my eye was what he was wearing.

Wesley, who was eliminated on the second challenge, regularly wore a shorts suit - a normal suit top but, instead of pants, shorts. Honestly, I wasn't sure how I felt about his shorts suit. It definitely has a point of view, and it could be argued that it is fashion forward.

Apparently the shorts suit is making its way into the workplace. The New York Times recently did a story explaining that the shorts suit is gaining credibility at some firms and offices. In the article, those that wear the shorts to work argue that the short suit makes perfect sense stylistically and especially for the hot summer days. Plus, they admit it allows them to show off their calves, which women are already allowed to do in the workplace.

Despite the manly-leg revolution, many top firms have kept their ban on the shorts suit. They do not believe the shorts suit is professional enough for the office.

As Heidi says, "One day you're in. The next day you're out." You be the judge.

So should the shorts suits be acceptable workplace attire? Or is this just a new fad that will eventually fade?

Obama's Ludacris Rap

Rapper Ludacris, an avid supporter of Senator Barack Obama for President, recently got in the political fray. He released a controversial, pro-Obama song, “Politics,” which praises Obama’s political rise while insulting Senator Hillary Clinton, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Senator John McCain and President George Bush. Below is an uncensored video of “Politics”

If you didn’t catch everything, you can find the lyrics here. But the song’s attack is as follows:

- Calls Clinton the b-word (rhymes with Mitch…)
- Says Jackson is slick and gutless
- Believes that “McCain don’t belong in any chair unless he’s paralyzed”
- States that Bush is mentally handicapped

A few of my friends, who are pro-Obama supporters, have praised the song as “dope.”

Obama, who has Ludacris songs on his iPod, apparently does not agree with Ludacris and my friends about “Politics.” His campaign spokesman delivered this strong rebuke:

“As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today often perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images that he doesn’t want his daughters or any children exposed to. This song is not only outrageously offensive to Senator Clinton, Reverend Jackson, Senator McCain, and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual, he should be ashamed of these lyrics.”

Should Ludacris’ rap be appreciated as an artistic political expression, despite its crassness? Or is his song offensive, misogynistic and degrading, which he should be ashamed of?

Do you believe Ludacris and other Obama-supporters (rappers and rap listeners) will heed Obama’s call for change in the lyrical content of rap music? If so, “dope.” If not, who or what can change rap music?