While the rest of the world continues to salivate over Obama’s latest speech concerning race and religion (full text here) the unfortunate truth is that the speech is deeply troubling in a number of ways. While Obama, throughout his speech, calls for America to become a “more perfect Union”–addressing the issue of race in America–it is unclear, exactly, what Obama believes this “perfected Union” would look like. Indeed, Obama’s vision as a leader concerning race is truncated an ambiguous at best.

While Obama could have clearly come out against the divisive remarks of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and articulated his own vision of a perfected Union that had appropriately dealt with the issue of race, Obama, instead, offered nothing in the way of a concrete prescription and only called for the popular but nebulous “dialogue.” Here, Obama demonstrated not his strong vision for change, but a political hedging and calculus designed to settle nothing and, more importantly, offend none. This, of course, is by design and not necessity. While other leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King have articulated to the public a compelling vision of a future where “on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood,” where “my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” Obama desires only “dialogue.”

The reasons for this are clear. For one, we can be certain that King’s vision is not Wright’s vision, the vision Obama has effectively embraced through his twenty year relationship with Wright. While King presented a message of inclusion and brotherhood, Wright’s message is one of exclusion and separation–of an exclusively black church embracing exclusively black values in the “U. S. of KKK A.” For Obama to present a solid vision of inclusion, of black and white reconciling and coming together, would be to disown and reject everything Wright has preached and stood for. Obama’s hedging is not limited to his lack of a clearly vision, however, but unmistakably woven into his rhetoric as well.

There is no question that Obama is a gifted speaker and a gifted writer. To be sure, Obama resembles in many ways Abraham Lincoln in his incisive legal mind and careful rhetoric. Consider, however, the following portion of Obama’s speech where he distinguishes between the “black experience” and “immigrant experience” in America:

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future…

…Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch.

“As far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch.” As far as they’re concerned… A subtle and important qualifier, and one lacking from Obama’s discussion of the black experience in America throughout his speech. Here, again, Obama indirectly does not reject the viewpoint of Wright and many others in the black community, but leaves open the question of the legitimacy of the narrative of the immigrant experience. He does not say that no one has handed white Americans anything, or that they justly deserve their success. Rather, he only goes so far as to acknowledge that they perceive to have earned it.

It is clear then why Obama’s speech is both disappointing and not what it seems. While Obama has positioned himself as a leader able of healing racial issues in the United States, his rhetoric and vague vision for “dialogue” raise legitimate concern and seem to indicate, in my opinion, not substantive discourse but political hedging–interested in communicating progress and inclusivity to white Americans while not alienating or offending blacks. One thing is for certain: where Obama could have settled questions and put to rest concerns over his relationship with Wright, instead, only more questions remain.

I thought this was pretty funny. It comes out of Ithaca College.

Check out this video. Really.

Online social-networking giant Facebook sent shockwaves through cyberspace this past Wednesday, December 13, when, in a move no one had predicted, they removed the required “is” from users’ status feeds. Shortly after the change, college students across the globe experienced what can only be described as an existential crisis, unsure of whether to retain the “is” or experiment with heretofore-unheard-of possibilities, including the use of the existentially-questionable past-tense “was.”

“Ever since Facebook was created we were operating within the rationalist Cartesian narrative of ‘I think, therefore I am,’” Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg explained. “In light of today’s changing social climate, however, we decided it was time to jettison Descarte’s cognito and to allow users to explore and create their own definitions of being, redefining and reconstituting themselves day after day.”

As expected, the change produced increased levels of Sartrean anxiety, despair, existential uncertainty, and forlornness among the online users. One RIT student, Kayla Talkington, displayed “Kayla is …” in her feed. Another student, Ira “Ike” Smith of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, changed his status to “Ike was.” The changes led to increased confusion over what, exactly, constitutes being and who, specifically, is responsible for defining that being.

“How do I know that I exist?” one RIT student asked. “You know what I mean? How do I know that I exist? Yesterday, I had the assurance from Facebook that ‘Steve is,’ today… I mean who knows, today it’s only ‘Steve.’ This is the biggest thing since the Matrix. It’s really depressing.” 

Others, however, found the change a cause for great optimism. “No longer are we subject to the oppressive control of Facebook over who we are,” one RIT student proclaimed. “Today is a day of great liberation. A day of freedom. Today I am whoever, whatever, I want to be.”

While many were pleased with the change made by Facebook, others, particularly those users who had labeled themselves “very liberal,” said the site didn’t go far enough. “This is a step, but it’s only a small step,” one student complained. “Facebook still forces us to conform to archaic socially created labels.” Among the chief complaints was the fact that Facebook still offers only “male” and “female” as the options for gender and, similarly, limits who one can be “interested in,” again offering only male or female as options.  “What if I’m not interested in male or females?” one student defiantly asked. Among the additions in “interested in” students wanted to see included were a variety of animals, aliens, and, particularly among older male users, children/minors.

Regarding future changes, Zuckerberg had little to say, cryptically responding, “I don’t want to say what could happen and what couldn’t happen. The sky is the limit. These are post-modern times.”

As the Iowa Caucus draws near, GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is under fire. As his popularity has skyrocketed nationally and, more importantly, in Iowa, so too have the number of attacks out to convince America that Mike just isn’t fit to govern. Of note, most of these attacks actually have very little to do with his ability to govern—in 2005 TIME named Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, one of America’s top 5 governors. No, the attacks don’t claim that Huckabee can’t do the job, but rather that there is something fundamentally wrong with Huckabee and that he shouldn’t be able, shouldn’t be eligible, to take our nation’s top office.

Chief among the charges is the fact that Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister and that he, in fact, pastored three separate churches in Arkadelphia, Texarkana, and Pine Bluff, Arkansas before turning to politics. This, some say, violates a very important separation of church and state—“It’s unconstitutional! A president shouldn’t be a pastor!”

That’s an interesting idea—that someone isn’t fit for public office because of their profession. Andrew Jackson was a lawyer. Herbert Hoover was a mining engineer. Harry Truman was a farmer. Of course, most would find it preposterous to say that someone can’t be president simply because of his or her job. But for some reason this idea flies when we’re talking about a pastor. It is even more ironic, of course, when it is atheists that are making this charge, because for them Huckabee’s former job should be only that—a job—no spirits or God about it.

The attacks become even more strange when you sit down for a minute and think about what Huckabee actually used to do “at the office.” Every Sunday he’d sit down with American citizens and he’d encourage them to “love their neighbors as themselves.” He’d tells those listening to him speak not to lie, cheat, or steal. He’d tell them that “blessed are the peacemakers.” He’d instruct children to “honor their father and mother.” He preached forgiveness and reconciliation instead of hate and revenge. He even likely saved a few marriages through counseling and encouraged people to work through their problems instead of running toward divorce. Surely, then, this man’s job must necessarily bar him from being President of the United States.

The truth is, of course, that there are only three qualifications a potential President must have: First, he or she must be a natural born U.S. citizen. Second, the candidate must be at least 35 years old. Finally, the candidate must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. Fortunately (or unfortunately, for some) professional occupation really doesn’t have anything to do with it and, more than that, the “separation of church and state” doesn’t come into play here at all.

In fact, the Constitution has only one thing to say on religion and public office, found in Article VI, Section 3: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Simply put, you don’t need to be a member of a particular religion to run for office—as it should be.

In 2004, after John Kerry began to fall in polls for his perceived lack of religious fervor, columnists rushed to his aid reminding Americans that there is “no religious test!” and that it was “in the constitution!” It was safe to vote for Kerry, even if he didn’t believe what he claimed on the stump. What those same columnists are doing now, however, is applying a reverse religious test to Huckabee. “This man can’t run for President! He’s a pastor! He doesn’t only believe in something—he preaches it!” Unfortunately for them, Americans are both fair and tolerant, and don’t discriminate on people because of the color of their skin, gender, beliefs, or even occupation. It’s safe to vote for Huckabee, even if he believes what he claims on the stump.

RIT female to RIT male.

I’m not voting for Ron Paul. Anyone who looks at the five-foot-eight, 72 year old obstetrician-turned-congressman and sees the next leader of the free world isn’t serious about electing a president. But Ron Paul’s campaign for the presidency isn’t about Ron Paul or the presidency. At its core, it’s a campaign about ideas. It’s about a powerful, grassroots, limited-government movement sweeping across the nation, and one that’s only gaining momentum.

To say that Ron Paul has been defying expectations this election cycle would be an understatement. Indeed, there’s nothing new about the ten-term Texas congressman or the classic free-market, strict constitutionalism he’s been peddling for over thirty years. He’s been in and out of politics since the ‘70s, running for the presidency once before in ‘88 as a Libertarian and picking up only .47 percent of the popular vote. But something’s different this time around, and what started as an obscure candidate literally left out on the edges of the Republican debates has quickly turned into a political phenomenon that’s taken center stage.

It’s been called the Ron Paul Revolution—first coined by the Washington Post and later followed by both the New York Times and TIME magazine—and a revolution is perhaps the only way to aptly describe Paul’s immense and growing online following. On November 5, Guy Fawkes Day, Paul’s campaign set an all-time GOP fundraising record, amassing over 4.2 million dollars in only 24 hours. He wins just about every online poll conducted, though nationally he’s hard-pressed to poll above five percent. Visit the websites Digg or Youtube on any day and you’ll find a plethora of top videos and articles featuring Paul. One Youtube video, in particular, features a drunken John Mayer arguing about Ron Paul with Justin Long (think the Mac guy in the Apple commercials) outside of a Hollywood club. “Ron Paul knows the Constitution… I read the Constitution is what I’m saying,” Mayer yells to an apparently Constitutionally-deficient Long.

It’s all part of a movement that’s gaining traction. Paul’s popularity is fueled by a generation of young, tech-savvy citizens raised in the digital-anarchy that is the internet, tired of misguided and failed federal policies and the ever-growing leviathan of Big Government. Critical of billion-dollar bureaucracies and failed foreign military escapades, Paul’s out to shrink the size of government. His speeches often call for the abolition of the IRS, ending our increasingly insolvent entitlement programs, dismantling the Department of Energy, and returning to the gold standard. His message, contrary to the paternalism and “it takes a Village” of those on the Left, is one of freedom and personal responsibility, of rejecting today’s pseudo-socialism and returning to the Constitutional framework set forth by the Founders.

But the Ron Paul Revolution is only a “sort-of” revolution at best. Despite the increasingly popular rhetoric of limited-government and free markets, it comes at a time when most Americans are anxious for universal healthcare and more commanding and controlling environmental regulations. Even more puzzling, for every “Ron Paul stands on principles! He has upheld the Constitution on every vote. Ron Paul 2008.” left in the comments sections on blog across the internet there are just as many “Vote Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich 2008” comments popping up—and they’re serious. Increasingly, there are website and online articles with titles such as “Reasons to choose Dennis Kucinich over Ron Paul.” Kucinich is, of course, the elfish looking Ohio congressman and Democratic candidate who claims to have seen UFOs and has frequently implored “workers of the world” to “unite” during the debates thus far.

The trouble is Kucinich and Paul couldn’t be more antithetical. In the arena that is politics, it’s not that they’re on different teams—they aren’t even paying the same game. While Paul wants to return power to the people and decrease our reliance on Washington, Kucinich only wants to centralize government and make it more pervasive—he’s called for universal food care, tying all wages to a living wage index, and creating a new Department of Peace. It’s troubling, then, that many Paul supporters really don’t get this fundamental difference and, instead of being tied to the ideas of liberty, seem simply to be rooting for the strangest, most radical underdogs.

Far from those that have characterized the Ron Paul movement a revolution, far from TIME’s Michael Kinsley who boldly proclaimed Libertarians Rising, Paul’s popularity is likely more a brief, ten percent market correction rather than an all-out thirty percent recession of Big Government. What all this, instead, signals likely is the next chapter in the unfolding story of what role the internet will play in presidential politics—a rebellion against main stream media and the candidates of the establishment, an embrace of that which is novel, home-grown, and not meticulously managed. Howard Dean 2.0. A Ron Paul Revolution? I wish. Let’s, instead, just shoot for getting the national debt under control, jettisoning an unmanageable Social Security program, and not letting Hillary dupe us into a 100 billion dollar a year universal healthcare program.

Rochester Fire Chief John Caufield and Deputy Chief Stephen McClary explain what happened on Nov. 9 when a fire broke out at 33 Upton Park in Rochester, killing two RIT students–Seth Policzer and Syed Ali Turab. According to Caufield, the fire was the result of an unprotected fireplace the residents often used. In addition, both Seth and Ali had BACs of at least .16, which may have made the situation worse.