Occupy Harvard

It’s been a long time since I’ve posted, but with the recent developments at Harvard I felt like I should probably start again. Shot some film and photos from the Occupy Harvard protest which was taking place, which I’ve uploaded to this post and onto Facebook. My friend Vivian is still out there taking more photos with my camera, so definitely more to come.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

2010 in Retrospect

It’s New Year’s Day. And it’s nearly four in the morning. That could only mean one thing (and no, it’s not partying hard into the New Year) – jetlag. I had a great holiday with my aunt and cousins in California, but sadly, we had to return home yesterday. Thank you for such an amazing holiday!

Now it’s time to think about the past year, which has surely been an eventful one. But before I do, I would like to thank everyone who made the good times as good as they were. There are too many people, particularly from school, who I would like to direct thanks specifically to, but I’d prefer to do these in person rather than on the internet for the whole world to see.

However, a particular shoutout goes to my debates partners and coaches – Kraken, BS, Annette, Paul, Prakash, Chungers, Griff, Pavan, Field, Claw, Biffo, Justin, Sachin, Greg, Mr. A, Mr. E and everyone else (not to forget Ben Kindler for coming to so many practices). Most often, debate training and the tournaments we went to were the highlights of the year. The confidence, experience and knowledge I gained from working with you was insurmountable and we definitely formed some life-lasting friendships Many adventures yet to come!

So here it goes – the year!

• February – after months of struggling with debating at WSDC standard, I think I finally pulled through just about the week before Worlds. Hong Kong broke sixteenth at Doha- woo hoo! Thanks again to Kraken, Annette, Paul, Prakash, Greg and Mr. Evershed for being such awesome team mates and coaches. It was also great to meet so many people from so many different countries there. (Also went to Harvard Model Congress Asia during this month, which was lots of fun as well)
• April – WIDPSC. Wow this was a  CRAZY trip! BS, Griff, Biffo, Sach and last but not least, my room mate Tiffany – I couldn’t have shared this experience with better people, apart from all the amazing people we met -  Teams Germany, Canada, Pakistan, Crete, USA, UK, RSA, Korea etc. Thank you to Mrs. Garland for organising tryouts and to Mr. Allen for being an amazing coach. Congrats again to Team HK for doing well against the odds.
• Late April – Setting up HKSDC. While it may not seem so from an outside viewpoint, an unbelievable amount of work went into setting up the organisation. Paul and Mr. Evershed – you deserve a lot more than a tribute on my blog for all the work you have put into making HKSDC what it is today. Paul – remember when we had to create the website in about three hours? Now it seems funny -  it definitely wasn’t at the time LOL
• May/June – AS Level exams. Now these were tough. Got sick right off the plane and struggled to cram everything during study leave. Fortunately I pulled through, but it was quite a close call. Thank you to Kraken and BS for keeping  me company during the entire exam period. Not to mention a HUGE thanks to Amanda for our sleepover and trip to Disneyland as well as being the best friend someone could ask for this year. Thanks for everything
• Slovenia – this was fun! Everyone at the tournament was extremely nice and friendly and it was great you guys. I really hope to see you all again (I did in fact see Dragan again HoEDT and at Oxford!)
• HoEDT training – intense but very fun. A special shoutout goes to Pavan, who had to endure my and mostly Greg’s bombardment of India-related jokes Flashback to Griff and my birthday, when I nearly cut our cake while the candles were still alight…with a plastic knife…fail…
• August – Israel! I won’t drawl along about the sites we saw, you can check those out on Expedia or whatever. Nina, Ayelet, Josh and Joseph – thank you for coming to meet me in Jerusalem and proving that the world is smaller than expected and that friendships can literally span across countries. Although we saw some stunning sites, seeing you all again was definitely the highlight of the trip
• HoEDT – this was probably the most intense week of my life. Staying up until two to prepare two debates for two teams for two sides was an absolute nightmare. By the finals, my voice had pretty much gone. Well done HK, we did much better than expected, and congratulations to Team South Africa on kicking our butts in the Finals! A huge thank you needs to be given to Greg and Mr. A for their dedication during traning as well as during the tournament.
• September & November – Sr and Jr HKSDC. These tournaments were amazing, mostly because it was great to sit back and see how much HKSDC has achieved since WSDC tryouts of last year. Special shout out to the GSIS Junior Debaters – even though I may not show it very often, I am extremely proud of all of you for the leaps and bounds in progress you have made this year.
• October – start of HKMUN 2010-11. HKMUN has also initiated drastic and great improvements, including the new student committee, facebook group and individual country website. The teacher and student committees deserve a major thank you for all the work you have done. We may have only had one meeting and one caucus, but it seems like the caucuses and assemblies yet to come will be extremely entertaining and exciting. See you all at the Second Caucus next week!
• August – December- Applications. I don’t want to write too much about these because it’ll be like reliving a dream(/nightmare). Ironically I heard from Stanford down the road from Oxford, and Oxford down the road from Stanford – fancy that! Good luck to everyone who hasn’t heard back from their unis yet and congratulations to those who have! Major thanks goes to Diana for being my number one application buddy and for freaking out alongside me for Early App results We still need our Early App party with Katharine, Michelle and every other EA/ED candidate!
• Early December – Oxford interviews! I wasn’t expecting an interview invite, so when I got it, I was super excited to go to the UK for a week. Apart from the insane jet lag, which was a massive downer, this was a great trip. Met some amazing people (don’t forget our pub pact Juliet, Nikolaev, Alex, Victoria and Simonian!) and re-met some more amazing people, namely Victoria and Dragan. It was great seeing you guys again – at this rate, we’ll be sure to see each other next year
• December – and thus this brings me back to the Christmas holidays. Thank you Aunty Lynn, Emma and Evan for being so hospitable and being such great hosts for the holidays. It was definitely the best Christmas so far, especially since we got to see you again. I hope you have a great New Year!

One bullet point is missing – WSDC Squad training. Since we’ve only just begun, I’ve decided to reserve comments about our tumultuous training sessions for next year’s blog post

On that note, it’s a brand new year – many of us our going off to college in a few months, so this year is really the start of something new. Happy New Year!

Young Post Article – Hero or Criminal

I am back from the UK! Definitely some very fun times at Oxford and I already miss my potential future classmates. However, I can honestly say there were a few things I did not miss, namely the weather and the aftermath of the student protests (which we watched live on TV at St. Hilda’s – expect a piece about it soon!).

Below is my article for the Young Post, which was published on December 10th 2010, the official version can be read at the Young Post website. You can also download the pdf here. I have also uploaded it onto the Articles page of my blog, where you can find other pieces written by/about me (gosh that sounds terribly arrogant :S). I hope you enjoy the read!

Click on the image to enlarge

Hero or Criminal

Wikileaks. The word is tainted with an air of danger. The site has been present in the news since 2008 due to its uploading of private information such as the contents of Sarah Palin’s e-mails, a list of suspected members of the British National Party and a video depicting the killing of 12 unarmed people during a Baghdad air strike.

However, it was not until recent times that the website reached its current level of notoriety. In July, it published the “Afghan War Diary”, over 92,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan. Just this week, the site distributed over 200,000 US Embassy documents to newspapers such as The Guardian and The New York Times.

This release attracted the ire of many countries, particularly the United States, for putting soldiers’ and citizens’ lives in danger. But is this actually true? Have lives actually been put in danger as a result of the website?

So called “whistle blowers” have definitely proved their worth in the past. Most famously, “Deep Throat” played an important role in giving information concerning Richard Nixon’s role in Watergate to Bob Woodward and Carol Bernstein, journalists at the Washington Post. Daniel Elsberg also leaked the “Pentagon Papers,” a history of the US’s political-military history in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967. The media plays an important role in a free society to check up on the government to make sure politicians stay in line.

However, it is questionable whether or not Julius Assange, founder of Wikileaks, deserves the title of “whistle blower”. These releases have potentially put endangered many people. The “Afghan War Diary” contained a list of hundreds of Afghan informants and information about Special Ops. The diplomatic documents describe how informants are dealt with by US consulates around the world. It also incorrectly alleged that the bank Julius Baer engaged in illegal activities at the bank’s Cayman Island’s bank, resulting in a loss of revenue for the bank.

But it was also revealed that Hilary Clinton approved of spying on UN officials, including Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The release of the Baghdad air strike video resulted in the arrest of those involved with the killing of the 12 innocents. The revelation that Qatar’s government has done little to counter-terrorism has put pressure on it to do more. The storage of cluster bombs in the UK is also a breach of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. All this information will prove to be useful in making sure that these problems will be resolved

On top of that, most of the information revealed recently is arguably of little importance. Much of it confirms what we already knew. The USA is trying to get rid of its Guantanamo Bay detainees. Arab countries are worried about a nuclear armed Iran. China does not care about North Korea. Russia’s government is controlled by the mafia.

In fact, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: “We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents.” Much of the concern about the website is directed at its potential, rather than what it has actually revealed. At the same time, it must be remembered that while we have the freedom of speech, we must make sure we exercise it at the appropriate times.

Off to the UK + North Korea Video

First, I’m off to the UK tomorrow! Flying out to London with my father, whose birthday was yesterday Won’t be back for a week, but when I do get back I have two things to look forward two – class trip to Ocean Park and Stanford EA results, both on the 15th!!! (eek!) Also looking forward to seeing my friends, Victoria and Dragon in England – can’t wait already!

Anyways, here’s something to leave everyone with before I head off. I finally uploaded my video about our class trip to North Korea and uploaded it on Youtube. It’s also on my Videos page now. Hope you enjoy it!

 

The 12 F**** Yous of Facebook

I was going through some of my old Facebook stuff and I found this, which is about two years old. I find it particularly relevant and touches on key issues concerning the almost obsessive nature some teens have with the social networking site. Anyways, hope you enjoy the read (and apologies for the profanity , I’ve tried my best to cover it up):

The Twelve F*** Yous of Facebook

F*** You Number ONE

OK PEOPLE STOP POSTING GOODNIGHTS ON FACEBOOK. ITS NOT LIKE FACEBOOK IS UR F***ING HUSBAND OR WIFE TO SAY GOOD NIGHT DUMB ARSE.

F*** You number TWO

There is NO SUCH THING as a FACEBOOK Tracker.

It does NOT exist. So quit posting stupid bulletins like

“OH-MY-GOD this WORKS!!!”

No, it doesnt.

F*** You number THREE

To the people who have like 25,000 friends;

Are you f***ing serious?

You’re stupid.

Go play in traffic

F*** you number FOUR

Don’t ever post pictures and say:

“OMG, I’m so ugly”

because if you were, you wouldn’t post them.

If you do you’re f***ng stupid.

F*** you number FIVE

NOBODY cares about threats over the internet,

so don’t try to act hardcore with the keyboard.

Fighting online is like racing in the Special Olympics;

Even if you win, you’re still retarded

F***you number SIX

Quit crying because you’re not on someones ‘Top 8′.

Who cares?!?

ITS fACEBOOK!!!

If you really cared that much, you would

pick up the damn phone!

F***you number SEVEN

Who really cares if I don’t accept you as a friend?

MOVE ON!!!

Don’t send me another request or message asking

“What’s up with you not adding me?”

I don’t want you as a friend, that’s what’s up,

arsehole.

F***you number EIGHT

girls in year’s 9/10/11 who have FACEBOOK and look like sluts,

and act like whores;

Go somewhere else because nobody wants you here.

And Parents -

Quit blaming FACEBOOK for your kid being a hooker,

she was a whore before FACEBOOK,

and she’d be a whore without it!

What does that say about your parenting skills?

Think about it!

F***you number NINE

If you open a MESSAGE OR SPAM and it says something like repost this in 100 seconds or a ghost will rape you tonight, or some dead bitch is going to rape your mom – quit being dumb

F*** you number TEN

FACEBOOK was created to keep up with friends.

Quit trying to check up on your wasted ex!!

Come on, now, people, its called stalking…you might as well be sitting in front of their house with binoculars.

F*** you number ELEVEN

People who send you a million f***ing application invites. Like f*** off I dont want to be part of your goddamned zombie army or join your gay hockey fantasy pool. Lay the f*** off!!

And finally

F*** you number TWELVE

Stop Making groups saying facebook will shut down in 20 days if a million people don’t join. LIKE HOLY F*** , GET A LIFE

Portrayal of Asians in Old Hollywood

I’m only going to say it one more time: if Asians cannot be cast in a cowboy film (unless you’re Jackie Chan apparently), white people really should not be playing Asians.  It seems that Asians had this stereotype of being either evil masterminds or kung fu experts. The practice of yellowface (as opposed to blackface) was common – not a single one of the characters below was portrayed by an actual Asian. Fortunately this has pretty much stopped (except for Prince of Persia and Memoirs of a Geisha).

Christopher Lee as Fu Manchu

Note her yellow face

The poster of "The Good Earth" - a film about Chinese peasants with a cast of only white actors

The two main actors in "The Good Earth"

Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in "Breakfast at Tiffany's"

General Yen was played by a Dane - apparently this was one of the first films to deal with inter-racial attraction

Warner Oland as "Charlie Chan" - a crimefighting detective of Honolulu, devised to oppose "Yellow Peril" stereotypies like "Fu Manchu"

Yes, that is five time Academy Award winning actress Katharine Hepburn

And all seven faces were played by one white guy, Tony Randall

Anyways, if you want to learn some more about “Yellow face” in more recent films, you should watch the following documentary (all parts can be found on Youtube).

Auschwitz Documentary

I thought this BBC documentary about Auschwitz was quite interesting, although macabre. All the other parts should be available on youtube, so I’ll only put up the first part.

On another note:

The clock is ticking on DADT – if it takes a lame duck session to repeal it, so be it!!!

Another Tea Party win!

Got this from Pundit Kitchen, and I thought it highlighted just a bit of the hypocrisy of the Tea Party (although I don’t quite agree with the thing about Enron, I mean, members of the board of the company lying about their profits isn’t exactly the big govnment’s fault). Expect a post on their hypocrisy in the near future!

UPDATE

And this one too.

Let’s Get Rid Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

On October 12th 2010, US District Judge Virginia A. Phillips overturned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, a Clinton administrative compromise introduced to allow gays to serve in the military. While Obama promised to repeal the law on the campaign trail, Republicans in the Senate continuously refuse to listen to the proposed bill. It took one federal judge in California to overturn a law of such controversy, a job which should have been done by Congress over a year ago.

However, opposition to the repeal has flared up again in recent times. Four senior retired officers wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post a while ago about how allowing gays to openly serve in the military would pose a “grave danger”. General James Amos, the new leader of the Marine Corps, also opposes the repeal, declaring “There’s risk involved; I’m trying to determine how to measure that risk”. Now that Republicans have control over the House, the clock is ticking for Congress to push through a law to re-affirm the judge’s decision.

However, what those who support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” need to come to terms with is the overwhelming lack of evidence to support it and the extremely strong case against it. Let’s break this down principally and practically.  Principally, anyone can see that the policy is clearly flawed. Let’s look at the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence as a reminder:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If heterosexual men do not have to hide their sexual orientation, why should we expect homosexual men to have to do so? Hiding your sexual orientation doesn’t sound much like the pursuit of Happiness. Well of course, this moves onto the practical aspects. One of the most common arguments against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is that it protects the gays serving in the army against anti-homosexuals in the army and a repeal would reduce the performance of the army. According to a survey carried out by the four aforementioned officers, 58% of people serving in the military oppose a repeal and 23% of the army would leave if a repeal does come into fruitition. However, it should be noted that the survey was not carried out properly – it was based on responses by subscribers to a particular newspaper rather than a representative sampling, and thus the data is probably not reliable.

But this argument is flawed on three different levels. First, it seems that there is not that much public opposition to gays serving in the military. In 2006, a Zogby International Poll found that 73% of military personnel said they were comfortable with interacting with gay people, not to  mention that 63% of respondents answered yes or were neutral when asked “Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military”.

Senior members of the military also support the reppeal. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, stated that he wanted to see a repeal of the policy. General John M. Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also no longer supports the policy. Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told Congress that a repeal is “the right thing to do.” Colin Powell and Richard Cheney have also asked the government to re-examine the law.

It seems that civilian support of DADT is also not strong. A poll done by ABC and the Washington Post in 2009 shows that 75% of Americans agree that gays who are open with their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military. The same study says that 77% of Independents and even 64% Republicans favour a repeal of the policy. A Gallup poll in 2009 shows that majorities of weekly churchgoers (60%) and conservatives (58%) also support a repeal.

Credits to American Progress for the graph

Second, even if there is overwhelming support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” doesn’t neccessarily mean that the withdrawal will not work. When Britain and Canada in the 1990s proposed to lift their bans on gays from openly serving in the military, it was found that not only did an overwhelming majority of  the population still supported the bans, but 2/3rds of the military threatened to leave if the ban were to be repealed in both countries. When the ban was eventually lifted, only three soldiers left as a result between the two armies. Three. In fact, 24 of America’s closest allies allow gays to serve openly, many of whom fight side by side with American troops all over the world. In fact, the US and Turkey remain the only two of the original NATO members who still have these bans.

Even studies by the US military, which started in 1957, have shown positive results for allowing open gays to serve in the military. In 1993, a study by the RAND Corporation and two official military studies by the Defense Personnel Security Research Center and the Navy’s 1957 Crittenden report all found that sexual orientation is irrelevant to military performance. In 1993, a Government Accountability Office study of allied nations found that “the presence of homosexuals in the military is not an issue and has not created problems in the functioning of military units”. A 1994 assessment by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences found that predicted negative consequences of ending gay exclusion in the Canadian Forces never materialized and a 2000 assessment of the British Ministry of Defense found the lift of its ban on open gays “a solid achievement” with “no discernible impact” on recruitment. A recent article in Joint Force Quarterly concludes, “after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” The number of studies which rip apart this policy is endless.

Third, even if the statistics of those four officers were actually right, and it turns out they were right in saying that most people supported DADT, this is still not an argument for keeping the policy around. Popular support for something is never a good argument for keeping it around (Slavery, Segregation and Justin Bieber are testament to that). What gays who are open about their sexual orientation need are understanding and integration. If gays are indeed the target of discrimination in the army, shouldn’t we focus on helping America embrace them? Why should we punish those who are honest, and reward the haters? The policy makes no sense.

No.

The policy doesn’t help military service it all – in fact, it impedes it. Since 1994, over 14,000 members of the military have been dismissed under the policy. This includes 800 who have been classified as “mission critical”, which covers 60 Arab linguists and 260 other specialists in “critical languages”. The Pentagon routinely issues conduct waivers for recruits with records of bomb threats, sex crimes and negligent or vehicular homicide. So the government allows ex-cons to serve, but not those whose only “fault” is to tell the truth about their sexual orientation. The Government Accountability Office estimated that the policy has cost $200 million in costs between 1994 and 2004, while a follow up study showed the costs actually reached $363 million.

And now  may I ask – where is the proof supporting the policy? The only support I can find are opinion pieces with no substance or proof. Because it seems that there really isn’t any. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a policy that is filled with a ridiculous number of holes. It’s lack of ideology and negative practical ramifcations shows that it holds no water at all. Let’s home the Democrats can squeeze it through Congress last minute.

Freedom of Speech: it’s not just a right, it’s a privilege

Before this piece, I just want to say that midterms didn’t come out half as bad as I expected. Democrats lost a few seats in the senate, but still maintained majority. Fortunately, Tea Party favourites Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell (see my previous post) lost their elections, but Marc Rubio and Rand Paul were victorious. Democrats did lose control of the House though. Hopefully this split Congress can foster more bi-partisanship, because it’s going to be needed more than ever before. Plus, in California (my home state!), Jerry Brown is projected to win, even though he was outspent nearly ten times over by Meg Whitman (who spent over $150 million of her own fortune, more than any other non-presidential candidate). Marijuana also seems to be on the road to legalisation. But now onto freedom of speech.

Everyone knows what the First Amendment of the United States is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This may have been a provision since the founding of the United States, but there have always been limits on free speech. The most famous example of this is that you can’t falsely shout “Fire” in a crowded theatre – insubordination is illegal. Threatening to overthrow the government is also illegal. Soon, more restrictions may be laid in place concerning protests at funerals as a result of the case Snyder v. Phelps currently being heard by the Supreme Court.

Despite all these restrictions, freedom of speech in the United States is still much better than in most countries. While censorship is particularly stringent in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran, even countries in the European Union have various speech restrictions on subjects such as Holocaust Denial.

However, what is very prevalent in the US and in many other countries is self-censorship. This is when people, corporations and businesses censor themselves or punish their representatives as a result of saying things that are against protocol.

Back in 2004, with the Superbowl Halftime Show controversy, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake were involved in what is now dubbed a “wardrobe” malfunction. Both were asked to apologise – Timberlake did so, Jackson did not. Janet Jackson was not invited to that year’s Grammy awards, while Justin Timberlake was. He later went on to win an award at the ceremony.

In recent times, there have been more and more prominent cases of self-censorship. While people may not agree with what they say, and occasionally it would be nice if certain people would put a sock in it (Fox news correspondents, surely) I’m sure most would agree that they have the right to speak their opinion. Rick Sanchez, a CNN correspondent, was dismissed after calling Jon Stewart a “bigot”. Helen Thomas, the 89 year old veteran White House correspondent, was dismissed after 50 years of work at the White House after making the following anti-Zionist comments:

“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine… Remember these people are occupied and it’s their land, not Germany and not Poland.”

However, it seems that in today’s world, people simply believe in the freedom of speech, but when that freedom is threatened, people lose the backbone to stand up for that right. When some show the slightest bit of discontent, people tend to back off rather than stand up for their freedom to express their opinion. We have to ask ourselves – who are they to decide what and what should not be said? Why should we be bullied, nay, terrorized into changing what we say or do not say just because they have the ability to scare us?

It is in fact at these times that we need to stand up for ourselves the most, to prove to people that freedom of speech isn’t just some wishy washy ideal that was put to paper more than two hundred years ago by our Founding Fathers, but it is a privilege and a right that we shouldn’t take for granted.

The reason why I began giving this some thought was because I was watching a few old episodes of South Park recently, and I came across “Cartoon Wars”, a two part episode about the Muhammad-cartoon controversy of a few years ago. In the face of all the anti-Danish and anti-American protests, many news channels, newspapers and tv networks began to self-censor with even more vigor than before. This is exactly the approach we cannot take for the reasons voiced by Mr. Stotch in part one:

“What we need to do is just the opposite. Freedom of speech is at stake here, don’t you all see? If anything, we should all make cartoons of Muhammad, and show the terrorists and the extremists that we are all united in the belief that every person has a right to say what they want! Look, people, it’s been real easy for us to stand up for free speech lately. For the past few decades we haven’t had to risk anything to defend it. But those times are going to come! And one of those times is right now. And if we aren’t willing to risk what we have, then we just believe in free speech, but we don’t defend it.”

We cannot give into people who use violence to try to suppress what we have to say even if the subject may be controversial. Sometimes topics can be so controversial people can even get hurt, as they did in the riots against the cartoons . But as Kyle says:

“You can’t do what he wants just because he’s the one who’s threatening you with violence. Yes people can get hurt, that’s how terrorism works. But if you give in to that guy, you’re allowing terrorism to work.”

This is why South Park is my favourite TV show. It has consistently touched on topics that most networks wouldn’t come close with a five foot rod, and thus defends my freedom to express episode by episode. My freedom of speech, my freedom of religion and my freedom to pursue happiness are being protected by those who don’t cave into pressure and self censor. The freedom of speech is a gift, but it’s one that needs to be defended against those who use words and violence to take that away. And on that note:

Cartman: “I’m going to use fear to get them to do what I want”

Bart: “Isn’t that like, terrorism?”

Cartman: “It isn’t like terrorism, it IS terrorism”.

Enough said. Or is it?

-

Update – 08/11/2010 – Keith Olbermann, anchor of MSNBC, was suspended indefinitely without pay after it was found out that he donated to three Democrat candidates without informing his superiors. Fortunately, after national outrage from both liberals and conservatives alike, his suspension was cut short and he was reinstated today. Perhaps we have a little hope?