As if to excuse ourselves, we call the invasion of Iraq a “mistake,” say that our war on terror “went off course” or argue that the intelligence used to justify the occupation happened to be “faulty.”

But in a world where Wall Street banks perpetrate fraud to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars; health insurance companies abandon their promise of coverage to customers the minute they become deathly ill; U.S. presidential elections are blatantly stolen by a hyper-partisan Supreme Court and democracy in the “land of the free” is narrowed down to a choice between two parties bought and owned by corporations, why are we still so incapable of admitting that former President George W. Bush purposely drove the U.S. to war with Iraq solely for profiteering?

Yes, it can happen here. In fact, it is a truth no longer debatable.

While this nation’s constitution speaks gracefully and powerfully about the natural rights of man, the Iraqi constitution speaks of crude oil – referred to in Article 26, which reads that the government shall “insure the full investment of its resources, diversification of its sources,y and the encouragement and development of the private sector.”

In layman’s terms, the nationalization of the country’s oil under Saddam Hussein would be outlawed. Taking its place would be crony-capitalism and corporatism dominated by Western oil conglomerates.

Of this particular constitutional article and a parallel law passed by the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, the Global Policy Forum (GPF), a United Nations policy watchdog, wrote that, “Placed in context, it can be seen as laying the ground for radical change in Iraq’s oil industry, which will be unique among the major oil producers of the Middle East… Contracts will be signed with foreign oil companies during the first nine months of 2006, opening the majority of Iraq’s oilfields to Western companies for the first time in 33 years.”

For Bush and his people, removing Hussein was like cracking open a 10 trillion dollar petroleum treasure chest that had proved unconquerable for decades.

The GPF went on to describe the economic impact the U.S. invasion would have for lucky oil companies, saying, “In the new setting, with Washington running the show, ‘friendly’ companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades.”

With help from corporate media, the Bush administration purposely created a panicky post-9/11 U.S., spewed reckless weapons of mass desruction hype and flagrantly untruthful Iraq/Al-Qaeda connections all so they could muster up support for war. But they made it a point to keep a riveting truth under wraps: The removal of Saddam Hussein would give way to arguably the most profitable economic opportunity in the history of the world.

Set aside the confusing, ever-changing rationale for our invasion, and remember what Academy Award winner Jack Nicholson said in the 1990 mystery thriller, “The Two Jakes”: “You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures. You can follow your instincts, which will probably get you in trouble. Or you can follow the money, which nine times out of 10 will get you closer to the truth.”

This ugly truth about oil and money is out there. You just have to find it. A number of high-ranking officials and leaked documents have detailed for years the Bush administration’s infatuation with Iraq and its oil pre-9/11, proving without a shadow of doubt our invasion had nothing to do with Bush’s radical thesis that if the U.S. could only spread democracy throughout the Middle East, Islamic terrorists would disappear or that magically, the world had “changed” after 9/11.

Back in 2002, a court order forced the U.S. Commerce Department to release documents concerning the activities of then-Vice President Dick Cheney as well as his energy team, which unsurprisingly was made up of leaders from the oil industry. The documents revealed that eight months before 9/11 this task force created maps of Iraq’s oil fields, terminals, refineries and pipelines, as well as a list of foreign suitors who would likely be interested in oilfield contracts.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” Paul O’Neil, treasury secretary from 2001-2003, said of Bush’s first term.

Former counter-terrorism adviser to the National Security Council, Richard A. Clarke, reiterated these same sentiments when he wrote about his day at work the afternoon of the 9/11 attacks.

“Secretary (of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq… At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles,” Clarke wrote.

The regime change Bush desperately wanted had everything to do with the country’s oil. In “The Way of the World,” a book written by Ron Suskind, it was revealed that Falah Al Jibury, an Iraqi-American oil consultant, began working with the Bush administration immediately after the 2000 presidential election, helping them to map out Iraq post-Saddam.

It is also an irrefutable certainty that oil industry executives were inexplicably made aware of an impending war with Iraq that not even the families of military men and women were told would occur. Jan. 16, 2003, two months before the invasion, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Executives of U.S. oil companies are conferring with officials from the White House, the Department of Defense and the State Department to figure out how best to jump-start Iraq’s oil industry following a war.”

The heartlessness of those in power during the build up of the war cannot be more evident than in stories like these.

Rarely would I advise listening to a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, but even Alan Greenspan, a Bush crony and connected Washington elite, recently wrote about America’s motive for invading Iraq in his memoir, admitting, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

Candor like this from high-ranking officials in government has to be expressed more frequently if this country is ever going to be honest about why we are in Iraq.

Whether it was imaginary weapons of mass destruction, “freeing” Iraq’s people or preventing the country from becoming a haven for al-Qaeda, the Bush administration never ran out of ways to justify the war.

But it was all a lie. Now it’s just a matter of when we’re going to admit it as a nation.

My bike has ten speeds.

Apparently, the term “fixie” has been so carelessly tossed around with its ever-growing trendiness that its meaning has confused the average Southern California citizen into believing that all bikes with “skinny wheels” have no gears and no brakes.

Still, you can’t really blame these unobservant residents for their confusion – fixed-gear bicycles naked of anything but a frame, a chain and crank have swarmed suburban streets whilst carelessly side-swiping 16-wheeler delivery trucks and soccer moms speeding to get their children to the game on time.

Although it’s a grand thing to have kids exercising and utilizing eco-friendly modes of transportation, many of them are riding brake-less bikes with fixed gears – meaning the pedals are always in motion as the bike is moving. If the kid stops pedaling, the pedals keep moving unless he kicks his foot at the back tire to make it skid to a slow stop.

Why would anyone want to ride a bike that cannot immediately stop, you ask?

The idea of a lightweight bicycle uninhibited by brakes and gears was utilized by professional track racing – with track bikes, not road bikes. Track bikes race on specified, undeterred tracks and fixed pedals only benefit these riders in maintaining their speed.

Little do young fixie riders of today realize that their converted road bikes are only mimicking professional riders who rode on carefully planned paths. Now, they have taken this idea to the streets of So Cal, where vehicles speed in inflammatory road rage and where there are few pedestrians to look out for, let alone cyclists plunging between lanes.

An article titled “Are Brakes for Flakes?” published by the British messenger zine Moving Target, touches upon the primary reasons for riding brake-less: it allows the bike to look more sleek and enhances the rider’s awareness and riding skills.

The author, Buffalo Bill, also notes, “Brakeless riders claim that their skill level on a fixed wheel bike is so high that they can stop in the same distance as a regular bike – well this may or may not be true, but however quickly you can stop, if you bolt a brake on to your bike you will be able to stop quicker!”

Although riders may feel a competition amongst themselves, riding on the road is no playing field. Elders, children and disabled people may not agree with the risks of riding brake-less, yet riders are forcing risk upon them.

Nevertheless, there is one argument that I can’t argue against when it comes to riding fixed: “There is an almost mystical connection between a fixed-gear cyclist and bicycle, it feels like an extension of your body to a greater extent than does a freewheel-equipped machine,” writes cycling enthusiast Sheldon Brown in “Coasting is Bad For You.” Unfortunately, most of these hipsters are hardly experienced riders, and are not skilled enough to avoid the most common fixie catastrophes.

Although no one can deny an athlete’s desire to “take it to the next level,” most of these brake-less, helmet-less fixed riders are doing it for the sake of belonging to a trendy cult. And hey, guess what all you hippies, we live in Fullerton. This place is probably the most car-ridden, least bike-friendly area.

Remember that you’re hearing this from a cyclist who was hit by a car attempting to avoid a freeway entrance, so let me tell you, our streets are not built for riding. If you’re going green and staying hip – wear a helmet, get a brake and stop endangering the lives of everyone around you.

Imagine your mother suffers from epilepsy. The Dilantin her doctor initially prescribed is not effectively controlling her seizures, so he prescribes a remedy he is almost certain will work: marijuana.

No, I’m not some pot-smoking hippie who thinks weed can act as Jesus’ healing hand to all, but let’s get real. Marijuana has been proven to alleviate health problems, so what’s the big deal with patients smoking a little pot?

The possible side effects of marijuana, like paranoia, are short-term and are not as detrimental to patients’ overall health like other medications prescribed for health problems, such as ADHD, can be.

Marley Rosner, 23, an American studies graduate student, has friends with ADHD. He said they were prescribed Ritalin and became extremely depressed, so they objected to taking it.

Rejecting medication? I can understand why patients run screaming to avoid popping pills that make their heart and mind race so fast they can’t think straight, but I can’t see a patient avoiding a drug that will do just the opposite.

Oh wait, that’s right. Marijuana can be addictive and – gasp! – it’s been said to be a gateway drug. According to Dr. Colin Blakemore, department chair of physiology at the University of Oxford, only 10 percent of marijuana users become physiolocially dependent.

“Unlike for nicotine, alcohol and hard drugs, there is no clearly defined withdrawal syndrome, the hallmark of true addiction, when (marijuana) use is stopped,” Blakemore said.

And a gateway drug? Please. Marijuana comes first because it’s most easily accessible. If a fourth of teens at the local high school made their car payments with money from selling cocaine instead of weed, then cocaine would be dubbed the latest “gateway drug.”

Yes, marijuana can cause some lung damage. That’s precisely the reason why medicinal marijuana should be legal nationwide. Patients with medical marijuana cards can buy edible marijuana products, like cookies and cooking oil, thus eliminating the inhalation of the ever-so-harmful smoke.

While it is easy to obtain a medicinal marijuana card so recreational use of the drug will be increased, let’s face the facts: people who obtain a card for recreational use are going to get a hold of marijuana one way or another. Why not purchase it legally at a marijuana store as opposed to from a busboy pot dealer your girlfriend’s cousin’s best friend told you about?

So medical marijuana can aid symptoms, help patients relax and eliminate lung-damaging smoke, you ask? I know your next question: So what’s the big deal with the expansion of the legalization of medicinal marijuana? Exactly.

When all else fails, just take the advice Stewie and Brian from “Family Guy” offer in their jubilant pro-marijuana song: “Everything is better with a bag o’ weed.”

By James Gobee

The expansion of medical marijuana is something that has been damaging to the moral fiber of the United States.

Medical marijuana is obtained with a medical marijuana card and there are countless Americans who are fabricating illnesses to get their hands a card to ensure that their recreational use of marijuana is not considered illegal.

Medical marijuana cards are obtained with ease and the illegalization of marijuana is being forced to sit in the backseat of a hypothetical car, being hot-boxed by the law-evading pothead and his or her stoner friends.

The U.S. has turned to lies and deceit in order to get its hands on the sticky icky.

Marijuana is sometimes used to treat illnesses like HIV and multiple sclerosis. It is no mystery that it does have healing potential.

Massachusetts joined the growing, yet still short, list of states that have legalized medical marijuana. The state voted 65 percent in favor of people being caught holding an ounce or less of marijuana being charged with a civil offense as opposed to a criminal offense. It’s funny that on the same ballot greyhound racing was banned.

Nearly 62 percent of all of the children and young adults, ages 12-17, in drug treatment centers in 2000 had a primary marijuana diagnosis.

TV shows like “That ‘70’s Show” condone the smoking of marijuana without consequence or harm, making it an attractive activity to children and teens.

Marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. These carcinogenic hydrocarbons increase the risk of bronchitis and emphysema, as well as lung cancer. It also leads to changes in the brain, similar to those caused by cocaine and heroin.

It’s a mere myth that marijuana is harmless and not addictive.

Marijuana use affects alertness, concentration and reaction time, all necessities to the safe operation of automobiles. Young people tend to underestimate the dangers of drugged driving.

Non-pot smokers often refer the long term affecting of senses such as these as: smoking yourself stupid.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, an emergency department episode was conducted involving marijuana usage revealing that it almost tripled from 1994 to 2002, making marijuana the most widely used illicit drug in the U.S.

Marijuana is known to be a gateway drug to harder and more dangerous drugs like heroine and cocaine.

Smoking pot leads to munchies and over eating leads to obesity and we, as a nation, already have an obesity epidemic. Why add to it?

We offer this letter as a response to Dr. Milton Gordon’s e-mail requesting input into the Strategic Planning Summary sent out on March 9, 2010.

We write as students concerned with the present state and future direction of the university.

As students we are, of course, troubled by the rising costs of our education. However, we are even more disturbed about what we perceive to be imminent threats to the value and meaning of our education.

We believe that the cultivation of humanistic values, and with this also the intellectual development of critically-engaged, cosmopolitan individuals, is neither incidental to, nor merely a desirable aspect of, a university education. This is a core function of the university, and should be regarded as such.

We resent being referred to in planning documents simply as “consumers,” “clients,” or “human capital.” We are human beings, first and foremost, and should be educated as such.

We believe that a solid grounding in the liberal arts—in the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts—provides fundamental creative and critical-thinking skills to students across all disciplines, and all majors.

We fear that current proposals to discontinue the French, German, and Portuguese language programs, and with this also the classical guitar performance program, are merely the first steps towards a more systematic restructuring of the university, one in which the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts are further devalued and diminished.

We remind Cal State Fullerton’s strategic planners that, as students, we do not necessarily attend university simply to acquire professional “certificates and licenses,” or to enhance our career prospects, or to better position ourselves for a future in the workforce. We are not here to be programmed as machines designed solely for the generation and accumulation of wealth, personal or otherwise. We are not here to be trained simply as efficient or productive members of society.

We are here, instead, because we desire to become critically-engaged members of society. We are here to better inform ourselves about the world around us, and to question our beliefs, and broaden our worldviews. We are here, in short, because the university provides us with opportunities for personal growth and self-discovery, and for engagement in and with our society. Such pursuits have a social value that cannot be reduced to one-dimensional monetary considerations.

We recognize that we are living in troubled economic times, and that difficult choices must be made to sustain the university over the course of the next few years. We are concerned, however, that hasty, short-term cuts to various programs and services will have a permanent impact on the structure, reputation, and ultimately definition of our university. We fear that such cuts will serve to undermine the university’s fundamental mission to educate.

In light of these statements, we respectfully ask that the university’s strategic planners take the following points into consideration:

1. That course and program offerings in the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts are core to the definition of the university, and to the quality of its graduates. Any permanent cuts will, in our view, have a detrimental impact on the reputation of the university, and thus also on the value of our degrees.

2. That “timely graduation” is important, but only insofar as it does not compromise our ability to mature intellectually, and to grow as human beings. The university would be wise to take a more rigorous accounting of the external factors (such as the cost of living, child care costs, and the need to work), rather than just the internal factors, which might prevent us from graduating in a timely manner.

3. That it is crucial for the university to continue allocating resources to programs which are dedicated in full or in part to the “representation of minority and underrepresented groups.” The university must promote diversity, and resist the language and politics of social and cultural homogenization. It is in this light that we would encourage strategic planners to recognize modern language programs, study abroad programs, volunteer programs, and the campus women’s center as being core to the mission of the university, and not merely desirable.

4. That it is essential for the university to offer a “broad, high quality, and full array of programs,” and to support and promote the notion of learning for its own sake. This is the best way to foster pride in our university, and in ourselves.

5. That the research our professors do is not just valuable in and of itself, but is essential to the quality of our education. Their research translates into the classroom, where we are introduced to new, cutting-edge ideas, and to innovative methods and theories. More importantly, if the university desires both in the short and the long term to attract and retain motivated, engaged, and inspiring faculty with “regional, national, and international reputations,” it needs to support and facilitate their research, not only in spirit, but also with adequate facilities and funding opportunities.

6. That it would be in the interest of students and faculty alike to rethink the university’s reliance on under-paid part-time faculty. They deserve, at the very least, to have a voice in the strategic planning process (the explicit concerns and input of part-time faculty are shamefully absent from the Strategic Planning Summary issued by President Gordon’s office).

7. That it is not desirable to adopt pedagogical models that institutionalize online instruction as the principal or sole method for educating students. The physical presence of professors and students in the classroom is a more efficient, more engaging, and more effective way of educating us. Moreover, the skills required to respond to real-time, in-class discussions are invaluable, and are vital to cultivating effective thinkers and communicators.

8. That it is essential to commit to, and reinvest in, smaller classes, ones in which students are better able to engage with course content, and with each other. This is the best way to foster not only “instructional excellence,” but also a “vibrant” intellectual community.

9. That it is of particular importance to respond vigorously to accusations that the theoretical (and thus “unapplied”) work we do as university students is “esoteric,” and somehow divorced from “reality.” We ask, therefore, that any future strategic planning reject wholeheartedly the idea that our academic studies are confined simply to “the ivory tower,” and that our theoretical work has no relevance “to the larger community.” Instead of pandering to, and thus reinforcing, the prevalent anti-intellectual currents in contemporary society, the university needs to be at the forefront of a broader movement to reassert the value of learning and knowledge as a social, cultural, and moral “good,” and not just as an economic or technological necessity. If we are forced to sell ourselves as an institution of higher learning, then we should use the opportunity to emphasize and promote the important intellectual functions of the university.

We appreciate your consideration of this letter, and would be glad to offer further input into the university’s strategic planning.

Sincerely,

Jackie Bebawi, History

Rodrigo Calderon, College of the Arts

Samantha Guzzi, History

On behalf of Students for the Re-Humanization of Society and the University.

the.discussion1@gmail.com

What was once a debate between two parties has turned into a prime example of how politics can overtake the democratic process and morph it into a place for childish politicians to throw sand in each others’ faces and call everyone “stupid heads” (metaphorically speaking… I hope).

In an article on CNN by Charles Riley and Jeff Simon it was reported, “Five more House Democrats said Tuesday that they will vote against Senate health care legislation, which puts opponents of reform just 11 votes shy of the 216 needed to prevent President Obama from scoring a major victory on his top domestic priority.”

Photo courtesy MCT. U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks on health care reform in the East Room of the White House March 3 in Washington D.C.

Since the bill passed the Senate Dec. 24, Americans have been inundated with articles about politicians decrying Republican tactics to destroy the bill, and denouncing Democrats for using tactics that would allow them to pass the bill no matter what (“Deem and Pass”).

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that she has three plans in mind to make sure the bill passes no matter what.

Day by day, an angry public gets involved in this political debate. Groups such as the Tea Party Movement appear on the front pages in stories of massive gatherings to oppose the health care bill with frequency, and online political forums have become flooded with heated debates between citizens opposed to and supporting the bill.

However, what this bill has revealed more than anything is the public’s confusion, frustration and mistrust in a government that has its economy swaying on a thin string over a bed of syringes, and a nation with its global reputation rapidly decaying with every mistake it makes.

Whether or not the bill passes is just the front of the issue now.

The underlying issue of our mistrust and uncertainty with the government and our president is now being brought to light.

Whether the bill either passes or fails, be prepared for that issue to rise rapidly. Parties will be split and, sadly, politics will continue to get in the way of the democratic process.

As a part of the future ruling generation, we should be angry that it has come to this, and that we will be the ones to pick up the pieces of our fractured and aching country. The blame is not on any specific political party alone, or even the president, but should be carried by the entire political process.

It is embarrassing that other governments have to see us like this; and for the stable, reasonable people of America, it is saddening to read every headline and article about the health care reform debacle.

This bill will be the defining moment of President Obama’s career as president so far, and can easily make or break his chance for re-election. However, what the bill has revealed and created cannot be taken back or glossed over – public initiative and government process are being crushed under the weight of politics.

The players are discontented with the Collaborative Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

The league’s first CBA, a five-year deal, originally was set to expire Jan. 31, but was extended twice while negotiations continued. It expired Feb. 25 after the MLS Players Union refused another extension.

Joe Roth, owner of the Seattle Sounders FC, told Joshua Mayers of the Seattle Times that a players strike to ultimately be the end of MLS.

There are 385 players in the MLS and 383 of them voted to strike if the CBA was not changed to their liking. That leaves two lone mystery players who voted against a strike.

Photo Courtesy MCT. LA Galaxy defender Sean Franklin (28), defender Abel Xavier (17) and midfielder Alvaro Pires (15) may be some of the many in the MLS to go on strike this season.

The players want more rights including a form of free agency, guaranteed contracts, more money, etc. The owners, on the other hand, want to keep costs down.

What the players aren’t realizing is that while franchises like Toronto FC are selling out games at record numbers and the majority of MLS teams aren’t even profiting.

MLS clubs; Kansas City Wizards, Houston Dynamo, San Jose Earthquakes, D.C. United and Chivas USA are merely guests in their stadiums while the other 11 own or control their stadiums and revenue streams. Profit is something that the others don’t even see.

The league can and should make minor concessions when it comes to the salary floor and cap.

A third of the league’s players earn under $35,000, with a select few earning as little as $15,300. Raise the floor to a more livable wage, around $30,000, and combine that with a modest raise in the salary cap for each club, which is now set at $2.3 million and it should be a win for both the players and management.

The guaranteed contracts and free agency forms will threaten the MLS as a single entity, ergo the dead end.

Sure a single entity business would be strange, but the league’s control over spending, player’s wages and other aspects are arguably the reasons MLS is still in business while the more free market North American Soccer League folded.

Sure, fans and players alike may not like it, but if given the choice between a) MLS’ single entity structure and setup and, b) no soccer at all. I choose “a.” Although it’s easy for me to say, it’s not my career.

The lack of local and national support for the league and sport is a primary culprit.

Nationally, soccer is not a huge sport. Football, baseball and even basketball come well before the popularity of soccer.

Every four years the World Cup is held and at that time soccer fans seem to emerge or people become “fans” of soccer.

In a World Cup year a league that is on strike, when the U.S. has the opportunity to spread the beautiful game in the U.S., is the least helpful league there could possibly be.

Yes, the players deserve certain rights and privileges as MLS players. Although better rights, more money and a guaranteed contract aren’t just given out like cups of water at the LA Marathon, as a player you need to increase your skills and worth.

I’m not saying that players like Los Angeles Galaxy’s Landon Donovan aren’t trying, I’m saying that the players at the lower skill tier level should work for it.

Yeah, the players have the right to strike.

Do I like it?

No, of course not. The thought of a soccer league that has been around since 1996 going under because of something like this saddens me but I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

It’s spread out over a vast area, very bumpy and is mostly a dirty brown/orange color.

As you can tell, I don’t really care for LA.

On the other hand, New York resembles a beautiful machine, with its perfect grids, tall buildings, all silver and shiny, reaching for the sky. The entire island of Manhattan resembles a white diamond on blue velvet – just beautiful.

As I write this, I am overlooking New York City from the 38th floor of my hotel room. The view is amazing, and I challenge anyone who can look out upon the skyline of New York to tell me otherwise.

I’m here for a College Media Advisors journalism conference, and am staying right off Times Square – and let me just say this: the city truly never sleeps. I’ve not found anywhere else in the United States that has gyros stores, hot dog stands and pizza places open until 5 a.m.

Nowhere else have I found Starbucks that close at 2 a.m. There is nowhere else in the world that has the middle of the city lit so bright in the wee hours of the night that you could confuse it for day.

In California, the only food available late night would be fast food, and although Jack in the Box may be a good midnight snack, it just doesn’t quite hit the spot. If you’re a Malaysian in America, you definitely miss mamaks and you understand my pain. So come to New York and we can yum cha anytime of day. Plus, in California, the only things open late are drive-thru and No car = no service.

Speaking of driving, California is driving country, where public transportation is spotty and unreliable because everyone owns a car. No other place in the world needs you to drive so much to get anywhere – but keeps you in traffic for so long.

If you’ve been stuck in rush-hour traffic outside LA, you know what I’m talking about.

Don’t get me wrong, New York traffic is horrible too, but – and here’s the beautiful part – you never need to be in it. Subways are amazing and efficient here, much like Malaysia’s Light Rail Transport system.

As an ex-New Yorker put it to me recently, “You can read a book, do work or nap while in the train in New York. In LA all you can do in traffic is stare straight ahead.”

Now let me get to altitude and attitude. I love heights and I love altitude. New York has both. I never realized how much I missed being in tall buildings, or even under them, until I got here.

Let me illustrate this to you. Lie down on the floor and look straight ahead. See how flat everything is? That’s what Orange County is like. Now stand up straight, do you see how high you are up now compared?

Now multiply that by a thousand, and you get a small idea of how New York is. I just love it.

Photo courtesy MCT

If you look out at all these tall buildings, you see the amount of windows lit up at night. And in each of these windows is somebody’s life. When you look out at the entire city you realize that all around you, condensed into the immediate area, are peoples’ lives and stories; that you are an unseen, intangible part of. It makes me feel comfortable and it makes me feel at home. You can never be truly lonely in this city.

As for attitude, I know a lot of people say New Yorkers are rude, brash and arrogant – and it’s totally true. But I’ll take straightforward, cocky and direct over Californian fakeness any day.

It’s refreshing to see no-nonsense people who walk with purpose, don’t muck around with fake pleasantries and walk the streets like they own it, as opposed to in California where guys dress like beach bums and girls dress like whores. Sorry, but you know it’s true. It’s the middle of winter right now, so yes, it is indeed cold. But I like that – I like not breaking into a sweat the minute I step outside; I like being able to wear jackets, coats and scarves; and I like seeing my breath appear in clouds of fog. I don’t miss the sun and I don’t think it misses me.

So this is my fourth day in New York, and I have four more. I haven’t done all the touristy things yet, like Central Park, the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building, but I think things will only get better with a park, a singular statue and one of the tallest buildings in the world.

On the other hand, what does California have to offer? Disneyland, the Walk of Fame and a sign on a hill made out of big, white letters. Forgive me if I don’t get really excited about Southern California anymore.

I have so much to do in so little time. I have to go explore New York’s public faces and private parts, to quote travel writer Bill Bryson. So if you will excuse me, I need to go see if I can upskirt the Statue of Liberty.

“Let the ’socialist’ snivellers croak, let the bourgeoisie rage and fume, but only people who shut their eyes so as not to see, and stuff their ears so as not to hear, can fail to notice that all over the world the birth pangs of the old, capitalist society, which is pregnant with socialism, have begun,” ?said V.I. Lenin, in his “Prophetic Words.”

Hello comrade, “imagine” a world where the Internet is available to all, where ultra-fast broadband networks are no longer a bill or service, but a necessity, like electricity or water; something most people need in order to survive.

“Broadband is an infrastructure challenge that’s very akin to what we’ve faced in the past with telephones and electricity,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in an article by Associated Press reporter Joelle Tessler. The FCC wants to provide Internet access for all in the next 10 years, but at what cost?

In this rose-colored, Lennon-inspired world, Tessler continued with the FCC saying, “that high-speed Internet access is no longer just a luxury but is critical for economic development, education, health care and other aspects of daily life.”

While most people could probably benefit from using the Internet for such useful tasks as looking up celebrity gossip, stupid cat videos or playing Farmville, to say that the Internet is critical for daily life is absurd.

Furthermore the FCC believes that you and the cable companies should pay for those who are less fortunate who don’t have access to high speed streaming porn. Just like Karl Marx said, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” The FCC is doing this by charging it to the country’s platinum account, the stimulus bill that is already in the red for $7.2 billion for 2009. The plan calls to fundraise the rest of the gap by “reclaiming some airwaves from TV stations and auctioning those frequencies to companies that deliver wireless Internet access,” according to Tessler.

Reclaiming, that sounds nice, kind of like sharing; big broadcasters should totally hand over their businesses to the government so everyone can use their services for nothing, just like John Lennon wrote, “Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can?/No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man/imagine all the people sharing all the world.”

But what if those companies don’t want to share? “In a statement Monday, the National Association of Broadcasters said it is also concerned that some aspects of the plan ‘may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised,”’ Tessler said.

While this 10-year plan may have obvious benefits for police, fire, medical and people who remain disconnected from a broadband line, the way to finish the plan seems reprehensible. The FCC should re-evaluate how it is going to procure the money to fund this project before it saps the American people and their businesses.

By Fred Bloom
Daily Titan Staff Writer

The Federal Communications Commission is unveiling the “broadband plan,” which aims to provide faster Internet speeds to more Americans.

The goal is to provide connections of 100 megabits of data per second to 100 million households in the country by 2020. The average speed of U.S. Internet connections now is 3.9 megabits per second, according to Internet monitor Akamai.

Current U.S. Internet speeds are considered low by global standards. The country has only the 18th fastest connections in the world. South Korea, which leads the world in data transfer rates, averages 14.6 megabits per second.

Each community in America will also get one “ultra-high-speed” connection in a place such as a school or hospital, which will be able to reach speeds of 1 gigabit per second.

Currently, only 65 percent of Americans have high-speed Internet access at home. Access to high-speed Internet connections is becoming an integral amenity, and not having it is a detriment to the country’s economic growth.

Due to a lack of adaptation, the U.S. has not taken advantage of innovations in health care, education, public safety and government.

Achieving this goal within 10 years will be difficult because major corporations will not likely comply with FCC mandates immediately. Companies have used a lack of competition in the market for their financial gain. Comcast is raising prices beginning April 1, and AT&T has already raised prices in the recent past.

However, the FCC plans to ensure companies will comply. In the executive summary of the broadband plan, the FCC outlines measures that will encourage companies to expand high-speed Internet access.

Companies will analyze and publish data regarding the availability of broadband in new markets and develop disclosure to ensure consumers have the ability to make informed decisions.

More importantly, the FCC wants corporations to update existing rules on telecom policy. The plan is to free up 500 MHz of wireless spectrum for broadband use and increase financial support for setting up broadband in underserved markets.

If forced, the FCC will auction off spectrum to a bidder who must provide free or low-cost service.

While leading corporations will be skeptical at first, they will realize the importance of developing the Internet. Competition may cause reduced profits, but using the full potential of the Internet will open up new, unexplored markets.

“The National Broadband Plan is a 21st century roadmap to spur economic growth and investment, create jobs, educate our children, protect our citizens and engage in our democracy,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in a news release. “It’s an action plan, and action is necessary to meet the challenges of global competitiveness and harness the power of broadband to help address so many vital national issues.”

During my time of surfing this majestic series of tubes, I’ve seen a lot of things that should be viewed by no mortal eyes. In short, I’ve seen things — terrible, terrible things.

But few of the aforementioned horrors are as psychologically scarring as the online guerilla warfare that fanfiction continues to wage on the English language.

Fanfiction, for those who don’t know, is a piece of fan-written fiction. I hope that cleared things up.

Because I am evidently a masochist, today we will be taking a journey into the pestilence-filled halls of Fanfiction.net.

Join me in my moment of torment, won’t you?

“The Marine Biology Episode” by Manda2247 (a “Bill Nye The Science Guy” fanfiction)

Defining quote: “’Ugh. What am I going to do next?’ His season finale episode had just finished taping, and now he had to begin working on the script for his next episode. ‘I really want to do an episode about polar bears. They have such cool fur.’”

Commentary: Look, the fact that this is Bill Nye fanfiction should be a dead giveaway to its terribleness. In this epic saga, Bill Nye decides to do a show about polar bears because they “have cool fur.” His producers don’t want to do a show about polar bears because, you know, that’s a fricking horrible idea. Bill Nye uses what I can only guess is voodoo trickery to convince them otherwise. Then he and his wife get into a terrible car accident and almost die. Only, I guess that it’s not so horrible because they’re released a few hours later. They go home. Fin.

Jesus Christ.

“Where are my panties?” by andyoullenjoyit (a “Grey’s Anatomy” fanfiction)

Defining quote: “Meredith smirked. ‘Now where are they?’ ‘First drawer on the right,’ he mumbled sullenly. Meredith walked over and grabbed them triumphantly. ‘Ha! I win! Thanks for the help, Addie!’ She kissed Addison and gave Mark the finger when he whistled. She sashayed out of the room and when Addison didn’t follow her immediately, yelled, ‘Addie, you coming?’”

Commentary: Whoops! I guess I should have warned you all about the spoilers there. Because I know you were all on the edge of your seats to know where the aforementioned panties are. My bad. In this piece, we are introduced to Meredith, who apparently has one (and only one) pair of panties. The author never specifies why her roommate, Mark, took her panties, so I’m forced to conclude that he’s holding them in the name of science. Meredith uses her +7 Charisma skill to recapture her panties. Also, she’s a ginormous bitch.

I don’t know what kind of a person andyoullenjoyit is, but I think it’s safe to assume that, judging from the screen name, he or she is a registered sex offender.

“Dino Thunder Infusion” by Falcon4Crane (a “Power Rangers” fanfiction)

Defining quote: “Looking once more at Zeltrax, Tommy morphed and prepared to fight him. They fought for several minutes before Tommy had to call on his staff to fend off Zeltrax. He then hit the ground to cause a quack to knock Zeltrax off balance. Sensing that his time was up, Zeltrax disappeared through an invisiportal. Tommy stared at the spot where Zeltrax was standing and shook his head and powered down. He walked onto the dig site to find anything that might give off energy. When he couldn’t find anything, he left to check on the kids’ progress with the dino zord.”

Commentary: Look, I have no idea what the hell is going on at all in this story. I tried reading it, I really did, but then I realized that this thing was 14 chapters long and I was all like, “screw that noise.” So yeah. Anyway, from what I can gather, there’s this egg and it has a robot in it. So this dude Tommy is trying to protect the egg but this other dude named Zeltrax wants it. Tommy fends him off with a stick that apparently makes duck noises and then he goes on to inspect the progress of the child slaves he keeps in his Sweatshop of Justice. There’s more, but I have to go shotgun a can of gasoline now.

“Nightmare at Sea” by Ashleigh Johnson, age 9 (a “Titanic” fanfiction)

Defining quote: “The next day when Hannah woke up she didn’t remember where. ‘Oh now I remember.’ she said.”

Commentary: HAHAHAHA! What an idiot! I’ll bet this chick’s parents wish there was such thing as a postpartum abortion. HAHA!

Wait, who wrote this?

Shit.

Too bad you’re in college now, huh? I know that the switch was difficult and you may still be going through withdrawal, but there are a few high school-fueled habits that end now.

1. Sleeping in class

If you missed class in high school, chances were very high that an angry recorded message would end up on your parent’s answering machine by the end of the day, warning them that unexcused absences lead to a life of crime, debauchery and general nastiness.

We know now that those warnings were entirely true, but the answering machine message has disappeared. Why? Because you’re an adult.

No one is going to call home when you miss class. Please, if you’re really so tired that 50 minutes of Elizabethan history will reduce you to droopy eyelids and incoherent muttering, stay home. Pillows absorb the drool better than laminated wood, and you won’t personally insult your professor. Home too far away? I recommend the arboretum for a mid-day nap – the grassy hill by the pond is perfect. Although I caution: Watch for duck poop.

2. Walking shoulder to shoulder

Cliques were my personal favorite part of high school. Doing your lipstick in the opaque mirror in the bathroom, making fun of girls with cankles – ah, youth. The best part of having a clique was walking side-by-side down the hallway, arms linked and heels clacking.

You formed an impenetrable wall, resistant to all outside forces – including the pathetic nobodies trying to find a way around you. Now there are more nobodies than ever, completely unaware that you’re more important than them, yelling silly things like “Move it!” and “Don’t stop right in front of me, you’ll make me swerve and hit that group of ahhhhhh!”

3. Bragging about excessive drinking

Alcohol was a taboo and forbidden fruit in high school. Was your brother 21 and willing to buy beer for you? Welcome to popularity! There wasn’t anyone too good to listen to your stories about binge drinking with an aftermath of painful purging if it meant you could hook them up to do the same.

We have a new word for that kind of behavior – Alcoholism. Annoying alcoholism. That story about that time you got totally drunk and hooked up with Amy – Bro, listen … Bro – is less impressive and more pathetic. It isn’t forbidden anymore. If you aren’t 21, most of your friends are.

Getting alcohol isn’t hard, getting drunk isn’t taboo and spending an evening with your girlfriends holding your hair back while you empty the contents of your stomach into a dirty dorm toilet isn’t neat.

4. Nonconformity

Do you remember the look on your mom’s face the first time you sewed a “Dead Kennedys” patch to the back of the leather jacket she got you for your birthday? Or that one time when you put a safety pin through your ear and spit (mentally, not physically – that’s gross) at all of the stupid conformist kids you went to school with? They’re all sheep just blindly buying into corporations, man.

You would have deep conversations about how dumb Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is with the cashier at Hot Topic as you bought a few more Ramones pins (for the low, low price of $15.99) for the checkered messenger bag you just bought at Tilly’s.

Faking nonconformity by dressing like all of the other nonconformists was dumb then, but it’s even dumber now. You don’t have that “Oh, he’s just being a teenager” excuse anymore.

Grow up, buy a pair of khakis and stop trying so hard. Leave high school behind.

Once again the students of Cal State Fullerton have stood up and made their voices heard. At 2:30 a.m. March 3, a couple dozen or so students from CSUF, University of California, Irvine and Claremont College barricaded themselves in the Humanities building. This was a bold move made in opposition to another potential bold move from CSUF.

The students took action after seeing a document released by the University Planning department that insinuated that courses and concentrations under the College of Humanities were expendable in the growing global market.

This may have been a bit of an overreaction on the part of the students. The likelihood that the university would cut an entire department and college out of its curriculum is rather slim, but certainly possible. The students did the only logical thing they could, they descended upon the Humanities building and locked themselves inside.

It is difficult to gauge whether their occupation of roughly five hours was more effective than starting a petition or holding another rally, but a message was sent to the administration of CSUF.

The actions of these students should not be considered representative of the entire student body. While we should all be upset at the prospect of losing an entire major because of budget cuts, we cannot all be compared to a handful of students who decided they were going to play a quick game of Civil Rights Movement: For Kids!

Don’t get us wrong, we applaud them for taking a stand and letting the administration know that their actions are being watched, but if you are going to take a stand, you might want to stay on your feet longer. This is nothing more than a romanticizing of the protest era from the, ’60s. It is every angry, disenfranchised student’s dream to relive their parent’s glory days by standing up to “The Man” for what they believe in. Great idea, poor follow through.

We live in a modern age, where more people are going to school and working full-time. Where students have responsibilities beyond waking up from their hangovers before class starts. College life has changed, and so should campus protests.

Instead of handcuffing yourself to the library’s information desk (with the key hidden in your pocket), take advantage of your college education and do something worthwhile: do your research, organize to plan out your intentions and prove “The Man” wrong. Don’t just organize physically, organize mentally. If these students truly wanted to prove how essential humanities is as a major for the global market, they should have prepared a report that displayed how a degree in humanities can be used to get a job.

The very wording of the University Planning document could have been used against it. The College of Humanities and Social Sciences is home to majors that were directly addressed in the University Planning document: philosophy, literature and fine arts. A degree in any of these, although potentially useless by themselves, when applied to other majors such as political science, criminal justice, psychology and many others, can prove to be incredibly useful. Many of the classes in these departments would not be considered general education or collateral courses if this were not true.

For anyone in the Strategic Planning department to insinuate that the College of Humanities does not provide students with access to the global market is foolish. For students to assume that the University would so hastily do away with such a large program, with 25 undergraduate and 17 graduate degree programs, is nothing more than a paranoid delusion that the school is out to screw us all.

So far the student protesters have done a good job in making their voices heard, and at times their actions and statements are very well thought out. However, if the student protesters wish to make a greater impact, they need to take less from the pages of their father’s past, and more from the pages of the textbooks and powerpoint lectures that all students are paying far too much for.

Sunday evening, she was on the red carpet, configuring her hands in the shape of a “W” and throwing it up while cameras flashed.

One night earlier, she made an appearance at the Barnsdall Gallery Theatre to accept her Golden Raspberry award for worst actress for her role in the movie “All About Steve.”

“They’ll sit side by side in a nice little shelf somewhere,” she said of her Razzie and Oscar awards. “The Razzie maybe on a different shelf; lower.”

It could be considered in bad taste to physically pick up a worst actor award and throw up signs at a major awards show (except maybe at the Source awards). However, Sandra Bullock enjoyed her time in the spotlight.

Throughout the weekend, she kept it real, which also meant she kept it classy.

Bullock began her movie career with a role in “Hangmen” in 1987. Countless movies and 22 years later, she earned her first Academy Award nomination and won for her performance as Leigh Ann Tuohy in “The Blind Side.”

Her acceptance speech at the Academy Awards was typical Bullock. In it, she exemplified everything an Oscar winner should, showing respect, humility and even humor. She acknowledged each of the other nominees: “Carrie (Mulligan), your grace and your elegance and your beauty and your talent makes me sick,” she said.

As is customary, she thanked the people who were integral in making the film and trusting her in the role. Then, she conveyed a message.

“I would like to thank … the moms that take care of the babies and the children no matter where they come from,” she said, referring to what “The Blind Side” meant to her. Bullock went on to deliver a more personal thank you to her own mother.

While Mo’Nique won the award for the best supporting actress earlier in the night, thanked the Academy for awarding her for her “performance and not the politics,” Bullock avoided controversy. Her message, while socially conscious, is something that everyone should agree with. It was a perfect speech from a well-deserved Academy Award winner.

A moment like this is what the Academy Awards is all about. It obviously is not about what movie made the most money (and James Cameron’s bank account does not care about the awards). It is not about advancing a race or gender, no matter how many random shots of African-Americans ABC wants to work into the telecast every time “Precious” wins an award (memo to ABC: Samuel L. Jackson was not in “Precious”).

It is about awarding artists for their contributions to the industry and, through those contributions, their effect on the world. It is the culmination of years of dedication to a craft.

It is in that shining Oscar moment that brilliant stars, great actors, become humanized. At that moment, they are not actors. They are happy, they are overwhelmed and they are emotional.

However, Bullock did not have far to go to become humanized. She always keeps it real. She showed the elegance of a famous actress and the sagacity of the people watching the Oscars at home. Asked in the press room how she wanted to celebrate after accepting her award on stage, Bullock responded like an average person.

“I just want a burger,” she said.

Movie executives utilized a number of gimmicks and aspect ratios to bring viewer’s butts back into theaters and away from the boob tube.

Now the gag has come full circle, as the geniuses at Korea-based Samsung thought that taking a play from a long forgotten Hollywood handbook would boost sales. But unlike the cardboard throwaway frames of yesterday, or even the better plastic frames in theaters now, the company is expecting the average consumer to fork over $150 for a pair of nerd specs just to use their $2,000 to $7,000 televisions.

Reviewers are saying that the TVs will be great for gaming or watching copies of “Avatar” or “Monsters Vs. Aliens,” but what about sports or just regular old shows?

The technophiles in the land of the rising sun are snatching up the nearly $3,000 systems like hotcakes, but in the United States, consumers are often reluctant to pony up the cash for underdeveloped technology.

“‘In the states, a product might sit on the shelves for eight months,’ says Paul Jackson, Forester Research’s lead analyst for consumer- product strategy. ‘But in Japan turnover is measured in weeks. The demand is insatiable,’” Wired reporter Cliff Kuang wrote.

The last great innovation in television was making everything into HD, which made sense after manufactures and studios worked together to provide ample content for consumers and really didn’t require anything more than buying a monitor. But expecting a family of four to pay $600 for four pairs of goofy goggles sounds absolutely absurd.

Did anyone remind Samsung that we’re in a recession?

Besides that, no one other than James Cameron really knows how to film in 3-D without employing the usual bag of tricks: things being thrown at the viewer or exploding in their face. It is a farce to believe that viewers are going to want to dodge flying shit every time they turn on a TV after a hard day of work.

What would the Food Network or sports do for that matter? Throw knives and footballs at the audience or have messes explode at the viewer like some Nickelodeon ride gone horribly wrong.

Sure it’s cutting edge, but maybe consumers should to hold their wallets and their horses before gallivanting into the nearest Best Buy until studio executives figure this one out.

By Brian Zbysenski

Daily Titan Staff Writer

Three-dimensional television will revolutionize the entertainment industry. Just look at where the television industry has gone since its introduction. When TV was first making its way into civilian homes, it was thought to be a fad and that it was not going to go anywhere. This is not how I feel about the new 3-D trend.

It’s been about 70 years since the TV made its debut and about 40 years since the color TV was introduced to consumers. With technology moving the way it is, it’s about time something new comes our way. And what better way to do it than make certain shows and games more realistic.

How can anyone not be excited for 3-D TV? It will just add another element to America’s pastime of escapism through television. Samsung, Panasonic and Sony also think so; the three giants in electronic appliances have already revealed their interest in this new technology.

Also, judging how well James Cameron’s “Avatar” did in the three-dimensional form, it’s safe to say that this trend is making its way into popular culture.

Imagine all the movies, sporting events and even video games that could be played on this new TV. Wouldn’t action movies be that much more intense when you can see the exploding debris fly right by your face? Sports games will make you feel like you’re at the game, or even playing it, which is a dream that a lot of people grow up with.

The all-new visual element will make games like “Gears of War 2” and “Assassin’s Creed 2” more exciting and realistic. A lot of people like to play video games as a temporary escape from reality and 3-D technology will only add to that.

One thing that is unattractive is the cost. But if you really think about it, when is anything new not going to be a little more expensive? Also, when the novelty dies down, you won’t even realize the price difference between the 3-D TV and other conventional televisions.

The glasses are also seen as a big distraction as they can sometimes cause eye strains, headaches, and nausea.

But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Inside of this year’s Consumer Electronics Show convention, which is the world’s largest technology trade show, there was one no-glasses 3-D TV on display. The television set contained eight different lenses on the screen itself. So the concept is there, but still evolving.

Nothing stays the same these days as technology continues to improve. Those who wish to stick with their traditional two-dimensional televisions can do so, as most of these TVs can switch back and forth from 2-D to 3-D on the fly.

Are you eating healthy? Buy our new Yoplait Essence yogurt shot! Four ounces of liquid and you won’t need to eat for another eight hours!

Are you exercising? Buy our new Skecher’s Shape Ups: you’ll get those muscles working as you walk to your car!

Are you saving the planet? Buy our new organic toilet paper, made from 10 percent all-natural materials!

Good causes are being masked by consumerist gimmicks, and saving the environment is simply another one of them. Ironically, we are being tricked into buying things we don’t need, which goes against the very cause of saving the environment.

For example, every major grocery store is crowded with racks full of assorted reusable bags. Buy these bags, and you are saving earth!

But how?

I don’t know about you, but I haven’t once seen a customer equipped with reusable bags.

I hate to toot my own horn, I actually use these bags at Trader Joe’s, but only because I want to increase my chances of winning their raffle.

The point is, if you get in line at Albertson’s and whip out a handful of Ralph’s reusable bags, you’re only embarrassing yourself. You’d likely feel a sudden the urge to explain something: “I, uh, forgot all the bags with your giant-ass logo splashed across the front, I’m sorry! I’ll bring them next time, I promise! In fact, throw some in my cart, I’ll just buy some more.”

And that’s when you drive home and stuff your new Albertson’s bags under your sink and never use them again.

It’s obvious that advertisers are seeing a trend in society: Most of us are suffering from slight eco-guilt.

Maybe we really are afraid the earth is going to melt under global warming, or maybe we don’t want our children to die from asthma attacks due to air pollution – for whatever reason, enough people are wanting to consume less, and advertisers are utilizing this to make them consume more.

Although the green movement is arguably trendy, it keeps reemerging in society for a reason. We realize that we consume more than we need, that we buy and make food that nobody will ever eat, then we create boxes and papers and trinkets that are essentially useless and will be thrown away within a matter of weeks.

On top of that, we get berated by reminders of unimaginable people in third-world countries that can’t get a drop of fresh water, let alone a dozen “reusable” bags that, oddly enough, never get used.

There’s nothing wrong with consumers here, since we have our hearts in the right place – we want to be healthy and we want to be good people.

Unfortunately, many of us don’t know how, and being brainwashed by an advertiser’s ploy simply seems to be the easiest way.

If only those victims of false advertising could wake up and realize that buying more is not the answer – it’s about buying only what you need and using it.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down’s Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care,” Palin wrote on her Facebook last year.

Palin had no backing for her claims but brought them up at every opportunity; and now she is admitting that she enjoyed the benefits of a similar plan out of the country.

It’s official: Palin is a walking contradiction.

Politicians are infamous for their shameless ability to say one thing and do another, but Sarah Palin takes it to a whole new level. An active advocate for abstinence-only sex education, Palin seems to find no irony in the pregnancy of her then 17-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin. She’s still smiling, cracking bad sports-analogy-themed jokes and praying that no one brings up her personal life.

Does Palin wish now that Bristol’s health science teacher had taught her to roll a condom over a banana?

Some might argue that what happened in Palin’s past – or her family’s present – doesn’t have an effect on her ability to lead and make informed political decisions. How, then, can a politician honestly endorse a course of action – be it regarding abortion; lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) rights; sex education or health care – if she refuses to take her own advice?

Palin showed no remorse for her abuse of the Canadian health care system. In fact, she used her experience as a cute little anecdote to warm up the friendly Calgarian crowd.

“Believe it or not – this was in the ‘60s – we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing, and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada,” Palin said to her audience.

Where does she get off admitting to the world that she took advantage of health care abroad when she has dedicated a significant portion of her political career to smearing the reform effort in the U.S.?

And considering Palin was born in 1964, her “memory” might have only served her in kissing up to her Canadian audience. Palin has never been one for carefully weighing the consequences of her words. She prefers to shoot first and ask questions later (especially if the shooting is at a wolf from a helicopter).

It’s obvious now – if it wasn’t before – that Palin is nothing more than an opportunist with no regard for reality. She makes bold claims, plugs her ears during the subsequent explosion, brushes the debris from her fashionable black slacks and flashes a 100-watt smile.