eHub

Having always lived in close proximity of extremely boisterous and proud Texans, something has always irritated me: the idea that Texas is somehow inherently greater than any other in the union and perhaps even greater than the entire country.  There is even a group that has been trying to get Texas to secede from the union and re-form the Republic of Texas as an independent nation.  
These beliefs all stem from the myth of Texas independence that goes all the way back to the state's formation.  Texans still believe that the state joined to union out of the pure goodness in their hearts.     
As an AMERICAN first and a FLORIDAN/KANSAN second, I feel that it is my sacred duty to set the record straight on the great myth of the Republic of Texas and the state's record as a country.
Texas was not founded by any outstanding, intelligent, or god-like human beings; it was founded as part of a land-grant program when Mexico was in its infancy.  The Mexican government allowed the head of any household to claim land in Texas, regardless of citizenship status.  American slave owners, anxious to find new places to grow tobacco and cotton, jumped on the free land.
Still a bit sore from Spanish control, the Mexican government outlawed slavery in 1829.  Texans were ordered to have all their slaves freed by 1830.  Looking to work around the law, slave owners called the slaves "indentured servants for life."  The Mexican government tried to stem the rowdy group by banning American immigrants to Texas.  The Texas decided to respond in revolt.
When the Texans eventually did win, they immediately asked the United States for entrance into the country.  Unwilling to get sucked into a moronic and costly dispute with Mexico (who still claimed the territory was theirs), the US government kindly declined the offer.  Unable to enter the country that they desperately wanted to be a part of, Texas formed the republic.

Texas finally entered the union as an overwhelmingly pro-slave state in 1845.  In exchange for the US taking on over $10 million worth of debt that the "country" had accrued, the US got territory that became Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Wyoming.  Many people think (mistakenly) that the bill that annexed Texas was actually a diplomatic agreement that allowed Texas to declare it independent at any time.  This is incorrect.
All this is not to say that Texas doesn't have its share of heroes who rendered heroic deeds.  All states do.  Sam Houston was a great man.  I just wish that Texas would accept that their state is no better than any other.

In lieu of making any dramatic, sarcastic or deeply probing political statement this week, I've decided to probe the depths of the mind's infinite and make some predictions for the next few years.  Do keep in mind that I am clairvoyant and there should be no doubt that all of the things I am about to mention will happen, plus or minus 20 minutes.

1/20/2009 - The Inauguration of our first African-American President, Barack Obama, will have a decidedly awkward tone when, in an interview, Vice-President Joe Biden infers that Obama is "packin'" (his words) a handgun in his belt.  While this is merely a gaffe aimed at attracting NRA members to the Obama camp and not a commentary on blacks in America, it does reinforce the view that Biden has no real control of anything that comes out of his mouth.  This is scientifically confirmed two months later.

9/18/2009 - Much to Donald Rumsfeld's shock, the International Court of Justice won't accept "it was a teensy goof" as a plausible defense against allegations of war crimes.  He spends the rest of his life working off all the community service the ICJ pins on him. 

5/3/2010 - Dick Cheney, sick of being viewed as a heartless, evil, egomaniacal madman, begins penning children's books and sing-along albums.  Cheney's biggest hit is "Froo-froo Wuvvums and the Snuggly Wuggle Tree," a book about a small boy who finds love and redemption in hugging trees.  The irony is said to be palpable.

3/13/2011 - Opting to be a bit more sexist and draconian than in previous years, the religious right pledges they will only give their support to the winner of a GOP mud-wrestling contest.  Condoleezza Rice ultimately triumphs over Sarah Palin, and thus gets their mysterious and Mafioso-like blessing.  Mike Huckabee, who starts strong, is disqualified for a "party foul" when he knocks over James Dobson's red cup of Natural Light beer.

6/23/2018 - Former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama team up for the big-budget buddy comedy "In da House."  The film spends three weeks at number one in the box office, eventually supplanted by Karl Rove's indie darling, "Eyeball in the Sleep Eternal."

So sometimes I get a little obsessed. With a certain song, movie, web site, food. You name. Ask my old roommate- September was the month of Oreo Pop Tarts- three boxes a week didn't seem overboard at the time. The past two months have been Perezhilton insanity (Lara can tell you all about that). And the last week I forced my best friend to listen to the new Taylor Swift song on repeat- for three hours straight, needless to say I am currently best friend-less. Ok or not.
But that leads me to wonder about society's obsessions. Take a look at the news stands. Every other story covers Angelina and Brad's every last move. Look at Sarah Palin- election is over, yet the media is still following her every word. Sure sites like my TMZ and my always favorite Perez make this easier. So are people who consume this information  just contributing to the never ending cycle?

Its not healthy, we know its not healthy yet we continue regardless. Why? Perhaps the more we know the more we want to know. Is our 24-7 news consumption culture leading us down a path of accepting the most mindless information as 'late breaking' and critical?

Some like associated content's columnist Teri Taylor have a strong opinion one way "come on, America, it's time to grow up and get real lives - lives of purpose, meaning, integrity and character - instead of living vicariously through empty-headed celebrities who don't know or care that you even exist. Pay heed to the words of poet and painter Washington Allston: "Make no man your idol; for the best man must have faults, and his faults will usually become yours in addition to your own."

And others feel completely different."Human nature may share some of the blame," says columnist Helena LaFarve, explaining that people have been tempted by what is tabooed for hundreds of years.

So be it Pop Tarts or celebs maybe we should just follow what a bumper sticker on the car driving in front of me today said "take life in small doses, no need to swallow in one big gulp."

The election is so close that, by this time, every joke has been made, every avenue of humor traversed, and we've effectively roasted each presidential candidate so that he's burned beyond recognition, in a metaphorical sense.

But before we put election 2008 behind us for good, I'd like to pass along one last funny, as it reminded me of the most important quality I'm looking for in a presidential candidate.

My friend Jerome, who lives in Paris, was enlightening me earlier this week as to why most French people aren't fond of John McCain. He listed off some legitimate reasons, and then added that, above all, the French dislike John McCain because he shares the name of a brand of frozen French fries.

Yes, "McCain" is synonymous with frozen French fries in France. McCain also makes other ready-to-eat frozen delights as pizza and fajitas. One of the company's latest products is a line of French fries cut in the shape of smiley faces.

In a country that takes great pride in fine cuisine and four-hour meals, frozen French fries aren't exactly à la mode, and this fact makes John McCain an almost too-easy target for the French.

It's an incredibly stupid joke, but it took me back five years to the start of the war in Iraq and the start of modern French-hating in America, the latter of which, oddly enough, also had to do with French fries.

Back in 2003, shortly before the United States' March 20 invasion of Iraq, France announced its opposition to the war and our intentions in the Middle East. France was not our only ally to refuse support -- Russia and France's fellow EU member Germany were among those who also opposed the war -- but for some reason, France received the most ferocious backlash from the United States.

Soon after France's announcement, two Republican representatives had a stroke of genius and decided to rename French fries "freedom fries" in all restaurants run by the House of Representatives. The proposal was spearheaded by Ohio Rep. Bob Ney, who -- flash forward -- would resign in 2006 because of his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

All the brains behind the renaming maintained that it was simply an act of patriotism, nothing more than a way to invigorate the home base. Yeah, nobody bought that line.

The "freedom fries" name change came across as a blatantly petty and childish attempt to bash France and the French during what should have been an incredibly serious and somber time on Capitol Hill.

"Freedom fries" were, in my opinion, one of our stupidest and most embarrassing patriotism games, and we've had quite a few in recent years.

Never mind the fact that the name change didn't make any sense because French fries aren't really French, which most people know as a point of trivia or can at least find out with a few spare seconds and Internet access.

The renaming was most embarrassing because it showed the United States' reckless arrogance. Just because another country didn't agree with our (hasty, uninformed and regrettable) decision to go to war, we could no longer stoop to eating a greasy, floppy potato slice as long as it had the dissenting country's name attached to it. Quelle bêtise.  

Here's hoping our next prez, be it Obama or French fries, will make it a priority to bridge the gap that exists between us and France and between us and so many other countries. This is what I hope for, and this is what I vote for.

I can't help but think that, if we could cool it with our wacky attempts to somehow prove our patriotism, international relations would improve a hundredfold.

Reading a friend's Facebook status this morning informed me about this story that happened shortly after the election. I quickly did a Google search and found out that "a UT football player is kicked off the team because of a racial comment he wrote on Facebook, a social networking site" (CBS News Texas). 

The comment you wonder that could have caused him to be removed from the team? "All the hunters gather up, we have a #$%&er in the Whitehouse" (queetry.com).

Wow. I am offended. No Obama was not my choice for president, and for that fact neither was McCain. But a comment like that should have gone noticed by both his school and coaches. Sure networking sites like Facebook allow you to express your thoughts and opinions but where do you draw the line?

I read Facebook comments like "I'm so wasted" and " wow I just broke up with the biggest loser." Other comments ranging from "I hate K State" to "prochoice is the only way." So yes, those are all opinions and yes they may be offensive to some. But when do you cross the line in just offending someone and a comment like the football player made?

Perhaps it is as subjective as the comment itself. Or perhaps since you are willing to put your photos, thoughts and opinions out there you should be ready to back them up.

College Recruiter posted an article recently discussing the legal ramifications of employers using Facebook for background checks. But I take it from the employer's standpoint. If I am looking to hire a trustworthy, reliable worker to head up my new department, I doubt my first choice would be someone doing a keg stand.
 
 

Since KU is playing Nebraska this weekend, I shall take this opportunity to point out something very wrong with this state. A law called the "safe haven" law that was passed in Nebraska in July says any person can leave a "child" at a hospital without any charges of abandonment.

This has led to 28 cases, and counting, of people from Nebraska and other states bringing not just little children, but also teenagers to hospitals and just peacing out. I understand that we don't want children to be brought up by parents who don't want them, or it an unhealthy environment, but is this law really the answer? If my parents took me to a hospital and left me when I was 15-years-old, I don't think I would ever recover.

A USA Today article even reports that a man came in and left nine siblings, ages one to 17. This guy is now just automatically relieved of all his parental duties, and is probably out at a bar celebrating that he doesn't have to spend money on diapers anymore. While these kids are sitting at a hospital wondering where their dad is, and what's going to happen to them. That's sick. I don't care where these teenagers are abandoned, it's still abandonement. At this age, they will never be the same.

One 14-year-old girl was dropped off by her grandparents, and then continued to run away from the hospital to Texas, where she was going to get a job. I don't think it sounds like she was in much of a safe haven at the hospital if she is now on the run to Texas.

Luckily an emergency session has been called to look at this law again. Now, some legislators want to change the age limit to three-days-old. Hmm...vast improvement...what a great idea. Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Dear Mrs. Palin,
You were cute when you first burst onto the scene; adorable, really.  You were that oh-so-ingenious Republican curveball to try to throw off the momentum of the Democratic Party.  And throw it off you did.  You re-energized the base of the GOP and got them excited to have someone young, exciting, and attractive representing a party that is traditionally represented by pasty, old white men.   The sheer height of your miniskirt started a fatwa!  Sure, you weren't politically experienced outside of governing a state that essentially runs itself, but no one cared.  You were the wild one who would be what Obama had been to the Democratic Party: an exciting shock to the party status quo.

When you opened your mouth you were finally called on being a completely one-dimensional attempt to gain waffling Hillary supporters and guys who are into naughty librarians.  It started with the Charlie Gibson interview.  You floundered on the Katie Couric interview.  You dodged questions at the debate so you could remain on carefully choreographed talking points.  You called Obama a socialist, despite your governance over the most fundamentally socialist state in the Union.  You winked and acted so cutesy that even die-hard GOPites became sick of you.  The lipstick on the pig had faded.      

Now, for some reason, you've got it in your head that you're going to run for the presidency in 2012... never mind that this election isn't even over and some polls put you and McCain within single digits of Obama and Biden.  The McCain camp appears to be losing grip on the tight leash that you were on.



I think this is a very, very dumb idea, both for the country and for your self-esteem.  You have a demonstrably base understanding of domestic, foreign and economic policy and therefore would be an easily manipulated tool of the extreme right (much in the vein of our mutual friend President Bush).  I submit, Mrs. Palin, that you would end up either as a figurehead with a rubber stamp or a lightning rod of hate like Mr. Bush has become.  You really wouldn't want the hell that that poor man's life has become.

Have you ever considered a career in professional bull wrestling?

Love, Hugs and Moustache Kisses,
Andrew.

Standing in a Paris bank last June, I knew something wasn't right. I had just swapped the $500 cash I'd brought from home -- money earned through many grueling hours in the Stauffer-Flint newsroom -- for just around 300 euro.

I had expected $500 to last me for at least one week of sightseeing, dining, public transportation and shopping in Paris. I ended up using my credit card by the fourth day.

It was a surreal experience, watching the value of my money arbitrarily evaporate within seconds and being able to do nothing but stand there, dumbfounded and awkward. I had no idea the American dollar was so weak in Europe. I look back on it now and can't help but think this experience was probably very much like what a lot of people faced in the recent economic collapse.

But just as the dollar's fall from grace in Europe couldn't have happened overnight, the country's recent economic woes could not all have unfurled overnight, or even over just a few months, for that matter.

I did a quick Google search for 2008 economy warning signs, and it turns out the mainstream media reported many warnings about the possibility of an economic crisis. A December 2007 article on the Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch.com made me feel outrageously out-of-touch, as it flat-out states, "Everyone knows the U.S. economy is teetering on the edge of recession in the next year, but no one knows if it will tip."

I suspect many Americans were like me, and didn't take notice of our country's economic situation until it hit painfully home. Not to say the blame for this mess rests on the people who lost their nest eggs, or that the outcome would have been miraculously different had we all been religious readers of MarketWatch.com. We just might not have felt as dumb because we were caught thinking everything was peachy keen.

My ignorance regarding the economy was the most recent reminder of a flaw I've known about myself for a long time: I don't pay attention to news that doesn't appeal to my superficial interests, no matter how relevant it is to my life.

Yes, USA Today has a Money section, but it's just the one that always comes before the Life section. Just as I didn't bother to look up the dollar to euro exchange rate before going to France and instead researched trendy Paris hangouts, I also never bothered to pay attention to money -- something that, for better or for worse, permeates every aspect of our lives -- and instead read about Nicole Richie's baby bump and Yoda, the four-eared cat.

So where do I go from here? I'm one of the lucky ones graduating in December, and although everyone's in a panic over how December grads are going to find jobs amidst this crisis, that's not really what I'm worried about. I'm worried about how I'm going to finally shake this Midwest scene as I've been planning to do since, oh, about age 14.

The disastrous economy undoubtedly hinders my ability to just pack up and go, especially because where I want to go is a bit pricey. I know there are jobs there. It's just a matter of getting/being there.

I crave sunshine, warmth, a new beginning. But when icy, confining January comes, I will be in Kansas still, a prisoner to immobility like every year before.

The best solution just might be a one-way ticket back to Paris. Wherever I end up, one thing is certain: I'll at least be skimming the Money section of the newspaper from now on.

The analog TV is dead.  Its funeral is in February 2009.  With the passing of the grandfather of television the death of cable is not too far in the future.  

Sophomore year, I gave a presentation in my German class about the healthcare system of Germany.  My teacher was a real live authentic Berliner, so he was theoretically the best suited to teach the class (He was an excellent teacher).  However, during the presentation, I made one cataclysmic mistake.

I called the German government "socialistic".

Needless to say, this infuriated my teacher, who rabidly pointed out that Germany is not a socialist country and that there was not even the slight wiff of socialism in Europe.

I amended my presentation to say that Germany had modeled their healthcare system off the Clinton Plan (a decidedly socialist program).  Even though I was inferring that Germany had adopted a decidedly socialist healthcare plan, it was the word "socialism" that earned my teacher's ire.

There is absolutely no denying that most capitalist countries today exhibit very socialist traits.   With Bush's recent nationalization of banks, it seems even our bastion of Adam Smith-like utopia could fall to the scourge of Bolshevism.

I'm being sarcastic, of course.  Even if we don't want to admit it, our country has had socialistic tendencies for years.  Socialism as it's practiced in the modern world is merely the offspring of the Second International - that is to say that socialism is the practice of government intervention to regulate and maintain free market and the citizenship (social democracy).  We see this every day of the week - the government regulates business and taxes the people; social security gives money to the elderly; public education and unemployment benefits aid those who are between jobs.  Socialism has existed in Germany since the 19th century when the Social-Democratic movement picked up steam.

But why does the mere word "socialism" inspire such anger in people?  I choose to blame Karl Marx and Joe McCarthy equally. Both men fanatically believed that socialism was intrinsically linked to communism and the destruction of democratic social norms.  Both men were quite vocal to this point.

It is at this point that I must say that I in no way advocate the Third International's conception of violent revolutionary socialism or communism.  I'm just trying to point out that our system of government is already socialistic.  The concept of socialism is the idea that the government should be beneficial to everyone.  This doesn't run contradictory to our great democracy at all.

Hell, wasn't it the great Commissar Reagan who furthered the idea of earned income tax credits?