More Elections More Problems

Government leaders are allowing, and incredibly, pushing for voter turnout to decline so their respective parties can triumph. Outside groups are destroying the individual right to vote as well as the ideal that all American voices are equal by giving preference to a privileged few while inviting politicians to be ignorant to the significant issues challenging the country. It is a revulsion to democratic principles that these components have become sizable factors in the election process.

Plutocracy and income inequality, two issues that have seemingly little to do with electing public officials, are the most dangerous aspects of the United States social and economic landscape today, and are being deliberately ignored because of their ability to have an effect on elections. In an excerpt from Chrystia Freeland's book, Plutocrats, she explains: "Americans were happy to celebrate their super-rich and, at least sometimes, worry about their poor, but putting those two conversations together was pretty much taboo." When it seems like all politicians can talk about is "the middle class", a talking point exemplified to an intense degree in the last presidential election, this is why. While lawmakers are happy to expound upon the benefits of "growing the economy from the middle class out" or "ensuring America has a strong middle class", they are afraid to address the issue of income inequality because the richest of Americans supply them with the tool they need to win elections: money.

Freeland goes on to say, "It would be best (for politicians) not to refer to income differences at all...if the president couldn't avoid singling out the country's top earners, he should call them 'affluent'. Naming them as rich sounded divisive." Yet, isn't rich a perfect term for the situation? There is a monstrous divide between the income of the rich and the poor of this country. Pretending to be ignorant of the problem by use of political language is a disservice to the majority of the public and a technique perpetuated by those for whom it benefits most - the rich.

In connection to elections, people earning low to middle level incomes cannot add much to a candidate's war chest (aside from the occasional ten dollars), and can't even flirt with the influence that  billionaires like Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers are able to exert. The result is the majority of American public opinion being drowned out by the almighty dollar, like the 300 million casino tycoon Adelson gave to Republicans in his own interest during last year's election cycle. Republicans would have been completely responsive to Adelson's tax needs, as he knows, while Obama's tax policy revolved around raising taxes on citizens like Adelson to help alleviate the national debt. Fairness is thrown out of the window in this situation. It's no sin for a voter to vote based on their personal interests, but it is irrefutably wrong for certain citizens to almost single handedly sponsor a politician, putting their own concerns at the forefront of political policy while simultaneously shunning the needs of the public.

Why should corporations, in an almost hierarchic and pyramidal manner, be prioritized in politics over average Americans? In 1816 Thomas Jefferson railed against this concept: "(We need to) crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Jefferson would be outraged by the amount of money spent in last year's congressional, senatorial, and presidential races, a total of 4.2 billion dollars.

The richest Americans are awarded a pedestal for their contributions to politicians, while average citizens remain grounded. In an article in New York Magazine by Matt Bai, he discusses Citizens United: "Now any outside group can use corporate money to make a direct case for who deserves your vote and why, and they can do so right up to Election Day." Consequentially, politicians now owe their allegiance to big money donors, who, because of Citizens United, have exaggerated influence on these politicians.

Income inequality will go on if money continues to flow from outside groups. A simple, though admittedly incomplete solution to this socioeconomic issue and its effect on elections is a cap on campaign spending. This must be a federal law - only five million dollars can be spent on state races of any kind and twenty million must be the limit on presidential races. The logistics of this cap may change but the overall purpose remains the same - the reduction of the gross accumulation of money in politics.

Americans would no longer have to watch copious amounts of campaign commercials, and instead could make their decision based on merit and a series of high stakes debates. In addition, the campaigning window will be shortened because there will no longer be a near unlimited supply of campaign funding. Politicians can now run on policy and will no longer have to be corporate mouthpieces. Super Pacs will be a strange phenomenon of the past, for money will no longer be considered free speech. If, as Citizens United says in its most primitive form, corporations are people, then these large businesses and their rich leaders are allowed to speak louder and with more frequency and freedom throughout the election process than ordinary Americans. No longer. No longer can business leaders donate to politicians, and ideally, the 4.2 billion spent in last year's election will be donated to charity.

Republican Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania house majority leader, said that the new voter ID law in Pennsylvania, which was delayed in court, would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." Such a statement is disturbing and misguided on many levels, but its main red flag is the fact that partisanship is currently rampant in the election process, and politicians are working to get their own kind elected. This is not in the sense that they are endorsing other candidates, but instead they are lobbying for laws like voter identification that would disproportionately benefit Republican candidates.

States should not and cannot decide upon election rules in a partisan manner. There needs to be an impartial commission in all fifty states deciding upon voter laws, made up of members who have no stake in the election, and have the sole purpose of overseeing a fair democratic process. This now infamous photo ID law would have disenfranchised eleven to thirteen percent of the voting electorate, and almost all of these citizens would have been Democratic voters. Most of the legal arguments for the law were denied or delayed. 33 states proposed a voter ID law, 32 of the states were led in the effort by Republican lawmakers.

Voter obstructionism used to be done in the good old fashioned way - white men with guns "checking" a black person's voter information during the Jim Crow era. Now the democratic process is being impeded by the very officials we elect. An article by the Washington Post states: "Civil rights groups are warning that as many as ten million Hispanics may be deterred from casting ballots because of changes to voting laws." This is unacceptable. Of course, Barack Obama went on to win the election with a strong Hispanic turnout, to the dismay of Paul Ryan and other Republicans who were unable to block "urban voter turnout."

Republican Secretary of State of Ohio John Husted cut back early voting hours. This is a direct affront to Democratic voter turnout. The GOP's attempt to commandeer the election was shameful, and ultimately backfired, according to the record amounts of voters across the nation. Still, groups like "True the Vote," a Tea Party group that goes to urban areas to check voter registration lists and to look for loopholes in votes cast by democrats, work to make ballots invalid. The New York Times explains the faction: "a group founded by the Koch brothers that works to elect conservative Republicans." This is a lethal combination of outside groups and partisanship. Voter ID laws and early voting reductions passed through in Republican states would not be possible if each state was forced to answer to impartial election committees.

Our democracy is a special kind of screwed up if politicians can decide how to get politicians elected. It's time for our elected officials to do what they are supposed to - serve the public. Outside groups and partisan politics have no place in the election process, and frankly, they are negatively affecting the public and corrupting a right people fought and died for centuries ago.

Unemployment High, Gas Prices Low

Halfway through 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, the average price of gas in the U.S. was one dollar and sixty one cents. Take a second to remember those halcyon days of old, but when you're doing that, also think about the fact that between 2008 and 2010, 39 percent of people were "either unemployed, had negative equity in their house, or had been in arrears with their house payments," according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. In addition, between 2007 and 2008, home sales and home prices dropped by 12 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively. Nothing was going right.

At least gas prices were low! Well, yes, but this was a sign of, as President Obama says, "an economy on the verge of collapse." Michael Canes, the chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute in 2011, asserts that "rapid and sustained reduction in oil prices that began in 2008 and extended beyond occurred because the world economy began to slow down and ultimately experience a deep recession. This is one way to reduce gas prices, but not a very attractive one." When Newt Gingrich claimed the increase in gas prices was the President's fault during his campaign for the republican presidential nomination this past year, he was wrong. The Wall Street Journal sums it up nicely: "Gingrich ignored the basic fact about U.S. gas prices: They are largely fixed by the price of crude oil, which is determined by global supply and demand....When Mr. Obama was inaugurated, demand (for gasoline) was weak due to the recession. But now it's stronger, and thus the price is higher." Gas prices depend on a global market, and this will remain true whether or not America becomes energy independent. The facts are, if prices go up because of increased demand in the Middle East, they will do the same here. If they go down globally, as they did during the Recession, they will go down here.

If this is true, why have Newt Gingrich, Fox News, and Governor Mitt Romney accused Obama's "failing policies" as the reason for this spike in gasoline costs? Gas prices are highly visible. Whenever Americans pump gas, they no doubt complain about the sight of the price rising so quickly while the gallons of gas go up slow and end up low. Any halfway decent politician will understand this and exploit it. Here lies one of the many issues within our political system today - the lack of research and knowledge resulting from opportunism which comes from politicians and spreads to the American people. Politicians don't need to know their stuff as long as they have a basic understanding of what Americans hate. On a purely emotional basis, I agree with Romney and Gingrich - nobody likes high gas prices -  but I know that the price of gas is not the President's fault, therefore it is a moot point.

Where else does high visibility help and hurt certain politicians? The income tax rebate of 2008 enacted by George W. Bush was primarily a tax cut for the middle class. Bush pulled a genius political move with this though. He sent receivers of the tax cut actual checks in the mail, reminding them that "Hey, your prez here, I'm literally handing you money with this tax cut. I know you love me." This would have worked too, if it wasn't for that meddling deficit, and the Lehman Brothers, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In President Obama's first term he also offered the middle class a 3,600 dollar tax cut, but he didn't send a check which people could hold, and see, and understand, yes, Obama did in fact cut our taxes. Maybe President Obama should have sent a check, because without it people do not truly know if Governor Romney is lying when he says Obama would not cut taxes for the middle class. 

Of course, tax cuts have always been a visible issue which politicians use to generate support. "Oh, we get to save money? You'll let us pay less? Of course I'll vote for you!" President Bush took that a step further by handing people the money he saved them. President Obama has to be more visible if people are to believe him, because high visibility, which ironically does not translate to high transparency, is a characteristic of the modern political climate. 

A Look At "The Heist"

It's difficult to quantify how good music is. Along with other types of art, it is purely subjective. When listening to Macklemore and Ryan Lewis' debut album though, it becomes apparent you're listening to not just a collection of rap songs, but an achievement. "The Heist"challenges every Hip-Hop stereotype behind original instrumentals from Ryan Lewis and poetic prose from Macklemore.

Part of what makes this album incredible is the dissimilarity between all the songs. The range between party anthems, personal stories, political statements, lyrical displays, and songs about the struggle of the independent artist shows Macklemore and Ryan Lewis' versatility.

Hip-Hop is an African American art form, so whenever a caucasian tries to rap or comes into some critical acclaim in the genre, it is a compelling situation. Macklemore understands the dichotomy between his skin color and his chosen profession, and he addresses the topic throughout the album. In the second verse in his song "A Wake", Macklemore speaks about the label of being a "conscious" rapper. He doesn't believe he's more conscious than any other rapper because he doesn't talk about guns and killing police or "a stripper on a poll poppin'", rather, he thinks those rappers are as conscious as he is, because this is what they grew up around: "I grew up during Reaganomics/ when Ice-T was out there on his killing cops s**t/ or Rodney King was getting beat on and they let out every single officer in Los Angeles went and lost it."Later in the verse Macklemore wonders if race relations is an issue he should even get involved in: "Don't event tweet R.I.P. Trayvon Martin/ don't wanna be that white dude million man marchin'." He wraps the verse up with: "Don't get involved with the causes of mine?/ white privilege white guilt at the same damn time/ so we just party like its 1999/ celebrate the ignorance while these kids keep dying." Macklemore has had past songs addressing his "white rapper-ship", namely "White Privilege". He obviously struggles with the fact he's a white man in a black art. Still, Macklemore is a symbol of an obviously expanding rap culture. White rappers like Mac Miller, Atmosphere, Eminem, Asher Roth, Brother Ali, and Evidence have become a force in Hip-Hop. The genre is changing and including groups like Chiddy Bang and ANTHM who are rapping about topics usually untouchable for fear of being too artsy or feminine, and instead of just a bass drum and a snare, modern hip-hop instrumentals utilize all types of instruments and are much more layered. Ironically, in this song "A Wake",  Macklemore displays how conscious he truly is. He's conscious of issues he doesn't even address, and is able to speak about them authoritatively and humbly.

Macklemore and Ryan Lewis include a few old songs, including "Can't Hold Us", "Make the Money", and "Wing$". The two artists were not well known before the album, so this was a nice touch. They were able to introduce new fans to a few of their quality cuts from the past. One of the highlights of the album though is a brand new jam - "White Walls". Macklemore and Ryan Lewis team up with rapper Schoolboy Q of Black Hippy for a high energy ode to Cadillacs. Macklemore again shows his versatility, proving he can "stunt" too, and yeah, he's got a little money in his pocket: "Oh? Haters? Damn y'all mad/ Thirty K on the Caddy now how backpack rap is that?" When the chorus comes in you can't help but turn up the volume.

In the songs "Cowboy Boots" and "Castle", Macklemore puts out an anthem to his friends and a satire of "party rap" songs. Over a hicked-out instrumental and a chorus that sounds like a bunch of drunk dudes belting out their favorite song, Macklemore laments: "You learn a lot about your friends/ right around 2 A.M." and "acquaintances turn to friends, I hope those friends they remember me/ hold the night for ransom as we kidnap the memories/ not sure if there is a way to express what you meant to me/ sit around a table and use those years as the centerpiece." In "Castle" Macklemore details the most ridiculous party known to man: "Unicorns and wizard sleeves/Hammer pants and make believe," and so on. This song pokes fun at modern rap culture through hyperbole by the use of Macklemore's British alter ego - Raven Bowie.

The album was #1 on iTunes for three days and the duo's grassroots fan base came out in full force to support the event. Macklemore's album stands alone in its honoring of creativity. As he said, he chose "love over a desk" and his soul is still his. He refused to live a regular life, which is inspirational in its own sense, as is his appeal to all people (see: "Same Love"), and is an independent artist in its purest form: "Nowadays if you make good music, the people are your label."

Kids these days....

Kids These Days. Loud, bashful, opinionated, rebels without causes, talented, out of control. I don't mean the general population of people under 21. I'm talking about the band hailing from Chicago.

"Fresh" and "Original" don't completely explain this band, nor how they came to be. The Roots are the only true predecessor to these youngsters from Chicago. Live instrumentation backing Hip-Hop is a difficult art, difficult mainly due to the fact that it is impossible to put a label on. The band members tried though. Kids These Days created their own genre of music, one they affectionately call "Traphouse Rock", fusing Jazz, Hip-Hop, Rock & Roll, and soul.

Half the band met at Whitney Young high school in Chicago, and after jamming together for a while, met up with other musicians, some training classically at the Merit School of Music. The band consists of rapper Vic Mensa, lead singer and guitarist Liam Cunningham, and six instrumentalists including one singer, one trumpeter, a saxophonist, keyboard player, bass guitarist, percussionist, and a trombonist.

Vic Mensa rhymes slick and confident for his 19 year old frame, with the wisdom of someone who's been through everything twice, and it's believable. He continues to rhyme with the free and creative youthfulness of a young graffiti artist, but is no doubt a serious, socially conscious, MC, often rhyming about murders and crime that occur in his birthplace.

Listeners are quick to compare KTD to live-Hip-Hop-veterans the Roots, but this is not a fair comparison. In an overall sense, the correlation between the two is impossible to ignore: rich instrumentation backing a severely underrated rapper, bands that can deliver party songs, ballads, and social criticisms all at once. The difference between the two lies in the bands. There is no doubt the Roots are innovators in their craft, especially with their last album, "Undun", which was a true concept album about a young boy growing up in the ghetto of Philadelphia. KTD are a new brand though. While the Roots are hyper focused on finding a groove, KTD likes to experiment and improvise, and the instrumentation bears little resemblance to conventional Hip-Hop. The Roots find a loop to stick with, develop a chorus, and let rapper Black Thought rhyme for three verses. Despite the fact The Roots do not use a computer to make their beats, they are still very Hip-Hop, in some cases defining the genre.

KTD is redefining the genre. The music has no discernible loop, staying true to the concept of Jazz. The band continually switches up their sound throughout a song, sometimes without a clear chorus, other times welcoming a trumpet or guitar solo. Kids These Days are a truly singular entity, and their overwhelming ability aside, should be able to get noticed because of their individuality. They're just too loud to ignore.

Check out their new "Don't Harsh my Mellow" music video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_60ihLGHylc

Why do ad campaigns use patriotism and colonial references to promote their products? Why is Quaker Oats called Quaker Oats? Instantly the sight of a white-haired, friendly patriot with a Tri cornered hat comes to mind. This recognition drives many marketing schemes. From Mount Rushmore in a Clarisil Clear Eyes commercial to Yankee Doodle playing in the background of an Orbitz Travel Agency Ad, patriotic recognition has become a reliable technique in the marketing world.

The beer company Budweiser is a pioneer of this tactic. In 2011 an American flag embroidered can was sold by the company to much fanfare. In a particularly greasy ad aired in 2002, the famous Budweiser Clydesdales trotted all the way to New York to look solemnly upon where the Twin Towers had fallen one year before, with a subdued trumpet playing an American war time tune in the background. The ad ended with a black screen filled up by a thin red strip with white lettering: "Budweiser." It seemed as if Budweiser had trivialized this difficult american event in order to sell beer, but Budweiser claimed the ad was meant to pay tribute. Two separate Anheuser-Busch and Budweiser commercials airing in 2008 and 2010 showed American troops returning home from the war to a hero's welcome. The text "Thank you." shows up on the screen, but the viewer is ultimately left with the text of the beer company's name. What exactly do beer and war have to do with one another?

M&M's recently released a red white and blue series of the chocolate candy with an American flag featured on the front. Ford "Drove America" and General Motors "Kept America Rolling" in the wake of 9/11. This is not a new phenomenon though. Marlboro used military generals as the people supporting their brand of cigarette on the front of their box during World War II. This has inspired ads such as Chrysler's "Halftime in America" where Clint Eastwood says in a grisly voice: "This country can't be knocked out in one punch, we get right back up again."

I, like all americans, am a consumer. I did not notice this technique for advertising until recently, and it is in fact a well known device used by advertising companies. Part of me wishes to decry the tactic for its opportunism and exploitation of american values we hold dear, simply for profit. But marketing is a corrupt game. Subtle tricks average consumers don't pick up on lead them to pick up the product. Patriotism is just another way of targeting a consumer. More specifically, patriotic commercials target a certain demographic, namely, people who consider themselves patriots or heavily support the troops. Lost in the irony is the fact that these people should be the most outraged by such a ploy.

Yet, what's more american than Clint Eastwood?

He was accused of numerous recruiting violations. His players performed poorly in school, so much so that they will be ineligible for the NCAA tournament in 2013. He once told a reporter asking about his high income and if it could contribute to bringing down the state debt: "My best advice to you? Shutup." He was far from endearing to his own players. He even took out his star two minutes into games if he thought he wasn't playing hard enough. He ran to mid court at time outs solely to cuss loudly into a players ear, embarrass him to work harder. He is unapologetic, hard-nosed, and uncompromising. 

He is now retired coach, Jim Calhoun. His mistakes will be amplified in the coming weeks, his faults magnified, but to a Connecticut sports fan, Jim Calhoun was one of the best things to ever happen to Connecticut. 

Calhoun began his head coaching career in 1971 at Northeastern. He was the first coach to take Northeastern to the Division 1 March Madness tournament. He did it four times. In 15 years he was the winningest coach Northeastern ever had, but he decided to change gears. In 1986 Calhoun took over a destitute UCONN Huskies team, a perennial last place squad. 

Now the story sounds like a fairy tale. Last to first, underdog to favorite, so on and so forth. Calhoun had no lemons but created lemonade from lemon extract, water, and sugar. College basketball centers around recruiting. Schools like Duke or North Carolina or UCLA had no problem with this and their rich traditions. Calhoun had a bigger mountain to climb.

"Wanna play against Georgetown?" "Want to play in Madison Square Garden?" Of course these fresh faced seventeen year olds wanted to do this, but for UCONN? In Storrs Connecticut? For a guy like Calhoun with the face of a man that "took care of it" for the mafia? Calhoun did not recruit players simply because they were above average basketball players. He recruited players who would fight. His teams became characterized by their resemblance to their coach: dogged in their defensive effort, calloused under pressure, sometimes just plain mean. How else could the Huskies have beaten the Blue Devils in 99'?

Watch the game. The team emulates their coach. Their best player, Rip Hamilton, is awkward, skinny, and determined. 

There are lists of NBA players from UCONN. There are three championships the Huskies can account for. There are final fours, and broken rules, and hostile confrontations. And then there's Jim Calhoun. The guy who always beat the favorite. Who coached a team with one good player and three solid ones to eleven straight wins and a national championship in 2010-11. Who beat back cancer three separate instances and returned to the sideline each time, intimidating referees and his own players alike. With his rough voice and convincing manner Calhoun said it best: "That's the dumbest (bleeping) question I've ever heard. I've explained it 1,000 times. I (bleeped) up." Wait wrong one.

"I know who I am. I know what I've done in 39 years of coaching. You don't have to tell me, you don't have to write it, but I know who I am. Quite frankly, I'm pretty comfortable with who I am. Have I made mistakes? Yes. Do I have warts? Yeah, I do, like all of you. But I know who I am and I'm comfortable with what I've done."

The Democratic National Convention was....Well-done, well-written, captivating, and calculated. The only surprise was Bill Clinton. Slated to speak for 24 minutes, he spoke for 48, and held the audience's attention for all of it despite using facts. Joe Biden was his usual "Uncle Joe" self. Michelle Obama delivered moving oratory about her husband and why she loves him (which, by the way, is an awkward/extended version of wedding vows. Imagine explaining why you love your spouse to millions of people and the tens of thousands in a convention center). Deval Patrick called for democrats to develop a "backbone", while Joe Biden said Barack Obama contains a "ramrod" backbone. Whichever way you spin it, the democrats convincingly endorsed their president.

In Tampa Bay, the Republican National Convention was not as well executed. Maybe it was the negativity, they painted the future with Barack Obama as an endless wasteland. Maybe it was Clint Eastwood. Maybe it was Chris Christie making his bid for president in 2016 instead of endorsing his candidate: "they said it was impossible to cut taxes in a state where taxes were raised 115 times in eight years before I became Governor. That it was impossible to balance a budget at the same time, with an $11 billion deficit. Three years later, we have three balanced budgets in a row with lower taxes. We did it." Christie continued to tout his own record, Ryan's speech was criticized for lack of facts (especially the Janesville plant which closed before Obama took office), and Mitt Romney's acceptance speech was forgettable.

There's something each convention had in common though; platitudes. It turns out, every candidate had parents of some sort. Most of these parents had difficult lives and were immigrants. ALL the politicians made allusions to supporting the troops, and the one who didn't happens to be the most important republican: Mitt Romney. Not to worry, he paid his due when crucified by Joe Biden for not paying homage to the troops in Afghanistan. Each democrat touted the middle class, each republican vouched for freedom and individuality (when it came to the economy). Each democrat reminded people of the democratic party platform which does not take away any women's rights, each republican spoke to how "we built it." 

In fact, most of the speeches were even structured the same, Obama's impassioned acceptance speech being the best example. The speech begins with "I love you so much Michelle." Nice and all, but...that's obvious. I kind of love her too. It tells his own personal story about his family, it turns to the issues, it attacks the republicans, and finally it aims to inspire. Obama's speech was perhaps the most well executed example, but the truth is, there is now a formula to all the speeches, whether republican or democrat. 

Both parties marched out hispanic politicians, Marco Rubio (R) and Julian Castro (D). Democrats were hell bent on appealing to the military with speakers with moving stories from the Army and Navy by the names of Jason Crow and John Nathman. Obama mentioned the military multiple times in his speech. 

It may be true that the democratic speeches were more well written, delivered with greater ability, more excitable than the republicans. This is in part because of the atmosphere. Democrats created an extremely optimistic environment. Republicans dragged Obama's presidency through the mud and Ryan did not just "play fast and loose" in his speech...he lied. 

None of this changes my naive wish that both parties would cease with the themes, the fake connections, and the made up human quality. Don't write a speech. Speak off the cuff. Do something different. This is why Bill Clinton's speech was so great. He improvised. His words were not written and edited and revised twice over, they were real, and as far as politicians go, they were raw. How can a candidate excite anybody about the democratic process by doing the same old song and dance, by appealing to specific groups and clubs and communities? Just appeal to people.

As Ronald Reagan once said, there they go again.

Introduction

I currently am taking part in an independent study in journalism as part of my senior year. This blog is a major component of the study. People often believe blogs are not true journalism, but I believe, if used correctly, they can be.

Tumblr gives a bad name to blogs. This will not be a blog of pictures and short, inspirational statements. This will not be a blog of memes with a list of things the best boyfriends do. This blog is about the pursuit of knowledge which is what journalists, and writers in general, should all be a part of.

As the title states, sports are not as important as most topics. I had my heart set on being a sportswriter, but I have discovered other outlets. What sports do offer, just as art does, is a unique way of interpreting life. I will be doing this (interpreting life through news and happenings and observations) 1-3 times a week in this blog. It is my pledge to all the followers I have as of this blog post (zero) that I will be fair and discuss a variety of topics. All I ask is you hold me to this pledge.

Maybe in my young age this lack of bias is idealistic and naive. I don't care.