Millennial Voters

A recent poll of millennial voters, that is, voters born between 1982 and 1996, said that they would be much more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate in any given race.

One very possible reason for this is the changing attitudes towards social issues. On average, young people tend to be more liberal on social issues such as gay marriage and drug legalization. Also, conservative buzzwords such as 'socialism' don't carry the same meaning for them as they did for their older, cold war era parents and grandparents. But, in an interesting twist, young people tend to be more fiscally conservative.

So, even though I'm not a conservative, I have a piece of advice for anyone who seeks to get young people interested in conservatism: drop the social issues but keep the money issues. You are not going to win over young people by telling them you want to keep their gay friends from being able to marry, or that you don't think women can make their own decisions about reproduction, or that pot is as bad as heroin.

This is the 21st century, so conservatives, even though they have proven to be a reliable voting bloc, you need to turn your attentions away from the interests of the evangelicals and towards those of young people, because young people are the future.

Just Keep Talking, Catholics

Recently, I saw a very interesting video on Youtube called, "Where are the Catholics?" Speaking on the video was a man who could only be described as a Catholic fanatic, calling Catholics to arms, to aggressively combat their detractors online and in the media. He blasted Catholics who support people's freedom of speech by tolerating anti-Catholic criticism, and he compared tolerating such criticism to tolerating someone beating up your mother right in front of you. He went on to rant and rave about how the Catholics were being trampled and persecuted, and how they have a monopoly on truth, and damn all secularists, Jews, and Protestants alike. The funny thing is, he doesn't realize he is what we non-Catholics and secularists think of when we think of the rabid Catholic fanatic. Now, I am by no means saying that all Catholics are like this. But Catholics who do not condemn this type of extremist rhetoric are only contributing to the downfall and the further discrediting of their faith. And so, I invite Catholics and all religious extremists like this, to just keep talking, because it only gives the non-religious, and religious non-fanatics, more fuel for the fire.

Just keep talking.

Is Anti-Catholicism Justified?

One of the last acceptable prejudices in recent years... the Catholic Church, has been getting a lot of scrutiny because of the cover up of sexual abuse of children and other events. But, what has also been on the rise, fair or not, is a lot of Anti-Catholic sentiment. Now, anti-Catholicism is nothing new, especially in the US, but it seemed to have cooled down with the election of John F. Kennedy back in 1960. But, an interesting phenomenon has resurfaced since events like the sex abuse scandal. A lot of people feel like they can make blanket generalizations about Catholics and about the Catholic Church and not even think of themselves as being prejudiced.

For instance, when Mel Gibson went on his anti- Semitic rant back in 2006, one British newspaper discussing Gibson, ended with the line "who could have imagined Catholicism could be so interesting?"

Now, imagine if someone were writing an article about about Bernie Madoff and ended with the line "who knew Judaism could be so interesting?" People would understandably be in an uproar. I'm not saying that the Catholic Church does not deserve criticism. I honestly think all organized religion is a little kooky. But bigotry against the Catholic Church is still bigotry and it's wrong.

Finally, the only way we can become a truly understanding world, is to condemn bigotry wherever we see it, whether it's the Catholic Church or a gay teen being bullied to the point of suicide.

Media Censorship

Many Americans like to think we live in the greatest and freest country in the world, but unfortunately during certain times in our history this has not always been so. Take the post-WWII Cold War era. Many Americans were mercilessly dragged before Congress and made to explain themselves for simply not agreeing with certain policies or just not agreeing enough. For a more recent example, look no further than the post- 9/11 era. Celebrities like the Dixie Chicks were black listed for saying they were embarrassed about George Bush being from Texas. Another 9/11 celebrity punching bag was comedian and actress Rosie O'Donnell. She was called unpatriotic due to her antiwar stance and her assertion that the Bush administration may have had advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Whether you agree with these people's controversial opinions or not, I think it's wrong for a country that claims to be the freest and the greatest to engage in attacks and character assassinations every time a prominent celebrity, or any person, disagrees with a government policy, position or statement. The fact is, I no longer believe the country is run by just politicians. I believe the country, and the world, is run by people with their own interests and agendas who are willing to destroy people who pose a threat to that system of power and control. So, the next time you hear someone say "America's the greatest country in the world," ask yourself, is it?

Should Hate Speech Still Be Free Speech?

How far does freedom of speech go? Recently, a New York cab driver was suspended from his job because he was wearing Nazi paraphernalia. Let me be clear: I do not agree with what this man was wearing, or what he stands for. But, he shouldn't be forced to hide his, although uninformed and ignorant, deeply held political views. After all, as a New York City cab driver, he cannot legally discriminate or turn down anyone who gets in his cab. Freedom of speech was created to protect unpopular opinions. I want him to have his rights, because it means I still have mine.

Simpsons Censored in Japan

We all know the iconic series The Simpsons, which has been running on Fox since Christmas of 1989. But if you live in Japan, there is one episode that you will likely never see. The episode is called, "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo," and if you've never seen it, let me give you a quick description: Homer and the rest of the Simpsons win free plane tickets to anywhere in the world. The only problem is, they don't know what country they're going to. Once they get bored, they just steal the Flanders' tickets to Japan. As you can imagine, even Japan is not safe from the zany antics of the Simpsons. One of the most controversial scenes is, due to Homer not understanding the difference between traditional sumo wrestling, and WWF style American wrestling, he throws the emperor of the country into a pile of the wrestlers' underwear. Once in jail, they are seen doing many stereotypically Japanese things, like making origami and dressing like geishas. But once out of jail, they find that their passports have expired, and they have to go on a Japanese game show to get plane tickets home.

 Now, if you've ever seen a Japanese game show, they are very different and much more extreme than ours, and the clever writers of The Simpsons seem to have exaggerated this for comedic effect. But apparently the Japanese government was not happy with the mocking of their culture by the American cartoon. To this day, the episode has never aired in Japan, and was even removed from the DVD version of the show's 10th anniversary box set. Censorship is nothing new. I can't tell you how many episodes of Pokemon have been drastically altered or never seen in the U.S. due to their sexual content or violence. My question to you is this: do you think that countries should have the right to ban or cut whole episodes due to their differing cultural norms, or if it might seem offensive to a foreign audience, or do you think people just need to lighten up?