Ohio rally: Sarah Palin with daughters Willow and a pregnant Bristol, holding Palin's infant son Trig.

Despite the controversy surrounding John McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin, and her un-wed 17 year-old daughters teenage pregnancy, many are pretending the children of public figures should be off limits. However, in this case it does raise concern over the competence of Palin’s potential leadership as Vice President. Not because an irresponsible child is a poor reflection on Palin, but because of the policies she supports that would encourage this kind of consequence on all children.

An article by Andrew Stephen in the New Statesman discusses McCain’s choice in Palin, but barely addresses the issue of her daughter Bristol’s pregnancy, which is a very important indicator of her policies as potential Vice President. Palin and McCain are supporters of abstinence-until-marriage sex education, which only teaches young people to abstain from sex. Any young person who opposes this would be deprived of beneficial sex information, and studies show that abstinence programs may lead to unsafe sex practices. It is ironic that a supporter of abstinence sex education is now the mother of a pregnant teenager; a policy she wants for all children that did not work for her own daughter.

This abstinence stance not only fails to gives young people the choice to engage in safe sex, but combined with Palin and McCain’s pro-life stance, the only choice it gives is to have unwanted children, even in cases of rape. Aside from being insensitive and not taking into consideration the psychological and physical effect unwanted pregnancy has on women, it ignores the financial and emotional support many pregnant teenagers lack to raise a child.

The teenage pregnancy of Palin’s daughter is a reflection of how her support of abstinence-only sex educations and pro-life views will put everyones children in danger.

The DNC: Clinton calls supporters to vote Obama

Hilary Clinton has called on her supporters, at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, to cast their presidential votes for Barrack Obama. However, the move was met with negative publicity.

There were concerns that Clinton’s past criticisms of Obama would come back to hurt the Democrats. The day she addressed the convention, McCain’s 3AM ad aired showing Clinton as saying: “I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And, Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.” The context in which she made those comments about Obama were different, and now that he is no longer her competition she is within her rights to support him without being judged a hypocrite.

There were also rumours before the speech that Hilary Clinton would not endorse Barack Obama, and that one of her top aides was “trash-talking Obama to other reporters”. A Mother Jones blog commented on this, and suggested that reporters will be looking for any signs that the Clintons are “not doing everything possible” to see Obama become president. However, there was no resentment or reluctance in her speech and she passionately displayed her full support for Obama, emphasising his concern for the people and his vision for the future.

“Barrack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy… He knows government must be about ‘We the people’ not ‘We the favoured few’.”

No amount of bad publicity beforehand could tarnish the fervour of her message: Vote Obama for a better future.

McCain, Warren, and Obama at Saddleback Civil Forum.

On 16 August, sentors Barrack Obama and John McCain went to Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum to answer his questions on morals, policies, and abortion. Controversy followed with complaints that Obama was ‘fooled’ into attending, McCain ‘cheated’, and Warren was ‘biased’.

Although Salon writer Joan Walsh felt he should not have attended, her article showed she understood the reason why so many saw Obama’s attendance as a good thing.

” I understand why Obama visited Saddleback, especially given the persistence of the Muslim smears… It’s not about winning over the audience in the room; you’re appealing to a wider group of voters who want their president to be inclusive and reach out widely.”

However, Walsh then went on to contradict herself by querying his motives for televising the interview, suspicious that he was discussing his “private religious faith” with a “conservative Christian leader”. How can one acknowledge that Obama attended the forum to quash Muslim slander and to be respectfully inclusive of all people, and then turn around and question his motives?

Controversial doubts over whether McCain was really in a “cone of silence”, which was intended to remove unfair early exposure to questions, was met with criticism. Sceptics accused Obama supporters of “poor sportsmanship”, unable to accept that McCain was simply the better speaker and better prepared. That he was the better speaker is undeniable; Obama stuttered the entire way through while McCain gave clear succint answers. As for McCain cheating by knowing the questions beforehand, it would be hard to prove. Although, it is not too ridiculously far-fetched considering Pastor Warren’s obvious bias in favour of McCain for his pro-life stance on abortion.

Among these critics is former UK Conservative Party Leader, Iain Duncan Smith, who complained to The London Times that the classification failed to assist parents in knowing “what they were about to see”. It is hypocrisy for the public to criticise classifications for failing to protect their children, but to rely on them as replacement of their parental responsibilities. What kind of parent could be fooled into thinking that ‘The Dark Knight’ is anything but a dark urban-gothic adaptation? Surely they would have seen the countless trailers that bombarded our television sets? Or the barrage of media praise the late Heath Ledger received for his performance as the psychopathic mass-murdering clown? Smith must have gone out of his way to remain ignorant in thinking this movie would be anything like the “past Batman films where the villains were somewhat surreal and comical figures”. This is ‘The Dark Knight’ Trailer, would you be surprised to know it was “relentlessly violent”?

Black mocked critics to “grow some cojones”, and called for the abolition of the BBFC. He went on to make them seem like nothing more than pompous intellectuals with a superiority complex.

“… the BBFC assumes that it is possessed of a greater understanding than the rest of us… No matter how much garrotting or anal pounding they witness, they remain congenitally unaffected.”

The BBFC was established in 1912, to provide the public with information to make their own educated decisions on what to watch. Black seems to ignore the fact that it is essentially up to the local councils to pass or reject movies, and to alter their exhibition categories.

Parents should not look to the British Board of Film Classification as the sole determiners of what is suitable material for their child’s viewing. They are merely guidelines, and as the BBFC must make moral judgments on what they consider ‘moderate’ or ‘strong’ violence, so must the public.

Reason Number One: It’s not natural.

“Natural species boundaries would dictate the limits of breeding… but in the GM world… Soil bacteria genes have been inserted into corn, human genes into tobacco…”

Human genes inserted into tobacco does sound like a crime against nature, but this article conveniently fails to mention that this is not commercial tobacco – it is the tobacco plants. It is not something you could accidentally purchase from a supermarket. Scientists are genetically modifying plants with human genes so that they can produce useful human proteins. The plants will produce antibodies to fight cancer, human blood proteins used in surgery, immune-system cells, painkillers, and any other molecules that are medically beneficial to humans. All will be extracted for medical purposes. They are not intended to be food crops.

Reason Number Two: We can’t trust what is being sold.

“Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)… merely accepts data from the biotech companies themselves and… if the GM products looks, smells and tastes like its non-GM counterpart, then no further testing is required.”

Not quite. Companies that produce genetically modified food must give scientific proof that their products are safe, which FSANZ then reviews. The genetically modified food is then compared with the equivalent ‘natural’ food according to its molecular structure, toxicological components, nutritional values, and composition. They do not just skim over the appearance, smell and taste. It is also mandatory that all genetically modified food be labeled in Australia and New Zealand, so consumers can make their own choices.

The spread of these outdated views through hysteria are what encouraged the president of Zambia, during the 2002 Environmental Summit, to reject donations of genetically modified corn. That corn could have helped 2.5 million starving Zambians.

Before publicising views against genetically modified crops, one should stop and think of those who do not have the luxury to turn down food.

Zambian Crops Destroyed by Drought: Unlike GM crops, they cannot withstand harsh conditions.

An article in The Economist shows surprise that the U.S will send its third highest-ranking diplomat to attend the meeting. The meeting that will regard Iran’s potential to develop nuclear weapons. The same meeting that will mark the first time Iran has agreed to discuss nuclear matters, which could include talks about ending their uranium enrichment efforts. I can understand their surprise; clearly it’s a trivial matter.

Despite Iran’s co-operation on these nuclear matters being good news, the comments left by readers show they’re missing the point entirely. Instead of discussing the potential positive impact this meeting could have, they managed to turn it into a Palestine vs. Israel hate-fest.

One reader’s solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine?

“If I was Ehud Olmert, I would honestly authorize the use of deadly force at the slightest provocation to wipe out entire civilian populations simply to show that Israel means business.”

Surely that would be an almost flawless plan, except that it’s in violation of human rights.

It is saddening to think that people nowadays can take news that is meant to inspire hope, and only focus on racial injustices.

On a lighter note, I included photos of Iran’s “multiple rocket tests”, as mentioned in The Economist. I say photos because the media arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Sepah News, published two of the same photo – with a slight modification. Can you spot the difference?

Published First: The Digitally Altered Launch Photo

Published Second: The Original Launch Photo