It is certainly true that the Olympics have served as a platform for the political expression of many nations much like what we have seen from Chinese during the current Beijing games. From Berlin, to Moscow, to Los Angeles, all of these competitions have given us a small window into the political climate of that era. Having said all this the Olympics is one of the very few times when all nations are able to put aside (theoretically anyways) their differences and embrace an innate sense of competitive drive already present within the whole of humanity.

The opening ceremonies of any Olympic Games provides a unique insight into the current Geo-Political climate of the world during the time in which the games are held. For instance this forum presents an interesting commentary in and of itself. Many Americans who protest the games in China do so as a vestige of McCarthy's idea of "Containment". What China presents to us is the last true seat of the Communist empire and it has recently begun to occupy a clearly defined role as "The New Soviet Union" in the minds of the Collective American Consciousness. I believe that if we better sought to understand the conditions of the everyday Chinese citizen we would feel much less threatened as a nation and find fewer ways to express this subconscious dissent.

It appears as though the long time Senator will be provided a chance to clear his name before the coming election. Stevens was granted an early trial date set tentatively for Sept. 24 by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Stevens' campaign response to his indictment has been a very thorough concise reaction with such confidence in his innocence that it may have done the impossible...survived a media scandal! With constituents already rallying behind him against the indictment, if he is able to win his trial he may very well have a serious chance at re-election. To be improperly charged, acquitted, and to have come out on top all before the election could prove a diamond in the rough for the Stevens campaign. (But only if he's innocent.)

I'm reposting because my other post is hidden for some reason.

It appears as though the long time Senator will be provided a chance to clear his name before the coming election. Stevens was granted an early trial date set tentatively for Sept. 24 by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Stevens' campaign response to his indictment has been a very thorough concise reaction with such confidence in his innocence that it may have done the impossible...survived a media scandal! With constituents already rallying behind him against the indictment, if he is able to win his trial he may very well have a serious chance at re-election. To be improperly charged, acquitted, and to have come out on top all before the election could prove a diamond in the rough for the Stevens campaign. (But only if he's innocent.)

It is arguable that Sen. Stevens' methods were widely publicized during his lengthy tenure on the Senate floor and that Alaskans found his methods a morally acceptable means of procuring federal funding. Perhaps when considering Alaska geographically it is easy to empathize with the isolation of the state. It has one of the most underdeveloped infrastructures of all the states. As the 49th state to be incorporated into the union it has had to struggle with development comparatively and thus overcompensated presently with Senator Stevens. The length of his tenure represents the ever present thought of development and growth in the minds of Alaska's populous.

In the wake of his indictment the veteran Sen. Stevens has declared a statement of innocence to mixed replies on capitol hill. It is true that the GOP isn't exactly up in arms sharing his enthusiasm for definite innocence, however it seems that perhaps the public is ready to take up his cause. It is possible that in the same way the New York Times alienated readers from both sides of the isle earlier this year after publishing a potentially scandalous piece about Vicki Iseman and Sen. John McCain, Senator Stevens' indictment may have rallied his constituency and solidified his base within the state of Alaska.

Ted Stevens has been underestimated as an institution in the minds of the every day Alaskan. Sometimes referred to as the "Senator for life" he has had a long and well respected career in Alaskan politics (though certainly not everywhere). What must be considered here is the ability of this man to remain beloved by the persons of his state despite current political troubles. The ideal state representative lobbies aggressively for his constituency, and some would argue that though Stevens is excessive he has done his job more effectively than any other previous representative for Alaska. The first new Rasmussen poll has come out since the Senators indictment Tuesday. It would seem to suggest that the Senators legacy as an institution may far outlive his recent political scandal.

The question at hand here is not Senator Barrack Obama and whether or not similar indictments should have been levied against him. Although as a matter of interest the senator was not accused of any wrongdoing himself only of knowing and interacting with someone, "Antoin Rezko", who was, whereas Senator Stevens is in fact being charged with a crime. Also parallels such as the ones you suggest cannot be substantiated with the opinions of bloggers.The bigger and more relevant issue here is how this controversy will affect both Senator Stevens' campaign and the GOP Nationally in the coming months. The senator is missing the kind of outspoken support from his party that would allow him to effectively curtail the media firestorm that has befallen him. Instead many prominent republicans including Republican National Nominee John McCain have taken great lengths to avoid voicing their beliefs in his innocence and have tried to substantially distance themselves from the matter.

In February of 2007 Ted Stevens sponsored Senate bill #49, which would have effectively banned Wikipedia, Myspace, Facebook, and all other social networking sites from public schools. The reason the senator gave for this ban was to protect children from predators and "cyber-bullying". However, the language in the bill was so over broad and vague that it would have served as an effective means of limiting the libertarian medium that is the internet. Banning any online forum is limiting freedom of speech. The internet has become an invaluable tool for schoolchildren today and to take away user policed forums would be a suppression of the marketplace of ideas. Besides, many social networking sites already have appropriate security measures in place such as one I'm sure will be familiar to all of you, the "Report this comment" button. (ha ha ha)

It is arguable that the very same tactics employed by Stevens to gain federal funding, frequently addressed as "Pork Barreling", during his long tenure in the Senate have contributed to the public controversy over his indictment. It is reasonable to assert that Alaskans do not wish any longer to be associated with needless and shady spending. The same bill mentioned in the previous post would have allocated $453 million to two bridges intended for rural development as part of an ear-mark to the 2005 bill. However, this means of eliciting funds has produced such distaste in the senate that it has made as many enemies as friends. That money may have otherwise been allocated to to the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, a major thoroughfare that was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina. Alaskans certainly do want federal funding but to what end?

Environmental issues are clearly a factor in the State of Alaska and though Senator Stevens has addressed these issues he has lacked specific focus on finding effective solutions by region. This consideration of flexible solutions for energy consumption throughout Alaska has been outlined in a recent interview with Mark Begich. He does not yet have a proven track record in the Senate and whether or not he will provide an effective lobby for his positions remains to be seen. However, this interview at least shows an acknowledgment that diverse solutions are required for one of the worlds most complex problems, especially in a state with the land mass of Alaska.

The courage to break from the current administration on limited decisive issues is not a platform but rather one of the most basic tenets required of any politician in a democracy. Senator Stevens has remained a fixture in the Senate due to his previous record of widespread popularity in Alaska which stems chiefly from his ability to procure federal funds. Now that his indictment has taken center stage even if he is acquitted he may find himself unable to effectively complete the task Alaskans previously respected him so dearly for.

In this specific race, state issues have blended with a sense of concern for the present national agenda. By this I mean that national petroleum considerations have brought the long time divisive issue of drilling in Anwar to the front of this political arena. Since both candidates align themselves with what polls indicate to be the Alaskan consensus of allowing drilling we must consider other issues. Perhaps the more pressing issues presented in the collective Alaskan Consciousness are not of the candidates themselves but more a reflection of affecting national politics at the state level. The candidate for change over the incumbent, the old house against the new acquisition, partisan politics (scandal) over a clean slate. They are not people so much as representations of ideas.