“The correct answer is: none of them,” he’ll tell the unsuspecting cousin of mine as he or she is taken aback by his stark correction.

Now, Uncle Frank doesn’t mean that there are no decent newspapers in America, or in the world for that matter.

What he’s trying to instill in us is that no newspaper reports the whole truth. No news outlet has all the answers or a perfect scope on a story.

I’ll explain with an example everyone can relate to: George Washington. He is adored perhaps as the one of the greatest leader in American history.

During the Revolutionary War, Washington led troops to victory at Trenton on Christmas day in a surprise attack against British mercenaries. It has been captured by the famous painting, “Washington Crossing the Delaware,” by Emanuel Leutze.

The painting portrays the patriots and their leader majestically crossing the ice-jammed river, on their way to win the battle that very well may have won them the war. It’s a very inspiring image.

But, if you check into other sources, you realize that Washington and his men killed foreigners who didn’t speak English, were fighting to support their families back home and were defenseless while visions of sugarplums danced in their heads.

I love George Washington for what he did that day, but  should Leutze have painted him and his compatriots the way he did? While many prisoners were taken, taking this into account takes away some majesty of the grand painting.

My point is that there are too many Leutzes out there now painting their own masterpieces on current events, but they do it to further their own policy agendas and those of the officials they support.

And it’s by no means just one party. Sure, one can say, “Blah blah Fox News is so biased blah blah,” or “The New York Times is so left-leaning,” and they’re absolutely right.

That jaded argument is beyond the point. The point is, as Uncle Frank says, “You’re favorite newspaper should be all of them.” If you’re a liberal, read The Wall Street Journal every once in a while and be open to different opinions.

If you’re conservative, turn on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” to switch from the usual dose of smugness you receive from Bill O’Reilly and get it from somewhere else for a change.

This will be difficult, maybe even impossible, but the news outlets and media are never going to change. They’re going to keep polarizing themselves to appeal to the stalwarts on both sides of the spectrum.

The only thing that can change to reverse this increasing polarization that will tear apart this country, that George Washington himself warned of in his farewell address, will be your willingness to come to the middle. It’s not as bad as you think.

Thanks Sean and The CN, and good luck

This year, my cousin Erin, a med school student at the University of Cincinnati, came home to march with her old Irish dancing team in the parade. Nick, her boyfriend of four years, couldn’t make it though because he had to work, so he stayed home in Cincinnati.

Secretly, Nick was not at home, but was standing in the same sea of green in which Erin was marching. As Erin walked by, Nick ran out and stopped the parade, got down on one knee, and asked Erin to marry him.

Thankfully she said yes, because, first, he’s a really nice guy and us cousins have been waiting for him to make this move for a while now, and secondly, because no one likes to see someone denied on such a large stage. We’ve all seen the “not-top-10s” on SportsCenter featuring the ultimate denial.

Fast-forward to the next morning, I was waiting in line for my turn to interview for a potential position about a mile up the street from where Nick proposed. As I was waiting, I was doing a crossword puzzle.

I was stuck on the top right box, specifically 9-down which held the first letter of the four “across” words. I was pretty sure the word was SHIELDS, but I didn’t want to mess up in fear of being wrong.

While contemplating what to do with the puzzle, I remembered where I was: in line to be interviewed at my former high school.

I was instantly reminded that I am being thrown into a new part of my life in just a few months, and, like many other graduating seniors before me, had a minor panic attack about where I am going.

I’m seriously considering teaching English next year in South Korea, and I’m not entirely sure if I want to do that yet. But I’m not entirely sure if I even want what I interviewed for.

So, perfectly timed, I had this panic attack in the back of my mind as I was being asked what makes me a good candidate for the program I’m pursuing.

Surprisingly, I did, or, at least I think I did, pretty well. I came out of the interview feeling confident and I filled out 9-down which was causing all this angst within me as SHIELDS.

I did it; I just jumped in taking that risk. I thought it fit.

But, I was wrong. It was actually SHELTER. Even though I did it in pen, and I couldn’t erase what I did, I could still spell out the correct answer next to my scribbled out letters of the wrong guess.

Now, I know that Nick’s risk was much larger than mine was, all I have to miss out on is a one year experience wherever I end up.

But what Nick did was put SHIELDS in for 9-down, not necessarily knowing if it was going to turn out alright. Luckily, Nick was right, but being right is besides the point.

You are always going to fill out 9-down if you’re going to want to be successful in life, whether you’re initially right or wrong doesn’t matter. To complete the puzzle you’re going to have to fill it out eventually. As the greatest corporate slogan of all time says, “Just do it.”

But seriously. Listen. And excuse the cheesy allusion to the Christmas carol.

The Brooklyn duo back up their ultra-loud first release, 2009’s “Treats,” with a strong sophomore effort.

Producer/guitarist Derek Miller’s intricate, guitar-based melodies and beats keep the hip-hop feel from “Treats” alive to some extent.

Tracks such as “Comeback Kid,” “Born to Lose” and “Crush” all have elements that remind us of “Treats,” with singer Alexis Krauss layering heavy cheerleader-esque chants over Miller’s airy guitar layering.

As the album progresses, a taste of hair and death metal that we are teased with in the opening track, “True Shred Guitar,” is sprinkled onto the  happy-sounding album.

Echoes of Judas Priest and Def Leppard come to mind when listening to the second half of the album with tracks like “Demons” and the “Road to Hell.”

The album closes with the somewhat haunting “D.O.A.,” which sounds like a misplaced prayer chanted by Krauss over Miller’s repetitive entrancing guitar.

As dark as Miller’s guitar sounds are, you’re constantly picked up by Krauss’ light voice that we have come to associate with the group’s pop-rock anthem, “Rill, Rill.”

Her voice stands in direct contrast to the metal-influenced melodies.

What Sleigh Bells accomplishes with “Reign of Terror” is not a continuation of the beat fueled fun that is to be had on “Treats,” but the beauty and the beast dynamic they create on the new album.

The beautiful floating voice of Krauss and the dark and sometimes scary guitar effects of Miller combine to form a beautiful monster.

Miller’s music becomes so rhythmic at times that perhaps it seems it doesn’t matter what Krauss is saying. Her voice becomes another instrument rather than singing poetic lyrics with meaning designed to connect to the listener.

On “Treats,” Sleigh Bells never took the foot off the gas. On “Reign of Terror,” though, songs like  “Leader of the Pack” and “End of the Line” move at a slower pace foreign to the noise-pop that made the duo famous.

While some fans of the first album may feel a little disconnected from the original, anthem pop feel of “Treats,” others will be happy with the new direction.

Both will agree on the fact that at times, “Reign of Terror,” embodies the pure cathartic fun of “Treats” but with a hint of genuine pathos.

Not to say that Sleigh Bells have grown up, or become more serious, but rather they have a more profound sound and meaning in their applause-deserving second effort.

Sharon Van Etten does not fall into the pit of irrelevancy like so many before her, but rather has branched off from the Michaelsons and Spektors and stumbled upon true originality, something that the music industry seems to have lacked of late.

Van Etten broke onto the music scene with her acclaimed second release, “Epic,” in 2010. Embracing the modern folk sound with touches of ambient guitars and pedal steel, Van Etten caught the attention of many as a new fresh sound and found success.

Many first heard of Van Etten through a release by Justin Vernon, of Alternative Album of the Year Grammy winners Bon Iver. The band did  a cover of her song “Love More,” which was quite popular.

Van Etten had some major help in putting together “Tramp.” Recorded in critically acclaimed Cincinnati group The National’s Aaron Dessner’s garage recording studio, “Tramp” is a more maturely developed album than “Epic.”

Dessner coincidentally has also worked with Bon Iver, most notably on the song “Big Red Machine.”

Under Dessner’s guidance, “Tramp’s” tracks have a more natural flow this time around, climaxing in the middle with the emotional building of “All I Can.” The album builds to this point, and then slowly comes down to the final track, “Joke or a Lie.” Despite Dessner’s guidance, Van Etten does not stray far from her own original sound and charm.

What makes this album a success is, at times, it departs from the standard singer-songwriter ballads, the “refrain to chorus to refrain to chorus” formula for songs. What Van Etten succeeds at doing is disregarding this standard for parts of the album.

The ambient strings that call to mind fellow folk artist Andrew Bird or even Bon Iver are present on many of her songs, most notably “Joke or a Lie.”

Van Etten does not fully escape these conventions of the singer-songwriter, though. The album is a little long at 12 tracks and 46:23 in length, and seems drawn out at times.

In the falling down from “All I Can” to the end, the album drags on until the final two songs. The simple harmonies used in “I’m Wrong” bring the listener back to attention.

Van Etten accomplishes much here, but it is by no means a masterpiece. What’s exciting about “Tramp,” though, is she shows amazing signs of promise.

Her lyrics and threaded story are repetitive at times about leaving bad relationships in the dust, yet at the same time she uses poetry that isn’t too abstract but isn’t entirely jaded.

With songs like “Love More” and “All I Can,” Van Etten’s potential is not in question. “Tramp” gives us hope for what else is to come from this emerging artist.

Of the four remaining candidates, former Gov. Mitt Romney sits closest to the incumbent president by posting 42 percent against Obama’s 48 percent.

Surging former Sen. Rick Santorum has an eight point differential between himself and Obama. Among registered voters, Santorum garnered 41 percent of the vote to Obama’s 49 percent.

Rather surprisingly, Rep. Ron Paul came in third, finishing with 39 percent. Obama would win 50 percent of the vote if matched against the Libertarian congressman from Texas, according to the poll.

The poll also reflected former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s fall from popularity, perhaps due to his poor performance not just in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri last week, but two weeks ago in Florida as well.

According to the poll, Gingrich could only muster 36 percent of the vote against the president if the election were to happen today. Obama would finish with 54 percent. While Romney won the Maine caucus over the weekend, it seems that Santorum has passed him in popularity among GOP primary voters.

Just a little over a month ago, Santorum had only 16 percent of support from Republican primary voters, but now has jumped 14 points to 30 percent.

On the other hand, Romney has fallen from 28 percent, a strong seven-point lead over then second place Gingrich, to three points back of Santorum, sitting at 27 percent. Paul has lost a mere three points, down to 12 from 15 percent in January.

The largest fall of all the candidates is Gingrich, who took an 11-point dip since just a month ago. Gingrich, who was the clear alternative to Romney and who some thought could actually surpass him, seems to be running out of money and it’s affecting him in the polls.

In January, 21 percent of Republican primary voters backed the former speaker, whereas now, Gingrich only has 10 percent of support from his party.

All eyes turn to Michigan on Feb. 28 to see who takes the lead on the march to Super Tuesday.

So what is all this dissension over between the Catholic Church and defenders of the Obama administration’s federal health insurance mandate that includes birth control coverage?

It’s simple logic really.

Because every United States citizen will be required by law to purchase health insurance from a private provider, citizens will have to indirectly pay for birth control for others.

Now, if the Catholic faith condemns artificial birth control, would forcing Catholics to buy into a system that funds others for that very product which their religion specifically tells them not to support be illegal? Doesn’t that make them do something that is against their religion?

Simple logic says yes.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” should be ringing in your ears.

It reminds me of the largely unpopular breach of civil rights in France nearly two years ago with President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ban on Muslim women’s wearing of veils in public places, even though their religion mandated them to do so, for the sake of national security.

Could you imagine the uproar if this happened here? Sure you would have some conservatives claiming it’s for security purposes, and then some liberals saying it’s facist.

We are known as the land of the free because we allow people to practice their religions. Yes, people are prejudiced, but at least the Constitution is on the side of the victim.

This mandate is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. There is no going around it.

I’m not arguing about the mandate being a violation of states’ rights or it being a growth of the federal government.

I am simply saying it is a violation of religious freedom to force someone to pay for birth control if their religion condemns it.

It calls into question the worth of the Constitution as the governing document of the U.S.

The argument is not whether you are for or against the use of birth control, but the forcing of someone to do something against their religion.

There are some truly good things about the mandate that could fix some very significant problems in the country.

Even having birth control covered by the provider would be beneficial to some. Almost 40 percent of all births in the U.S. are out of wedlock.

However it’s simple logic to see that the mandate forces people to go against their religion and help pay for something that they are religiously obliged not to partake in.

All this does is set a new standard of what it means to have “freedom of religion.”

We’ve always been a country that has supported the separation of church and state. Whether you’re liberal or conservative, Jewish or Muslim, or even Catholic, it is clear to see the logic in this argument.

You even may have been surprised that Eastwood would even show his face in the infamous annual corporate advertisement blitz, but what was more surprising is what he said.

While promoting and applauding American resilience in the recent recession, most notably citing the auto industry recovery in Detroit, Eastwood ended his inspiring speech with the line, “It’s halftime, America, the second half is about to begin.”

There are three ways to interpret this statement.

The first way I’ll call “the good”: America is making a comeback from a desperate time and we should know the fight is not over and there is a long way to go. Eastwood is giving us a words of encouragement to keep up the good fight as Americans.

The bad: Let’s use Republican strategist Karl Rove’s take as a prime example, “the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best wishes of the management, which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they’ll never pay back.” By blaming the initial ineffectiveness of the auto bailout (funnily enough, supplied by President Bush– doubly funnily enough, Rove was Bush’s senior advisor and interpreting Eastwood’s words as the corporate auto industry basically saying, “Elect Obama so that he can give us more money,” Rove is a microcosm of “the bad.”

The ugly: if you interpreted Eastwood’s meaning ever so literally as to mean, “It’s halftime, America, the second half is about to begin,” well … I mean … let’s just say you can’t appreciate an inspiring speech or aren’t following politics enough to see how this can be misinterpreted.

Initially, I fell under the category of “the bad.” Well, not totally, actually. I saw the commercial as being purposely ambiguous for the sake of getting talked about. I thought it was very a unethical way to advertise a product. Then I let my thoughts unravel, and I asked myself, who am I listening to when I am being exposed to this commercial?

Clint Eastwood, that’s who – a true American hero who cares about the well-being of his fellow Americans. Not some pundit or controversial celebrity. Clint Eastwood. One of the few, great libertarians of Hollywood. A true believer in freedom.

Good old Clint cleared up any disbelief by coming out and saying he “wasn’t Obama’s puppet.” Go on. Don’t believe Clint Eastwood. See what happens.

Who cares if the commercial was purposely ambiguous? The director is free to do whatever he wants. And lucky for him, the commercial has been one of the most talked about in recent years, and for the second-straight Super Bowl, Chrysler perhaps has the best commercial of the annual embarrassing overload of American consumerism again. Give that guy a raise.

Because of the timing of the commercial (immediately before the second half of the game started), I understand why the last line was what it was. But if there’s one line to take away from the whole commercial, it’s this: “This country can’t be knocked out with one punch, we get right back up again and when we do the world’s going to hear the roar of our engines.”

If the GOP wants to finally start building party unity and momentum, Mitt Romney’s victory in Florida should be the signal fire for those who actually care about building strength for the presidential election (which is now only a surprisingly close 10 months away).

And this is why:

Romney can stop dividing his party by ending his carpet-bombing of Gingrich with negative ads. Romney spent over $9 million in Florida, whereas Gingrich spent only $3.8 million.

To be frank, as much as I dislike Gingrich, there is not much honor in resorting to a relentless campaign of television and radio ads tearing apart your opponent (one TV commmercial ended saying “If Newt Gingrich wins, this man would be very happy,” as a picture of Obama showed on the screen).

In 2008, Romney also led all candidates in Florida by spending $5.6 million, followed by Rudy Giuliani at $3 million, and Sen. John McCain at $2.1 million.

McCain, despite spending the least on advertising, still won.

Romney learned from his mistakes and spent more. Not only did he spend more, but he spent more on negative advertising than self-promotion advertisting.

So what does this say about our political culture?

Last week, for those of you who read, I talked about how boring the candidates have become and how the race has almost lost a sort of integrity that past races seemed to have.

This year, especially in Florida, mud-slinging has been rampant. It’s always been present, but Romney may have just clinched the nomination with this looked-down-upon tool.

But, Romney is running by legendary Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis’ famous motto, “just win, baby.”

Romney stepped his finances and advertisements into high-gear, causing the American people to question where to the draw the line on how we should advertise politics and perhaps even how much money we should spend on campaigns.

Should we condemn Romney for his somewhat dishonorable tactics to win Florida then? Romney himself acknowledged that his negative ad blitz was working very well leading up to the primary.

We should not – yet at least. Perhaps this was a necessary evil. Perhaps Newt was hurting his party by hanging on, delaying the inevitable and hurting Romney in the process.

This could create a huge push forward for Romney against Obama. But if he does not live up to his promises, Romney will be branded as a power seeking mud-slinger.

Instead of resorting to mud-slinging to bring down his fellow Republican candidates – and thereby divide his party – he can aim his guns at Obama, which he already started in his victory speech after clinching Florida, “Mr. President, you were elected to lead, you chose to follow, and now it’s time to get out of the way.”

Whatever the case, the GOP needs to make their decision now.

For example; aren’t you sick of having to walk to class?

Shouldn’t administration provide shuttles for us during the winter months?

Tuition is the highest it’s ever been, and the students should come first if we’re paying so much.

Besides such trivial things, what irks me the most about campus life is this – why are there never enough carrots in the cafeteria?

I’m dead serious. Every time I walk into the cafeteria they’re the only thing that I want to compliment my daily dosage of (thin as paper, but still somehow soggy as a sponge) pizza.

My day is automatically ruined when I walk over to the salad bar and there are only one or two – or in even some cases, none (gasp!) – of those delectable, crunchy, thumb-sized orange sticks.

Can’t a tuition-paying, regularly involved student who gets good enough grades get his fair share of carrots? The founding fathers of this university must be rolling in their graves.

My only question is where are all the carrots going? According to my calculations and rigorous research, the administration only allows the daily carrot import to the cafeteria to account for 1 percent of the entire student population.

Who makes up this “1 percent” who consume almost all of our carrots? Is it a small greedy portion of our fellow students? Is it the cafeteria staff, because they need something to munch on while they are working?

Who’s to say this “1 percent” is even human? Has anyone else noticed the abnormally high rabbit population around University Heights?

I mean, I’m not pointing fingers, but rabbits like carrots. Lots of rabbits means a sharp decrease in carrots. It’s simple economics.

And that’s why I’m proposing to make a student stand against this grave injustice. We’ll call it Occupy Wall – no, better yet, Occupy John Carrot.

I demand the administration act upon the carrot crisis, and until then, I will not attend class. I encourage many of you who see this unjust carrot distribution to join me and drop everything in your life to get this done.

We, as the 99 percent who are only allowed one or two carrots a day, are strong and can achieve equal carrot rights.

The administration should invest in an anti-rabbit force armed with B.B. guns on campus that can wipe out this ever-swelling population of carrot-stealing rodents.

They should also provide us with “carrot stamps” that we can hand in at local grocery stores to cover the exorbitantly high cost of a bag of carrots.

Do you think other colleges have these problems? My brother goes to school in Cincinnati, and in his cafeteria, they just don’t have a salad bar, they have a carrot bar that serves only carrots.

I don’t know if you’ve been to Cincinnati, but I also noticed a sharp lack of certain big-eared, buck-toothed, carrot-loving creatures roaming freely around the city.

We here in the good ole University Heights probably have it the worst out of any college in America.

This administration only seeks to make money by not spending on carrots and doesn’t care about the 99 percent of us who don’t get the carrots that other students around the country are enjoying.

We are the 99 percent, we are Occupy John Carrot.

But for me, there seems to be a common thread which rounds them up and sews them together – confusion.

Republicans were dismayed Tuesday morning by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s decision not to run for the presidency when they have three (at the minimum) other candidates that seem to take week-long terms as the party’s banner carrier.

Protesters have swarmed the financial district of New York City for the past three weeks, claiming grievances and declaring demands against the government and corporations while they have no leader or formal organization – or what seems like a definitive, rational plan.  The numbers of moderate Republicans and Democrats in Congress is shrinking with every elected Congress, leaving the political middle ground a barren wasteland.

Even the commander-in-chief himself seems panicked in the last year of his term, proposing large-packaged legislation that must be passed entirely as is, or not at all, in an effort to prove to voters in 2012 that they can remain confident in his ability to pass legislation. Obama has even grayed considerably since assuming office. The “hope” sentiment of his campaign is more than just gone, people seem to have forgotten the iconic slogan.

According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 75 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, while 19 percent believe we’re on the right one, opposed to last year at this time when 35 percent had a positive outlook – which are still not great numbers.

A phrase from literature that has been the center, which ironically has been the centerpiece of my education this semester, comes storming to the front of my mind: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” Macbeth says as the end is nigh for him.

America needs a slap in the face. It’s not just Republicans, corporations, Obama or Democrats. With the presidential election a mere 13 months away, it’s important to stay informed on who to vote for. But it’s even more important to realize that whoever is elected to office isn’t going to change everything right away.

We shoot ourselves in the foot with this idyllic naïveté that is evident in the protesters on Wall Street, whose intentions are good, but demand very irrational reforms while lacking any knowledge of how simple economics work: money and the solution to economic and social problems don’t grow on trees.

By selecting a new favorite candidate every other week, the Republicans show how they want a knight in shining armor to come and save the country that they perceive as the sinking ship from the storm that is the Obama administration. This division and uncertainty, “this tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,” must stop and can stop. And we can’t rely on others to come along and save the day for us.

As John F. Kennedy said in his inauguration speech, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Known as the “Increase Diversity Bake Sale,” they are charging different races different rates. $2 a cookie for whites, $1.50 for Asians,  $1 for Latinos, $0.75 for blacks, and a quarter off for every woman.

It is incredibly racist – and the students running the sale will be the first to tell you so.

They are using the sale as a political satire of sorts in protest of California Senate Bill 185 that would allow the University of California and California State University to consider “other relevant factors” in selecting students for admission. In other words, the bill gives permission to state universities to take into account race and gender during the admissions process.

The sale is seen as a direct metaphor by the students as how they, and many others, see the bill. Goods or services are being offered to others based solely on race and gender. They, in turn, are doing the same thing with their “Increase Diversity Bake Sale.”

Although the sale might be an extremely clever and accurate satire, the only argument I can think of against it is it may not work effectively as they may want.  Instead of the spotlight being on Senate Bill 185, it will be on how a bunch of conservative college kids protested in a socially divisive manner.

I do not believe it should be interpreted as so, but I do understand why it is seen that way by a majority of people.

But what is admirable about this is this student group had the gall to do this on a very liberal college campus.  Seeing conservative activism is nice for a change – a breath of fresh air in the not-so-diverse political culture surrounding the average college student. Conservatives are incessantly portrayed as ‘the Man” by our demographic, politicians that only care about big corporations and oil.

Yet these young conservatives have chosen a noble fight that is truly an injustice.

Now, true, there are high school students applying to schools that are short on funds should receive some financial aid. Whether they get in or not should not be based on solely their sex or ethnicity. That is an injustice, akin to separating whites and blacks from the same drinking fountains during the Civil Rights era.

Diversity is often a misconstrued concept, especially on college campuses. Forcing diversity is in effect doing the opposite of what is intended – it divides and creates injustice.

Of course there is nothing wrong with being white, black, a woman, gay or hispanic. Giving preferential treatment to any of those is as unjust as denying any of them rights you would give to any of the others.

These students and their university, for allowing it to happen, should be applauded for recognizing the validity behind the bake sale’s point in a world forever increasing in unnecessary political correctness.

In a report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on regional and state employment, 26 states and Washington, D.C., reported increases in unemployment, while only 12 reported unemployment decreases from July to August.

The national unemployment rate remained the same at 9.1 percent from July to August. At this point last year, though, the rate stood at 9.6 percent.

This report comes right after President Obama’s proposal of The American Jobs Act earlier this month, in which the main goal, according to the president, is to “put more people back to work and put more money in the pockets of working Americans.”

Most of the unemployment growth has occurred in the West and in the South.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, leading the nation in unemployment rates is Nevada, with 13.4 percent. Next highest is California, with an unemployment rate of 12.1.

Many states leading the nation in unemployment are also in the South.

South Carolina (11.1 percent), Florida (10.7), North Carolina (10.4), Mississippi (10.3), Georgia (10.2), and Alabama (9.9) are all within the top 10 highest rates of unemployment.

Georgia alone has lost 29,000 jobs since last year, and lost 18,200 last month alone.

California has had a 1.2 percent increase in the past year, but its jobless rate is still higher than post-recession levels.

Since 2009, Nevada, California, Florida, Mississippi and Georgia have all still seen unemployment grow since the recession.

Michigan, perhaps hit hardest by the fallout of the auto industry, has recovered nicely since the recession. In 2009, Michigan had a jobless rate of 13.8 percent. Since then, it has fallen to 11.2 percent.

Ohio’s unemployment rate has fallen 1.3 percent since the recession ended.

Image from The New York Times

The Cleveland region specifically has fallen approximately 1.1 percent since June 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Historically, the Rust Belt has been the region that has seen the more difficult end of unemployment issues.

It seems since the recession in 2007, that trend may be shifting towards the Sun Belt and out west.

Michael Chriszt, an official from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s research department explained to The New York Times why Georgia remains at an unemployment stalemate, “For a long time we tended to outpace the national average with regard to economic performance, and a lot of that was driven by, for lack of a better word, development and in-migration. That came to an abrupt halt, and it has not picked up.”

South Carolina’s unemployment woes can be attributed to a still-recovering construction and manufacturing sector.

Richard Kaglic a regional economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Va., told The Times, “The state’s lingering troubles reflect what happened when its construction and manufacturing industries were hit hard by the recession.”

It’s also interesting to note a report released by the Census Bureau earlier this month that said poverty rose to a record 46.2 million Americans (15.1 percent) in 2010.

In 2009, the year the recession ended,  42.9 million Americans were in poverty, 0.8 percent lower than in 2010.

According to the Census Bureau, poverty rate grew the most in the South,  with a 1.2 percent increase, followed by the Northeast  and Midwest (both grew 0.6 percent), and then the West (0.5 percent).

The South’s poverty rate grew double that of the next closest regions from 2009 to 2010.

Surprisingly, despite the high rates of employment in the West, it still has the lowest poverty rates.

Obama’s jobs bill seeks to tackle both of these problems. The success of his presidency as well as the success of his campaign for 2012 could very well be tied to what he accomplishes with this issue in the final year of his first term.

After its blander 2009 outing, “Wilco (The Album),” Wilco has come back with a diverse, monster album in line with both its experimental tendencies – like 2002′s “Yankee Hotel Foxtrot” – and its roots – as in 1996′s “Being There.”

“The Whole Love,” which came out Tuesday, has a wide variety of different, yet similar tracks that go off in yet another new direction for one of America’s best bands of the past 15 years.

“The Whole Love” starts off with the epic, two-part “Art of Almost.” With heavily distorted, almost ambient guitars the song is reminiscent at times of “I am Trying to Break Your Heart,” the group’s opener for its 2002 critically acclaimed album, “Yankee Hotel Foxtrot.”

Drummer Glen Kotche, who has been busy contributing to Andrew Bird’s album “Helpless Creatures” and Radiohead drummer Phil Selway’s solo effort, “Familial,” between Wilco albums, comes back to the band with a percussional masterpiece on this track.

Perhaps the best song on the album, “Art of Almost,” pulls in listeners of all kinds and prepares them for what else is to come.

The main single from the album, “I Might,” is an instant Wilco classic. With more heavily distorted guitar, “I Might” stands out among other classics with it’s Doors-esque keys and distinct melody.

“Dawned on Me” will be one of the band’s best live songs. With guitars on guitars, and the rolling, refrain, “I can’t help it if I’ve fallen in love with you/ I’m callin’ just to let you know it dawned on me,” sang in a momentous beat by Tweedy will be screamed by the many different types of Wilco fans as the group tours this fall (a spring/summer tour for 2012 is also expected).

“Black Moon,” a track with a folk taste, is backed by a strong strings section (which seem to pop up all over the place in “The Whole Love”) along with Tweedy strumming along on his acoustic guitar. This track along with, “Rising Red Lung,” give the album the folk aspect that many fans will be looking for.

“Born Alone” – automatically one of Wilco’s catchiest songs – has a very identifiable guitar riff that will be recognized by all Wilco fans as another instant-classic upon first listen. With multiple guitar layerings, this song will also be one of their best live songs.

The happiness of the music contrasts with the somewhat depressing lyrics, a Tweedy tactic we’ve seen before. With lyrics like “Sadness is my luxury,” and “I was born to die alone,” the song takes on a whole new meaning.

Yet juxtaposed with the inherently fun music, the saddening feeling is instantly assuaged, and perhaps instills a degree of hope for the singer.

The title track echoes their sounds from 1996’s “Being There,” a salute to fans of their early work.

The final track, “One Sunday Morning,” is vintage Tweedy pulling at your heart strings with softer, rolling acoustic guitar, piano and simple drums, focusing more on what he wants to tell the listener lyrically than musically.

Tweedy sings of a strained relationship with an over-bearing father, and dealing with growing older. At 12 minutes long, it may drag at times, but remains a solid closer to a fantastic album.

Not surprisingly, Wilco has yet another fantastic outing with “The Whole Love.”

“It is wrong that in the United States of America a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million,” Obama said Monday during a speech at the White House – a more than reasonable proposal.

But is that really the case? Do higher-income Americans pay lower rates than lower-income Americans?

A study by the Congressional Budget Office begs to differ. In 2007, households in the lowest fifth of income paid 4.7 percent of their total income in taxes. The second fifth paid 10.8 percent, the third, 14.8 percent, the fourth, 18.3 percent, and the fifth, 26.8 percent.

According to this study, higher-income Americans pay a much higher rate than lower-income Americans.

Another report by Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan, private research firm in Washington, D.C., points out that 46.9 percent of Americans in 2009 had a zero or negative individual income tax liability, which – in lay man’s terms – means  that 46.9 percent don’t pay any sort of income tax, or are liable for so many deductions that cancel out any net gain from the income tax.

1.5 percent of households making over $1 million did fall under this category.

So, yes, there are a few high-income Americans who some how do not pay income taxes.

But that 1.5 percent looks a whole lot less of a problem juxtaposed to the fact that 58.3 percent of Americans making less than $75,000 don’t contribute to the income tax fund.

“I reject the idea that asking a hedge-fund manager to pay the same tax-rate as a plumber is class warfare,” Obama said on Monday. “This is not class warfare. This is math. The money has to come from somewhere.”

So where is the money coming from Mr. President? There’s a 1.5 percent chance that a hedge fund manager making more than $1 million a year is paying less than a plumber making $35,000, assuming that plumber isn’t in the 47.5 percent of Americans making between $30,000 and $40,000 that don’t pay taxes.

Ideally, should everyone be paying the same tax rate? I think everyone agrees that the poor should not pay higher than the rich, and a few believe the rich should pay higher rates than the poor.

Does this deficit reduction plan bode for a bigger debate than deflating the deficit?

Is Obama’s statement purely political and aimed at getting him re-elected for 2012?

Should rich Americans share a larger percentage of the load than their lower-income countrymen? Maybe, maybe not, but the money has to come from somwhere.

When I saw that Rod Blagojevich and Sarah Palin’s respective forays into reality television in the past couple of years, I thought it was an anomaly that would never be seen again. But then I started following Michelle Bachmann’s bid for the Republican bid for the presidency.

Bachmann’s campaign for the nomination has become a reality show. At least it has become that way for me. And it seems she would have it no other way.

Tuesday, Bachmann told Fox News Channel that the HPV vaccine that Rick Perry pushed as a mandate for young girls in Texas causes mental retardation, claiming a woman told her that her daughter suffered from it after getting the vaccine. All the while, Bachmann claimed she had no scientific proof, and that she “was not a doctor.”

While trying to expose what seems to be the front runner for the candidacy of her party to have left-leaning ideals although it would take a miracle for her to win the candidacy, she has successfully made herself a star in the media. Could it have been her plan all along? Why is a candidate that has said something as ridiculous as this be regarded as a serious contender for the nomination?

So this leads to ask why she would try to sabotage Perry. One option is that she is acting out of pure spite, which is most likely not the case. Secondly, she may have some conspiracy-like agreement with Romney to get him elected, and thereby receive a Secretary of State-esque position. This just seems like a bad side-plot to “The West Wing,” and also isn’t very plausible.

What I believe she is doing is simply basking in the spotlight. Any publicity is good publicity for Bachmann, but it isn’t necessarily for her hopes to win the nomination. She is creating her own reality TV show, and she’s the star.

This isn’t the first we’ve seen of “The Michelle Bachmann Show,” though. It has been running for years. Past episodes include her claiming in 2009 that “there isn’t even one study of carbon dioxide being a harmful gas.”

Or more recently this summer when she told people from her home town of Waterloo, Iowa, that she was had the same attitude of fellow-Waterloo native cowboy actor John Wayne. Turns out she was two-thirds correct on that point. She got the “John” and the “Wayne” part right, but was missing the “Gacy.” The infamous serial killer lived in Waterloo before committing his gruesome crimes in Chicago.

It just goes to show, I guess, what we accept as a legitimate candidate for the presidency of the United States. Has our thirst for drama spilled into our thirst for politics? Sure it has. Look at the publicity Monica Lewinsky received after the Clinton scandal.

The difference – she wasn’t running for the presidency.

The first is how incredibly proud I am to be American. Most of us have our roots in different countries, celebrating our heritage as being Irish, Italian, German, Swedish, etc. But, in truth, we are American, first and foremost. To think of what has been suffered so that we may live the lives we do as Americans, causes one to stand in awe.

The second is resiliency. They taught me to take experiences that were difficult to swallow with a grain of salt and to move on. To grin and bear it.

During these past 10 years since Mr. Kerwin told my sixth grade social studies class that both Twin Towers had been destroyed, a lot has changed, for better and for worse. Yet we as Americans have survived. America has survived. We still have a future to look forward to.

We have survived because of that trait which makes us distinctly American: resiliency.

Sept. 11 was not the first of America’s tragedies; we’ve even seen worse.

Ripples still remain from the Civil War, where a little over 500,000 people were killed, and, even more disturbingly, we did it to ourselves. Fortunately, we survived that and we stand on firmer ground because of it.

It’s difficult to stomach the thought of the storming of Normandy. You can imagine Dwight Eisenhower ordering Operation Overlord and saying, “We’ll be able to get over this.” Almost 40,000 American soldiers died during that battle, 20 times that of Sept. 11.

The resilient spirit of America can also be found in unlikely places.

In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, there was a story about an investment banking firm, Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods Inc., that lost 67 of their 171 employees on Sept. 11, including the CEO’s son who was interning at their headquarters on the 88th and 89th floors of the south tower.

Today, they nearly tripled their highest pre-2001 revenue. The employees interviewed say they try not to talk about what happened to their co-workers 10 years ago. “There’s an appropriate time and place to remember,” said an employee who’s father died while working for KBW. In the resilient American spirit, KBW has taken their tragedy with a grain of salt and survived.

Sept. 11 was one of those “everyone remembers where they were” moments. Everyone has a story of how they found out, what they felt, and how strong our response was to it. We’re still responding to it. Osama bin Laden was killed last May. We still have a strong presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The question becomes, what will be the breaking point? Will there be a time when we as American’s just can’t endure it? No one knows, but we can look back on how we’ve dealt with tragedy and be proud of what we’ve pulled through so far.

For now, Fred and Chuck would be glad to know that it still moves.

U.S. legislators along with the leaders of Britain and France questioned how the Pakistani government could not have known the al-Qaida leader was living in a garrison town less than a two-hour drive from the capital and had apparently lived there for years.

“I find it hard to believe that the presence of a person or individual such as bin Laden in a large compound in a relatively small town [...] could go completely unnoticed,” French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told reporters in Paris.

British Prime Minister David Cameron also demanded that Pakistani leaders explain how bin Laden had lived undetected in Abbottabad. But in a nod to the complexities of dealing with a nuclear-armed, unstable country that is crucial to success in the war in Afghanistan, Cameron said having “a massive row” with Islamabad over the issue would not be in Britain’s interest.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. is committed to cooperating with Pakistan.

“We don’t know who if anybody in the government was aware that bin Laden or a high-value target was living in the compound. It’s logical to assume he had a supporting network. What constituted that network remains to be seen,” Carney said.

“It’s a big country and a big government and we have to be very focused and careful about how we do this because it is an important relationship.”

A day after U.S. commandos killed the al-Qaida leader following a 10-year manhunt, new details emerged Tuesday from Pakistan’s powerful intelligence agency and bin Laden’s neighbors in Abbottabad.

Residents said they sensed something was odd about the walled three-story house, even though bin Laden and his family rarely ventured outside and most neighbors were not aware that foreigners were living there.

“That house was obviously a suspicious one,” said Jahangir Khan, who was buying a newspaper in Abbottabad. “Either it was a complete failure of our intelligence agencies or they were involved in this affair.”

Neighbors said two men would routinely emerge from the compound to run errands or occasionally attend a neighborhood gathering, such as a funeral. Both men were tall, fair skinned and bearded.

“People were skeptical in this neighborhood about this place and these guys,” said Mashood Khan, a 45-year-old farmer. “They used to gossip, say they were smugglers or drug dealers. People would complain that even with such a big house they didn’t invite the poor or distribute charity.”

U.S. officials have suggested Pakistani officials may have known where bin Laden was living and members of Congress have seized on those suspicions to call for the U.S. to consider cutting billions of aid to Pakistan if it turns out to be true.Western officials have long regarded Pakistani security forces with suspicion, especially when it comes to links with militants fighting in Afghanistan. Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly said she suspected that some members of Pakistan’s government knew where bin Laden was hiding.

However, within Pakistan criticism has been focused on the U.S. breaching the country’s sovereignty. The Obama administration has said it did not inform the Pakistanis in advance of the operation against bin Laden, for fear they would tip off the targets.

A strongly worded Pakistani government statement warned the U.S. not to launch similar operations in the future. It rejected suggestions that officials knew where bin Laden was.

I ran into the room, turned on the news, and watched NBC’s coverage of the announcement that, and I saw that, yes indeed, we had finally taken care of bin Laden. Now the pretty unanimous feeling about the event was (and still is) a euphoric one, with college campuses erupting with choruses of “God Bless America,” and politicians releasing statements about the great work of the U.S. Special Forces and the leadership of President Obama.

But for me, I didn’t immediately feel the need to burst into sudden rejoicing like the rest of the country over the death of the mastermind of  9/11, who had killed almost 3,000 Americans on our own soil. To tell you the truth, I felt an almost somber feeling.

I think I felt like this because I did not understand what it meant right away. The man we killed over the weekend was not the same man he was almost 10 years ago, the one behind the attacks on 9/11. I’m not saying he somehow was void of his responsibility for them anymore, but rather that his significance had certainly been lowered. Bin Laden may have been the figure head, the face of al-Qaeda, but he was not calling the shots of the terrorist network at the time of his death, nor had he been for nearly a year.

He was nothing more than a symbol when he was killed in his max-security compound in Pakistan. Terrorism did not suffer a heavy blow, it was nothing more than a moral victory for a nation that was wronged by him. But what is important, why this may be the biggest news story of the year, and perhaps even since 9/11 or the Iraq War, is that his death marks the end of an era.

It seems like yesterday that Mr. Kerwin, my social studies teacher in grammar school, broke the news to our sixth grade class that our country had been attacked. It was the beginning of the age of modern terrorism, the new terrifying global reality. Osama bin Laden had taken over the “most evil man in the world” title. Terms like “jihad” and “militant Islam” were thrown into everyday vocabulary, often misunderstood and causing much harm. It was an entirely foreign and frightening experience for Americans.

What bin Laden’s death doesn’t signify is the avenging of those he killed. In fact I’m sure he felt that if he was killed, he would have felt even more glorified, more infamous, which is exactly what he would have wanted. Americans avenged the death of those 3,000 people themselves by soldiering on after 9/11, and not giving in to the fear that he tried to instill in us. That was our revenge.

What his death does signify is the end of the post-9/11 era. Terrorism is not new and foreign to us anymore. Just like the Red Scare faded into the past, the initial frightening blow of what bin Laden had accomplished is now done. That chapter of American history has been closed. May God bless America not for killing one evil man, but for what she has endured for the past ten years, and that she shows the same bravery and resiliency in whatever the future holds.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has all but announced his intent to seek out the nomination, while Mitt Romney, the ex-governor of Massachusetts announced he has formed an exploratory committee just this past week. Even businessman Donald Trump has said he has intentions to capture the nomination, claiming he is Obama’s “worst nightmare” in regards to his re-election in 2012.

The names keep swirling, and Republican leadership still remains in question.

So, Republicans, why not Barack Obama for the party’s nomination in 2012? He’s agreed to a budget that, in his own words, is “the largest annual spending cut in [American] history.”

Some of his proposals include cuts to Democrat favorites such as family planning and, again in his own words, “the costly new year-round Pell grant” for low-income students. He’s delving into  entitlement programs like Medicare. This must be music to the ears of Republican law makers and supporters of the party across the nation, right?

Most of his concessions were made to avoid the shutdown, but why was he the one to give in? Why did the Democrats get the short end of the stick on the spending agreement?

The reason is as simple as Obama wants to be re-elected in  2012, but I hate to break it to you, not under the Republican ticket.

He has agreed to slash the spending on programs traditionally supported by the Democratic party: funding for education, health care and environmental programs. But he remained true to his party’s ideals on important issues like repealing the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy, and a refusal to cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood. “Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful,” the president said. “Programs people rely on will be cut back; needed infrastructure projects will be delayed.”

By not abandoning these core liberal beliefs, but appearing to agree with Republicans on cutting the $38 billion makes him look like the greatest budget-cutting president in history. Check that, it does make him the greatest budget-cutting president in history. The president and Speaker of the House John Boehner apparently had a $30 billion deal in the books, until Boehner surprised him almost a week before the shutdown was supposed to go into effect with a new $38 billion proposal. Why in the world would Obama agree to that when the prior agreement was already on the table?

As the campaigns for 2012, the president will use this action filled with a suprising amount of bipartisanship as ammo to propel himself towards re-election. He certainly won’t back down from health care and the other issues while campaigning. But for now he’ll take these pills that are a tough swallow.

Lose the battle, win the war, right Mr. President? For his sake, hopefully he’s right.

Last Friday, hundreds were killed in a clash between rebels loyal to Ouattara and Gbagbo’s forces.

According to the U.N., approximately 330 fighters and civilians had been killed in a town in the west of the country, while some human rights organizations have been reporting a death toll of nearly 1,000.

It remains to be seen which side is responsible for the attack.

“We don’t have exact information as to who is behind this,” Dorothea Krimitsas, a spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross told The New York Times. “There were at least 800 [bodies].”

Previous to the battle, it was estimated that nearly 500 people have died since the election took place in November.

Gbagbo has continually ordered assaults on the neighborhoods surrounding the presidential palace in the nation’s largest city, Abidjan.

Horrific incidents of repression, such as Gbagbo’s forces shooting at peacefully protesting women, have led to his condemnation by the international community.

Human Rights Watch said in March that the actions of “Gbagbo and militias that support him gives every indication of amounting to crimes against humanity.”

Francois Fillon, the French prime minister, said French officials were negotiating with generals still loyal to Gbagbo, who are hunkered down in his compound in Abidjan.

French and U.N. forces intervened Monday by attacking the compound and two other main military bases still loyal to Gbagbo. Ouattara’s forces already control the capital, Yamoussoukro. Last week, the rebels swept into the city and surrounded Gbagbo’s residence.

The negotiators have presented a U.N.–backed document to be signed by Gbagbo renouncing his presidency to Ouattara.

“What is going on are negotiations with Laurent Gbagbo and his family to finalize the conditions of his departure,” Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister said at a parliamentary meeting on Tuesday.

The U.N. said earlier this week that three of Gbagbo’s top generals have told the international organization that a cease fire had been ordered to their troops, and that they were to hand over arms to the U.N. forces stationed there.

Although the U.N. has provided support in the fight against Gbagbo, they have expressed neutrality in the politics of the matter, contrary to the majority of the international community.

Secretary General Ban Ki Moon attributed U.N. intervention to the violent actions taken by Gbagbo’s forces on civilians as well as peace keepers.

As of Tuesday, reports coming from Abidjan have said fighting between pro-Ouattara forces and pro-Gbagbo forces had indeed stopped.

The several hundred French soldiers also patrolling the city have also noticed a lack of violent conflict.

Phillip Carter, the American ambassador to Ivory Coast, said the situation is “far from settled, but it’s close to being over.”

“Our forces have made significant advances. In a few hours, it will be all over,” Guillame Soro, Ouattara’s prime minister told The Times in a telephone interview Tuesday. “We came into the city of Abidjan today, and I think it will soon be finished.”

If all does proceed as predicted, what to do with Gbagbo still remains in question. A spokesman for Ouattara’s camp told The Times, “He will be judged, he must answer for his actions. Do we keep [Gbagbo] here or do we send him abroad? I don’t know.”

President Obama praised the U.N. and French intervention on Tuesday.

He went on to say the bloodshed “could have been averted had Laurent Gbagbo respected the results of last year’s presidential election.”

Last week, I wrote about Newt Gingrich’s divisive comments about how he believed America was going to be “dominated by radical Islamists.” Dominating the news this past week is Rev. Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla., who followed through on his threat to burn a Qur’an, albeit almost a whole year later.

Riots have flared up in Afghanistan over this spotlight-seeking zealot’s implementation of freedom of speech, resulting in the death of U.N. workers stationed in the pre-dominantly Muslim country.

Now, the world is pointing their fingers at Jones as the one responsible for, in his own words “stirring the pot.” The degree to which the First Amendment extends is back in question, and it’s all because of the handlebar-mustached leader of the Dove World Outreach Center.

Should Americans allow for someone to do this? Is it a hate crime? The man should be punished when he intrudes on someone else’s rights, but if he wants to go burn a book that he believes belongs to a religion of hate, then let him. “We’re not very well-educated,” Jones’s son, Luke, said. “We’re just simple people trying to do the right thing.”

Jones said he was spiritually inspired by a poster of Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” that hangs in his office. This is not a man that should be taken seriously. Not just by us, but by Muslims as well. I consider myself a Catholic, and if someone who said he/she wasn’t very well educated, I would laugh at them for their actions rather than take what they said to heart.

Why hasn’t the international media condemned the actions of those extremists who killed the U.N. workers as much as they have Jones’? Those are the people who should be punished. Jones did not intrude on their rights, he did not kill anyone, he simply made a statement against their religion. The majority  places the blame only on Jones.

Of course I recognize the man’s actions as ridiculous, uneducated and bigoted. Yet, in no way shape or form did he do anything illegal and therefore no one should be able to tell him what he can and can’t do. Why was there not as much fury over Newt Gingrich’s comments last week? Gingrich’s statement is scary because he may have power (once again) some day.

Jones looks to press his views on other ignorant Americans. The media gave him what he wanted – to be in the spotlight. I’ve seen more coverage on television news outlets of the 20 dead in Afghanistan attributed to his actions than the 300 plus killed in the ongoing conflict in Ivory Coast this past weekend.

Jones released a video that he said he hoped, “For some [Muslims], it could be an awakening.” And, hopefully it is, but not in the way that he intended. I hope it awakens the ability of people to educate ignorant people of the consequences of bigotry rather than condemn a “not very well-educated” man for his ridiculous statements.

Now imagine a candidate of his stature, his majesty with the unconditional support of the American people, telling the press that he believes that he sees America becoming “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.” All that cheering would turn to crickets before you could say “U.S.A.”  Well, that’s what former Speaker of the House and presidential hopeful for 2012, Newt Gingrich, told a church in Texas earlier this week.

Now hold that thought. For some time now, my friend Marcus and I have been trying to plan a road trip across America, filming a documentary painting an accurate portrait of American life, proving to the world that America is more moderate than pictured. We want to show the fictitiousness behind the supposed polarization of red and blue states, of progressives and conservatives. We believe this separation to be a creation of the media, who cooked up these metaphorical gladiators to fight to the death for the enjoyment and excitement of their viewers, and confusing many who consume their poisoned product.

Gingrich, or at least the image he is projecting, represents what I believe to be that small faction of America, further polarizing American politics. The moderate America (the largest faction) is not being heard, and it’s because of their quiet, reserved voices.

William Butler Yeats, the great Irish poet, warns in his iconic poem, “The Second Coming”, “things fall apart” when “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

The bloodshed that is American politics is capable of being stopped, if and only if the moderate American (the best that lack all conviction) is willing to have their voice heard. We’re not all Red Republicans and Blue Democrats (the worst full of passionate intensity). Moderate America needs to take the reins of this great country, and truly remind us what it once meant to be an American.

Old Abe would be rolling in his grave after learning what has happened to the country that he worked so hard for and even gave his life to unite again after the Civil War.

George Washington would be equally upset. He warned political parties “may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.” I mean, America’s first president knew what he was talking about, right?

In their plight to vault themselves into political power, politicians have sacrificed American unity. This needs to stop in order to save this great country of ours.

Pegula, who is worth $3 billion dollars, takes the reins from Tom Golisano, who saved the team from bankruptcy and possibly even relocation. Buffalo is known for being a small-market team, and Golisano knew that, and it affected our personnel.

We let big names go after back-to-back runs to the conference finals because we did could not afford them, and it was a couple of painful years for Buffalo sports fans. Golisano made sure we broke even rather than won; he was business first. He remained in the shadows so as not to disrupt the transition of ownership.

Enter Pegula. First and foremost, the guy’s a fan. He’s willing to spend what it takes to field a great team. He has taken off the financial chains holding General Manager Darcy Regier back from signing and trading for expensive, good players (disclaimer: not all good players are expensive).

Pegula made and founded East Resources, a natural gas drilling company. “If I wanna make money, I’ll go drill a gas well,” he said at his first Sabres press conference in response to a question regarding financial commitment to the team. And most importantly, the new owner said, “The Buffalo Sabres’ sole reason for existence is to win a Stanley Cup.”

Sabres fans have been celebrating ever since, drooling at the prospect of winning the Stanley Cup, and shaking the ghosts that haunt Buffalo sports.

Even people who are the most pessimistic of the tortured Buffalo sports fans I know are blindly accepting the fact that we will win the Cup, perhaps even multiple ones.

And I don’t get it. Nothing against Pegula, (he’ll be the first one to tell you that spending to the cap doesn’t equate with winning) but there is still so much to be proved.

Sure the Sabres made a good acquisition of a scoring winger at the trade deadline in Brad Boyes, a move we would not have made in the financially conservative days of Mr. Golisano. During his press conference, he looked at Sabre legend Gilbert Perreault and said tearfully, “You’re my hero.”

Even my 86-year–old grandfather said he felt “like ten years younger” after Pegula’s press conference and the Sabres first win of his administration. It goes to show how desperate Buffalo sports fans truly are. Don’t get me wrong either, I’m probably one of the most desperate out there.

Winning the Stanley Cup is the hardest thing to do in all of sports. Hope is a great thing, but it’s also a dangerous thing. Be careful Sabres fans, we’re not in the Promised Land. Yet.

Protesters carrying a pre-1969 Libyan flag and holding up a banner during a demonstration against Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi outside Downing Street in London on Feb. 22. (AP)

As Egypt continued to take significant steps earlier this week toward a new government, its neighbor, Libya, continued to erupt with protests and the violent response of Col. Moammar Gadhafi and his security forces in an effort to shut them down.

Gadhafi, the leader of the oil-rich North African country for the past 40 years, is the latest ruler to deal with an uprising that continues to surface across the Arab world. Along with Egypt, protests in Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen and Iran have sprouted, calling for new governments to replace their respective long-serving rulers.

Protests first started to break out in Benghazi, the country’s second largest city, last week to challenge Gadhafi’s rule. The anti-government movement was met with deadly retaliation from Libyan security forces on Saturday. The death toll was estimated to be at least 104 people, according to Human Rights Watch.

Gadhafi sent his son to Benghazi last week to tell the people that his regime promised reform, and to warn that civil war was on the horizon if the protests would not cease.

Due to the isolationist stance taken by the Libyan government, which has shut down the Internet on multiple occasions and has stopped foreign journalists entering the country, information regarding the events remains somewhat limited. Most of the information is obtained via telephone interviews with people inside the country.

Reports are leaking out of the country that Gadhafi has employed mercenaries from other non-Arabic speaking African nations. The language barrier between the protesters and these mercenaries is being blamed for much of the violence.

The government is showing signs of weakness, despite their apparent upper-hand in the protest crackdown. Mustafa Abud al-Jeleil, the country’s justice minister, has resigned in protest  of the brutality used by Gadhafi’s security forces.

Ibrahim Dabbashi, the Libyan representative to the United Nations, has also resigned. He referred to Gadhafi’s actions as “genocide” and “an act of war.” He warned all the African nations supplying mercenaries that “they will not see their soldiers coming back to their countries.”

Jen Ziemke, a professor of political science at John Carroll University, said that as more high-profile officials defect from the regime, the more likely it is Gadhafi will step down.

“To encourage their continued defection,” said Ziemke, “the international community or the U.S. might consider quietly encouraging and enabling members of the military and political elite to defect.”

Ziemke believes that the U.S. will face a more difficult challenge in getting Gadhafi to step down than the recently deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

“The risk with publicly calling for his removal is that Gadhafi can claim that since the U.S. or U.N. has called for his removal, this is evidence that the protests are really a foreign provocation when in fact they are motivated from inside, from the Libyans themselves.”

Over the weekend, mounting protests started to form in the capital city of Tripoli. On Monday, witnesses said Ghadafi’s forces had taken over most of the city, roaming the streets in trucks and helicopters, shooting wildly at the protesters.

According to Human Rights Watch, the death toll rose to an estimated 220 deaths after Monday’s violence. The crackdown in Libya has been by far the deadliest out of the recent Arab protests.

With every confrontation, the sentiment against Gadhafi seems to grow. “It is too late for dialogue now,” a Benghazi resident, who wished to remain anonymous, told The New York Times.  “Too much blood has been shed. The more brutal the crackdown will be, the more determined the protesters will become.”

The government beat, tear-gassed, and even killed some protesters. It’s ironic that the Iranian government was supportive of the protests in Egypt, but as soon as it happens to the fascist regime of the Ayatollah and Ahmandinejad, they crush it with an iron fist.

Obama got lucky with Egypt. What would have happened if Mubarak had not resigned under his own accord? Obama was eager to join in on the celebration and congratulate the Egyptians, but was hesitant on what to do when Mubarak wouldn’t back down (he simply asked for a “smooth transition of power”).

I’m not saying he’s taking credit for the revolution by any means, but rather he got lucky that Mubarak stepped down and took care of a massive problem for Obama.

This will not happen with Iran.

So far, the president is taking the same passive stance with Iran. I give him credit for calling out the hypocrisy behind the violent shutting down of the protests, and for providing what he calls “moral support to those seeking better lives.”

It should also be understood he doesn’t want to act because if he tries to prod a revolution in Iran, the regime could portray the recent protests in the region as U.S.-created puppet protests.

Obama cannot back down on this opportunity. If he wants to be the leader that people label him as, this is his chance. He cannot be as tentative as he was with Egypt. Obama has to call out the Ayatollah and Ahmandinejad for the injustices that they have committed over the years.

“Each country is different, each country has its own traditions, and America can’t dictate what happens in these societies,” the president said, and is something with which I completely agree. But when the people clearly do not believe in a government establishment, as the most powerful country in the world, the U.S. not only has the right to dictate what happens in those societies, they have the responsibility.

The president said earlier this week that the situation in Egypt is watching “history unfold,” perhaps the first of a flurry of revolutions in the region. Iran is the crown jewel. Obama needs to expose the facist regime there and help the oppressed people achieve “the better lives” they are seeking (disclaimer: this has nothing to do with Islam, simply the oppressive way Iran governs their people).

I realize Obama has a lot on his plate lately with the budget and working with the Republican House, but this could be the defining moment of his presidency, and he needs to act on it.

Step up to the plate and hit a home run, Mr. Obama.