Mugabe is spelled A-W-E-S-O-M-E

What's dirtier than a thug? A thug who denies his dirtiness.

You can read the full story here, but here are a few gems from Mugabe's interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour:

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, in a rare interview Thursday, depicted himself as an African hero battling imperialism and foreign attempts to oust him rather than the widespread perception of a dictator clinging to power at the expense of the welfare of his people and country.

He denied that his country is in economic shambles, saying it grew enough food last year to feed all its people, and defended policies that have driven white farmers off their land as properly restoring that land to indigenous Africans.

"The land reform is the best thing (that) could have ever have happened to an African country," said Mugabe, a former revolutionary leader who came to power when white-ruled Rhodesia became black-ruled Zimbabwe. "It has to do with national sovereignty."

It was Mugabe's first interview with a Western television network in several years, and he appeared to get frustrated with some of Amanpour's direct questioning,
repeatedly denying widely accepted evidence and reports on his nation's woes.

Mugabe also denied any responsibility for harm to the nation from his economic policies, instead blaming what he called "unjustified" and "illegal" sanctions that he said were intended to bring regime change.

He also rejected criticism from South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his role in the anti-apartheid struggle, who has accused Mugabe of turning Zimbabwe into a "basket case" and repressing his own people.

"It's not a basket case at all," Mugabe said. He later called Tutu's comments "devilish talk" and added: "He doesn't know what he's talking about, the little man."

Awesome.

The collective media - a soapbox rant

Can I just step on my soapbox for a moment?

Let me preface this rant by saying that I don't like to be told what to do. Ever. Just ask my parents.

I am sick and tired of the collective media making the election decision for the American public. Obama is on the cover of Time Magazine this week, with the caption "And the Winner is...". Fortune's cover has a picture of Obama with a headline about the two candidate's positions on the economy (where's the picture of the second candidate?). CNN seems to only report positive stories about Obama and negative storis about McCain. What happened to telling both sides of the story and letting the people make the decision?

Answer: the media is tired of Republicans in office and have decided not to trust Americans to make the decision at the ballot box again. After all, the American public had been given a second chance and blew it, electing GW into office a second time.

But that shouldn't matter. How is what the media doing any different than when developing countries/dictatorships stuff the ballot box? Or intimidate people when they go vote? Or just having a dictator make the decision himself, without the hassle of an election?

News Flash: we haven't had one debate yet between the candidates nor do we really, truly know what these candidates stand for. All of it is rhetoric at this point, on both sides. How can the winner already be determined if we don't even know where they stand on the issues?

I'm not suggesting that we should swing the other way and glorify McCain. But I am suggesting that we give the relevant information to Americans and let them vote based on the facts and figures. It makes me so angry - physically angry - that the media is essentially making the decision for us. Yeah, our freedom gives the media the right to say whatever they want. But now they are just being irresponsible and a bully.

It's almost enough to vote a certain way, just out of spite.

Let the mud-slinging begin

Now that there are unofficially two candidates running for president, I'm a much happier person. I haven't decided for whom I'm voting - that's what the next several months of debates and speeches are for. But knowing that there is plenty of time for candidates to make their case is a good thing - we, as a nation, will have the ability and time to research and make up our own minds.

Every morning, I go to CNN to check out the goings-on in the world. And, as much as I'm sick of the presidential campaign, I will occassionally click on the Politics page to get a quick synopsis. This morning, I did just that and found this page:

Now, I understand that the ad on this page is paid for by Obama. And I also understand that Obama is all up in the news right now because of the recent primaries. (Every link on the page is about Obama, along with the ad about Obama. Only one link mentions McCain...in respect to Obama). However, I also believe it is the responsibility of a new organization to watch its content and ensure that no wrong perceptions are made. When I was business manager of the student newspaper at Wake Forest, we constantly checked to make sure ads were placed correctly and that the overall look of the page didn't portray an unintended message.

When I clicked on this page, the unintended message was the CNN had placed its vote - for Obama. Of course, being who CNN is, I'm absolutely sure who they want to win this election. But as a reputable news organization, they need to make sure that their content, advertising and layout doesn't give away their intentions - explicity or implicitly. This isn't the first time I've found some biased reporting on this site, but the first time it struck me enough to get upset about it.

I don't know who I'm voting for in November, and I want to make an informed and educated decision based on my values and where I'd like to see this country go in the next four, eight, twenty years. I get especially stubborn and upset when I feel someone else is trying to make that decision for me.