This July 4 comment is adapted from my book What's So Great About America. For more information on that or my other books, go to dineshdsouza.com

America is today the most loved society in the world--and the most hated. At a time when we are constantly lectured about our nation's flaws, it is useful to be reminded of the other side of the story. This July 4 weekend, it's worth thinking about what this country does right. The forgotten truth is that America is still the most attractive society in the world, and its appeal is felt even by the children of the America-haters.

Whatever the flaws of American policy and American culture, let's remember that immigrants from every continent continue to brave dislocation and hardship to come to America . Why do they do it? The conventional wisdom is that immigrants come to for one reason: to make money. This notion is conveyed in the "rags to riches" literature on immigrants, and it is reinforced by 's critics, who like to think of America as buying the affection of outsiders through the promise of making them filthy rich. But this Horatio Alger narrative is woefully incomplete; indeed, it misses the real attraction of Ameica to immigrants, and to people around the world.

There is enough truth in the conventional account to give it a surface plausibility. Certainly America offers a degree of mobility and opportunity unavailable elsewhere, not even in Europe . Only in America could Pierre Omidyar, whose ancestry is Iranian and who grew up in , have started a company like eBay. Only in America could Vinod Khosla, the son of an Indian army officer, become a shaper of the technology industry and a billionaire to boot.

In addition to providing unprecedented social mobility and opportunity, America gives a better life to the ordinary guy than does any other country. Let's be honest: rich people live well everywhere. In fact if you are very rich, my advice to you is not to live in America . The reason is that in most countries, but not in the United States , money buys you the pleasure of aristocracy-the pleasure of being a superior human being. Americans, however, share a social ethic that is deeply egalitarian. Americans believe that no matter how much money Bill Gates has, he is not better than they are.

America's greatness is that it has extended the benefits of affluence, traditionally available to the very few, to a large segment in society. America is a country where "poor" people have television sets and microwave ovens, where maids drive rather nice cars, where plumbers take their families on vacation to Europe . Recently I asked an acquaintance in Mumbai why he has been trying so hard to relocate to America . He replied, "I really want to move to a country where the poor people are fat."

The typical immigrant, who is used to the dilapidated infrastructure, mind-numbing inefficiency, and multi-layered corruption of developing countries, arrives in America to discover, to his wonder and delight, that everything works: the roads are clean and paper-smooth, the highway signs are clear and accurate, the public toilets function properly, when you pick up the telephone you get a dial tone, you can even buy things from the store and then take them back. The American supermarket is a thing to behold: endless aisles of every imaginable product, many different types of cereal, fifty flavors of ice cream. The place is full of numerous unappreciated inventions: quilted toilet paper, fabric softener, cordless phones, disposable diapers, and roll-on luggage.

So, yes, in material terms America offers the newcomer a better life. Still, the material allure of does not capture the deepest source of its appeal. Recently I asked myself how my life would have been different if I had not come to America . I was raised in a middle-class family in India . I didn't have luxuries, but I didn't lack necessities. Materially, my life is better in the United States , but it is not a fundamental difference. My life has changed far more dramatically in other ways.

Had I remained in India , I would probably live my entire existence within a modest radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have married a woman of my identical caste, religious and socioeconomic background. I would face relentless pressure to become an engineer, like my father; a doctor, like a couple of my uncles; or a computer programmer. My socialization would have been almost entirely within my ethnic community. I would have a whole set of opinions on religion and politics and society that could be predicted in advance. In sum, my destiny would to a large degree have been given to me.

By coming to America , I have seen my life break free of these traditional confines. At Dartmouth College, I became interested in literature, and switched my major to the humanities. Soon I developed a fascination with politics, and resolved to become a writer, which is something you can make a living doing in America, and which is not easy to do in India . I married a woman of English, Scotch-Irish, French, and German ancestry. Eventually I found myself working in the White House, even though I was not an American citizen. I cannot imagine any other country allowing a non-citizen to work in its inner citadel of government.

In most of the world, even today, your identity and your fate are largely handed to you. This is not to say that you have no choice, but it is choice within given parameters. In America , by contrast, you get to write the script of your own life. What to be, where to live, whom to love, whom to marry, what to believe, what religion to practice-these are all decisions that, in America , we make for ourselves. Here we are the architects of our own destiny.

Some critics, both in and abroad, have noted that this freedom to shape one's own life is not an unmixed blessing. Freedom can be used well or badly. Some Americans do indeed make mistakes with freedom, as the country's high divorce and illegitimacy rates suggest. These are unfortunate social trends, but we should remember that while freedom allows vice its scope, it also gives greater luster to virtue. It is no great achievement for an Indian couple to keep its marriage together, because the social stigma against divorce is prohibitive. By contrast, American couples who stay married deserve greater credit because they have chosen the good when the good is not the only practical option.

Those who have tasted the exhilaration of freedom-which entails responsibility for one's own choices and one's own life-can hardly imagine living in any other system. The core American idea is the "pursuit of happiness," which means that happiness is not a guarantee, but that you have a chance to find it for yourself. No wonder that so many young people throughout the world are magnetically attracted to what America represents: they find irresistible the prospect of being in the driver's seat of their lives. So, too, the immigrant discovers that America permits him to break free of the constraints that have held him captive, so that the future becomes a landscape of his own choosing.

Robert Jastrow, one of the noted astronomers of our time and, as it happens, a former professor of mine at Dartmouth, died earlier this year. This is my overdue tribute to his life and work.

Jastrow was one of the great popularizers of science. One of his books, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, became a national bestseller and conveyed to a whole generation of Americans the excitment and mystery of space exploration. When American astronauts landed on the moon, Jastrow provided expert commentary for the TV networks covering the event.

But Jastrow never permitted popularization to get in the way of serious professional accomplishment. After getting his doctorate in physics from Columbia, he became head of the theoretical divison at NASA. Later he was appointed head of the Goddard Space Institute. In 1992 he became chairman of Mount Wilson Observatory in California.

In addition to medals for scientific achivement, Jastrow also won acclaim as a gifted teacher. At Dartmouth, I always found him friendly and accessible. Later our paths crossed because Jastrow became an energetic and resourceful defender of President Reagan's strategic missile defense initiative, dubbed by its critics as "Star Wars."

While critics like physicist Hans Bethe said Star Wars would never work, the Russians agreed with Jastrow that it would, and they desperately sought to outlaw it. (Obviously if the Russians felt it was a boondoggle they would have supported it, since this would be a great way to waste America's defense budget.) In his last years Jastrow became increasingly skeptical of claims that global warming is destroying the planet. He saw global warming as an effort to exploit science for ideological ends.

One of Jastrow's gems is a little book called God and the Astronomers in which Jastrow, although himself an agnostic, made a startling argument. He argued that "the astronomical evience leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world." Jastrow not only documents his claim but shows why leading scientists including Einstein resisted the new discoveries, because they threatened the dogma that scientific laws enjoy eternal validity. Jastrow showed that in reality the laws of physics themselves came into existence with the Big Bang; beyond or apart from our universe, there are no such laws.

Jastrow's story reads like a detective novel, with the only difference that the facts he recounts are true. And here is his stunning conclusion: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

While the Senate was ready to vote on the FISA Amendments Act today, Senators Russell Feingold and Christopher Dodd fought to keep them from casting a final vote and jamming the bill through Congress.

In a statement released by Feingold, he says:

"I am pleased we were able to delay the vote on FISA until after the July 4th holiday instead of having it jammed through. I hope that over the July 4th Holiday, Senators will take a closer look at the deeply flawed legislation and understand how it threatens the civil liberties of the American People. It is possibly to protect this country against the terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation."

For those who haven't read up on the new FISA bill, it would basically give the government the right to peek into the private overseas phone conversations, emails, and even text messages of all Americans. Part of the bill would give retroactive immunity to telephone companies that gave the government private information of Americans.

Feingold says the FISA bill would also allow the government to take all international communications and put it in a giant database. The most outrageous part of the bill states that there does not have to be any court review or evidence that anyone is doing anything wrong before the government intrudes on the person's privacy. The government will simply have complete access to the personal overseas communications of every single American.

Feingold continues to say, "It's a vast power that has no limits. There's no regulation of it."

Obviously, the new FISA bill was created to help the government "track down terrorists"....just like the Iraq War was orchestrated to find weapons of mass destruction. It all makes perfect sense.

It's angering that the government has instilled so much fear in the minds of Americans, that many are ready to hand over precious civil liberties in the name of "protection." In fact, it's sickening. All the Republicans who are avid gun owners and want to protect their constitutional right to bear arms have NO RIGHT to say an American's right to privacy is not as important. This proposed FISA bill simply violates the right to privacy. Fear tactics should not trick Americans into giving up their freedoms. The Senate needs to wake up.

The more the Bush Administration remains in power, the more the United States mirrors the image George Orwell illustrated in his book 1984. Big brother really is watching, and members of our own Senate are allowing it to happen.

Feingold admits that many of the Senators have not completely read the bill and do not know the logistics of it. By holding off on the bill until after July 4th, hopefully the Senate will have the opportunity to think things over and not just hand the Bush Administration exactly what they want.

If you want to watch TYT's interview with Senator Feingold, please check out the video below:




More Young Turks on You Tube

John Constantine of Jacksonville Florida finds saggy pants extremely offensive. In fact, he believes pulling out a gun and shooting an 18-year-old who refuses to lift up his pants is completely warranted.

The altercation began when Constantine followed David Mitchell to the courtyard of his apartment building and asked him to lift up his pants. Mitchell refused, and the situation soon turned to a scuffle.

That's when Constantine took out a small caliber handgun and shot Mitchell in the stomach. When authorities arrived at the scene, they found Mitchell laying on the floor while being comforted by neighbors. Of course, police were also able to find a small bottle of crack cocaine in Constantine's pocket.

There are two points I would like to make about this story. Let's begin with the least important:

Why did Constantine care that the young man was sagging his pants? I understand the man is 54 years old and baggy pants don't tickle his fancy, but who cares? There is quite a strong possibility that Constantine was also on drugs. But I digress to a more important point:

It really is too easy for people to obtain guns. While some may argue that every American has the right to bear arms, I think stricter gun laws should definitely be in place. Guns are too accessible for nut jobs like Constantine, and if anyone tries to justify his use of the weapon, they are downright wrong.

Interestingly enough, there has just been a survey done by Rasmussen Reports, which indicates that Americans are evenly split on whether or not the U.S needs stricter gun control laws. Forty four percent believe we do need tough gun laws, while another 44 percent disagree and believe we do not. The other 12 percent are not sure.

The issue is, guns are rarely used as a defense mechanism by standard Americans. I'm not saying guns aren't sometimes used for justified defense. But in reality, and in most cases guns are often utilized for violence.

In the November election, 35 US Senate seats will be contested. In five states, the incumbent Senator is retiring (all five are Republican) guaranteeing a new, first-time US Senator in Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico, Idaho and Nebraska. Let's meet the potential new Senators to see what we can look forward to.

The reviews are in for McCain's speech, and they are not good. We admire the man and respect his service, but has he ever looked more wooden and awkward than he did last night? That weird, gawky smile! That stilted, smug grin!

It reminded us of something, but what?

We couldn't put our finger on it for the longest time, but then we realized where we'd seen that look before . . .

On Tuesday, May 20th the state of Kentucky has its turn in the 2008 Primary Circus. Yes, Hillary Clinton is still officially challenging Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, but nobody cares anymore - Obama is going to win the nomination. So is there anything left of interest in the Kentucky Primary? As it turns out, there are plenty of fun political sideshows in the Bluegrass State.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain suspects the war in Iraq will be over by 2013.

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won," said McCain.

Despite the fact that he predicts the war will "be won" in five years, McCain denies any claims that he has drawn up a timetable for full-scale troop withdrawal.

"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win," said McCain during his speech in Columbus, Ohio.

There you have it: John McCain JUST KNOWS the U.S is going to win the war in Iraq. He might not know how, but he just knows. One of the journalists who attended McCain's speech suggested he took listeners on a "magic carpet ride" to the future.

With the number of U.S casualties increasing, and the faltering economy in mind, occupying Iraq for an additional five years is a scary thought. But there are other underlying issues in McCain's statements.

First off, John McCain's response to reporters makes no sense at all. If he has not at least created a game plan for the Iraq War, what is the premise for him saying the war will end by 2013? Does he just assume things in the Middle East will smooth over by the end of his presidential term (if he gets elected)? Surely, he must have some sort of "timetable" set if he has the ability to announce a year as to when Americans can expect their sons and daughters to return from the war.

Denying that he has a game plan probably hurts him more than helps him. It's understandable that McCain likes to stick to his guns. In fact, he would be accused of hypocrisy if he didn't stand by his word. In his campaign during the primaries, McCain criticized former Republican rival Mitt Romney for hinting at a timetable for troop withdrawal. But since when is it a bad thing to have a timetable? Is the electorate keen on staying in Iraq for years to come?

The Republicans claim they are tough on national security, and that is precisely why they have kept U.S troops in Iraq. However, keeping troops in the Middle East has not secured the U.S at all. McCain's Democratic rival Barack Obama said the war has failed to secure America since it has made the U.S military weak and vulnerable to any potential attack made by other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran.

Cenk makes a good point about McCain's current comments in the following clip:



Nonetheless, it's comforting to know one of the candidates for presidency makes predictions with no real premise or plan.

President George Bush has given up golf in honor of U.S troops in Iraq. During an interview with Politico and Yahoo News, Bush said his decision to give up his favorite sport came after the August 2003 Bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. The bombing killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was the top U.N. official in Iraq.

Bush continued to say, "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Good job Bush. We're proud of you.

Did the preseident think that revealing his "sacrifice" would result in the American people increasing their respect for him? Thousands of troops have given up their lives for the war in Iraq , and thousands more continue to risk their lives in the Middle East. Instead of thinking of ways to END the war, Bush decides giving up golf makes him a respectable and honorable president.



Watch TYT.

Get ready for AWESOME coverage of the Indiana and North Carolina Primaries today beginning at 7:00pm ET. The Young Turks will be joined by Ben Mankiewicz and Michael Shure to provide election results and interview great guests.

Here are the guests you can look forward to:

Taylor Marsh

Jeff Pruitt from Fort Wayne Politics

Eleanor Clift from Newsweek

Ari Berman from The Nation

Faiz Shakir from Center for American Progress

Representative Mel Watts (NC)

So make sure you tune into www.theyoungturks.com today at 7:00pm ET!

Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama continue to battle for the Democratic ticket, and today they will duke it out in Pennsylvania. The Young Turks will definitely provide special coverage of the event. Coverage will begin at 7:30pm ET at Rebel Headquarters. Ben Mackiewicz and Michael Shure will guest host with Cenk Uygur.

The guest line-up will include:

Representative Chaka Fattah

Matt Stoller from Open Left

Ari Melber from The Nation

Bloomsburg University Professor and Journalist Walter Brasch

Jonathan Alter from Newsweek

You won't want to miss it. So tune in to www.TheYoungTurks.com for your election information fix!

We were appalled by the to-do made about Hillary's really perfectly demure blouse. What would the big deal have been if her shirt had been down to her navel? It's not like you can't run a country and be busty.

So demonstrates the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, arguably the most powerful woman in the world and certainly the foxiest member of the G8.

Broadsheet picked up this photo from Der Spiegel of the world leader. At the opera with the king and queen of Norway, Merkel rocked a seriously low-cut gown.

While sitting in my Political Behavior class for graduate school, my classmates and I found ourselves in a somewhat heated debate about the presidential elections. My professor pointed at a chart indicating that the independents vote will determine whether John McCain or Barak Obama will make it as president. This clearly illustrated that the best strategy for both candidates is to campaign with political ideologies that are as moderate as possible to get the large number of independents to vote for them.



Some of the students argued that John McCain would be more likely to get the independents vote because he is a "moderate conservative," while Barak Obama is on the far left with liberal ideals. But what the students failed to understand is that McCain is a full-blown left wing conservative, and there's nothing "moderate" about him. Although some media outlets might make him out to be a moderate conservative, the proof is really in the pudding. Don't believe me?

The front page of Huffington Post featured an article today that perfectly summarizes just how conservative John McCain really is. When it comes to every partisan issue, John McCain takes the right-wing stance indefinitely. Not only does he support the war in Iraq, but he also has served as a key ally in George Bush's efforts to increase U.S soldiers occupying the country. Other topics like abortion, gun control, and gay rights also illustrate that "moderate," is really not a descriptive word pertaining to the Republican candidate.

When it comes to abortion, McCain is a self-proclaimed pro-life advocate. He has vowed to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will limit the impact of the Roe v. Wade ruling, which basically legalized abortion. His views on gay marriage are just as conservative since he completely opposes it. In fact, he worked to ban gay marriage in Arizona and fully supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He even opposed legislation that would protect homosexuals from hate crimes and job discrimination. To top things off, he is an avid supporter of the National Riffle Association and has voted AGAINST a ban for assault-style weapons. But people consider him a moderate conservative?

Where is the logic in that?

Polls have indicated that most people do in fact see McCain as a centrist while Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are perceived as far left candidates. Studies done by political scientists such as Philip Converse show that independents are typically less politically aware than strong Democrats or Republicans. This presidential election would perfectly illustrate that finding if the independents are naive enough to fall for McCain's "moderate conservative" tactics.

I am usually not one to pay much attention to the news media manufactured controversies over a remark made by a politician and exploited by opponents. But I feel compelled to comment on the latest episode because the issue at the center of the controversial remarks can be construed, in some ways, as the most important issue in the entire campaign (as unbelievable as that sounds.)

By Jayar Jackson

The words and explanation from Senator Obama regarding his pastor's wildly unpopular and racist rant raised awareness for many, evoked conscious thought for others, but still turned some of his opponents away from him even more. How anyone could actually listen to the truth packed into this speech and conclude that his words were bogus was perplexing to me. Even after reaching out to the concerns of these very opponents, some still felt he was only telling them how much he was against them. I can understand that some don't agree with his policies, but I couldn't understand how they rejected the idea that race relations in need to be improved.

In an effort to practice what I preach, I've searched for a way to understand the reasons some still feel such resentment to the person that is thoughtfully looking for a route to move this country forward. I noticed that the most constant, blanket argument from the disagreeing mass was "Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a horrible racist." To that I thought, "I agree, good thing Wright isn't running for President. I'm glad Obama proved to us he doesn't think that way."

In attempting to put myself in the shoes of some White Americans, I've noticed that many are afraid of expressing everything they may think of minorities, particularly Black people. There have been instances where if they utter something that sounds like they're speaking negatively of a Black guy; the tag of "racist" is immediately slapped upon them. When they know they truly don't harbor racist or prejudiced feelings, and in fact dislike people that do, the worst thing in the world is to be considered just another racist White person. They've seen much of the dreadful history of truly hateful racist people in that opposed equality among the races, and they're sick of paying the price for things they never had anything to do with. Being misunderstood so quickly and easily causes feelings of resentment towards the accusing group, as they only wish these Black people could know what it's like to be in this situation. They may feel that Black people get a free pass in the game of racism. We get to say the N-Word we despise so much, while White people can't, we can dislike a White person for simply being who they are or for what some people that look like them did in the past.

When Reverend Wright opened his mouth in front of his congregation, he opened the door for the rare opportunity many White Americans took to call a racist a racist. No matter what explanations come, no matter how much Obama tried to take the discussion to a place of understanding and conclusion, Reverend Wright hasn't been lambasted enough by the man he taught, so the declaration of racist remains the only subject.

This feeling of making sure the other race experiences the pain felt by the other side of is nothing new. The country was fixated, racially divided, and somehow personally involved in OJ Simpson's "Trial of the Century." Upon hearing the verdict of not guilty, so many Black people celebrated as if we were the #16 seed of the NCAA Tournament that just took down the undefeated #1 powerhouse with a last second shot. Many Black Americans were overwhelmingly frustrated at the futility of the world's best judicial system to convict the many murderers in the past while obviously favoring White criminals over their Black victims.

The celebrating group didn't love the fact that OJ Simpson got away with killing two White people, they took delight in knowing so many people on the other side finally experienced what they had experienced so many times. Now they could say, "get over it, move on, and it wasn't your sister" the way they had been told so many times before.

Barack Obama's honest declaration that he cannot despise a pastor that brought him to his level of faith, married him to his wife, and baptized his kids kept this Reverend, an elephant-sized target in the crosshairs, right alongside him. The sooner we begin to understand each other, the sooner we will figure things out.