This will probably be a very uninviting post as I am merely going to paraphrase an article I found to be fascinating and eye-opening to my ignorance with politics, but feel free (if anyone actually reads this) to lay on me your knowledge with congressional leverage and its impact in politics.
The story I read came from The Cook Political Report, a site I found to be ripe with information regarding politics I feel to some degree I will never understand. We, and by we, I mean some of our more savvy and politically educated students in 3380, myself not included, have talked in class about the upcoming 2010 congressional elections, the primaries, the swaying of seats, etc. all of which I feel I have no proper understanding. But despite being completely aloof, I have an interest to diminish my lack of understanding, and I guess it starts here, with the article I read written by Charlie Cook.
Titled "Time To Clean House," the article spills insight regarding the current motifs and direction the Democratic House of Representatives are, or should, be taking. According to Cook, the Democrats are trying to limit their losses to about 16 seats, which I surmise to mean that by the end of the congressional elections, at worst that's the most leverage the Republicans (in House seats) will be given.
It's explained that health care is currently not an issue of concern, which I guess means that right now it's out of their control and probably being fought in the Senate. An unwise assumption of mine, I'm betting. What interests them, according to Cook, is the notion to "address unemployment without exacerbating worries about the size of government and the federal deficit." At the same time however, he explains the Democrats are facing an ethical dilemma with some of their members who are heading certain important subcommittees. The story here is focused on Independent voters, who, as Cook explains are particularly sensitive to ethical issues, and were primarily responsible for the 2006 shift in majority power from Repubs to Democrats. It's explained that these important voters will be idly watching to see if the Democrats decide to "clean house" with these controversial subjects, including the likes of Charles Rangel and John Murtha, and likewise the Democrats are waiting for a reaction on these decisions to predict whether the ramifications are worth cleaning the house, so to speak.
There's evidence (at least from the author) that suggests some of these subcommittees, including the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, have engaged in corrupt tactics including exchange of campaign contributions for earmarks and jobs handed to former staffers and/or relatives, which stands to implicate the rest of the Democrats.
The next bit was very interesting and, mind you, juicy, however I feel best at quoting it.
"Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., is honest as the day is long, but he is incapable of controlling Murtha. Only Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., can rein the Pennsylvanian in. Because Murtha was one of Pelosi's most important supporters as she climbed the leadership ladder, she finds it difficult to turn her back on him. Yet allowing Murtha to keep his subcommittee chairmanship jeopardizes the seats of other Democrats and possibly her speakership."
The Rangel situation too is complicated by the fact that his Ways and Means Committee successor, Pete Stark, is just as controversial.
And the article concludes with
"So the question is whether the Democratic leadership feels it should risk taking no action against Rangel and Murtha; should try to take away their gavels; or should give them a hearty thank-you for their long years of service -- a thank-you accompanied by a big push toward retirement. If Rangel and Murtha signal that they are headed for the exit, they might make themselves less appetizing targets for ambitious prosecutors seeking to nail a politician's scalp to the door.
House Democrats need Speaker Pelosi to lead gently, or not so gently, by moving Rangel and Murtha in the direction that would benefit the overall Democratic Caucus. She is unlikely to act without considerable pressure from caucus members. As the election gets closer and anxiety gets higher, that pressure will probably mount. Otherwise, Democrats will just have to take their chances with Rangel and Murtha onboard and hope for results different from 1994 and 2006."
Simply fascinating material. I really need to get more into this.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Jon Meacham's Why Dick Cheney Should Run in 2012...ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Forgive my ignorance, but even to someone like me who at best casually keeps up with politics and prospective campaigners, Jon Meacham's proposition is 100% insane ridiculous.
His story is here,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224670
which I was directed to thankfully from the Political Wire. Check out some of the amazing comments.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/28/why_cheney_should_run.html#disqus_thread
According to posters like mcearlgrey, it seems that the suggestion of Cheney running in 2012 is an old idea that has been beaten to death since the inauguration.
Now I've never heard this proposal until now, (but then again I'm 21 and am more interested in south park, underwear models and ESPN) which still to me sounds so far out there because I feel no one in their right mind would allow Cheney to become President, especially after his track record during the Bush years, but also because I do know that Cheney himself has stated before since 2000 that he will not serve as President. Plus, the man is in extremely bad health. I can't think of many individuals who would have a harder strain on the campaign trial than John McCain but Dick Cheney would certainly be one of them. Will Dick Cheney even be alive by 2012?
But what surprises me even more is that a journalist with actual decent, realized, writing credentials could churn out a story so unfocused, unimportant, and absurd. It was honestly like reading something I would expect to find posted in a Republican undergraduate support forum. This came from NEWSWEEK. People pay for subscriptions to read this! Are you serious?
"Float the hypothetical in political conversation, and people roll their eyes dismissively," begins Jon with his argument. Why yes, they would, because talking Dick Cheney for President in 2012 is literally retarded. I'll continue.
"But I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.)"
What? A run would be good for Republicans and good for the country you say? The GOP HAS to run for office. They WILL run for office, with or without Cheney. Now if he's referring to a Cheney run, that's just as bad. But what's worse is that there are hardly any worthy candidates on the Right that should run without scrutiny. Certainly Cheney is a no go, but is there honestly anyone to suggest that's any better? I feel embarrassed to answer that. Sure Huckabee and Romney are worthy contenders, but they'll lack the driving force to compete with incumbent Obama. The Republicans are in dire need of an overhaul.
But back to Meacham's article, he proclaims Cheney as a man of conviction, and has a record which can be judged.
What?
If we were to go by those standards Cheney would most certainly be persecuted. He could easily be tried for war crimes, torture, treason, and even in his recreational activities he gets off shooting people. Cheney also enjoys criticizing our current President's methods, while his administration made an amendment to the Constitution making it illegal to question theirs.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/11/17/353742.aspx#ksu
Sure, there's no reason for our President to bow to anyone, but does it really show a sign of weakness? If anything I would imagine it conducts respect.
"In an era of ideological purity within the party, Cheney is among the purest; no one can question his conservative credentials on national security, and his record in the House and as vice president places him beyond reproach from the base."
......
I'll let you read the rest of Meacham's article if you're so inclined, it's basically more of the same quotes I've included. I still can't believe his editors let him publish something so immature and unworthy.
His story is here,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224670
which I was directed to thankfully from the Political Wire. Check out some of the amazing comments.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/28/why_cheney_should_run.html#disqus_thread
According to posters like mcearlgrey, it seems that the suggestion of Cheney running in 2012 is an old idea that has been beaten to death since the inauguration.
Now I've never heard this proposal until now, (but then again I'm 21 and am more interested in south park, underwear models and ESPN) which still to me sounds so far out there because I feel no one in their right mind would allow Cheney to become President, especially after his track record during the Bush years, but also because I do know that Cheney himself has stated before since 2000 that he will not serve as President. Plus, the man is in extremely bad health. I can't think of many individuals who would have a harder strain on the campaign trial than John McCain but Dick Cheney would certainly be one of them. Will Dick Cheney even be alive by 2012?
But what surprises me even more is that a journalist with actual decent, realized, writing credentials could churn out a story so unfocused, unimportant, and absurd. It was honestly like reading something I would expect to find posted in a Republican undergraduate support forum. This came from NEWSWEEK. People pay for subscriptions to read this! Are you serious?
"Float the hypothetical in political conversation, and people roll their eyes dismissively," begins Jon with his argument. Why yes, they would, because talking Dick Cheney for President in 2012 is literally retarded. I'll continue.
"But I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.)"
What? A run would be good for Republicans and good for the country you say? The GOP HAS to run for office. They WILL run for office, with or without Cheney. Now if he's referring to a Cheney run, that's just as bad. But what's worse is that there are hardly any worthy candidates on the Right that should run without scrutiny. Certainly Cheney is a no go, but is there honestly anyone to suggest that's any better? I feel embarrassed to answer that. Sure Huckabee and Romney are worthy contenders, but they'll lack the driving force to compete with incumbent Obama. The Republicans are in dire need of an overhaul.
But back to Meacham's article, he proclaims Cheney as a man of conviction, and has a record which can be judged.
What?
If we were to go by those standards Cheney would most certainly be persecuted. He could easily be tried for war crimes, torture, treason, and even in his recreational activities he gets off shooting people. Cheney also enjoys criticizing our current President's methods, while his administration made an amendment to the Constitution making it illegal to question theirs.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/11/17/353742.aspx#ksu
Sure, there's no reason for our President to bow to anyone, but does it really show a sign of weakness? If anything I would imagine it conducts respect.
"In an era of ideological purity within the party, Cheney is among the purest; no one can question his conservative credentials on national security, and his record in the House and as vice president places him beyond reproach from the base."
......
I'll let you read the rest of Meacham's article if you're so inclined, it's basically more of the same quotes I've included. I still can't believe his editors let him publish something so immature and unworthy.
Air Wars and Campaign Ads, Looking Further
One of my favorite segments from 3380 this semester was Professor DeWitt's phenomenal powerpoint presentations 11A and 11B, which encompassed a thorough investigation and analysis of campaign ads through the years (part A) as well as their production techniques (part B). I was fascinated after watching these videos; the disparity between them was undeniable, and I found myself appreciating their differences because it added to the overall perspective. Some ads relied on subtle hints and clues to convey their tone, invoking an ideal or motif only revealed by a slight visual nuance or audio cue, while others played strictly on viewers emotions.
I guess it's pertinent to include the first televised ad in this post, so
The first thing I noticed when we watched this in class was the unevenness of the text in the beginning of the video. "A Paid Political Announcement" is clearly at an upward right angle. Not that it's anything significant, but it does show how far our textual production techniques have changed over the years. Nowadays, people would lose there jobs if the supporting text in an ad looked less than perfect. That is to say, technology and visuals play a much bigger role in the media and political ads than they used to, almost more than the message itself.
This video is almost whimsical in its production. It's like I'm watching the Wizard of Oz. Cartoonish, innocent, upbeat, friendly, did we as Americans truly used to have such an innocent competition in politics?
Now what I see here, only four years later, involves an entirely different production technique. Although being an attack ad, the message is straightforward and to the point. The narrator addresses the public informatively and delivers the message straight to the camera, a technique rarely used by today's standards. It's interesting to note though that by 1956 the editors were already making video cuts. The "what's that again general" line along with his reiteration was surely effective in taking his message out of context.
Convention has to be one of my favorites. The disbarring audio droning involved made the video almost surreal, like watching something straight out of a Stanley Kubrick film. Combined with Hot Town in the Old Town Tonight and images referencing turmoil and tension all the while conveying an arrogant, smiling Humphrey, this ad was genius and way ahead of it viewers. Even today I don't think it could ever be properly appreciated. It's like something you would watch as a film student.
Now obviously in 1984 you see an increased production value, but only slightly. The added benefit here is that we had available to us images from space, which as far as this message is concerned, involves drawing lines from the heavens, which I think is hilarious because after that narration in the video a line proceeds to surround earth, invoking a specific location to "the heavens." If only heaven was that close...
Next
Now as much as I HATE this video, it may be because it encapsulates (I love that word) EVERYTHING in a political campaign ad that makes its message effective. I mean, it's like watching a Disney movie or something. Go ahead, watch it again, and see if you understand what I'm referring to.
First of all, no more are the still images of conveyance employed. Here, this video employs brief audio video interleaves, which basically means there's motion involved! Motion annotates realism, which adds to the relation the viewers grasp when watching the video. They feel as if they are there, or at the least, sitting in a near observable spot as to what is happening in front of there eyes.
Added to that, the serene, calming music, the hopeful, smiling civilians, the dedicated, sympathetic leader, it's almost too beautiful. I'm starting to wonder if the Democrats are just more naturally gifted at gaining an emotional response than the GOP, at least in relation to their discordance with attacking the opponent.
"We are more secure, we are more prosperous." Clinton conveys optimism in his tone, and the text throughout only helps to buffer his claims, without being too overt. Casual, white text, "taxes cut for 15,000,000 families," (which, when I think about it, really isn't that many Americans) "Death Penalty for Drug Kingpins" (wait, what happened to Rick Ross) "$1500 tax credit for college tuition/job training," damn... it's all good baby. This video has me believing Clinton even after the fact that I know he's a dirty liar like everyone else, it's that good! "Building a bridge to the 21st century," how kodak is that?
What's funny, after watching this, is that is's almost identical to the Clinton ad. Same production techniques, same everything. However, the one difference I noticed, which actually impresses me, is Obama's segments where he looks straight into the camera and delivers his message, a technique I hadn't noticed many politicians use in decades.
Of course, I have to include an obligatory Republican ad for the same campaign...
which is terrible! Why are Republicans so bad as ad campaigns? I don't understand it. What's the point of reverting to the image of surfing over an unidentifiable marsh over and over again in a political video? IT'S POINTLESS.
This is getting super long, but I still need to include one or two videos from Part B.
Now this is actually a GOP ad that emulates Democratic techniques (see Clinton ad). This isn't anything supremely significant, but it does employ some effective textual/visual techniques. It's pure association, but do you see how easy it is to let your subconscious compare "prescription drug prices have sky-rocketed" with the cascading red line? It's almost as if that red line is official!
This obviously plays on emotion, and it's pretty damn good (Scarlett Johansson is hot!) but it doesn't really pull any political message beyond hope and change. It's code words and that's it. Yes, we can. Yes we can what???
So there you have it, I'm trying to nail down some decent blog posts and this is one of them. If you're someone in the minority of actually reading these before they're due the day after tomorrow post and tell me what you think!
I guess it's pertinent to include the first televised ad in this post, so
The first thing I noticed when we watched this in class was the unevenness of the text in the beginning of the video. "A Paid Political Announcement" is clearly at an upward right angle. Not that it's anything significant, but it does show how far our textual production techniques have changed over the years. Nowadays, people would lose there jobs if the supporting text in an ad looked less than perfect. That is to say, technology and visuals play a much bigger role in the media and political ads than they used to, almost more than the message itself.
This video is almost whimsical in its production. It's like I'm watching the Wizard of Oz. Cartoonish, innocent, upbeat, friendly, did we as Americans truly used to have such an innocent competition in politics?
Now what I see here, only four years later, involves an entirely different production technique. Although being an attack ad, the message is straightforward and to the point. The narrator addresses the public informatively and delivers the message straight to the camera, a technique rarely used by today's standards. It's interesting to note though that by 1956 the editors were already making video cuts. The "what's that again general" line along with his reiteration was surely effective in taking his message out of context.
Convention has to be one of my favorites. The disbarring audio droning involved made the video almost surreal, like watching something straight out of a Stanley Kubrick film. Combined with Hot Town in the Old Town Tonight and images referencing turmoil and tension all the while conveying an arrogant, smiling Humphrey, this ad was genius and way ahead of it viewers. Even today I don't think it could ever be properly appreciated. It's like something you would watch as a film student.
Now obviously in 1984 you see an increased production value, but only slightly. The added benefit here is that we had available to us images from space, which as far as this message is concerned, involves drawing lines from the heavens, which I think is hilarious because after that narration in the video a line proceeds to surround earth, invoking a specific location to "the heavens." If only heaven was that close...
Next
Now as much as I HATE this video, it may be because it encapsulates (I love that word) EVERYTHING in a political campaign ad that makes its message effective. I mean, it's like watching a Disney movie or something. Go ahead, watch it again, and see if you understand what I'm referring to.
First of all, no more are the still images of conveyance employed. Here, this video employs brief audio video interleaves, which basically means there's motion involved! Motion annotates realism, which adds to the relation the viewers grasp when watching the video. They feel as if they are there, or at the least, sitting in a near observable spot as to what is happening in front of there eyes.
Added to that, the serene, calming music, the hopeful, smiling civilians, the dedicated, sympathetic leader, it's almost too beautiful. I'm starting to wonder if the Democrats are just more naturally gifted at gaining an emotional response than the GOP, at least in relation to their discordance with attacking the opponent.
"We are more secure, we are more prosperous." Clinton conveys optimism in his tone, and the text throughout only helps to buffer his claims, without being too overt. Casual, white text, "taxes cut for 15,000,000 families," (which, when I think about it, really isn't that many Americans) "Death Penalty for Drug Kingpins" (wait, what happened to Rick Ross) "$1500 tax credit for college tuition/job training," damn... it's all good baby. This video has me believing Clinton even after the fact that I know he's a dirty liar like everyone else, it's that good! "Building a bridge to the 21st century," how kodak is that?
What's funny, after watching this, is that is's almost identical to the Clinton ad. Same production techniques, same everything. However, the one difference I noticed, which actually impresses me, is Obama's segments where he looks straight into the camera and delivers his message, a technique I hadn't noticed many politicians use in decades.
Of course, I have to include an obligatory Republican ad for the same campaign...
which is terrible! Why are Republicans so bad as ad campaigns? I don't understand it. What's the point of reverting to the image of surfing over an unidentifiable marsh over and over again in a political video? IT'S POINTLESS.
This is getting super long, but I still need to include one or two videos from Part B.
Now this is actually a GOP ad that emulates Democratic techniques (see Clinton ad). This isn't anything supremely significant, but it does employ some effective textual/visual techniques. It's pure association, but do you see how easy it is to let your subconscious compare "prescription drug prices have sky-rocketed" with the cascading red line? It's almost as if that red line is official!
This obviously plays on emotion, and it's pretty damn good (Scarlett Johansson is hot!) but it doesn't really pull any political message beyond hope and change. It's code words and that's it. Yes, we can. Yes we can what???
So there you have it, I'm trying to nail down some decent blog posts and this is one of them. If you're someone in the minority of actually reading these before they're due the day after tomorrow post and tell me what you think!
Obama the Celebrity
The idea to talk about this came to me after watching a football commercial on Thanksgiving. Here it is.
Ok, besides the Billy Madison edits of course, this shit is real. Now I'm all one for visual imagery, but I don't see how Obama in a slo mo iconic catching pose grasping Drew Bree's pass like he's some super star athlete instills giving our youth a bright and healthy future. I understand how the opposition may feel of me complaining: that Obama is simply serving as a fundamental figurehead to represent hope, pride, and leadership, but let me ask you this, is this commercial realistic of what the President of the United States can and should offer? I highly doubt (and cringe at the thought of being proven otherwise) that President Obama has the time or will to play kiddy football in front of the White House with the likes of Drew Brees and Adrian Peterson (mind you I didn't see Adrian in there).
Well for one, if it ever did happen, do you know how many MILLIONS of tax dollars would be raped from your and my wallet to fund this inspirational learning experience? Never mind that because we'd never be informed. Also, these kids you see running around like they've never seen a football before are actors. They all probably flew from L.A. and attend schools like Culver or Agoura Hills. Secondly, if this game did in fact happen, those in attendance would all be the sons and daughters of the Washington elite...no lie. All it would serve to accomplish is reaffirm the power of those holding the government magic stick.
Now I know this is entering the realm of cynicism, but I couldn't help but do a double take when I saw this commercial on Thanksgiving. Is Obama a politician? I'm starting to wonder if he's merely a public figurehead with strings attached attending whatever social function those controlling him behind the stage deem appropriate for coalescing the public eye.
Let us not forget other special appearances made by the O man.
Listen to this character chum about how "we're," as in, you know, the American people, the people he is supposed to represent, out of money. Yeah, no kidding. Maybe we'd have more money if it wasn't wasted on your joking about it at a baseball game.
It almost gives credence to this ridiculous commercial paid for and presented by the McCain team back around last October.
I certainly do consider my President to be of celelbrity status, don't you?
At least Robin Williams understands me.
Ok, besides the Billy Madison edits of course, this shit is real. Now I'm all one for visual imagery, but I don't see how Obama in a slo mo iconic catching pose grasping Drew Bree's pass like he's some super star athlete instills giving our youth a bright and healthy future. I understand how the opposition may feel of me complaining: that Obama is simply serving as a fundamental figurehead to represent hope, pride, and leadership, but let me ask you this, is this commercial realistic of what the President of the United States can and should offer? I highly doubt (and cringe at the thought of being proven otherwise) that President Obama has the time or will to play kiddy football in front of the White House with the likes of Drew Brees and Adrian Peterson (mind you I didn't see Adrian in there).
Well for one, if it ever did happen, do you know how many MILLIONS of tax dollars would be raped from your and my wallet to fund this inspirational learning experience? Never mind that because we'd never be informed. Also, these kids you see running around like they've never seen a football before are actors. They all probably flew from L.A. and attend schools like Culver or Agoura Hills. Secondly, if this game did in fact happen, those in attendance would all be the sons and daughters of the Washington elite...no lie. All it would serve to accomplish is reaffirm the power of those holding the government magic stick.
Now I know this is entering the realm of cynicism, but I couldn't help but do a double take when I saw this commercial on Thanksgiving. Is Obama a politician? I'm starting to wonder if he's merely a public figurehead with strings attached attending whatever social function those controlling him behind the stage deem appropriate for coalescing the public eye.
Let us not forget other special appearances made by the O man.
Listen to this character chum about how "we're," as in, you know, the American people, the people he is supposed to represent, out of money. Yeah, no kidding. Maybe we'd have more money if it wasn't wasted on your joking about it at a baseball game.
It almost gives credence to this ridiculous commercial paid for and presented by the McCain team back around last October.
I certainly do consider my President to be of celelbrity status, don't you?
At least Robin Williams understands me.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Public sentiments about Palin
*UPDATE*
Great montage video surmising the media's reaction to Palin's book
Ouch.
*UPDATE*
I'm not going to lie, it's been really hard for me to get back in the groove of blog posting. There's a vast array of political punditry and ground-breaking stories to write about...but so many of them I find myself strained to cover simply because they do not interest me.
Still, I've got a lot of catching up to do in the next couple of days so I might as well give it a shot.
What caught my eye early today was reflected from the Sentinel, Kennesaw's official student newspaper. The story, which can be accessed here:
http://ksusentinel.com/op-ed/throwing-palin-overboard/
focuses on Sarah Palin, specifically, her lasting appeal despite her obvious shortcomings as a politician. Thanks to media and public intrigue, Sarah Palin has more or less entered into what many would call a celebrity status.
As Matthew Cole states, "I guess it’s the maverick appeal that causes so many voters to close their eyes to obvious shortcomings in a candidate." I would certainly hope so, because I can't think of any logical explanation that would warrant the release of her (not so) new book "Going Rogue" other than maybe a purely capitalistic expenditure.
Palin, for whatever reason, has flair, and her supporters are acting on it. Never mind the fact that she has shit for brains, shows like Saturday Night Live gave her 15 minutes that lasted way longer than 15 minutes. She's in the light for good, for better or for worse. But to think that Sarah Palin could have actually at some point been appointed President of the United States scares me. This is a woman whose merchandise competes with Playboy and Hustler.
Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!
Cole, the author of the article, tries to reason why her "intellectual fumbles" garner more support, and I hypothesize it to being that many conservative male politicians, probably including McCain himself, as well as many of the public, view/ed her as a sex symbol that embodies an overwhelmingly iconic image of the successful, subordinate, old-fashioned American female (more closely of family/maternal relations). Of course no one will come out flatly and say it, but I firmly hold the notion that Palin's VP position was merely a symbolic ploy that subliminally played on human emotions. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but I sincerely doubt I'm totally off.
Surely it can't be because of her political genius, right?
OH MY GOD. I mean, is it possible to watch those interviews without cringing? Even I could have answered those questions more specifically than her. I almost feel sorry for her!
Almost, mind you. Because you see, Sarah Palin rules. She is smoking hot for her age. She's had a lot of kids and still looks great, not to mention she's made a successful career for herself, and she's a woman for that matter. But that's where it ends. The GOP is seriously considering Palin for 2012 election and that is insane. Has the Republican leadership stooped that low? I'm obviously not making any helpful contributions with this post but where are the Republicans headed? And where are their heads at? Give Palin the boot!
Great montage video surmising the media's reaction to Palin's book
Ouch.
*UPDATE*
I'm not going to lie, it's been really hard for me to get back in the groove of blog posting. There's a vast array of political punditry and ground-breaking stories to write about...but so many of them I find myself strained to cover simply because they do not interest me.
Still, I've got a lot of catching up to do in the next couple of days so I might as well give it a shot.
What caught my eye early today was reflected from the Sentinel, Kennesaw's official student newspaper. The story, which can be accessed here:
http://ksusentinel.com/op-ed/throwing-palin-overboard/
focuses on Sarah Palin, specifically, her lasting appeal despite her obvious shortcomings as a politician. Thanks to media and public intrigue, Sarah Palin has more or less entered into what many would call a celebrity status.
As Matthew Cole states, "I guess it’s the maverick appeal that causes so many voters to close their eyes to obvious shortcomings in a candidate." I would certainly hope so, because I can't think of any logical explanation that would warrant the release of her (not so) new book "Going Rogue" other than maybe a purely capitalistic expenditure.
Palin, for whatever reason, has flair, and her supporters are acting on it. Never mind the fact that she has shit for brains, shows like Saturday Night Live gave her 15 minutes that lasted way longer than 15 minutes. She's in the light for good, for better or for worse. But to think that Sarah Palin could have actually at some point been appointed President of the United States scares me. This is a woman whose merchandise competes with Playboy and Hustler.
Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!Cole, the author of the article, tries to reason why her "intellectual fumbles" garner more support, and I hypothesize it to being that many conservative male politicians, probably including McCain himself, as well as many of the public, view/ed her as a sex symbol that embodies an overwhelmingly iconic image of the successful, subordinate, old-fashioned American female (more closely of family/maternal relations). Of course no one will come out flatly and say it, but I firmly hold the notion that Palin's VP position was merely a symbolic ploy that subliminally played on human emotions. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but I sincerely doubt I'm totally off.
Surely it can't be because of her political genius, right?
OH MY GOD. I mean, is it possible to watch those interviews without cringing? Even I could have answered those questions more specifically than her. I almost feel sorry for her!
Almost, mind you. Because you see, Sarah Palin rules. She is smoking hot for her age. She's had a lot of kids and still looks great, not to mention she's made a successful career for herself, and she's a woman for that matter. But that's where it ends. The GOP is seriously considering Palin for 2012 election and that is insane. Has the Republican leadership stooped that low? I'm obviously not making any helpful contributions with this post but where are the Republicans headed? And where are their heads at? Give Palin the boot!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Jay Rosen's "He Said/she said"
I'd like to take a look at our Week 4 required reading, "He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User," written by Jay Rosen. The tagline prompts,
"Any good blogger, competing journalist or alert press critic can spot and publicize false balance and the lame acceptance of fact-free spin. Do users really want to be left helpless in sorting out who's faking it more? The he said, she said form says they do, but I say decline has set in."
A decline should seem to be setting in, since the "means for assessment do exist," (Rosen 2009, 1) a notable one being the internet, but I feel there will always remain stories that contain he said/she said reporting.
In the article, Ryan Chittum, a columnist for the Columbia Journalism Review is quoted, "I understand the instinct to just report the news, but readers deserve better context."
Rosen contemplates based on statements such as these that press criticism lives, thanks to Twitter, though quite facetiously.
The ability for bloggers to fully respond, communicate, and even critique the published stories they're presented with seems to influence authors to more aggressively pursue their reporting in a more analytical way, however I feel that these stories will still rely on the reader to decide what is truth. Their stories may provide better background context for each arguing side, but I doubt they will directly come out and say which side is lying.
Before I continued to read the article, I hypothesized that the reason why he said/she said reporting still exists is because reporters either don't know who's at fault or don't want to risk stepping on anyone's toes by pointing the finger.
Rosen argues that the tactic is useful for meeting deadlines, and that it's a low cost (economically, and politically, I would assume) way of going beyond the report itself.
He states, "journalists [erroneously] associate the middle with truth" (that is, taking neither side, acting neutral) because it's the safest spot to seek refuge from attack or blame.
Paul Taylor describes the journalistic middle as "the halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone."
I agree that he said/she said journalism is like ""taking a pass" on the tougher calls (like who's blowing more smoke)" and "is economical," (Rosen 2009, 4) and risk reducing.
I also agree with the statement that "the halfway point is a miserable guideline but it can still sound pretty good when you are trying to advertise to all that you have no skin in the game." (Rosen 2009, 4) It basically eliminates any responsibility for the publishers, that they can't be held accountable for reporting it because they merely cited what others said. But it leaves readers to make their own conclusions.
Rosen has a lot of good points in his article, and this is just one of many:
The candidate makes a statement. You write it down, then you call the other side for a response. It’s one of journalism’s fundamentals. Tell us what he said, tell us what she said, and you’re covered, right?
Well, no. Given the amount of spin this election year, the old rules don’t apply any more. Campaign Desk herewith proposes a new ground rule: “He said/she said/we said.”
Isn't that how it should be? News makers instead of just reporting the story should react to it and deduct some kind of truth; sniff out the finger-pointing and reveal who they know is lying. But of course this doesn't nearly happen often enough, for fear of backlash and credibility.
"Call it like they see it is, in fact, a successor principle but this means that AP reporters are now involved in acts of political judgment that can easily go awry." (Rosen 2009, 5) (hence, backlash)
As Rosen concludes, "with a variety of Internet research tools readily at hand, it has never been easier for reporters to draw an independent assessment on any given day of who is right, who is wrong, and in what way." I argue it's the fear of being held accountable for those assertions, however, that holds them (the reporters) back.
"Any good blogger, competing journalist or alert press critic can spot and publicize false balance and the lame acceptance of fact-free spin. Do users really want to be left helpless in sorting out who's faking it more? The he said, she said form says they do, but I say decline has set in."
A decline should seem to be setting in, since the "means for assessment do exist," (Rosen 2009, 1) a notable one being the internet, but I feel there will always remain stories that contain he said/she said reporting.
In the article, Ryan Chittum, a columnist for the Columbia Journalism Review is quoted, "I understand the instinct to just report the news, but readers deserve better context."
Rosen contemplates based on statements such as these that press criticism lives, thanks to Twitter, though quite facetiously.
The ability for bloggers to fully respond, communicate, and even critique the published stories they're presented with seems to influence authors to more aggressively pursue their reporting in a more analytical way, however I feel that these stories will still rely on the reader to decide what is truth. Their stories may provide better background context for each arguing side, but I doubt they will directly come out and say which side is lying.
Before I continued to read the article, I hypothesized that the reason why he said/she said reporting still exists is because reporters either don't know who's at fault or don't want to risk stepping on anyone's toes by pointing the finger.
Rosen argues that the tactic is useful for meeting deadlines, and that it's a low cost (economically, and politically, I would assume) way of going beyond the report itself.
He states, "journalists [erroneously] associate the middle with truth" (that is, taking neither side, acting neutral) because it's the safest spot to seek refuge from attack or blame.
Paul Taylor describes the journalistic middle as "the halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone."
I agree that he said/she said journalism is like ""taking a pass" on the tougher calls (like who's blowing more smoke)" and "is economical," (Rosen 2009, 4) and risk reducing.
I also agree with the statement that "the halfway point is a miserable guideline but it can still sound pretty good when you are trying to advertise to all that you have no skin in the game." (Rosen 2009, 4) It basically eliminates any responsibility for the publishers, that they can't be held accountable for reporting it because they merely cited what others said. But it leaves readers to make their own conclusions.
Rosen has a lot of good points in his article, and this is just one of many:
The candidate makes a statement. You write it down, then you call the other side for a response. It’s one of journalism’s fundamentals. Tell us what he said, tell us what she said, and you’re covered, right?
Well, no. Given the amount of spin this election year, the old rules don’t apply any more. Campaign Desk herewith proposes a new ground rule: “He said/she said/we said.”
Isn't that how it should be? News makers instead of just reporting the story should react to it and deduct some kind of truth; sniff out the finger-pointing and reveal who they know is lying. But of course this doesn't nearly happen often enough, for fear of backlash and credibility.
"Call it like they see it is, in fact, a successor principle but this means that AP reporters are now involved in acts of political judgment that can easily go awry." (Rosen 2009, 5) (hence, backlash)
As Rosen concludes, "with a variety of Internet research tools readily at hand, it has never been easier for reporters to draw an independent assessment on any given day of who is right, who is wrong, and in what way." I argue it's the fear of being held accountable for those assertions, however, that holds them (the reporters) back.
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Presidential Healthcare Speech
I wanted to crank this out earlier but with work and school I found myself constrained. Regardless, like many others on Wednesday I tuned in to the President's public speech on healthcare reform.
The first thing I noticed when I turned on my television was the fact that the speech hadn't started and it was already 8:05 P.M. It was reported that the President was running a little bit behind schedule, which I found slightly amusing because I'm immature.
At around 8:15 the President took to the podium and was still receiving an enormous applause. It lasted so long that Obama eventually had to stifle his overt thank you's (he must have said this 20 times in one minute) and urge the crowd to be seated.
The beginning of his speech was a remark about last winter, reminding everyone the state of economic depression we were in, that "we are by no means out of the woods," but that we are on the turnaround. Thanks to homeowners and businesses alike, we have apparently pulled this economy back from the brink.
With the tone set, Obama introduced his primary future building vehicle: healthcare reform. Although not the first to take up such a cause, President Obama stated that he intends to be the last. He expanded upon that fact that in the 100+ years since President Roosevelt called for healthcare reform, through our collective failure, we have continued to place hardships on the uninsured to the point of bankruptcy. The middle class can't get coverage, others can't find it; we are the only wealthy nation that allows such hardships, with over 30 million uninsured according to Obama.
It's not just the uninsured that face problems however. Those with insurance still have very low stability, the audience is told. Insurance companies provide poor treatment for coverage, the costs of healthcare are rising, which is even affecting our business sector. The President told of entrepreneurs stalling to open new businesses because they can't afford proper coverage. He stated that healthcare taxes heavily on programs like Medicare and Medicaid, that "healthcare IS our deficit problem."
Perhaps as rhetorical lead-in the President then asked: how do we reform the system. He noted that on the far Left, there's a single payer system, with the government paying for everyone, and on the Right, the idea is to have the individual pay for coverage on their own. It seems that the President agrees with neither entirely, but would rather build upon what works and fix what doesn't rather than start an entirely new system from scratch. Obama implied the urgency on this cooperation, that the time for bickering is over.
He then provided 3 basic goals:
Security and stability of the insured
Security and stability of the uninsured
To slow the growth of healthcare costs
For the first goal, that of the insured, the President made several points.
1. Those who have insurance won't have to change anything on what they already have.
2. It will be illegal for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.
3. It will be illegal to for them to drop your coverage when you get sick.
4. There will be no arbitrary camp on the amount of coverage one can receive.
5. There will be a limit placed on how much companies can charge the individual out of pocket.
6. Required routine checkups.
Now for the second, his talking points weren't as regimented, but I got a few:
1. There will be an insurance exchange created for those seeking coverage if they lose or change jobs. Companies will be able to sell and compete for new customers (that in my opinion, they probably don't want) in an open marketplace.
2. For those who still can't afford lower-priced insurance, they will be provided with tax options, which will take 4 years to go into full effect. But those with low-cost coverage and preexisting conditions will have coverage that goes into effect immediately. (Obama cites McCain here and agrees it's a good idea)
3. People will be required to carry proof of healthcare, like a driver's license.
The President then remarked that he understands many are still nervous over reform. He noted that reform efforts will be made to insure illegal immigrants do not get coverage, to which someone in the audience shouts, "Lie!" which I found completely and utterly hilarious, if anything just for the reaction on Nancy Pelosi's face. Obama looked pretty nervous when this happened too, confiding that it's "not true, it's not true."
The President continued by stating "consumers do better when there is choice and competition." Wall street's relentless profit expectations makes companies want to drop the sick in order to better a profit, and the President wants to hold them accountable. He expounded on the possibility of a non-profit public option in the insurance exchange which will only deal with the uninsured.
His driving idea behind reform as stated in the speech is to kill abuse and make insurance affordable, with the public option serving as a "means to an end." He encouraged the Republicans to continue to address any concerns they have, but only in a solution oriented way. He apparently will not tolerate those whose goals are simply to kill the bill at any cost. The President also noted he will not back down on his notion that "if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice, and that no government bureaucrat will get between you and the insurance you need."
Obama concluded that he will not sign a plan which adds to the deficit, "now or in the future, period." He noted that this will all be afforded by the fact that he plans to find savings within the existing healthcare system, referencing that many things in these programs aren't making us any healthier, including Medicare and Medicaid, and are wasting money. He wants to eliminate the waste and fraud and make medicine more efficient. Another reform measure the President wants to enact includes placing a fee on insurance companies' most expensive policies. Finally, the President spoke of malpractice reform, that defensive medicine contribute to unnecessary costs (a point a which the Republicans in attendance finally stood and gave their applause).
How much can we expect this to cost? 900 billion over 10 years. Sounds low to me.
The first thing I noticed when I turned on my television was the fact that the speech hadn't started and it was already 8:05 P.M. It was reported that the President was running a little bit behind schedule, which I found slightly amusing because I'm immature.
At around 8:15 the President took to the podium and was still receiving an enormous applause. It lasted so long that Obama eventually had to stifle his overt thank you's (he must have said this 20 times in one minute) and urge the crowd to be seated.
The beginning of his speech was a remark about last winter, reminding everyone the state of economic depression we were in, that "we are by no means out of the woods," but that we are on the turnaround. Thanks to homeowners and businesses alike, we have apparently pulled this economy back from the brink.
With the tone set, Obama introduced his primary future building vehicle: healthcare reform. Although not the first to take up such a cause, President Obama stated that he intends to be the last. He expanded upon that fact that in the 100+ years since President Roosevelt called for healthcare reform, through our collective failure, we have continued to place hardships on the uninsured to the point of bankruptcy. The middle class can't get coverage, others can't find it; we are the only wealthy nation that allows such hardships, with over 30 million uninsured according to Obama.
It's not just the uninsured that face problems however. Those with insurance still have very low stability, the audience is told. Insurance companies provide poor treatment for coverage, the costs of healthcare are rising, which is even affecting our business sector. The President told of entrepreneurs stalling to open new businesses because they can't afford proper coverage. He stated that healthcare taxes heavily on programs like Medicare and Medicaid, that "healthcare IS our deficit problem."
Perhaps as rhetorical lead-in the President then asked: how do we reform the system. He noted that on the far Left, there's a single payer system, with the government paying for everyone, and on the Right, the idea is to have the individual pay for coverage on their own. It seems that the President agrees with neither entirely, but would rather build upon what works and fix what doesn't rather than start an entirely new system from scratch. Obama implied the urgency on this cooperation, that the time for bickering is over.
He then provided 3 basic goals:
Security and stability of the insured
Security and stability of the uninsured
To slow the growth of healthcare costs
For the first goal, that of the insured, the President made several points.
1. Those who have insurance won't have to change anything on what they already have.
2. It will be illegal for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.
3. It will be illegal to for them to drop your coverage when you get sick.
4. There will be no arbitrary camp on the amount of coverage one can receive.
5. There will be a limit placed on how much companies can charge the individual out of pocket.
6. Required routine checkups.
Now for the second, his talking points weren't as regimented, but I got a few:
1. There will be an insurance exchange created for those seeking coverage if they lose or change jobs. Companies will be able to sell and compete for new customers (that in my opinion, they probably don't want) in an open marketplace.
2. For those who still can't afford lower-priced insurance, they will be provided with tax options, which will take 4 years to go into full effect. But those with low-cost coverage and preexisting conditions will have coverage that goes into effect immediately. (Obama cites McCain here and agrees it's a good idea)
3. People will be required to carry proof of healthcare, like a driver's license.
The President then remarked that he understands many are still nervous over reform. He noted that reform efforts will be made to insure illegal immigrants do not get coverage, to which someone in the audience shouts, "Lie!" which I found completely and utterly hilarious, if anything just for the reaction on Nancy Pelosi's face. Obama looked pretty nervous when this happened too, confiding that it's "not true, it's not true."
The President continued by stating "consumers do better when there is choice and competition." Wall street's relentless profit expectations makes companies want to drop the sick in order to better a profit, and the President wants to hold them accountable. He expounded on the possibility of a non-profit public option in the insurance exchange which will only deal with the uninsured.
His driving idea behind reform as stated in the speech is to kill abuse and make insurance affordable, with the public option serving as a "means to an end." He encouraged the Republicans to continue to address any concerns they have, but only in a solution oriented way. He apparently will not tolerate those whose goals are simply to kill the bill at any cost. The President also noted he will not back down on his notion that "if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice, and that no government bureaucrat will get between you and the insurance you need."
Obama concluded that he will not sign a plan which adds to the deficit, "now or in the future, period." He noted that this will all be afforded by the fact that he plans to find savings within the existing healthcare system, referencing that many things in these programs aren't making us any healthier, including Medicare and Medicaid, and are wasting money. He wants to eliminate the waste and fraud and make medicine more efficient. Another reform measure the President wants to enact includes placing a fee on insurance companies' most expensive policies. Finally, the President spoke of malpractice reform, that defensive medicine contribute to unnecessary costs (a point a which the Republicans in attendance finally stood and gave their applause).
How much can we expect this to cost? 900 billion over 10 years. Sounds low to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)