The US and Iraqi parliament have been debating on whether a joint US-Iraq Security Pact should be signed by December 31, when the UN mandate governing troops in Iraq expires.
Here is a run down of the 24 page pact:
Article 4: All military operations undertaken in Iraq must be conducted with the agreement of the Iraqi government and should be "fully coordinated" with Iraqi authorities through a joint U.S.-Iraqi committee. However, U.S. and Iraqi forces have the right to "legitimate self defence within Iraq" as defined by international law.
Article 12: Iraq will have the right to prosecute U.S. troops and associated civilians for "grave premeditated felonies" committed "outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status." Should they be arrested however, they must be handed over to U.S. custody for the duration of the investigation and trial, and U.S. forces are responsible for certifying whether the alleged crime took place while the individual was on "duty status."
No such immunity is extended to private security contractors, over whom the agreement grants Iraq the "primary right to exercise jurisdiction."
Article 15: The U.S. military must present Iraqi authorities with a list of all items being imported for the use of the troops or U.S. security contractors.
Iraqi authorities have the right to request that U.S. forces "open in their presence any container in which such items are being imported in order to verify its contents." But Iraq must "honor the security requirements" of U.S. troops and, if requested, conduct the inspections in U.S. facilities.
This does not extend to parcels imported by civilians or to U.S. mail, which will be "exempt from inspection, search, and seizure by Iraqi authorities, except for non-official mail that may be subject to electronic observation."
Article 22: U.S. forces cannot detain anyone, except for its own Soldiers and associated civilians, without Iraqi permission, and all detainees must be handed over to Iraqi authorities within 24 hours of their detention.
Once the agreement enters into force the U.S. military will turn over all the information it has on detainees being held in Iraq. Iraqi judges will then issue arrest warrants for those they suspect have committed crimes and they will be transferred to Iraqi custody. All other detainees will be released in a "safe and orderly manner," unless otherwise requested by the Iraqi government.
The agreement allows Iraqi authorities to "request assistance" from the United States in arresting or detaining wanted individuals.
U.S. forces will not be allowed to search houses or other "real-estate properties" without an Iraqi search warrant and "full coordination" with the Iraqi government, except in combat situations.
Article 24: All U.S. forces must withdraw from Iraqi territory no later than Dec. 31, 2011. The pact itself also expires at the end of that day.
All U.S. combat forces will withdraw from "Iraqi cities, villages, and localities" once Iraqi security forces assume "full responsibility for security" -- but no later than June 30, 2009.
Iraq can demand that all U.S. forces withdraw at any time, and the United States can unilaterally withdraw the troops at any time.
Article 26: Regarding Iraq's finances, the agreement recognizes the protections granted to the Development Fund of Iraq by an executive order from the U.S. president that prevents the funds from being awarded to anyone who files lawsuits against Iraq. The agreement says the United States will "remain fully and actively engaged" with the Iraqi government with respect to the continuation of the protections.
The United States also commits to helping Iraq secure an extension of UN Security Council protections granted to petroleum and natural gas revenues.
Article 27: "Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as a launching pad or transit point for attacks against other countries."
Article 30: The agreement is effective for three years, but can be terminated by either party with one year's written notice.
The agreement can be amended "only with the official agreement of the parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries."
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Journalists and the media as a whole have independently assumed the role as “gate-keepers” (according to Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy). Yet strangely enough, for the most part, Americans have let the media outlets of the world attain this position of power. The influence of the media has evolved greatly over the years, but consequently with this evolution costs are almost as readily apparent as the benefits. Media, although it tries to remain unbiased, generally creates a fissure between the American people. As the proverb goes, “There are always two sides to a story,” and in many peoples’ opinions, one news source cannot effectively report both sides. Furthermore when this issue is compounded by the new waves of journalist who Sander Vanocur, a veteran ABC colleague, says express “the quality of the avenging angel” (Sabato, 575) and are too dominated by their own personal agendas, the democratic nature of the American people begins to scream. The opinions and the editorial pieces of the Joe Six-packs of the world need to be heard to…don’t they? Some people think that they do and therefore bloggomania has ensued. Whether or not you want to tune into what some (such as Boston Globe’s Alex Beam) refer to as “Blogistan, the Internet-based journalistic medium where no thought goes unpublished, no long-out-of-print book goes unhawked, and no fellow ‘blogger,’ no matter how outré, goes un-praised,” (Anderson, 602) (I just love the irony of bashing blogging while I’m writing a blog myself) or what others feel is the only medium of responsible journalism, blogs are quickly becoming the preferred mode of media in the United States. But even blogs have their own fair share of adverse effects. What I’m trying to get at is that media is an entirely flawed entity floating amidst the people of America. It has its occasional moments of brilliance and usefulness such as during the Watergate Scandal, yet additional successes of the media since that historic event have been few and far between, causing more turmoil than benefit. A trend seems to have been developed over the past thirty years, a trend which will be very interesting to research and see if it repeats itself. This cycle of which I speak is thus: an unbelievable triumph of media occurs (i.e. Watergate), attempted emulation of such a success fails miserably, failures continue to manifest themselves, then the common people need to resort to alternate forums for their unbiased information, the effect of entirely unbiased and unchallenged information isolates select Americans, finally resulting in a re-emergence of quality national media and the cycle that follows.
Katherine Graham was the owner of the iconic Washington Post newspaper. Her continued fame has been the result of her paper’s unwavering pursuit in uncovering what Graham believed to be “an unprecedented effort to subvert the political process. (Something she describes as) a pervasive, indiscriminate use of power and authority from an administration with a passion for secrecy and deception and an astounding lack of regard for the normal constraints of democratic politics.” (Graham, 571) This “something” was the Watergate scandal, and (pardon my French) but that is one hell of an accusation. It was this brooding intensity that propelled the staff of the Post, specifically the two young, budding journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, to pursue the story with an unprecedented passion. Yet, as Graham describes, even with the paper upholding strict guidelines such as, “every bit of information attributed to an unnamed source had to be supported by at least one other, independent source,” (Graham, 565) people including a pretty important one, the President and his entire staff, still were pissed off. Attorney General John Mitchell was even quoted saying, “JEEEEEESUS…All that crap, you’re putting it in the paper?” (Graham, 564). The staff of the Washington Post persisted through various threats and subpoenas and with firm emphasis on accuracy; they published a series stories, clearly incriminating multiple White House representatives, which were so widely read that “people actually began waiting in the alley outside (the) building for the first edition of the paper,” (Graham, 569). This was the pinnacle of investigatory journalism. Woodward and Bernstein provided the foundation for a new breed of journalists: young and ruthless reporters who would go to far-reaching limits to turn a story. The interesting problem though is this: most situations since Watergate haven’t called for such qualities of in-your-face journalism. You see, the issue was (as Graham said) “the role of luck was essential in Watergate,” (Graham, 573). I find it difficult to ever declare the word “essential” an understatement, but this is one scenario in which I can make such an assertion. Luck was utterly vital and incomprehensibly available to The Washington Post in regards to Watergate. It was if God himself handcrafted the Watergate Scandal, placed it upon a golden platter and served it to The Washington Post for dinner (with a side of potatoes-why…I don’t know). I’m not trying to downplay the great amount of effort Bernstein and Woodward went through to turn the story but seriously they were unbelievably lucky. Literally a million different scenarios went the right way for the newspaper staff, beginning with the guard discovering the taped door at the Watergate building, the police sending an undercover cop car that was miraculously in the area, and listless more occurrences. Watergate was a rare glimpse of seamless media coverage by one agency, yet those who tried to emulate reporters such as Bernstein and Woodward failed to recognize the amazing amount of luck required for the “perfect story”, so this new breed of reporters attempted to turn out the same stories but they lacked all the content and accuracy of the Watergate stories, resulting in a phase Larry Sabato has termed the “Feeding Frenzy.”
Sabato has compared this new wave of journalists looking to land a Hollywood documentary (such as Bernstein and Woodward) to frenzied fools. Frenzy describes “some kind of disorderly, compulsive, or agitated activity that is muscular and instinctive, not cerebral and thoughtful,” (Sabato, 576) and, when applied to journalists, it critiques the fact that the press “has become obsessed with gossip rather than governance” (Sabato, 576). Basically, journalists enter a violent and aggressive mode in order to track down the most interesting and controversial, yet generally irrelevant stories. This mentality of “If it bleeds try to kill it” (Sabato, 577), in our “brave new world of omnipresent journalism” (Sabato, 577) has debased our journalists into to sharks who become so overwhelmed by the “kill” that the lose sight of all their inhibitions. The result of such maverick reporting exhibits a sad truth. Some of the people most qualified for leadership positions in the government simply do not run because of the prospect of getting torn apart by the media for any previous miss-steps. Furthermore, since the media has adopted the position of “gate-keeper”, the American public becomes restricted by these unfounded stories to the point that they don’t even realize the news they are listening to is completely irrelevant. In efforts to reverse this trend, we have become oh so fond of the blog.
Blogs provide the medium appropriate for all kinds of thoughts in any way, shape, or form. It is the mystery meat of the lunchroom—anything and everything is mashed together all in one place, the internet. The issues and opinions not so evident in the national media are readily abundant in many of the millions of blogs that exist today. But some people such as legal theorist Cass Sunstein believe the political blog-sites could lead to a “cyber-balkanization” (Anderson, 603). This means that since people can customize their own communications, they might only read the news that they care about. Conversely, some argue that this idea of “virtual cocooning” is irrelevant because the primary purpose of blogs is criticizing the opposing thoughts of others. This argument isn’t completely sound, though, because although people might see opposing viewpoints on some issues, they may avoid entire other issues that aren’t appealing, making the bloggers uninformed.
Media is a flawed necessity. We need it, but it can never fully fit our needs. Something will always be left out, some opinions will always overpower others, and the personal customization of news will always leave us ignorant. The Watergate scandal set a precedent for investigatory journalism when a precedent shouldn’t have been set. Instead the work of The Washington Post should have just been admired for what it was: a lot of skill, but even more luck. We can’t control luck; therefore we cannot control good stories, so all we are left with only the continuing cycle of unjust media reports and unsatisfied needs.
Katherine Graham was the owner of the iconic Washington Post newspaper. Her continued fame has been the result of her paper’s unwavering pursuit in uncovering what Graham believed to be “an unprecedented effort to subvert the political process. (Something she describes as) a pervasive, indiscriminate use of power and authority from an administration with a passion for secrecy and deception and an astounding lack of regard for the normal constraints of democratic politics.” (Graham, 571) This “something” was the Watergate scandal, and (pardon my French) but that is one hell of an accusation. It was this brooding intensity that propelled the staff of the Post, specifically the two young, budding journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, to pursue the story with an unprecedented passion. Yet, as Graham describes, even with the paper upholding strict guidelines such as, “every bit of information attributed to an unnamed source had to be supported by at least one other, independent source,” (Graham, 565) people including a pretty important one, the President and his entire staff, still were pissed off. Attorney General John Mitchell was even quoted saying, “JEEEEEESUS…All that crap, you’re putting it in the paper?” (Graham, 564). The staff of the Washington Post persisted through various threats and subpoenas and with firm emphasis on accuracy; they published a series stories, clearly incriminating multiple White House representatives, which were so widely read that “people actually began waiting in the alley outside (the) building for the first edition of the paper,” (Graham, 569). This was the pinnacle of investigatory journalism. Woodward and Bernstein provided the foundation for a new breed of journalists: young and ruthless reporters who would go to far-reaching limits to turn a story. The interesting problem though is this: most situations since Watergate haven’t called for such qualities of in-your-face journalism. You see, the issue was (as Graham said) “the role of luck was essential in Watergate,” (Graham, 573). I find it difficult to ever declare the word “essential” an understatement, but this is one scenario in which I can make such an assertion. Luck was utterly vital and incomprehensibly available to The Washington Post in regards to Watergate. It was if God himself handcrafted the Watergate Scandal, placed it upon a golden platter and served it to The Washington Post for dinner (with a side of potatoes-why…I don’t know). I’m not trying to downplay the great amount of effort Bernstein and Woodward went through to turn the story but seriously they were unbelievably lucky. Literally a million different scenarios went the right way for the newspaper staff, beginning with the guard discovering the taped door at the Watergate building, the police sending an undercover cop car that was miraculously in the area, and listless more occurrences. Watergate was a rare glimpse of seamless media coverage by one agency, yet those who tried to emulate reporters such as Bernstein and Woodward failed to recognize the amazing amount of luck required for the “perfect story”, so this new breed of reporters attempted to turn out the same stories but they lacked all the content and accuracy of the Watergate stories, resulting in a phase Larry Sabato has termed the “Feeding Frenzy.”
Sabato has compared this new wave of journalists looking to land a Hollywood documentary (such as Bernstein and Woodward) to frenzied fools. Frenzy describes “some kind of disorderly, compulsive, or agitated activity that is muscular and instinctive, not cerebral and thoughtful,” (Sabato, 576) and, when applied to journalists, it critiques the fact that the press “has become obsessed with gossip rather than governance” (Sabato, 576). Basically, journalists enter a violent and aggressive mode in order to track down the most interesting and controversial, yet generally irrelevant stories. This mentality of “If it bleeds try to kill it” (Sabato, 577), in our “brave new world of omnipresent journalism” (Sabato, 577) has debased our journalists into to sharks who become so overwhelmed by the “kill” that the lose sight of all their inhibitions. The result of such maverick reporting exhibits a sad truth. Some of the people most qualified for leadership positions in the government simply do not run because of the prospect of getting torn apart by the media for any previous miss-steps. Furthermore, since the media has adopted the position of “gate-keeper”, the American public becomes restricted by these unfounded stories to the point that they don’t even realize the news they are listening to is completely irrelevant. In efforts to reverse this trend, we have become oh so fond of the blog.
Blogs provide the medium appropriate for all kinds of thoughts in any way, shape, or form. It is the mystery meat of the lunchroom—anything and everything is mashed together all in one place, the internet. The issues and opinions not so evident in the national media are readily abundant in many of the millions of blogs that exist today. But some people such as legal theorist Cass Sunstein believe the political blog-sites could lead to a “cyber-balkanization” (Anderson, 603). This means that since people can customize their own communications, they might only read the news that they care about. Conversely, some argue that this idea of “virtual cocooning” is irrelevant because the primary purpose of blogs is criticizing the opposing thoughts of others. This argument isn’t completely sound, though, because although people might see opposing viewpoints on some issues, they may avoid entire other issues that aren’t appealing, making the bloggers uninformed.
Media is a flawed necessity. We need it, but it can never fully fit our needs. Something will always be left out, some opinions will always overpower others, and the personal customization of news will always leave us ignorant. The Watergate scandal set a precedent for investigatory journalism when a precedent shouldn’t have been set. Instead the work of The Washington Post should have just been admired for what it was: a lot of skill, but even more luck. We can’t control luck; therefore we cannot control good stories, so all we are left with only the continuing cycle of unjust media reports and unsatisfied needs.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
A New Transition in Media and its Influence
The transition in the style in which new is presented through the media has changed its influence and involvement in politics. Beginning with the dramatic news coverage of the Watergate Scandal, led by the Washing Post, and continuing through the internet citizen-blogging phenomenon that sprung out of the turn of the century, the publishing voice has morphed into an information free-for-all in which the journalist becomes the “gatekeeper” (as mentioned in Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy) for politicians and the young, internet-browser becomes a publisher.
Katharine Graham, the owner and publisher of the Washington Post during Watergate, in her Personal History, recounts what became the launch of a new wave for journalistic media. As Graham guides her reader through the edge-of-the-seat story of her two young and ambitious reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, from their pairing and coverage of the break-in trial all the way through President Nixon’s resignation, two qualities of the Post’s news coverage ring with importance: the required confirmation of sources and information and the ultimate influence the press acquired through such a publicized investigation.
Graham was adamant in that “the role of the Post in all of this [Watergate Scandal] was simply to report the news” (Graham, 571). She knew that any misinformation would discredit both the paper and her reporters. The staff of the Post took a big chance investigating the case so deeply, especially with their growing enemies empowered by government, so it was vital to the paper that their news was accurate. For this reason, Graham instituted the “two-sources” policy where by checking every bit of information with at least a second source before it was printed the reporting team “handle[d] the story with more than the usual scrupulous attention to fairness and detail” (Graham, 565). The stories produced, although contradictory, were reliable, and became what Harry Rosenfeld described as “the longest-running newspaper stories with the least amount of errors that I have ever experienced or will ever experience” (Graham, 566). The accurate approach to reporting brought about a wave of new age, investigative journalism, and it also brought a strengthened voice to the media.
The growing influence of the press in politics in Graham’s experience with Watergate is represented through both the demand for the paper and the threats from the government. The Post’s continuous articles and investigation of Watergate were confirmed with the discovery of President Nixon’s tapes. As soon as people were convinced of the paper’s credibility, its popular influence sky-rocketed: “After the discovery of the tapes, people actually began waiting the alley outside our building for the first edition of the paper, giving additional meaning to the phrase ‘hot off the presses’” (Graham, 569). The more convincing evidence of the press’s ultimate influence in politics, however, is portrayed through threats from government officials. First, Nixon made threats against the Post itself: “It’s going to have its problems…the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one. They have a television station…and they’re going to have to get it renewed…the game has to be played awfully rough” (Graham, 565). Then, the Attorney General at the time, John Mitchell, was on the phone with reporter Bernstein and physically threatened Katharine Graham, blaming her for the printings on Watergate: “All that crap you’re putting in the paper? It’s all been denied, Katie Graham’s gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that’s published. Good Christ!” (Graham, 564). The new and increasing influence of the press hanging over the shoulder of politicians that was ignited by the coverage of Watergate is represented in Graham’s increased fear for her paper. She remarks, “I’d lived with White House anger before, but I had never seen anything remotely like the kind of fury and heat I was feeling targeted at us now” (Graham, 567). Graham, in the moment, could feel the building influence of the media on politics. The Post’s integrity in its reporting and in not giving-in to threats shifted the paper away from government sway and towards an influential position.
This shift in the media’s power to influentially critique politicians created a new and youthful attraction to the field of journalism. Graham hit it on the head when she commented, “the story [of Watergate] had all the ingredients for major drama: suspense, embattled people on both sides, right and wrong, law and order, good and bad” (Graham, 571). The Post’s accomplishments glorified the life of a reporter and, therefore, brought about even a further switch in the journalist’s voice.
In Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy, Sabato comments negatively on this transition. His argument centers around the irony in the shift from the carefully reported Watergate Scandal which sparked a movement into drama-based reporting with a youthful and unskilled mob-culture that is now associated with journalism, and also, that this style pushes good people away from politics. Sabato argues, “Ever since Watergate, government scandals have paraded across the television set in a roll call so lengthy and numbing that they are inseparable in the public consciousness” (Sabato, 576). His writing insists “gossip has always been the drug of choice for journalists” and, “without convincing proof,” journalists cover politics as “ ‘Entertainment Tonight’ reporters cover Hollywood” (Sabato, 576). His “feeding frenzy” refers to the intimidating media mob of the video age where “a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably,” not unlike piranhas set lose on a piece of meat (Sabato, 577). Sabato blames the press’s conduct on the impact of the Watergate Scandal. He claims, “Watergate shifted the orientation of journalism…toward prescription––helping to set the campaign’s (and society’s) agendas by focusing attention on the candidates’ shortcomings as well as certain social problems” (Sabato, 579). His concern is that because of the glorification of the newsroom and a new interest in investigating candidates’ personal lives, the media-politics relationship is getting out of hand. He fears that because the media has risen “the price of power…dramatically” (Sabato, 581), talented individuals are scared away from politics and only power-hungry leaders remain. Indeed journalists play an important new role in presenting political candidates and social issues to the public. Unelected and sometimes inaccurate, society has given much influence to these individuals.
Recently, however, the concern has switched to the influence of even less-educated, less-qualified publishing individuals. In Brian Anderson’s article South Park Conservatives, he analyzes the new influence of the Internet on media and its influence on politics through the culture of blogging. Anderson describes blogs as having created a “brand-new media sphere” void of “the gatekeepers’ power to determine (a) what’s important and (b) the range of acceptable opinion” (Anderson, 600). It seems as though such blogs would not find a place in the world of influential media, but because they have become a more radical response to officially published, more left wing news, blogs have become the radical citizens means of discussion and expression. A veteran reporter from the Washington Post remarked, “If Hitler were alive today, he’d have his own blog” (Anderson, 602), for the purpose of commenting on blogs’ place as a tool for extreme radicals, especially right wing. Anderson also suggests the possibility of “virtual cocooning” (Anderson, 603). The possibility is that web browsers only access blogs and websites that agree only with their point-of-view, and, therefore, they become “intellectually lazy” (Anderson, 603) and avoid seeking unbiased reporting. In conclusion, Anderson is in favor of blogs because he believes that blogging has become the most democratic way of reporting.
The recent progression of media’s impact on politics and society is both positive and negative. It would be hypocritical for me to argue that blogging is always done by unmindful and radical citizens whose agendas are to increase virtual cocooning because I am, in fact, blogging intellectually. However, the ability for slander and gossip to play such a dominating role in politics because of the emphasis given to it by the media is an issue. The recent election has again proven that the media’s endorsement of a political candidate is overwhelmingly influential. The youth has involved itself both in the media and in politics. I welcome and cherish a youthful, rebellious, and critical voice in the media, and it is just a matter of accuracy and credibility that could be addressed. As long as the Internet continues, so will blogs, and it is our job as a country to increase the quality of education so that all citizens understand their chosen point-of-view. We must embrace this new form of expression and use it wisely, to our advantage; however, these articles are a good reminder for us to pick up a newspaper as to not be deceived by the mass of information on our web browsers.
Katharine Graham, the owner and publisher of the Washington Post during Watergate, in her Personal History, recounts what became the launch of a new wave for journalistic media. As Graham guides her reader through the edge-of-the-seat story of her two young and ambitious reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, from their pairing and coverage of the break-in trial all the way through President Nixon’s resignation, two qualities of the Post’s news coverage ring with importance: the required confirmation of sources and information and the ultimate influence the press acquired through such a publicized investigation.
Graham was adamant in that “the role of the Post in all of this [Watergate Scandal] was simply to report the news” (Graham, 571). She knew that any misinformation would discredit both the paper and her reporters. The staff of the Post took a big chance investigating the case so deeply, especially with their growing enemies empowered by government, so it was vital to the paper that their news was accurate. For this reason, Graham instituted the “two-sources” policy where by checking every bit of information with at least a second source before it was printed the reporting team “handle[d] the story with more than the usual scrupulous attention to fairness and detail” (Graham, 565). The stories produced, although contradictory, were reliable, and became what Harry Rosenfeld described as “the longest-running newspaper stories with the least amount of errors that I have ever experienced or will ever experience” (Graham, 566). The accurate approach to reporting brought about a wave of new age, investigative journalism, and it also brought a strengthened voice to the media.
The growing influence of the press in politics in Graham’s experience with Watergate is represented through both the demand for the paper and the threats from the government. The Post’s continuous articles and investigation of Watergate were confirmed with the discovery of President Nixon’s tapes. As soon as people were convinced of the paper’s credibility, its popular influence sky-rocketed: “After the discovery of the tapes, people actually began waiting the alley outside our building for the first edition of the paper, giving additional meaning to the phrase ‘hot off the presses’” (Graham, 569). The more convincing evidence of the press’s ultimate influence in politics, however, is portrayed through threats from government officials. First, Nixon made threats against the Post itself: “It’s going to have its problems…the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one. They have a television station…and they’re going to have to get it renewed…the game has to be played awfully rough” (Graham, 565). Then, the Attorney General at the time, John Mitchell, was on the phone with reporter Bernstein and physically threatened Katharine Graham, blaming her for the printings on Watergate: “All that crap you’re putting in the paper? It’s all been denied, Katie Graham’s gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that’s published. Good Christ!” (Graham, 564). The new and increasing influence of the press hanging over the shoulder of politicians that was ignited by the coverage of Watergate is represented in Graham’s increased fear for her paper. She remarks, “I’d lived with White House anger before, but I had never seen anything remotely like the kind of fury and heat I was feeling targeted at us now” (Graham, 567). Graham, in the moment, could feel the building influence of the media on politics. The Post’s integrity in its reporting and in not giving-in to threats shifted the paper away from government sway and towards an influential position.
This shift in the media’s power to influentially critique politicians created a new and youthful attraction to the field of journalism. Graham hit it on the head when she commented, “the story [of Watergate] had all the ingredients for major drama: suspense, embattled people on both sides, right and wrong, law and order, good and bad” (Graham, 571). The Post’s accomplishments glorified the life of a reporter and, therefore, brought about even a further switch in the journalist’s voice.
In Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy, Sabato comments negatively on this transition. His argument centers around the irony in the shift from the carefully reported Watergate Scandal which sparked a movement into drama-based reporting with a youthful and unskilled mob-culture that is now associated with journalism, and also, that this style pushes good people away from politics. Sabato argues, “Ever since Watergate, government scandals have paraded across the television set in a roll call so lengthy and numbing that they are inseparable in the public consciousness” (Sabato, 576). His writing insists “gossip has always been the drug of choice for journalists” and, “without convincing proof,” journalists cover politics as “ ‘Entertainment Tonight’ reporters cover Hollywood” (Sabato, 576). His “feeding frenzy” refers to the intimidating media mob of the video age where “a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably,” not unlike piranhas set lose on a piece of meat (Sabato, 577). Sabato blames the press’s conduct on the impact of the Watergate Scandal. He claims, “Watergate shifted the orientation of journalism…toward prescription––helping to set the campaign’s (and society’s) agendas by focusing attention on the candidates’ shortcomings as well as certain social problems” (Sabato, 579). His concern is that because of the glorification of the newsroom and a new interest in investigating candidates’ personal lives, the media-politics relationship is getting out of hand. He fears that because the media has risen “the price of power…dramatically” (Sabato, 581), talented individuals are scared away from politics and only power-hungry leaders remain. Indeed journalists play an important new role in presenting political candidates and social issues to the public. Unelected and sometimes inaccurate, society has given much influence to these individuals.
Recently, however, the concern has switched to the influence of even less-educated, less-qualified publishing individuals. In Brian Anderson’s article South Park Conservatives, he analyzes the new influence of the Internet on media and its influence on politics through the culture of blogging. Anderson describes blogs as having created a “brand-new media sphere” void of “the gatekeepers’ power to determine (a) what’s important and (b) the range of acceptable opinion” (Anderson, 600). It seems as though such blogs would not find a place in the world of influential media, but because they have become a more radical response to officially published, more left wing news, blogs have become the radical citizens means of discussion and expression. A veteran reporter from the Washington Post remarked, “If Hitler were alive today, he’d have his own blog” (Anderson, 602), for the purpose of commenting on blogs’ place as a tool for extreme radicals, especially right wing. Anderson also suggests the possibility of “virtual cocooning” (Anderson, 603). The possibility is that web browsers only access blogs and websites that agree only with their point-of-view, and, therefore, they become “intellectually lazy” (Anderson, 603) and avoid seeking unbiased reporting. In conclusion, Anderson is in favor of blogs because he believes that blogging has become the most democratic way of reporting.
The recent progression of media’s impact on politics and society is both positive and negative. It would be hypocritical for me to argue that blogging is always done by unmindful and radical citizens whose agendas are to increase virtual cocooning because I am, in fact, blogging intellectually. However, the ability for slander and gossip to play such a dominating role in politics because of the emphasis given to it by the media is an issue. The recent election has again proven that the media’s endorsement of a political candidate is overwhelmingly influential. The youth has involved itself both in the media and in politics. I welcome and cherish a youthful, rebellious, and critical voice in the media, and it is just a matter of accuracy and credibility that could be addressed. As long as the Internet continues, so will blogs, and it is our job as a country to increase the quality of education so that all citizens understand their chosen point-of-view. We must embrace this new form of expression and use it wisely, to our advantage; however, these articles are a good reminder for us to pick up a newspaper as to not be deceived by the mass of information on our web browsers.
-Rachel Rosenberg
Monday, November 17, 2008
Palin Poll
With the Republican party suffering a major defeat in the recent election, many party leaders are starting to wonder about the future of the Republicans. Depending on who you ask, some consider Sarah Palin to be one of the few good things to emerge from the election- "good" meaning that she can excite Republican voters. Sarah Palin is indeed capable of this, the problem being that she only really excites the social conservatives (who are excited that someone "just like them" could be president). This means that Palin would have limited appeal for the mainstream voters that the Republicans are looking to win back. However, Palin was the key speaker at the recent Republican governors' convention, seeming to take on the role of a party leader. Palin herself has not specifically stated that she will run for president, preferring instead to say that it is an option she has not ruled out.
Cool article!
Hi all! In thinking about (and reading) media, I found this article in the NYT really interesting. I think Kristof captures the reasons I am so captured by our new President-Elect. Click here to read it!
Dr. Berry
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Shafer and Brooks: Public Opinion on the War in Iraq
The War in Iraq has been the main subject for public opinion for the past 5 years, soon to be 6. This has resulted in numerous theories on how the populace of the United States opinion on the war is being formed, and to what effect that is having. Two men, Greg Shafer and David Brooks, analyze the situation and its fallout on public opinion. In the end, it is obvious that Shafer’s thesis is correct, and Brooks essay only serves as an example of what happens when the public’s opinion is shifted through the media’s filtered coverage of the Iraq war.
Shafer’s essay revolves around the theory that the mass media is by and by the cheerleader of the United States’ foreign policy in Iraq. The result of this is a moral choice in which the citizens of America must choose to either support the war in Iraq or be un-American. Shafer is able to see the unjust way the American people have be treated with the ultimatum and blames it on media’s bias towards speaking out against the government. Instead of giving the people all of the information the news gives us a happier version of the war in which there are no casualties and America always comes out on top. But this perception of reality is false, and it ends up doing more damage than good. If the people do not get the full story then how will they be able to make decisions on important matters? They could never have full comprehension of what is going on around them and they are pointed in the direction that the media and the government want them to go. This is done because the United States understands the full power of the people’s public opinion on the actions of the government. It knows that without the support of the American people it cannot achieve its goals. So it has become custom for the media to work with the government to make it un-American and wrong to protest it. Those who spoke out against the war in Iraq were cast into the flames and labeled as anti-military. But is it not the Armed Forces job to ensure that the Constitution is protected and upheld? And the defining point of the Constitution is freedom of the people, including, and arguably most importantly, to argue with the government and speak out. So, it is not anti-military for public to speak out against the war, it is in fact utilizing the right that our heroes have fought and died for throughout American history.
Shafer brings up the issue of flag burning to exemplify the importance of protesting the government. He is not stating that we should have a constant grudge towards the government, but rather fights to make it better. To burn a flag is to cry out and reject the actions of that country because you believe them to be wrong. If it were illegal to do that then what does that say about the country? It shows that it is unwilling to here the vices against it and would rather shut up the protesters then address the problem. It makes the only other option to be to salute the flag. If this were the case the honor and significance of that act would be gone. If one cannot burn and reject the ideals of the nation, how could they take pride in pledging themselves to the nation? The core value of America states that everyone should have a choice, and to go against that is in fact an act of flag burning. What better way is there to dishonor your country then to take away its founding ideals?
Shafer shows how this is going on in the United States through a myriad of examples. There is the arrest of Stephen Downs for wearing an anti-war T-shirt. And the way the Peter Arnett was condemned for showing the bad side of American foreign policy, in this case a bombed Iraqi milk factory. The Patriot Act also infringes on the American public's ability to speak out against the government. With all these acts it is clear that there is an active force that is trying to keep the public in line and have the opinion of the people be consistently positive towards government actions. Though it is good to support the government and should always be something that should be worked towards, one should not support it based on false or incomplete information fed to them by the media that they think they know and trust. It is thoroughly undermining democracy.
David Brooks gives a different view on what the war in Iraq is producing. In his essay he describes three “dream palaces” that operate in accordance to the United States. These palaces are places of contempt towards American government and, according to Brooks, are forces that are misguided and wrong. The dream palaces are made up of there sects. The first is the Arab palace. In this world Brooks describes an angry Arab populace that in intent on destroying America and its freedoms for the apparent wrongs of the past. Then there is the European elitists palace, in which the European nations gaff at the United States and have unrealistic views on the American people and their values. Lastly Brooks describes the Bush hater dream palace. This palace is reserved for the small percentage of the American public that fight against Bush and his polices in an attempt to topple the President for the sole reason of undermining the Republican Party, regardless of the consequences.
Brooks theorizes that now that the Iraq war has ended (this essay was written when it was generally perceived that the war in Iraq was won and a Mission Accomplished was rendered by the President) these three dream palaces will begin to crumble and America will be, once again, proven right. Yet, unknown to Brooks, the coming years will cripple his thesis. Almost all of the planed fates that Brooks made up go awry and almost the exact opposite happens. The Arabs do not sag in their rage and in fact come back full force, trying the American military in Iraq and forcing them to realize that they are not fighting some disorganized enemy but instead a well organized force (even consisting of old men with AKs that shoot down Apaches, much to Brooks lament).
Europe did not go through its self-criticizing period, but instead responded with even more fervor towards the United States, including riots in France.
Lastly the Bush haters DID become more vociferous in their anger, but not for the reasons that Brooks foretold, but instead because the war continues to drag on for 5 plus years. Their numbers do not diminish, but instead grow, resulting in a 2008 presidential election in which the Democrats run the Executive office, along with the Senate and the House of Representatives.
No, it seems Brooks was wrong on almost all accounts. This is not because he is stupid (well, maybe a little bit) but because he is one of the Americans that have been subjected to the biased teaching on the media, just as Shafer predicts.
Brooks is under the assumption that protesting the war is unpatriotic, just as the media has told him. In his essay he creates a fictitious character, Joey Tabula-Rosa. This character is reacting to what he sees happening in Iraq, and does a perfect job of reinforcing Shafer’s point. In the essay he states that Joey is “glued to the cable coverage of the war and is ready to form some opinions.” He sees the United States as the shining city of light upon the hill surrounded by the darkness of other evil nations. He sees the American military liberating people with aims to limit the civilian casualties. But Joey does not hear of the civilians that are hurt, displaced, and/or killed. Nor does he hear the reasons of why other countries stand against America, only that they are evil and want to dismantle our way of life. He sees stereotypical versions of other countries that he is suspicious of. And most importantly he sees those who support the government’s policies and those who protest against it. Those who support the government are bringers of freedom and democracy, while those that oppose it are Californian degree holders that are secluded in their own world and fail to realize that situation that besets the country.
All of these views are products of a media that supports the government and does not leave room for protest. It showed the public a war in which there were no casualties and we were the clear winners. It did not prepare them for the long insurgency to follow, even though it could have. The media could have reported that the Marines of MEUs were not only fighting the Iraqi Army but also insurgents from Saudi Arabia and Iran that had come to participate in the jihad. But instead of telling the people this vital fact on where the war would soon be heading, the media put forth the allusion that the war nearly over and that victory was guaranteed. Without are clear and unfiltered view at what is happening in the world the public’s opinion is fated to be warped and out of perception. Brooks is the evidence that this did in fact occur. The media and the American government vie to control the public’s opinion, and the result is an undemocratic United States.
Brooks speaks of regimes that are sadistic and evil. They torture their own people, ignore basic rules of warfare, put their own problems onto others, and have far reaching effects across the globe. But if one looks closely, this is precisely what America is becoming if it continues down this path. The citizens no longer have privacy because of the Patriot Act, and suspected terrorist can be detained and tortured in facilities in other countries, such as Guantanamo Bay. We have begun to covertly attack other countries such as Pakistan and Syria with out their knowledge. We routinely attack others for our problems that some may call unjust, as we did in Iraq. And most of all our actions affect people across the globe. The United States of America is the world’s most powerful nation, and countries around the world must first gain our approval before action is taken. But just because we are the most powerful does not mean that we are perfect. Shafer proves the point that if the media continues to undermined the public’s opinion then it will make America the very thing that we are fighting to bring down.
Shafer’s essay revolves around the theory that the mass media is by and by the cheerleader of the United States’ foreign policy in Iraq. The result of this is a moral choice in which the citizens of America must choose to either support the war in Iraq or be un-American. Shafer is able to see the unjust way the American people have be treated with the ultimatum and blames it on media’s bias towards speaking out against the government. Instead of giving the people all of the information the news gives us a happier version of the war in which there are no casualties and America always comes out on top. But this perception of reality is false, and it ends up doing more damage than good. If the people do not get the full story then how will they be able to make decisions on important matters? They could never have full comprehension of what is going on around them and they are pointed in the direction that the media and the government want them to go. This is done because the United States understands the full power of the people’s public opinion on the actions of the government. It knows that without the support of the American people it cannot achieve its goals. So it has become custom for the media to work with the government to make it un-American and wrong to protest it. Those who spoke out against the war in Iraq were cast into the flames and labeled as anti-military. But is it not the Armed Forces job to ensure that the Constitution is protected and upheld? And the defining point of the Constitution is freedom of the people, including, and arguably most importantly, to argue with the government and speak out. So, it is not anti-military for public to speak out against the war, it is in fact utilizing the right that our heroes have fought and died for throughout American history.
Shafer brings up the issue of flag burning to exemplify the importance of protesting the government. He is not stating that we should have a constant grudge towards the government, but rather fights to make it better. To burn a flag is to cry out and reject the actions of that country because you believe them to be wrong. If it were illegal to do that then what does that say about the country? It shows that it is unwilling to here the vices against it and would rather shut up the protesters then address the problem. It makes the only other option to be to salute the flag. If this were the case the honor and significance of that act would be gone. If one cannot burn and reject the ideals of the nation, how could they take pride in pledging themselves to the nation? The core value of America states that everyone should have a choice, and to go against that is in fact an act of flag burning. What better way is there to dishonor your country then to take away its founding ideals?
Shafer shows how this is going on in the United States through a myriad of examples. There is the arrest of Stephen Downs for wearing an anti-war T-shirt. And the way the Peter Arnett was condemned for showing the bad side of American foreign policy, in this case a bombed Iraqi milk factory. The Patriot Act also infringes on the American public's ability to speak out against the government. With all these acts it is clear that there is an active force that is trying to keep the public in line and have the opinion of the people be consistently positive towards government actions. Though it is good to support the government and should always be something that should be worked towards, one should not support it based on false or incomplete information fed to them by the media that they think they know and trust. It is thoroughly undermining democracy.
David Brooks gives a different view on what the war in Iraq is producing. In his essay he describes three “dream palaces” that operate in accordance to the United States. These palaces are places of contempt towards American government and, according to Brooks, are forces that are misguided and wrong. The dream palaces are made up of there sects. The first is the Arab palace. In this world Brooks describes an angry Arab populace that in intent on destroying America and its freedoms for the apparent wrongs of the past. Then there is the European elitists palace, in which the European nations gaff at the United States and have unrealistic views on the American people and their values. Lastly Brooks describes the Bush hater dream palace. This palace is reserved for the small percentage of the American public that fight against Bush and his polices in an attempt to topple the President for the sole reason of undermining the Republican Party, regardless of the consequences.
Brooks theorizes that now that the Iraq war has ended (this essay was written when it was generally perceived that the war in Iraq was won and a Mission Accomplished was rendered by the President) these three dream palaces will begin to crumble and America will be, once again, proven right. Yet, unknown to Brooks, the coming years will cripple his thesis. Almost all of the planed fates that Brooks made up go awry and almost the exact opposite happens. The Arabs do not sag in their rage and in fact come back full force, trying the American military in Iraq and forcing them to realize that they are not fighting some disorganized enemy but instead a well organized force (even consisting of old men with AKs that shoot down Apaches, much to Brooks lament).
Europe did not go through its self-criticizing period, but instead responded with even more fervor towards the United States, including riots in France.
Lastly the Bush haters DID become more vociferous in their anger, but not for the reasons that Brooks foretold, but instead because the war continues to drag on for 5 plus years. Their numbers do not diminish, but instead grow, resulting in a 2008 presidential election in which the Democrats run the Executive office, along with the Senate and the House of Representatives.
No, it seems Brooks was wrong on almost all accounts. This is not because he is stupid (well, maybe a little bit) but because he is one of the Americans that have been subjected to the biased teaching on the media, just as Shafer predicts.
Brooks is under the assumption that protesting the war is unpatriotic, just as the media has told him. In his essay he creates a fictitious character, Joey Tabula-Rosa. This character is reacting to what he sees happening in Iraq, and does a perfect job of reinforcing Shafer’s point. In the essay he states that Joey is “glued to the cable coverage of the war and is ready to form some opinions.” He sees the United States as the shining city of light upon the hill surrounded by the darkness of other evil nations. He sees the American military liberating people with aims to limit the civilian casualties. But Joey does not hear of the civilians that are hurt, displaced, and/or killed. Nor does he hear the reasons of why other countries stand against America, only that they are evil and want to dismantle our way of life. He sees stereotypical versions of other countries that he is suspicious of. And most importantly he sees those who support the government’s policies and those who protest against it. Those who support the government are bringers of freedom and democracy, while those that oppose it are Californian degree holders that are secluded in their own world and fail to realize that situation that besets the country.
All of these views are products of a media that supports the government and does not leave room for protest. It showed the public a war in which there were no casualties and we were the clear winners. It did not prepare them for the long insurgency to follow, even though it could have. The media could have reported that the Marines of MEUs were not only fighting the Iraqi Army but also insurgents from Saudi Arabia and Iran that had come to participate in the jihad. But instead of telling the people this vital fact on where the war would soon be heading, the media put forth the allusion that the war nearly over and that victory was guaranteed. Without are clear and unfiltered view at what is happening in the world the public’s opinion is fated to be warped and out of perception. Brooks is the evidence that this did in fact occur. The media and the American government vie to control the public’s opinion, and the result is an undemocratic United States.
Brooks speaks of regimes that are sadistic and evil. They torture their own people, ignore basic rules of warfare, put their own problems onto others, and have far reaching effects across the globe. But if one looks closely, this is precisely what America is becoming if it continues down this path. The citizens no longer have privacy because of the Patriot Act, and suspected terrorist can be detained and tortured in facilities in other countries, such as Guantanamo Bay. We have begun to covertly attack other countries such as Pakistan and Syria with out their knowledge. We routinely attack others for our problems that some may call unjust, as we did in Iraq. And most of all our actions affect people across the globe. The United States of America is the world’s most powerful nation, and countries around the world must first gain our approval before action is taken. But just because we are the most powerful does not mean that we are perfect. Shafer proves the point that if the media continues to undermined the public’s opinion then it will make America the very thing that we are fighting to bring down.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Poll: What is next for Joe Liberman
After the Election the Democratic Party has gained six seats in the senate, giving them a greater advantage, many democrats are pressing the senate majority leader Harry Reid to punish Joe Liberman (former democrat turn independent) for criticizing Barack Obama at the RNC and supporting John McCain. Liberman said "Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record.” For this many Democrats want him either ejected from the Democrat caucus, and/or stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, however Harry Reid still want to keep him because regardless of what Liberman did, he still gave the democrats the edge of the republicans prior to this election. Reid has said “Quite frankly, I don't like what he did." But he pointed out that Lieberman has supported Democrats on most issues, including an important budget vote earlier this year.” So with the new Democrat lead congress is Lieberman worth being lost to the other side?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aTrgURyMdP3o&refer=home
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/senate.lieberman/
— Angelo
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aTrgURyMdP3o&refer=home
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/senate.lieberman/
— Angelo
Uninsured Poll
Last June Antonio Torres, a 19 year old uninsured citizen, was critically hurt in a car accident. Antonio Torres was comatose and connected to a ventilator, but because he was uninsured the hospital sent Antonio on a four-hour journey over the Mexican border to Mexicali. For days, Antonio's father searched for a hospital in the US that would treat his son. Finally, they found a hospital in California that would treat him. By the end of summer Antonia was recovering from his accident.
This case shows the ways in which American health care handles cases involving uninsured immigrants who are seriously injured or ill. Whether the patient will receive treatment or will be privately deported depends on what emergency room they initially visit. There is not much federal financing for these patients, and there is no governmental oversight of what happens to them. It is up to the individual hospitals to decide what will happen. Many hospitals see thimselves as "stranded at the crossroads of a failed immigration policy and a failed health care system."
The two hospitals that treated Antonia approached his case from different perspectives. The first hospital was focused on keeping down the cost of uncompinsated care, and send about 8 people a year over the border. The second hospital is more focused on the human being, and never sends a person over the border.
Hospitals have limited options when it comes to discharging a patient who needs continued care: keeping them indefinitely, with or without providing rehabilitation; finding them charity beds or sending them to a nursing home; or sending them home to relatives.
States closer to the Mexican border tend to act more hostile toward immigrants, and the state financing for their care tends to be low. Because of the system that the United States has now, states need to deicde between saving money or caring about the patient.
Christen
This case shows the ways in which American health care handles cases involving uninsured immigrants who are seriously injured or ill. Whether the patient will receive treatment or will be privately deported depends on what emergency room they initially visit. There is not much federal financing for these patients, and there is no governmental oversight of what happens to them. It is up to the individual hospitals to decide what will happen. Many hospitals see thimselves as "stranded at the crossroads of a failed immigration policy and a failed health care system."
The two hospitals that treated Antonia approached his case from different perspectives. The first hospital was focused on keeping down the cost of uncompinsated care, and send about 8 people a year over the border. The second hospital is more focused on the human being, and never sends a person over the border.
Hospitals have limited options when it comes to discharging a patient who needs continued care: keeping them indefinitely, with or without providing rehabilitation; finding them charity beds or sending them to a nursing home; or sending them home to relatives.
States closer to the Mexican border tend to act more hostile toward immigrants, and the state financing for their care tends to be low. Because of the system that the United States has now, states need to deicde between saving money or caring about the patient.
Christen
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Brooks v. Shafer: the Iraq War and Public Opinion
The defining moment of the Bush presidency has been the Iraq War. Over the nearly six years of the conflict, public opinion has fluctuated widely both in support of it and against it. Greg Shafer and David Brooks, writing shortly after the initial invasion, examine the effects of the war on public opinion. Greg Shafer argues that most of the wide-spread sentiment against the war has been stifled while David Brooks counters that the public has actually become more supportive of the conflict. Recent events, however, tend to support Shafer’s thesis.
One of, if not the most, important factors determining public opinion is the media which is responsible for nearly all information a typical American has access to regarding politics.
However, while Brooks remains largely neutral on the subject, Shafer criticizes the media’s coverage of the war in Iraq. Shafer argues that the coverage in the lead up to the war was nowhere near as critical as it needed to be, serving as “cheerleaders” when the invasion began. Successes, according to Shafer, were overblown while accounts of civilian casualties were nearly non-existent. Shafer points to the case of Peter Arnett who was widely criticized for his efforts during the first Gulf War where he reported on the accidental American destruction of an Iraqi milk factory. This event epitomized the disdain felt towards those who reported the gruesome realities of conflict. Shafer’s concern with regard to the media can be summarized in this way: How can the American public be expected to make informed decisions on public policy if the media cannot be trusted to cover both sides of an issue equally?
David Brooks twice mentions the media directly. The first time, he mocks those with anti-war sentiments by declaring how ridiculous it would be for the U.S to fabricate images of celebrating Iraqis. Brooks later mentions the media with regard to his fictional character “Joey Tabula-Rasa”. Brooks creates Joey to show how young people will observe the political events unfolding in Iraq and formulate an opinion in favor of the conflict largely because of the well-disposed news reports of progress there. Curiously, both Brooks and Shafer agree on the fact that the media covers the Iraq War in a positive light. However, Brooks believes this is because the Iraq situation is, in fact, satisfactory while Shafer argues that the negative side to the war is not being reported.
According to Shafer, the media is part of a growing problem. That problem is that it has become less and less acceptable to criticize authority, especially in the context of the War on Terror. Shafer uses examples such as disk jockeys who called for un-wavering support for the war during the early part of the conflict and the man who was arrested at a mall for wearing an anti-war t-shirt. Shafer’s fear is that such events, combined with the powers granted to the government by the Patriot Act, have created an environment where dissent is not welcome and those who do not agree with the war are labeled as “un-patriotic“. Shafer then asks whether this un-questioning support for a war (a war that Shafer argues has suspect motives) actually fits with the original American ideology. After all, the freedom of speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Americans are supposed to question their government and not blindly follow despotic rulers like the ones left behind in the Old World. Democracy works best if people continuously scrutinize their government. Shafer asks, if the U.S. continues to quash internal dissent with the likes of the Patriot Act, and the media continues to feed the public biased information, what difference is there between the U.S. and the nations it seeks to “liberate”?
On the other end of the spectrum lies David Brooks whose argument is that the dwindling amounts of anti-war sentiment are the result of a realization by those opponents of the Iraq War that Bush was actually correct. Though a somewhat laughable notion with hindsight, it is important to note that Brooks wrote this piece after the large scale operations in Iraq had ended with Iraq’s government defeated and victory declared. Brooks categorizes the opponents of the Iraq War into three “dream palaces”. Each palace is supposed to represent an idealistic school of thought far-detached from reality. These three palaces are those of the Arabists, who (according to Brooks) fail to recognize all that is flawed in the Arab world, the European Elitists who have a negative stereotype of Americans, and Bush Haters who are so blinded by a dislike of Bush that they disapprove of his policies regardless of what they might be.
Brooks believes that the war will changes most people’s beliefs to some degree as a result of its “success”. Though the Europeans will refuse to change their stereotype, the Arabists will believe that some reform might be possible, and the Bush Haters’ numbers will shrink, the group effected the most will be the silent majority. Brooks illustrates this phenomenon through the creation of Joey Tabula-Rasa (mentioned earlier). Joey represents an average young person with limited world knowledge. Joey is just now beginning to form a world opinion based, in large part, on the events concerning the Iraq War. Joey will be put-off by the radicals who oppose the war and will instead be pleased with the war coverage that he sees on the television: images of celebrating Iraqi citizen and proud American soldiers. These observations will place Joey firmly in the camp supporting President Bush in his quest against worldwide tyranny. In this way, Brooks envisions millions of young people forming a new generation of Republicans, Republicans who view the world in a realistic sense.
Over five years after these articles were written, the Iraq War continues to drag on. Instead of inspiring a new generation of Republicans, the war, combined with Bush’s failed domestic policies, has done the exact opposite by creating the new Democratic movement which swept Barack Obama to the office of president in a landslide victory. Shafer’s argument that anti-war sentiment was stifled is largely supported by events like the large-scale denouncing of the Dixie Chicks after one of the members claimed to be embarrassed that Bush was from her home state. As the recent elections have shown, however, that un-wavering support has significantly tapered off, with the ruling Republicans suffering a significant defeat. The flaw in Brooks’ argument, ironically, is that he is the one who actually fails to have a grip on reality. Brooks mocks the Bush Haters as believing that Bush stole the election and rules with a group of corporate cronies. Actual evidence shows both allegations to be true. Investigations revealed voting fraud in Florida, and Cheney’s former company was rewarded substantial contract to rebuild oilfields in Iraq without having to bid on them. If Bush was truly interested in defeating tyranny, he would have taken more action with regard to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. The Joey Tabula-Rasas of America have observed Iraq and other Bush policies and rejected them. Bush did not help to solidify the Republican Party as Brooks believed he would. Bush destroyed it.
One of, if not the most, important factors determining public opinion is the media which is responsible for nearly all information a typical American has access to regarding politics.
However, while Brooks remains largely neutral on the subject, Shafer criticizes the media’s coverage of the war in Iraq. Shafer argues that the coverage in the lead up to the war was nowhere near as critical as it needed to be, serving as “cheerleaders” when the invasion began. Successes, according to Shafer, were overblown while accounts of civilian casualties were nearly non-existent. Shafer points to the case of Peter Arnett who was widely criticized for his efforts during the first Gulf War where he reported on the accidental American destruction of an Iraqi milk factory. This event epitomized the disdain felt towards those who reported the gruesome realities of conflict. Shafer’s concern with regard to the media can be summarized in this way: How can the American public be expected to make informed decisions on public policy if the media cannot be trusted to cover both sides of an issue equally?
David Brooks twice mentions the media directly. The first time, he mocks those with anti-war sentiments by declaring how ridiculous it would be for the U.S to fabricate images of celebrating Iraqis. Brooks later mentions the media with regard to his fictional character “Joey Tabula-Rasa”. Brooks creates Joey to show how young people will observe the political events unfolding in Iraq and formulate an opinion in favor of the conflict largely because of the well-disposed news reports of progress there. Curiously, both Brooks and Shafer agree on the fact that the media covers the Iraq War in a positive light. However, Brooks believes this is because the Iraq situation is, in fact, satisfactory while Shafer argues that the negative side to the war is not being reported.
According to Shafer, the media is part of a growing problem. That problem is that it has become less and less acceptable to criticize authority, especially in the context of the War on Terror. Shafer uses examples such as disk jockeys who called for un-wavering support for the war during the early part of the conflict and the man who was arrested at a mall for wearing an anti-war t-shirt. Shafer’s fear is that such events, combined with the powers granted to the government by the Patriot Act, have created an environment where dissent is not welcome and those who do not agree with the war are labeled as “un-patriotic“. Shafer then asks whether this un-questioning support for a war (a war that Shafer argues has suspect motives) actually fits with the original American ideology. After all, the freedom of speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Americans are supposed to question their government and not blindly follow despotic rulers like the ones left behind in the Old World. Democracy works best if people continuously scrutinize their government. Shafer asks, if the U.S. continues to quash internal dissent with the likes of the Patriot Act, and the media continues to feed the public biased information, what difference is there between the U.S. and the nations it seeks to “liberate”?
On the other end of the spectrum lies David Brooks whose argument is that the dwindling amounts of anti-war sentiment are the result of a realization by those opponents of the Iraq War that Bush was actually correct. Though a somewhat laughable notion with hindsight, it is important to note that Brooks wrote this piece after the large scale operations in Iraq had ended with Iraq’s government defeated and victory declared. Brooks categorizes the opponents of the Iraq War into three “dream palaces”. Each palace is supposed to represent an idealistic school of thought far-detached from reality. These three palaces are those of the Arabists, who (according to Brooks) fail to recognize all that is flawed in the Arab world, the European Elitists who have a negative stereotype of Americans, and Bush Haters who are so blinded by a dislike of Bush that they disapprove of his policies regardless of what they might be.
Brooks believes that the war will changes most people’s beliefs to some degree as a result of its “success”. Though the Europeans will refuse to change their stereotype, the Arabists will believe that some reform might be possible, and the Bush Haters’ numbers will shrink, the group effected the most will be the silent majority. Brooks illustrates this phenomenon through the creation of Joey Tabula-Rasa (mentioned earlier). Joey represents an average young person with limited world knowledge. Joey is just now beginning to form a world opinion based, in large part, on the events concerning the Iraq War. Joey will be put-off by the radicals who oppose the war and will instead be pleased with the war coverage that he sees on the television: images of celebrating Iraqi citizen and proud American soldiers. These observations will place Joey firmly in the camp supporting President Bush in his quest against worldwide tyranny. In this way, Brooks envisions millions of young people forming a new generation of Republicans, Republicans who view the world in a realistic sense.
Over five years after these articles were written, the Iraq War continues to drag on. Instead of inspiring a new generation of Republicans, the war, combined with Bush’s failed domestic policies, has done the exact opposite by creating the new Democratic movement which swept Barack Obama to the office of president in a landslide victory. Shafer’s argument that anti-war sentiment was stifled is largely supported by events like the large-scale denouncing of the Dixie Chicks after one of the members claimed to be embarrassed that Bush was from her home state. As the recent elections have shown, however, that un-wavering support has significantly tapered off, with the ruling Republicans suffering a significant defeat. The flaw in Brooks’ argument, ironically, is that he is the one who actually fails to have a grip on reality. Brooks mocks the Bush Haters as believing that Bush stole the election and rules with a group of corporate cronies. Actual evidence shows both allegations to be true. Investigations revealed voting fraud in Florida, and Cheney’s former company was rewarded substantial contract to rebuild oilfields in Iraq without having to bid on them. If Bush was truly interested in defeating tyranny, he would have taken more action with regard to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. The Joey Tabula-Rasas of America have observed Iraq and other Bush policies and rejected them. Bush did not help to solidify the Republican Party as Brooks believed he would. Bush destroyed it.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Election Blog by SLAGATHOR!!!!!!!!
The presidential election of 2008 has been one for the ages, and as it draws to its close it is apparent that it will make history. On the left side there is Barack Obama, a young Senator from Illinois who shook the nation as the first potential African-American President of the United States. On the right there is McCain, an experience veteran that thrives on his maverick views and styles. This campaign has been characterized by a thought of turning a new leaf and beginning anew, and with Obama’s tagline of “Hope”, “Change”, and “Yes We Can” it seems like that it is likely to happen soon.
This election is historic, for it contains many factors that have never been seen by the American public. It is the first time an African-American has been on the ticket for a major political party. It is also the first time that a woman has had a good chance to become president or vice-president of the United States of America. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin achieved this. When Clinton lost the primary the possibility for a female president was lost of the time being, but Sarah Palin still had a chance to become the first female vice president and, if anything happened to McCain, the President. Both would be a major step forward in respects to gender and race. Also, John McCain would be the oldest first term President in the history of the United States, and Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden is now the first Roman Catholic to be Vice President. Lastly, it is the first time that both of the Presidential candidates were both born outside of the continental United States. Obama was born in Hawaii and McCain in the Panama Canal Zone. This campaign is one of the most interesting campaign in recent years because it comes in a pivotal time in American history. Many, rather most Americans are displeased with the Bush Administration (his approval rating averages in at about 31%), and the new presidential candidates in the election are sure to present the nation with a new outlook on the future of America.
But Obama’s rise to the White House has been a long and hard road. The public has had their eye on Obama for the last two years as a potential candidate for President, and he made it a possibility when he announced his candidacy on February 10th, 2007. This made him one of the major candidates for the White House, along with Hilary Clinton. These two represented the candidates for the Democratic Party and John McCain was the candidate for the Republican Party. The Presidential Primaries for the Democrats was marked by a neck-to-neck race between Obama and Clinton. Even on Super Tuesday it was a virtual tie between the two, with 847 for Obama and 834 for Clinton. This set the tone for the whole primary, for it was an extremely close election and ended with Obama taking a lead in the polls towards the end of the primary season. As for McCain, it seemed that he was the only major candidate running for his party and he easily won the primary to become the Republican Party’s presidential candidate. The primary was a historic one because it was a win win situation when it came to electing a never before seen candidate. Barack Obama would be the first African American candidate and Hilary Clinton would be the first woman with an actual chance of wining. The race was also full of heated battles within the Democratic Party. On many occasions Obama and Clinton clashed and questioned each other about their policies. The battles became very heated between the two and it was thought that the fighting was doing more damage then good as it was dividing the party at a time when it needed to come together and run against the Republican Party and John McCain.
With the two presidential candidates for the major parties picked a long and drawn out campaign began. This campaign was characterized by an aggressive fundraising attempt by Obama, a series of attacks by McCain, the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate, and the rescission of the stock market in mid September. These events made the election one of discontent with the current Bush Administration and shows a yearn by the American public for a new president that will hopefully lead them out of these dark times. It also cast John McCain and the Republican Party in a bad light because of their close relationship with President Bush and his Administration. The people are tired of Bush, and McCain just being of the same party as him surly hurt him in the race. But throughout the campaign McCain continually tried to set himself apart from Bush, using the tag line of being a “maverick” to describe himself. Senator Obama countered this quality by bringing up the fact that McCain went along with Bush’s decisions 95% of the time. Obama also got another break by having been attack by Hilary during the primary elections. It was here that he was able to address his relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his new policies. By the time the Presidential elections had rolled around, the American public had already heard the attacks on Obama, so they were less responsive to it when McCain tried to bring them up. It seems that the fighting between Hilary and Obama in fact helped him in the end to be more hardened and prepared for the face off with McCain.
Obama also used his obvious technological edge over McCain to gain huge funds towards his cause. In the end, he had almost a two to one lead over McCain, and this enabled him to put forth an oppressive media campaign that help spread his message and drown out McCain’s. He was also able to have a 30-minuet infomercial that rallied his supporters and explained his policies.
McCain also made the situation worse for himself by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. The move was made with the effort to win over the conservative side of the vote, but also effectively alienated the left side of the vote that was thinking of supporting him. McCain made this selection because up until then he was a was walking the line with the Republican Party and it seemed he needed something to put himself back into their good graces.
Now the election is over and it is clear that Obama is the winner. It was predicted that the race would be extremely close, and from the look of the popular vote it was. At 12:49 a.m. Mountain Time about 87% of the vote has been counted and so far it appears that 47% went to McCain and 52% went to Obama. But this number does not really matter. What really matters in the number of electoral votes that each candidate receives. In order to win the presidency a candidate must win at least 270 of the electoral votes. So far, Obama has won 338 and McCain 163. This is a wide margin compared to the past to Presidential elections, in which President Bush one by just 271 the first time, and 286 the second.
With the election done and Barack Obama to be our new President the future remains unclear. Those opposed to his presidency fear that the change that Obama promotes will hurt the country more then help it. His supporters thrive on his vision of a new America and have faith that the future holds great things. One can be sure about one fact though. The race to the White House has been a historical one that showed that American was capable of electing a variety of different people from diverse backgrounds. This goes to show that the diversity that has been a characteristic of the United States of America since the beginning is still there, and it has begun to break the chains that have held it down for so long. It is now apparent that the White House is not just reserved for the rich white man, but also the rich black man.
This election is historic, for it contains many factors that have never been seen by the American public. It is the first time an African-American has been on the ticket for a major political party. It is also the first time that a woman has had a good chance to become president or vice-president of the United States of America. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin achieved this. When Clinton lost the primary the possibility for a female president was lost of the time being, but Sarah Palin still had a chance to become the first female vice president and, if anything happened to McCain, the President. Both would be a major step forward in respects to gender and race. Also, John McCain would be the oldest first term President in the history of the United States, and Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden is now the first Roman Catholic to be Vice President. Lastly, it is the first time that both of the Presidential candidates were both born outside of the continental United States. Obama was born in Hawaii and McCain in the Panama Canal Zone. This campaign is one of the most interesting campaign in recent years because it comes in a pivotal time in American history. Many, rather most Americans are displeased with the Bush Administration (his approval rating averages in at about 31%), and the new presidential candidates in the election are sure to present the nation with a new outlook on the future of America.
But Obama’s rise to the White House has been a long and hard road. The public has had their eye on Obama for the last two years as a potential candidate for President, and he made it a possibility when he announced his candidacy on February 10th, 2007. This made him one of the major candidates for the White House, along with Hilary Clinton. These two represented the candidates for the Democratic Party and John McCain was the candidate for the Republican Party. The Presidential Primaries for the Democrats was marked by a neck-to-neck race between Obama and Clinton. Even on Super Tuesday it was a virtual tie between the two, with 847 for Obama and 834 for Clinton. This set the tone for the whole primary, for it was an extremely close election and ended with Obama taking a lead in the polls towards the end of the primary season. As for McCain, it seemed that he was the only major candidate running for his party and he easily won the primary to become the Republican Party’s presidential candidate. The primary was a historic one because it was a win win situation when it came to electing a never before seen candidate. Barack Obama would be the first African American candidate and Hilary Clinton would be the first woman with an actual chance of wining. The race was also full of heated battles within the Democratic Party. On many occasions Obama and Clinton clashed and questioned each other about their policies. The battles became very heated between the two and it was thought that the fighting was doing more damage then good as it was dividing the party at a time when it needed to come together and run against the Republican Party and John McCain.
With the two presidential candidates for the major parties picked a long and drawn out campaign began. This campaign was characterized by an aggressive fundraising attempt by Obama, a series of attacks by McCain, the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate, and the rescission of the stock market in mid September. These events made the election one of discontent with the current Bush Administration and shows a yearn by the American public for a new president that will hopefully lead them out of these dark times. It also cast John McCain and the Republican Party in a bad light because of their close relationship with President Bush and his Administration. The people are tired of Bush, and McCain just being of the same party as him surly hurt him in the race. But throughout the campaign McCain continually tried to set himself apart from Bush, using the tag line of being a “maverick” to describe himself. Senator Obama countered this quality by bringing up the fact that McCain went along with Bush’s decisions 95% of the time. Obama also got another break by having been attack by Hilary during the primary elections. It was here that he was able to address his relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his new policies. By the time the Presidential elections had rolled around, the American public had already heard the attacks on Obama, so they were less responsive to it when McCain tried to bring them up. It seems that the fighting between Hilary and Obama in fact helped him in the end to be more hardened and prepared for the face off with McCain.
Obama also used his obvious technological edge over McCain to gain huge funds towards his cause. In the end, he had almost a two to one lead over McCain, and this enabled him to put forth an oppressive media campaign that help spread his message and drown out McCain’s. He was also able to have a 30-minuet infomercial that rallied his supporters and explained his policies.
McCain also made the situation worse for himself by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. The move was made with the effort to win over the conservative side of the vote, but also effectively alienated the left side of the vote that was thinking of supporting him. McCain made this selection because up until then he was a was walking the line with the Republican Party and it seemed he needed something to put himself back into their good graces.
Now the election is over and it is clear that Obama is the winner. It was predicted that the race would be extremely close, and from the look of the popular vote it was. At 12:49 a.m. Mountain Time about 87% of the vote has been counted and so far it appears that 47% went to McCain and 52% went to Obama. But this number does not really matter. What really matters in the number of electoral votes that each candidate receives. In order to win the presidency a candidate must win at least 270 of the electoral votes. So far, Obama has won 338 and McCain 163. This is a wide margin compared to the past to Presidential elections, in which President Bush one by just 271 the first time, and 286 the second.
With the election done and Barack Obama to be our new President the future remains unclear. Those opposed to his presidency fear that the change that Obama promotes will hurt the country more then help it. His supporters thrive on his vision of a new America and have faith that the future holds great things. One can be sure about one fact though. The race to the White House has been a historical one that showed that American was capable of electing a variety of different people from diverse backgrounds. This goes to show that the diversity that has been a characteristic of the United States of America since the beginning is still there, and it has begun to break the chains that have held it down for so long. It is now apparent that the White House is not just reserved for the rich white man, but also the rich black man.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
US Security Poll
North Korea: North Korea is of course a communist country run by dictator Kim Jong-il. Since communism became a major government system, the United States has consistently opposed it. North Korea has criticized the United States for not lifting economic sanctions. While the United States has criticized North Korea for maintaining missile exports and has suspected them of secretly building a nuclear weapons program. However, despite their hostile rhetoric, both countries have maintained an agreement on famine relief and technical assistance programs.
Russia: Since the 1950's, the United States has had a major bias against Russia, mainly because of its former communist roots. However, recently many Americans have opposed former leader Putin. Officials within the United States have expressed their concern over Putin's "authoritarian" leadership and and reversal of democratic reforms. Recently, the United States has expressed more such concern over Russia with the war with Georgia in August as well as their launching of three test missiles.
Iran: In 1979, the Iran Revolution occurred which pushed out the pro-American Shah and placed in the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Since then, the United States and Iran have held a very hostile relationship. The Hezbollah, an anti-American terrorist organization, is very active in Iran, contributing to the hostility. Anti-American billboards can be found throughout the cities in the country, and the term "death to America" can even be heard in some prayers that are said with this country. Yet, some actually believe that Iran is the least Anti-American of all the Muslim countries which could be because many Iranians actually mourned for Americans after the 9/11 attacks. However, they are still a major concern regarding the United States National Security due to their desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction and their state sponsorship of international terrorism.
Cuba: While both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have attempted to make strides with the communist Cuba, the Bush administration has deemed the country to be one of the few "outposts of tyranny." Cuba was founded to be a state supporter of terrorism by the US Department of State, however Cuba has denied this fact and has called the US a supporter of terrorism against the country. However, the US does continue to run Guantanamo Bay within Cuba, which has been speculated to be shut down.
Venezuela: The United States and Venezuela used to have an close, solid friendship, however since the presidency of Hugo Chavez, this friendship has significantly worsened. This is for the most part due to Chavez's close relationship with former Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Also, because of Chavez's stance on OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), the price of oil has been raised in the US. Chavez still continues to use anti-American rhetoric.
-Emma
Russia: Since the 1950's, the United States has had a major bias against Russia, mainly because of its former communist roots. However, recently many Americans have opposed former leader Putin. Officials within the United States have expressed their concern over Putin's "authoritarian" leadership and and reversal of democratic reforms. Recently, the United States has expressed more such concern over Russia with the war with Georgia in August as well as their launching of three test missiles.
Iran: In 1979, the Iran Revolution occurred which pushed out the pro-American Shah and placed in the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Since then, the United States and Iran have held a very hostile relationship. The Hezbollah, an anti-American terrorist organization, is very active in Iran, contributing to the hostility. Anti-American billboards can be found throughout the cities in the country, and the term "death to America" can even be heard in some prayers that are said with this country. Yet, some actually believe that Iran is the least Anti-American of all the Muslim countries which could be because many Iranians actually mourned for Americans after the 9/11 attacks. However, they are still a major concern regarding the United States National Security due to their desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction and their state sponsorship of international terrorism.
Cuba: While both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have attempted to make strides with the communist Cuba, the Bush administration has deemed the country to be one of the few "outposts of tyranny." Cuba was founded to be a state supporter of terrorism by the US Department of State, however Cuba has denied this fact and has called the US a supporter of terrorism against the country. However, the US does continue to run Guantanamo Bay within Cuba, which has been speculated to be shut down.
Venezuela: The United States and Venezuela used to have an close, solid friendship, however since the presidency of Hugo Chavez, this friendship has significantly worsened. This is for the most part due to Chavez's close relationship with former Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Also, because of Chavez's stance on OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), the price of oil has been raised in the US. Chavez still continues to use anti-American rhetoric.
-Emma
obama poll
Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, has been living illegally in the United States for the past four years. In 2004 she was ordered to leave the United States but remained here illegally living in Boston. Obama’s campaign spokesman said, “Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws [should] be followed.” Obama’s campaign is going to return $260 worth of contributions which she made.
-Harbhajan
-Harbhajan
Saturday, November 1, 2008
OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Throughout the course of the current presidential election, the American voters have continuously heard terms such as “change”, “hope”, and “new direction”. True, if Obama were elected (and, as of now he is leading in the polls), the government will veer off the conservative Republican track of the last eight years. However, can this election be labeled as one of the most important in U.S. history as some have decided to call it? Could this election be as revolutionary as others have claimed? Or is this election part of the American cycle of recession and reform?
Democratic candidate Barack Obama currently leads Republican candidate John McCain 52% to 41% nationwide according to the most recent Gallup polls. Is this lead a testament to Obama’s campaigning ability? Is Obama simply riding dissatisfaction with the current administration? Is McCain self-destructing? The most obvious answer is a combination of the three. Obama’s lead, however, only started to widening to the point where it is now after mid-September. Of the several factors which created this lead, the most obvious is the financial crisis precipitated by the collapse of several Wall Street lending firms. Electors widely associated this crisis (probably correctly so) with the current administration who, true to its conservative values, deregulated much of Wall Street. The general downturn in the economy combined with the unpopular Iraq war have given president Bush an approval rating of 31% according to CNN. McCain’s task is made that much tougher simply because of the fact he is a Republican too. This cycle of a party gaining power, failing, and losing power is common throughout American history. Roosevelt, a Democrat, became president after the Republican Hoover administration failed to effectively combat the onset of the Great Depression. Eisenhower, a Republican won the Whitehouse after the Democratic president Truman was unable to prevent China turning communist. Republican Ronald Reagan won his presidential race against Democrat Jimmy Carter who had failed to resolve the Iran Hostage situation. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, captured the Whitehouse from George Bush Sr. during an economic recession. A Barack Obama victory would not be a revolutionary change of direction for the United States, but rather part of the continuous cycle in American Politics. Republicans tend to take charge from Democratic after ineffective foreign policy and Democrats tend to beat out Republicans who fail in domestic policy. Bush is perceived by a wide segment of the American population to have failed in both. Obama is swimming with the political current and McCain against it.
McCain, aside from having to deal with party association to Bush is also having to struggle through serious flaws in his own campaign. Sarah Palin, though well-received initially, has seen her favorability ratings steadily decline. When she was first introduced at the Republican National Convention, McCain was confident he had chosen someone who could fire-up conservatives, attract women voters disillusioned with Hillary Clinton’s primary defeat, and perhaps match Obama’s celebrity appeal. Initially, the pick worked, providing McCain with enough of a boost to give him a temporary lead over Obama following the Republican Convention. This lead faltered as more and more inquiry into Palin exposed her lack of experience and an inability to answer tough policy questions on the fly. Palin appealed to those in the electorate who could “identify” with her as an average “hockey mom” with conservative family values. While that image resonates with some voters who enjoy seeing someone like themselves as vice-president, it turns off others who question whether an average hockey mom would be qualified to run the most powerful nation on earth. Famous personalities have taken to mocking Palin. Tina Fey’s Saturday Night Live impression of Palin is probably the most famous example of this, but the actor Matt Damon is featured on a popular video ridiculing Palin’s supposed belief in creationism. Last week, Palin’s common woman image took a serious hit when it was revealed that the McCain campaign had charged the Republican Party $150,000 for a new wardrobe for Palin and a very highly-paid makeup artist. McCain, earlier in the campaign, had failed to remember during an interview how many houses he owned. Obama used this incident to attack McCain as “out of touch” with the economic struggles of ordinary Americans. The Palin wardrobe revelation simply added to the accusation.
Throughout the campaign, McCain’s disadvantageous position has forced McCain, in both advertising and debating, to take a more aggressive role in order to try and forcefully reverse the public’s trend towards Obama. Overall, the strategy has not been successful. Obama performed solidly in the three debates (he did not make any mistakes), and he has been drastically out-advertising McCain making it difficult for McCain to get out his message. It does not help McCain that most of the “dirt” available on Obama has already been used during the prolonged Democratic primary campaign.
Enthusiasm on the part of Obama’s supporters has been key in terms of fundraising. Small donations, many over the internet, have combined to give Obama a nearly two to one advantage in money raised. Obama has been able to allocate these resources into states which, until recently, were solidly in the Republican camp such as North Carolina and Missouri. Even in Arizona, McCain’s home state, the race is within five percentage points.
Obama is the first ever minority presidential candidate of a major political party. That distinction has given him a substantial popularity boost among African Americans and young people, excited by the novelty of a black president. If Obama were to be elected, what would be the racial implications? Most likely, they would not be profound. It would indeed be remarkable for an African American to reach the highest governmental position in the land, but there have been African Americans in high-ranking governmental positions for years, for example Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Thurgood Marshall. Instead, race is seen as an important factor in the election in that it is seen as a possible hindrance to Obama among white voters. Racists have proven that they are still a visible force in American politics. Certain McCain supporters have cried out “Kill [Obama]!” at rallies, and recently a plot was discovered in Tennessee to kill Obama. On a less dramatic note, it is possible to purchase sock monkeys representing Obama. Most likely, a black president would do little to curb racist sentiment. As one you tube user put it, “I can’t wait ‘till all the old racists in this country are dead”. Unfortunately, racism will probably only die with the people who practice it.
After nearly two years of campaigning, the 2008 U.S. presidential election is finally drawing to a close. Obama has taken an ever-increasing lead, but this is due in large part to dissatisfaction with the current Republican administration and flaws within the McCain campaign. The 2008 presidential election has been called monumental for several reasons. The most often talked about are the perceived change of course that the nation will take, and the glass ceiling that would be broken with an African American president. Both of these assertions are somewhat overblown. The 2008 presidential election is simply just another election in the ongoing cycle of failure and reform.
BRYAN STILSON
Democratic candidate Barack Obama currently leads Republican candidate John McCain 52% to 41% nationwide according to the most recent Gallup polls. Is this lead a testament to Obama’s campaigning ability? Is Obama simply riding dissatisfaction with the current administration? Is McCain self-destructing? The most obvious answer is a combination of the three. Obama’s lead, however, only started to widening to the point where it is now after mid-September. Of the several factors which created this lead, the most obvious is the financial crisis precipitated by the collapse of several Wall Street lending firms. Electors widely associated this crisis (probably correctly so) with the current administration who, true to its conservative values, deregulated much of Wall Street. The general downturn in the economy combined with the unpopular Iraq war have given president Bush an approval rating of 31% according to CNN. McCain’s task is made that much tougher simply because of the fact he is a Republican too. This cycle of a party gaining power, failing, and losing power is common throughout American history. Roosevelt, a Democrat, became president after the Republican Hoover administration failed to effectively combat the onset of the Great Depression. Eisenhower, a Republican won the Whitehouse after the Democratic president Truman was unable to prevent China turning communist. Republican Ronald Reagan won his presidential race against Democrat Jimmy Carter who had failed to resolve the Iran Hostage situation. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, captured the Whitehouse from George Bush Sr. during an economic recession. A Barack Obama victory would not be a revolutionary change of direction for the United States, but rather part of the continuous cycle in American Politics. Republicans tend to take charge from Democratic after ineffective foreign policy and Democrats tend to beat out Republicans who fail in domestic policy. Bush is perceived by a wide segment of the American population to have failed in both. Obama is swimming with the political current and McCain against it.
McCain, aside from having to deal with party association to Bush is also having to struggle through serious flaws in his own campaign. Sarah Palin, though well-received initially, has seen her favorability ratings steadily decline. When she was first introduced at the Republican National Convention, McCain was confident he had chosen someone who could fire-up conservatives, attract women voters disillusioned with Hillary Clinton’s primary defeat, and perhaps match Obama’s celebrity appeal. Initially, the pick worked, providing McCain with enough of a boost to give him a temporary lead over Obama following the Republican Convention. This lead faltered as more and more inquiry into Palin exposed her lack of experience and an inability to answer tough policy questions on the fly. Palin appealed to those in the electorate who could “identify” with her as an average “hockey mom” with conservative family values. While that image resonates with some voters who enjoy seeing someone like themselves as vice-president, it turns off others who question whether an average hockey mom would be qualified to run the most powerful nation on earth. Famous personalities have taken to mocking Palin. Tina Fey’s Saturday Night Live impression of Palin is probably the most famous example of this, but the actor Matt Damon is featured on a popular video ridiculing Palin’s supposed belief in creationism. Last week, Palin’s common woman image took a serious hit when it was revealed that the McCain campaign had charged the Republican Party $150,000 for a new wardrobe for Palin and a very highly-paid makeup artist. McCain, earlier in the campaign, had failed to remember during an interview how many houses he owned. Obama used this incident to attack McCain as “out of touch” with the economic struggles of ordinary Americans. The Palin wardrobe revelation simply added to the accusation.
Throughout the campaign, McCain’s disadvantageous position has forced McCain, in both advertising and debating, to take a more aggressive role in order to try and forcefully reverse the public’s trend towards Obama. Overall, the strategy has not been successful. Obama performed solidly in the three debates (he did not make any mistakes), and he has been drastically out-advertising McCain making it difficult for McCain to get out his message. It does not help McCain that most of the “dirt” available on Obama has already been used during the prolonged Democratic primary campaign.
Enthusiasm on the part of Obama’s supporters has been key in terms of fundraising. Small donations, many over the internet, have combined to give Obama a nearly two to one advantage in money raised. Obama has been able to allocate these resources into states which, until recently, were solidly in the Republican camp such as North Carolina and Missouri. Even in Arizona, McCain’s home state, the race is within five percentage points.
Obama is the first ever minority presidential candidate of a major political party. That distinction has given him a substantial popularity boost among African Americans and young people, excited by the novelty of a black president. If Obama were to be elected, what would be the racial implications? Most likely, they would not be profound. It would indeed be remarkable for an African American to reach the highest governmental position in the land, but there have been African Americans in high-ranking governmental positions for years, for example Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Thurgood Marshall. Instead, race is seen as an important factor in the election in that it is seen as a possible hindrance to Obama among white voters. Racists have proven that they are still a visible force in American politics. Certain McCain supporters have cried out “Kill [Obama]!” at rallies, and recently a plot was discovered in Tennessee to kill Obama. On a less dramatic note, it is possible to purchase sock monkeys representing Obama. Most likely, a black president would do little to curb racist sentiment. As one you tube user put it, “I can’t wait ‘till all the old racists in this country are dead”. Unfortunately, racism will probably only die with the people who practice it.
After nearly two years of campaigning, the 2008 U.S. presidential election is finally drawing to a close. Obama has taken an ever-increasing lead, but this is due in large part to dissatisfaction with the current Republican administration and flaws within the McCain campaign. The 2008 presidential election has been called monumental for several reasons. The most often talked about are the perceived change of course that the nation will take, and the glass ceiling that would be broken with an African American president. Both of these assertions are somewhat overblown. The 2008 presidential election is simply just another election in the ongoing cycle of failure and reform.
BRYAN STILSON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)